> Everyone gets paired off to video chat with a random person for 20 minutes at the start of the day.

i would quit this job sooooooo fast

random, enforced, early morning socializing is so very much not my scene

I may have exaggerated when I said "start of the day"; we do it at 10am, which is the start of the day for some but not all. Certainly not early-morning for most people

I'm also sure it would be optional if anyone had an aversion to it. It's a small company so we're flexible on that sort of thing

I think your missing the point. If people wanted to talk to each other, they would do that on their own time.

I think maybe ask yourself, why do you need to force this to happen if people really wanted to do this?

Structure is useful; there's a social burden to going out of your way to arrange a one-on-one hangout. I wouldn't bother to do that with someone I'm not already close to, but I'm loving this structured arrangement where I don't have to feel awkward about reaching out myself.

Different stuff works for different people

Ok, but again, there is nothing stopping people from doing this as a group. There is no "magical" structure that comes from a work meeting. A group of people at work can decide to organize something on there own. You are talking about one-on-one stuff, which is different.

I've had plenty of extremely productive outcomes that started as a serendipitous a conversation in the break room with someone who is not in my day-to-day (or weekly) orbit.

this is about creating serendipity--the break-room or elevator chats--which is otherwise impossible after an abrupt shifting of the office work culture to WFH without any other changes. there's an actual need here even if this isn't the ideal solution.

heavy handed and awkward: sure. would I do it, as an introvert... 4/5 times: nope! would I appreciate the intent it if my org (optionally) did it: hell yeah.

> I'm also sure it would be optional if anyone had an aversion to it. It's a small company so we're flexible on that sort of thing

Highly recommend this as opt-in, rather than opt-out, if anyone adopts this idea.

The meaningful interaction cap is at around 4 – even for in person gatherings! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...

Shameless plug, I've been working on solving exactly this problem with Mixaba! Everyone automatically breaks into small groups of 2-4 every few minutes.

Tell me more about Mixaba. I've had the same idea. Rather than brain storming in a large group, break into smaller groups and then mix up the groups periodically. My guess is this would lead to faster group consensus and result in fewer people feeling left out or that they hadn't been heard.

Sure thing! You can see it here: https://mixaba.com/

I did a Show HN last year but a lot has evolved since then :) By breaking people out into small groups you increase opportunities for vulnerability and trust-building, and you decrease the likelihood that a single person will dominate the conversation.

It was borne from negative experiences at a couple all-virtual happy hours at the start of the stay at home orders in the US last year.

With Mixaba, everyone joins a single event and regardless of whether you have 8 people or 800 in the event, it automatically breaks people out into new small groups, shuffling up conversations and making new connections between folks as the event goes on.

lol nope. not even once.