I predict that “casual interruptions” will join words like synergies and future proofing on the dated business jargon list. If it’s not there already.
I do not know that you are wrong, but we’ve seen studies that show interruptions have a negative impact. And while there are plenty of anecdotes about the “hallway meeting” I’ve not seen any studies showing that these serendipitous interactions are a real thing. It seems to me this is just an instance of the “full moon effect”.
Completely anecdotal but some of my best ideas and breakthroughs have come during hallway conversations (or lunchroom conversations, or 10 minutes of post-meeting discussion conversations) at work. These kinds of interactions are not necessarily synonymous with interruptions when your workplace and culture are structured to provide venues for serendipitous interactions that are well separated from do not disturb spaces.
It may help that I only have in-person meetings under a full moon 
2 Likes
Same. They’re more like “A wanders into B’s office” or “A, B and C don’t get up from the conference room meeting right away” conversations, as I’ve experienced.
I wouldn’t want to take on the cost of full-time office presence to have them, but they’re worth some inconvenience.
Over my working career I solved this conundrum by getting to work at 6AM giving me 2-3 hours of no interruptions for actually getting work done. Also worked great for avoiding rush hours.
3 Likes
That is precisely what I do. 
1 Like
Little is “either/or”. Hallway/water cooler conversations can have value. But also focused work is necessary.
Open office design, hot desking and multi-tasking are all more fallacy than fact, made up by people who could use a spreadsheet to show their overlords how they can save the company money! 
Heck even school hours of 9-3 were based on agricultrual industry! Which, in case anyone has noticed, doesn’t apply to all … 
)
I hate getting interrupted when I am in the midst of working on something. I have had a lot of productive conversations with my colleagues, but this does not happen if I am busy writing or typing something. Appropriate times and places makes a big difference. Abruptly stopping someone in the midst of active work is rude and an act of disrespect.
As for as minimalism. I think the idea is to get your work done with the least amount of brain power exerted on working the tool(s), whatever that means. For me that usually means typing markdown in a text editor. The word processor can do more , and has more complex styling. But, I just want to get the words out with minimal fuss and maybe a little bit of markup.
I think the focus needs to be on workflow minimalism(the least amount of brain processing power I need to get the job done). This might not necessarily mean the fewest apps or even the simplest applications.
1 Like
This is a classic case of “it depends”, mainly on what the work is and why you are doing it.
Individual, focused and uninterrupted work is great for completing and finishing (e.g. editing and mastering audio or video, writing a report etc.) but it’s relatively poor at generating ideas, identifying opportunities, scoping obstacles etc. where you need a diversity of brains, knowledge and skills and it’s notoriously difficult to do things like proofreading or evaluating your own work for yourself. Depending on the task and purpose, some of that interaction needs only a short time and can be completely informal, but most people schedule brainstorming, group work etc…
At root of the confusion around these issues is confusion about what makes good, productive work. Efficiency (in the sense of using every available second to do something which produces an immediate outcome) is not the same as effectiveness (reliably producing excellence from available resources). You have to be prepared to “waste” some time, explore dead ends, get excited about things that turn out to be stupid ideas, let things stew, look after other people’s needs or wants, look after yourself etc. etc. to do good work. It’s how humans are.
There’s still also the issue of limited resources that affects lots of work. Lots of workplaces have tools and equipment, or skills or organisation, that only make sense if they are gathered in one place - everything from replacing car tyres to surgery can’t be distributed randomly but have to be concentrated.
The big learning point from the pandemic for lots of people is that too many of us had too much time invested in working in close physical proximity to our team: the commute (often a bad experience), booking and preparing meeting and other spaces, negotiating to meet your needs (e.g. the coffee run). It will all evolve, but it took disruption of what was normal for us to question how much of it is necessary.
3 Likes
I’d agree and my day today is a case in point. I have a lot on so don’t want any interruptions. So I take steps to ensure that is the case. If I am interrupted, I’ll ask if it is urgent and then based on that response I’ll decide. I try to keep all decisions within my control and respond appropriately. On other days I have time for ad hoc conversations and allow for them.
I agree with this statement.