Let’ get this clear: this is not one of those articles targeted to ride on the coronavirus outbreak wave.
This post is a reflection on my two weeks of dedicated WFH (Work From Home) experience. I am confident that it will help you. An experience lived without processing is just living, but when it is appropriately processed, it results in thriving. Processing experience is an essential part as it strengthens our experience, stimulates us to reflect and helps us come up with something beneficial. More often than not, sound processing works by asking questions. Good questions.
One question that I was pondering upon day-in-day-out was:
How much value am I able to generate during this period?
Often, working in the development sector, it is a challenging task to gauge the value of any given task. There are no set standards, and hence the only compass which can help you navigate is your conscientiousness. Self-rating is a good practice. Most of the individuals are not prepared to work from home and hence; this self-rating should be kind to yourself. It is okay if you think you are unable to generate as much value as you could during the office work. The exciting part is when you make yourself accountable and let your conscientiousness guide you, something magical happens. You strive to get better and push a little hard every day. Well, that’s magic. How often do people try to account for themselves on their own? Scarcely. We should think in terms of how many hours of distraction-free work we are pouring and how much value we are producing. If it doesn’t match your expectations, you know what you should be doing: only prioritizing more valuable tasks without putting extra hours of WFH—working elongated hours aren’t equal to producing value. Don’t confuse time with value.
Another question that lingered in my thoughts:
To which con-calls should have I said ‘NO’?
It wouldn’t be an understatement to say: There is not only a coronavirus outbreak, but also a con-call virus outbreak. According to analysts Bernstein Research, by the end of February 2020, the popular web-conferencing interface provider Zoom had added 2.22 million monthly active users, beating the 1.99 million a month it averaged in the whole of 2019. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with the leap of users in this service. Zoom is a reliable, efficient, lowest downtime provider.
The question is: are we able to utilize these services to the fullest? There is reasonable doubt. My reason stems from my experience, and I’m sure that you will resonate.
I attended plenty of conference calls in the last two weeks, where the participant size ranged from anywhere between 4 to 12. After a range of disappointments with the way they were facilitated or rather mal-facilitated, it pressed the pedestal of my thoughts to consider saying ‘NO’ to any con-call that was likely to be of zero value serving.
Coming back to the original question, I would consider saying ‘NO’ to any con-call which has a history of not having any combination of the following characteristics.
Please note, these characteristics are immensely demanding for a reason.
- A thoughtful, all-encompassing agenda shared at least 24 hours in advance
- Sharing of a written introduction of any new participant scheduled to join the call
- Sharing of a set of updated documents to refer to before the call
- An excellent opening to the con-call by the host: if this is a follow-up call, the host should invest at least 10% of the total con-call time in recapping and updating where we had left on the previous call
- Proper closing of the con-call by the host: recapping the call, action points marked, next approximate schedule of call
- A con-call where all participants need to listen to intently (if most of your con-call can do while you finish your lunch, you should know something is wrong)
- A con-call where all participants are needed to be heard by everyone (if the only time you unmute your mic is to say ‘Hi’ and ‘Bye’, you know what I’m talking about)
- A con-call which is followed by an email that briefly outlines the discussed points with a special section on the future action points (at least within 24 hours)
It is entirely natural if one finds this demanding. It certainly is. The reason is the amount of time invested (or wasted) during a completely unorganized con-call. A 60-minute long unorganized con-call with five participants is spending 300 minutes in total, which is 5 hours of the working hour. It is bizarre. What a waste. If the practice persists (and it often does), it becomes just another sign of busyness for all of the participants. A ritual, a house-party.
There is a reason for them being demanding because, if a host fails to follow most of the bullet check-lists, the idea of a con-call should be kept on hold. The host is merely unprepared to justify the sacrifice of all participants’ time, energy and attention. If knowingly or unknowingly your hosting role lacks any of the bullet check-lists, it is a great idea to work on them and improve.
So, what was this? Ranting? Not really. The whole point is as participants if we get conscious of these trenches, we would be able to choose how and where to provide our attention. When participants take charge, the host will need to reconsider the practice.
Another question occupying my mind in the last few weeks has been:
How has the WFH experience affected the way I look at my productivity?
I self-rate myself as a highly productive individual at work. It is interesting how a couple of weeks working from home changes your perspective. I’m consciously accounting for my time spent after each task working from home. Remember, being at home, I do not have a reason to stroll from one cubicle to another to quickly chat with my colleagues or occupy the conference hall for an impromptu team catch-up. This observation brings a crucial truth to my notice. The truth is evident: these activities were unnecessary and not helping my productivity. I’m able to work better, finish tasks in a shorter duration of time than I used to do at the office.
What would I like to do about this insight after the lock-down is over?
The insight about productivity is excellent, but how can one utilize it when the lock-down situation is over?
One way that I’m certainly looking at it is in the form of revision of my work priorities or even to the extent of revising the nature of my work engagement. I’m sure that I will come up with the tasks that sound the most important to me, and I would like to dedicate my time only to those particular tasks. The remaining time, I can focus on other work or a side project that would serve my long term goal and provide me with satisfaction.
I’m a probable optimist. No matter how difficult the current situation looks like, no matter how long it prevails, the probability of the case getting better than its present form is higher than it seems.
One thing is clear: the post-coronavirus outbreak world is going to be completely different than it used to be. ‘A better world’ if I may dare say. Organizations are forced to reconsider the way they look at work and human capital. The coronavirus is going to squeeze out leaders who will change the workspace scenario forever and for better. Any organization not catching up will have to bear a deadly blow of this changing time and of course, new leaders. This time is a time of renaissance.
So, what value are you serving from home?