The future of office work: Difference between revisions

The future of office work (view source)

Revision as of 20:42, 12 October 2023

51 bytes added , 12 October 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 ==== Being shocked into looking round corners ====
-To be sure, there is a tension between this societal drift back to what we are used to, and the opportunities presented by being forced to look sideways and see what could be different — the “[[adjacent possible]]”. Now we know that the business can operate indefinitely without anyone showing up at the office, there is no sense trying to pretend otherwise. Clearly, some things are better. Not having to take the tube is better. But our zoom avatar is a not-always-on, two-dimensional approximation of what we really are.
+To be sure, there is a tension between this societal drift back to what we are used to, and the opportunities presented by being forced to look sideways and see what could be different — the “[[adjacent possible]]”. Now we know that the business can operate indefinitely without anyone showing up at the office, there is no sense trying to pretend otherwise. Clearly, some things are better. Not having to take the tube is better. But our zoom avatar is a not-always-on, two-dimensional approximation of what we really are. It satisfies the ''formal'' model of what it is to work, but largely fails the ''informal'' one.
-It largely satisfies the formal model of what it is to work, but largely fails the informal one.
-==== Remote working as codifying the org chart ====
+==== Formal and informal: when WFH codifies the org chart ====
 {{quote|“Designed or planned social order is necessarily schematic; it always ignores essential features of any real, functioning social order. This truth is best illustrated in a [[work-to-rule]] strike, which turns on the fact that any production process depends on a host of informal practices and improvisations that could never be codified. By merely following the rules meticulously, the workforce can virtually halt production.
 :— [[James C. Scott|James C.Scott]], {{br|Seeing Like A State}}}}
-There are two ways of looking at a corporate organisation: the vertical one — the [[org chart]] — which depicts the firm as a kind of root system whose ley-lines radiate out from the centre and the top, and the lateral one, which starts from any node on the network, and traces where, when and how often that node interacts with all the others. The first is the firm’s ''formal'' structure — how it might looks if in a portrait, framed, and at rest — the second its ''informal'' structure — how it looks ''when in action''.
+There are two ways of viewing a firm: vertically — via its [[org chart]], which depicts the firm as a kind of root system whose ley-lines radiate out from the top centre, and laterally, by starting from any node on the network, and tracking where, when and how often that node interacts with the others. The first is the firm’s ''formal'' structure — how it might looks if in a portrait, framed, and at rest — the second its ''informal'' structure — how it looks ''when in action''. The first is static; the second dynamic.
-The formal structure is the bird’s eye view one gets from the executive suite. But up close — from the worker’s perspective — the workplace looks very different. We see what is in front of us, we help out, we keep eyes peeled, we go beyond our remit, we ignore or truncate obviously inappropriate procedures, and take a view on marginally relevant policies. These are informal actions: well meant, fundamentally benign, constructive to the organisation but they are totally invisible to central management. We deal with them ''because'' we can see them, and the CEO can’t. Where we contravene established rules we do so with the best of intentions — it is inevitable that some rules are out of date, misconceived, badly framed or ineffective. This is why employees are better than machines. They can take a view.
+The formal structure is the view from the executive suite. Sedate; cool; analytical, but essentially inert. But the workplace looks very different up close, from the worker’s perspective. There, we see, and react to, what is in front of us: we help out, we keep eyes peeled, we go beyond our remit, we ignore or truncate obviously inappropriate procedures, and take a view on marginally relevant policies. These are informal actions: well meant, fundamentally benign, constructive to the organisation but they are totally invisible to central management. We deal with them ''because'' we can see them, and the CEO can’t. Where we contravene established rules we do so with the best of intentions — it is inevitable that some rules are out of date, misconceived, badly framed or ineffective. This is why employees are better than machines. They can take a view.
 These interventions are necessarily ''[[ad hoc]].'' They depend on us being there, in the right place, able to act — seeing what’s going on. This informal, buzzy, analogue communication channel needs to be wide open. It is the same channel of the mythical watercooler moments, where sudden flashes of inspiration, or fast thinking that averts disaster — a disaster averted is one the CEO will never know about — or accidentally discovers penicillin, Velcro, post-it notes, Teflon, vulcanising rubber or potato crisps.<ref>[https://bestlifeonline.com/accidental-inventions/ All true].</ref>