Five years ago, without consciously trying, I would have noticed if a coworker was taking a break, feeling extra chatty, or looking hyper-focused. I got to choose whether to respond and how I might build rapport by responding (I’m sure I didn’t always get it right). Now that more of the Viget team works from home than in an office, I feel a loss. I have less awareness of other people's states of mind and fewer chances to demonstrate my interest. I need to learn new ways of connecting. 

I took notice when Adam Grant recently posted about pebbling: 

Sending memes, links, and videos to others isn't trivial. It signals that you're thinking of them and want them to share your joy. It's known as pebbling, based on penguins gifting pebbles to potential partners. Pebbling is an act of care. Every pebble is a bid for connection.” 

Grant acknowledges that the term "pebbling" comes from penguins, but he also uses the phrase “bid for connection,” which I associate with John Gottman. Gottman is a well-known psychologist who has researched marital stability and relationships. His work provides insights into how small interactions, or "bids," play a crucial role in building strong relationships. 

Gottman defines a "bid" as any attempt from one person to another for attention, affirmation, affection, or any positive connection. A bid can be as explicit as saying, “I had such a hard day,” or as random as saying, “Did you see the size of that red bird?” The impact of responding with interest (turning toward) or ignoring or dismissing (turning away from) significantly influences the quality of the relationship. A simple, “Tell me what happened,” or “What? No, I missed it!” can foster closeness and trust. Silence or something like, “Here we go again,” will spark feelings of neglect and distance.

Gottman's research is widely cited and has impacted my understanding of relationships.  I'm interested in bids for connection at work, particularly as our work environment has changed dramatically in recent years.

Connections at Work

Finding the right balance of work and non-work is a central challenge for most of us as we navigate demands on our time and energy. I generally hope work is a small enough part of a person’s life that they have time for many other things, but also that their work environment is engaging and meaningful enough that they enjoy it. I hope friendships emerge at work, mostly through collaboration or out of the gaps between responsibilities. 

As remote work has become commonplace, I find it’s harder to foster connections than it was before. The lack of proximity, and therefore organic social interactions, makes it harder for me to know my coworkers and be known by them. I’m not advocating for returning to offices. I’m noticing that after working with people for years in an office, I knew them better – their nerves before a presentation, their ability to set new people at ease, their grandma’s soup recipe, their knack for deadpan humor – and that made my life better. While many of my coworkers collaborate with each other daily through pair programming, design critiques, or iteration planning meetings, my work on a small People Team has always been less collaborative. For me, fewer organic in-person interactions means fewer interactions of any kind at work. 

The decline in ad-hoc opportunities for connecting impacts us all differently, but I am particularly interested because an aspect of my role at Viget is to nurture a strong company culture. For us that means a culture where we do excellent work, learn a lot, support each other, and – yes – make some friends. I’m looking for ways we can adapt our employee engagement efforts to the new work environment and evolve how we cultivate alignment.

The concept of "bids for connection" seems useful for understanding the building blocks of connection and, over time, friendships. As a mostly remote company, I want to be sure we’re asking: How do people make bids? How do others respond to them? What parts of the work environment encourage us to turn towards a bid? 

Bids While Distributed

There needs to be “space” for these interactions to happen across a distributed company, and we need to notice what is working and why. One opportunity for bids to play out is in recurring meetings. At Viget, we try to be efficient with our time, but we also build in time for informal interactions.  

Daily Stand-up Meetings

The discipline and project teams that do daily stand-ups are careful to keep them brief. These meetings need to be reliably quick-paced in order to fulfill their purpose. Still, without sacrificing efficiency, these meetings can spark strong bids for connection. Sharing work updates in small, daily increments encourages people to open up about specific elements of their progress. The specificity allows for connection in ways that broad strokes do not. Hearing someone say, “Progress was slow, but I’m finally done with the feature,” I might respond, “Oh, good.” But hearing someone say, “If I don’t figure out how to debug this API integration by noon, we need to update the launch timeline," gives me a chance to be curious, helpful, and invested in something very specific. 

Weekly All-Hands Meeting

Every Friday, our whole company meets for about an hour. The first 15 minutes are deliberately set aside for informal conversations and sharing, which mostly happens over Slack. We often play music or show a live stream of something noteworthy, like an eagle’s nest, to which we can react. Someone might share where they were when they first heard this song. Someone else might reveal they are an experienced falconer. The whole company gets a chance to see or hear these things, and while only a handful may react, we are all building shared awareness and memories.

Monthly Team Meeting

During a team meeting, a small group of same-discipline-peers comes together to talk shop, share lessons learned, or bond. These meetings allow for exercises that don’t scale to a whole company – like getting feedback or planning progress – and over time, certain activities can become team favorites. A monthly “rose, bud, thorn” or an annual “sharing circle” ritual prompts people to share in ways that otherwise might feel too awkward or vulnerable.

Another way to make and respond to bids for connection across locations is on Slack. Different kinds of Slack channels offer different kinds of opportunities.

Interest-based Slack Channels

At Viget we have channels like #woodworking, #sewing, #starwars, #hot-sauce, #gardening, #home-improvement, and many, many more. These types of channels allow people to go deeper than they might in more general channels. You know you’re talking to like-minded people, so why not dive fully into your opinion on robot vacuum cleaners?

