The future of office work: Difference between revisions

The future of office work (view source)

Revision as of 23:25, 4 November 2023

1,238 bytes removed , 4 November 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,461

edits

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 Every time you talk about a change in the workforce, it’s a typical response of “I can’t envision a world different than the one I inhabit personally, therefore, nothing is possible” or some variation of that.... The pea-brained nature of those that can’t envision a future different than the present are the problem.}}
-But is Scanlon’s conception of what her generation, in general, can reasonably expect from professional working life any less informed by the world ''she'' inhabits personally? Hers is a trajectory few twenty-somethings can sensibly aspire to. Look, if they could be financial services influencers, they would. Wouldn’t we all? But the market is small.
+But the questions still remains: ''Can'' we change? ''What''? And ''how''?
-But, okay, fair enough, we should not accept our fate. The questions remains: ''Can'' we change? ''What''? And ''how''?
 {{quote|
@@ Line 57: / Line 55: @@
 :—''Anon''.}}
-In a sense Kyla Scanlon is right: if it comes to it, we can, ''en masse'', deliver services remotely. [[COVID-19|Covid]] proved it. But this is a bit like saying we ''can'' eat peas with a knife. Work in professional services — IT, law, finance, accounting, design, architecture, consulting — is inherently collaborative, in the way “social media influencing” isn’t. Is the ''best'' way of collaborating to have your people sequester themselves in their box rooms, interacting solely through the media of Slack, Zoom and Teams? And is it best for ''them'': Digital natives are as captive as the rest of us to the urge for advancement, compensation, stimulation and kudos, and your best shot at that is if you are there, on the spot, when the opportunity arises. Few will stop and ring around the home-workers to see who’s about, if there’s a bright-eyed youngster right in front of you, raring to go.
+In a sense Kyla Scanlon is right: if it comes to it, we can, ''en masse'', deliver services remotely. [[COVID-19|Covid]] proved it. But this is a bit like saying we ''can'' eat peas with a knife. Work in professional services — IT, law, finance, accounting, design, architecture, consulting — is inherently collaborative. Is the ''best'' way of collaborating to have your people sequester themselves in their box rooms, interacting solely through the media of Slack, Zoom and Teams?
-And seeing as digital communication constrains us to formal, metered, monitored channels, this should at least not be taken for granted. See last week’s piece on the [[org chart]].
+And is it best for ''them'', let alone the firm? Digital natives are as captive as the rest of us to the urge for advancement, compensation, stimulation and kudos. Who will stop and ring around the home-workers if there’s a bright-eyed youngster right in front of you, raring to go?
 Is there something different, then, about Generation Z that makes them more suited to a different rhythm? ''Yes'', says Scanlon:
@@ Line 70: / Line 68: @@
 Things were ''really'' shit in the decades before you were born, kids.
-She might object she is talking only about that professionally educated cohort that is already in the Bay area, or Hoxton. But that’s not how it works: ambitious kids, however formally educated, work like tyros, wherever they are. If there’s an advantage to being there in person, they’ll take it. They will show up in the office even if you don't. They will get in earlier and work later if you  do. These are the ones who will compel you to get to the office, if you want to get ahead, not  “embittered boomers”.
+But, Scanlon might say, “okay, but ''that was then''. Thanks, and all, but it is ''different'' now. Why don’t we change ''now''?” She puts it down to intransigence and, a little bit, to the tendency of embittered prior generations to trot out commonplaces like the screed above, who instinctively think the next generation can suck it up too.
-But, Scanlon might say, “okay, but ''that was then''. Thanks, and all, but it is ''different'' now. Why don’t we change ''now''?” She puts it down to intransigence and, a little bit, to we of the embittered prior generations, who trot out commonplaces like the screed above, and don’t see why the next generation can’t suck it up too.
 {{quote|
 “Every time you talk about a change in the workforce, it’s a typical response of ‘I can’t envision a world different than the one I inhabit personally, therefore, nothing is possible’ or some variation of that.<ref>I doubt anyone actually says that, in so many words, but rather Scanlon imputes it.</ref> … [but] to be unable to envision a future different from the present is pea-brained.”}}
-: And that seems to be it: beyond saying we shouldn’t mock younger generations — personally, I’m not sure why not: they seem happy enough to mock us — and we shouldn’t close our minds to new ways of working — which is certainly true, but those new ways of working really need to be different.
+And that seems to be it: beyond saying we shouldn’t mock younger generations — personally, I’m not sure why not: they seem happy enough to mock ''us'' — and we shouldn’t close our minds to new ways of working — which is certainly true, but those new ways of working really need to be different.
 None of Scanlon’s reasons are new. Circadian rhythms have been out of whack since barley threshers collapsed in a heap in front of the fire in the Seventeenth Century. Max Weber’s “iron cage” of hierarchy, rules, and process has been with us since, well when Weber noticed it, a hundred and twenty years ago.
-If things really will change, these aren’t the arguments.
+If things really will change, these aren’t the arguments to swing it.
 The FT’s Jemima Kelly — a few years older than Scanlon and “best known for snark, sarc & Sark” against the run of play added her support.  too.