Working remotely during COVID-19 has taught us an important lesson: we don’t need to be in the office to get the work done. Around 60% of us want to work in a hybrid fashion – either from the office or from wherever we choose to! This striking preference invites the thought, “How do we have meetings now?” The answer is hybrid meetings and I sat down with some researchers to learn more about their experience.
Source [1]
What do we currently know?
Hybrid meetings form an integral part of hybrid working culture. These meetings include participants who join online via a videoconferencing application (e.g., Zoom) and those who are present in-person in a room (Constantinides & Quercia, 2022). Hybrid meetings provide employees control over their medium of attendance, supporting hybrid working’s improvement of work-life balance. They also reduce stress and financial burden associated with commuting as well as promote inclusivity within teams (Rudnicka et al., 2020).
Contrastingly, disadvantages such as those seen in online meetings can also be seen in hybrid meetings. “Zoom fatigue” became a popular term during the pandemic to describe the tiredness people feel after they have online meetings (Bennet et al., 2021). This is mostly due to the lack of non-verbal cues – any non-spoken communication such as eye contact, facial expressions, and body language – which are really important to understand what other people are thinking or saying (Morrison-Smith and Ruiz, 2020). So, while online participants have issues communicating, those who are in-person are less susceptible – creating an imbalance (Saatçi et al., 2019).
Source [2]
Advancing our knowledge: focusing on the experiences of researchers
Learning about both the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid meetings made me realise how unique everyone’s experience is. I wanted to investigate researchers’ experiences of having hybrid meetings. As they had access to technology before it became common for general public use (Walther et al., 2015). This might have provided them preparedness to adapt to this change. So, my research question was:
What are researchers’ experiences of having hybrid meetings as part of their work?
Conducting the experiment!
To answer my research question, I used the qualitative method of interviewing which provided me insight into researchers’ experiences, perceptions, and opinions on hybrid meetings. The interview questions covered hybrid meeting frequency, feelings, and the impact of joining online or in person. I conducted remote interviews with nine researchers from two companies (five from a technology company and four from a university).
Bringing all the experiences together
After completing the interviews, I used thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006) to analyse the data. This included creating ‘codes’ (labelling ideas) and ‘themes’ by organising codes that described the ideas. Finally, I identified two themes: flexibility and challenges (please refer to the thematic map below for the full picture).
I discussed the two following subthemes more in detail in this blog post!
Nature of work as a researcher
Researchers explained that flexibility was the main benefit of hybrid meetings since they had more control over their work. One participant summarised this by sharing:
“I know when I go to the office, I’m gonna do certain tasks. When I work online, I do different tasks … it [hybrid meeting] allows me to structure better my work schedule.” (Participant 2)
Researchers’ job includes tasks that require different levels of attention, with activities such as “writing a paper or doing focus work” best performed at home whereas “brainstorming” is best conducted when everyone is “together at the office”. So, hybrid meetings gave them the ability to select their work environment based on the tasks they will complete on that day rather than focusing on the meeting.
Ultimately, researchers greatly benefitted from hybrid meetings as the flexibility provided autonomy over their work, rather than the meetings dictating schedule.
The outsider looking in
My analysis showed that the main challenge researchers faced was the sense of isolation when they joined hybrid meetings online. One participant used the phrase “outsider looking in” (Participant 8) and I thought was a great representation of isolation and inequality felt by a participant who could not join in person. Another participant detailed this feeling by sharing:
“I find that the [hybrid] meetings [are] often quite fragmented because if you’re in the minorities … you never quite feel part of the conversation.” (Participant 5)
This signaled that their inability to contribute due to limitations of video conferencing applications caused online participants to feel like ‘the other’. Also, the majority of people usually being in-person increased this perception and led them to share that “[it is] harder for me to speak up and participate online.” (Participant 1).
Consequently, the participants shared that they wanted to be present with other people when they have hybrid meetings:
“I don’t like, umm the feeling of not being in the room … I do miss actually being there in person.” (Participant 8)
Conclusion: researchers benefit from hybrid meetings but also deal with isolation when they join online
As the first qualitative study investigating hybrid meeting experience by focusing on a specific profession (researchers), my study highlighted two sides of a coin that is hybrid meeting experience:
- The flexibility provides researchers the means to do their job more effectively by structuring their day around their work rather than meetings.
- Researchers were susceptible to communication difficulties seen in previous research as online participants felt like an outsider looking in.
Both of these outcomes have implications for employee wellbeing, as well as productivity, and engagement. This suggests that organisations need to take hybrid meeting experiences into account as a key part of hybrid working.
The limitation of this study is these results may not fully apply to other professionals’ hybrid meeting experience, but they can be a starting point for research.
Ultimately, we should be more mindful of others during hybrid meetings to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard and acknowledged, regardless of how they join.
References
[1] https://its.umich.edu/communication/videoconferencing/hybrid-meetings
Bennett, A. A., Campion, E. D., Keeler, K. R., & Keener, S. K. (2021). Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 330.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Constantinides, M., & Quercia, D. (2022, June). The Future of Hybrid Meetings. In 2022 Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (pp. 1-6).
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2, 1-33.
Rudnicka, A., Newbold, J. W., Cook, D., Cecchinato, M. E., Gould, S., & Cox, A. L. (2020, August). Eworklife: Developing effective strategies for remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Eworklife: developing effective strategies for remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new future of work online symposium.
Saatçi, B., Rädle, R., Rintel, S., O’Hara, K., & Nylandsted Klokmose, C. (2019). Hybrid meetings in the modern workplace: stories of success and failure. In Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing: 25th International Conference, CRIWG+ CollabTech 2019, Kyoto, Japan, September 4–6, 2019, Proceedings 25 (pp. 45-61). Springer International Publishing.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Peña, J. (2015). Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer‐mediated communication. The handbook of the psychology of communication technology, 1-22.