"Random" Slack Channel

In our #random channel, I’ve seen everything from a heads up on free Firehouse subs to a recommendation for an estate planning system. The responses vary, too – sometimes they spark day-long conversations. At a minimum, posts will get a smattering of emoji responses and the impact can be significant. For example, a post might get a sympathetic :heart: but then a couple :same: or :it-me: come in and before you know it, there’s a subset of coworkers who realize they share the same rare phobia. I also think a share in #random can signal, “I’m between tasks. I’m open to distractions right now,” and folks can follow up with a DM.

Project-Specific Slack Channel

In channels where everyone is working on the same project with shared goals, stresses, and deadlines, we might see bids that build momentum. A PM might post something in the morning to encourage the team to rally behind a tough deadline. A designer might post mid-week, acknowledging the drudgery of certain tasks, implicitly giving everyone else permission to do the same. A developer might be slowly building a little arsenal of inside jokes and call-backs over weeks, dropping a note at just the right time to get others laughing. Someone might turn one of those jokes into a custom emoji that lives well beyond the project timeline and every time that inside-joke-emoji gets used, it's a bid for folks who worked on that team to recognize each other and reconnect. 

Recognizing Bids

We all grew up learning in-person social norms and have a mostly shared understanding of what’s considered warm, polite, stand-off-ish, or rude in the workplace. Now that we’re distributed, we may need to learn to recognize new signals and define new norms. 

A bid is an action that invites connection, but sometimes the action is so small, we might not notice it or realize it has potential value. Understanding the concept of bids can help us notice them and respond with more awareness. 

If we train ourselves to see bids for what they are and respond accordingly, we may get more mileage out of the limited impromptu interactions we have as remote coworkers. Actions like responding to an open-ended question in a Slack channel or acknowledging someone’s request for help during a meeting go a long way. Each response builds trust and camaraderie, even if in tiny doses. When a comment or question is ignored or dismissed, the negative effect is compounding; that person is less likely to reach out again.

Adam Grant said sharing memes and links are a way to invite someone to share in your joy.  At a distributed company, “bids” take a lot of different shapes, but they all communicate things like, “I am here,” and “let’s work together,” and “you can trust me.”

I’m encouraged to think we already have some infrastructure in place at Viget to support remote bids for connection. I’m excited to work with Aubrey Lear and others to find ways to evolve that infrastructure. We’ll continue to hire people who want to develop friendships with coworkers and who are willing to take personal responsibility for making and turning towards bids. Together, we can make sure Viget remains a great place to work as the workplace continues to evolve.

Concept testing is a research method that explores how a user perceives or interacts with a new idea. It usually takes place early in a project, and involves putting ideas into the “real world” to see how users will react to them.

Not every project needs to include concept testing, but it can make your solutions more user-centered. Involving users in the design process leads to products, sites, and experiences that are more aligned with user wants and needs — and ultimately more successful.

Concept testing is most useful when exploring ideas that are novel, complex, or risky. It can also help your team:

• Generate more purposeful, user-centered ideas.
• Identify which ideas provide the greatest value to users. 
• Prioritize the most promising idea(s), saving time and money.
• Evaluate any significant changes you make along the way.

I’ll cover how we use concept testing at Viget to help our clients gain clarity and develop user-centered solutions. 

This article will be part of a three-part series focused on concept testing. First, we’ll focus on planning out your concept testing. 

Form a clear plan

A successful concept test has a well-defined plan at its foundation from the start. At Viget, we work with clients to define what you want to learn, and who you want to learn from. 

Let’s imagine that you and your team are redesigning an online food delivery platform, and you have some new concepts that you want to test to see if they resonate with users.   

Focus on what you want to learn.

Start by defining research objectives. Think of these objectives as your north stars that will guide you and your team. You’ll use these for initial alignment, and then to frame what the prototype needs to do, and what feedback you really need.

You can create a strong set of objectives by asking:

• What initially sparked the motivation to test?
• Where do you have the most uncertainty about your concept?
• What are the key things you need to know through testing?

Teams usually have a lot of questions, and feel pressure to answer all of them at once. Resist the pressure! Instead, focus on the most pressing and critical — it will allow you to dive deeper into the most important areas in a session. Otherwise, you may not have the depth you need to move forward when you finish the testing.

Let’s say you've developed new solutions that span the whole user journey of online food delivery. You could spend a whole research session asking questions that cover all that breadth, but you would get much more depth by focusing on one particular moment in the journey, like the online ordering experience.

Think about who you want to talk to (and be holistic).

If you aren’t intentional about who you test with, you can end up with feedback that may not be applicable. Ideally, you’re talking to existing customers or people who would use the website or product in the future. Look at behaviors, like whether they’ve used a competitor, or hold specific sentiments, when recruiting participants. Perhaps you’re trying to expand your audience for your new food delivery app, so you may want to talk to people who cook at home frequently as well. 

