Is a Return To Office a Return To Creativity? Requiring Fixed Time In Office To Enable Brainstorms and Watercooler Talk May Not Foster Research Creativity

In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, many professionals, including researchers, have transitioned into hybrid work. One concernarising from this transition is the cost to creativity in an environment of variable co-presence. We interviewed 24 researchers fromseveral disciplines and varying levels of seniority, across 7 research labs in academia and industry about their hybrid work patternsand sources of creativity. Co-present ‘brainstorming’ and serendipitous ‘watercooler’ conversations are both often cited as argumentsfor mandating co-located work patterns in research organisations. Contrary to the dominant account which associates co-presencewith increased creativity, we find that the flexibility of hybrid work, and carefully managed co-present interactions punctuating aregime of focused individual work, is the main catalyst of creativity. We find that the ‘problem-oriented discussion’ over time is a morepowerful pattern for researcher collaboration than the ‘brainstorm’, that these discussions benefit greatly from the freedom to choosework locations afforded by hybrid work. We also find that serendipitous ‘watercooler’ conversations, while reported as valuable forcollegiality, are reported as less valued for their contribution to creativity. We suggest that scheduling time in office should extendtemporalities beyond the weekly cadence, and that tools and timing for serendipitous productivity and serendipitous collegiality donot necessary have to be coupled.