They might be a little bit behind the successful innovators, but I think anyone actually observing the data and shaping their policy accordingly will be fine.
We all knew productivity in at least US companies was up as a consequence of home office. It was all over the news. It’s just that management either don’t understand the data or are unwilling to shape their policies by it.
In general, people make decisions based on their convictions, not based on evidence.
That’s a great example - makes me wonder who actually liked it in the first place to sell it - my boss, his boss and basically everyone I knew hated open space. Where did this scourge originate?
It’s just much cheaper, and often you don’t even need one seat per worker. So the gamble is that “sure, people hate it, but we save so much money by making the office shittier that we can afford a slight dump in productivity per worker”.
It’s not that they actually think it’s good - that’s just something they pretend so that they don’t have to tell the truth. The truth is that they made a calculation and concluded that having happy employees just wasn’t worth it.
I think companies tend to underestimate the value of happy employees.
At the time, open office space was supposed to create a better environment for collaboration and as alternative to the dreaded cubicles.
This was also in time where people would send physical paperwork to each other through an internal mail system from one cubicle to another. Like there’d be an assistant to carry paper around.
It also made the office sizes more flexible.
It might work for people who desperately need to bounce their creative ideas off each other, but for anyone else it just plain sucks.
It’s interesting times. The difference between traditional management and progressive leadership will determine which companies get to exist.
A manager waiting for data to show what path to take will always be behind the leaders when times are changing.
They might be a little bit behind the successful innovators, but I think anyone actually observing the data and shaping their policy accordingly will be fine.
We all knew productivity in at least US companies was up as a consequence of home office. It was all over the news. It’s just that management either don’t understand the data or are unwilling to shape their policies by it.
In general, people make decisions based on their convictions, not based on evidence.
Same with open plan office
ooooo don’t get me started!
Quiet, I’m trying to focus over here!
Quit looking at my screen SNOOGGUMS!
That’s a great example - makes me wonder who actually liked it in the first place to sell it - my boss, his boss and basically everyone I knew hated open space. Where did this scourge originate?
It’s just much cheaper, and often you don’t even need one seat per worker. So the gamble is that “sure, people hate it, but we save so much money by making the office shittier that we can afford a slight dump in productivity per worker”.
It’s not that they actually think it’s good - that’s just something they pretend so that they don’t have to tell the truth. The truth is that they made a calculation and concluded that having happy employees just wasn’t worth it.
I think companies tend to underestimate the value of happy employees.
At the time, open office space was supposed to create a better environment for collaboration and as alternative to the dreaded cubicles.
This was also in time where people would send physical paperwork to each other through an internal mail system from one cubicle to another. Like there’d be an assistant to carry paper around.
It also made the office sizes more flexible.
It might work for people who desperately need to bounce their creative ideas off each other, but for anyone else it just plain sucks.