Don’t forget to think holistically. Consider every person who might interact with this solution, from beginning to end, and who might be affected by it. For your new app, you'll want to test with the diner, but your solutions may also affect the restaurant host/hostess, cooks and cashier’s workflows for example. So you may need to capture their perspectives. 

Opinions aren’t strong evidence.

You may gravitate towards seeking preferences or opinions about your concepts (i.e., “which concept is better?”). But rather than focusing on which concept users like most, it’s more important to uncover user behavior. Preference-centric concept testing won’t teach you about how someone might actually interact with this concept. 

For instance, you’ll learn much more about which new concepts for online food ordering are most beneficial to users if you ask about how they might use it in a scenario. Or even better, you actually have them interact with each one.   

Questions like the ones below will give you stronger indications of user behavior:

• When was the last time you used [the competitor]?
• How might this concept fit into your day to day?
• How would you accomplish this task with the concept?

Avoid asking questions like “Which concept is better?” or “which one do you prefer?” Instead ask why one concept has advantages or disadvantages over another for a user, or how they actually envision it in their daily life. 

Even if the focus of the test is on preference (as is the case for branding or marketing research) it’s still helpful to dive deeper into what a user feels the design is communicating to them and why that prompts a specific reaction.

These key strategies that I’ve covered should get you a jump-start for successfully planning out your first concept test.

In the next article in the series, I'll dive into prototyping.

This is part two of a three-part series on how to successfully conduct concept testing with users, focused on prototyping. Check out part one (planning) to learn more.
 

Prototype your concepts

Once a well-aligned research plan has been crafted, it’s time to create a prototype (or multiple) based on your concept. There are a plethora of ways you can create prototypes that communicate your concepts to users; I’ll cover strategies that will help spark meaningful reactions and conversation.

Provide context to ground your concept

We humans as a whole are poor predictors of our own future behaviors, so it’s really important that your concept testing simulates the future experience you’re trying to test. Ideally, you want to ground your concepts, so a participant can envision it in their own day-to-day. One of the best ways to do this is by building in context, whether into the prototype itself or in the way you actually test out the concepts.

You can ground a participant in what they would actually do by: 

• Adding small contextual details into the prototype (e.g. the participant’s name or location). 
• Providing the participant with a realistic scenario to frame the prototypes
• Designing a certain scenario into the actual prototype (e.g. error messages appear in).  
• Conducting the test in the actual or simulated environment where it will be used. 

Grounding a participant can make a difference in how someone interacts with your prototype. Let’s imagine you and your team are redesigning a part of an online food delivery platform for restaurants, specifically the parts that hosts and cashiers use. When you put your concept to the test, you can ground participants by “simulating” a lunch rush atmosphere (distractions, loud noises, etc).

Build real-ish prototypes

It might sound counterintuitive but you don’t need high-fidelity prototypes for concept testing. While high-fidelity prototypes may best simulate the future experience, that level of fidelity may not be feasible for a few reasons: 

• You don’t have the time to create something at that level of detail or complexity before testing.
• You don’t have the details fleshed out yet.
• You want your users to help define these details with you. 

Low to mid-fidelity (or as I like to call “real-ish”) prototypes can still get you to the insights you need and even have some unexpected benefits. It’s easier for research participants to focus on overarching concepts when interacting with low-fidelity prototypes. Higher fidelity prototypes tend to invoke feedback hyper-focused on the details. With lower-fidelity, research participants are more likely to provide critical feedback on ideas, since they don’t seem as “final.” You can also leave out certain details in a low-fidelity concept, which allows you to brainstorm with participants.

Again, crafting context is a large part of building out an idea that starts to feel “real” enough for a user to invoke a response. Some examples of real-ish prototypes with just enough context include: 

• Setting the stage with realistic scenarios for how and when research participants would reach out to an AI chat bot in a therapy app.
• Creating initial wireframes for a ride-sharing app that research participants test out in a simulated car ride experience, to understand what info is most helpful at each moment on the ride.
• Sending research participants “updates” on their food delivery order, to learn what participants might want to know about their order’s progress. 

Be selective about which concepts to show

You may have several concepts (or variations on a single concept) that you want to prototype out, and test through research. They may all feel exciting and important, but showing too many in one session can leave a research participant with decision fatigue. Even if you need to test multiple concepts to move forward, you don’t want to show every single one you’ve come up with.

Instead, you’ll want to be selective. One way to help you decide which concepts are best to test is by mapping them out on a matrix.

Let’s imagine again you and your team have generated multiple concepts for your food delivery app that aim to tempt users to order takeout more frequently. Perhaps some concepts focus on individualized recommendations, while other concepts show social trends. First, create a matrix that has extreme aspects of the concepts on each end and place them where you think they might belong. 

Then, ask yourself a few questions: 

• Are there two concepts that are too similar to each other? 
• Is this concept playing it too safe?

These kinds of concepts may not give you useful feedback because they’re not distinct enough or they’re too neutral over all. Instead, you’ll want to select concepts that are on the edges of your extremes. Those concepts will allow you to learn much more about your users and how they might interact with your concepts in the future.

These tips will help you craft prototypes that research participants can more easily and accurately react to. 

To end this series, I’ll discuss how to prepare for the actual testing in my next article.