The future of office work
|
Office anthropology™
The Jolly Contrarian holds forth™ Resources and Navigation
|
See also
References
COVID’s aftermath will reverberate long after the last “keep your distance and wash your goddamn hands” notice has faded from the public space. Whether or not the pandemic was a black swan — the arguments for and against are tiresome — our sudden dislocation gave us a rare chance to see what happens in a time of worldwide, unexpected change. Not a single change manager engaged, no business continuity plan invoked, and yet, in businesses great and small across the globe, the change went through overnight and without a hitch.
Not even in a time of war has every citizen in the land been restricted to private quarters for months on end.
And we learned some new things: working from home is pretty cool! Pyjamas! Zoom! Kids rushing in at embarrassing moments!
As the COVID tide receded, thought leaders in the marketplace of ideas took to LinkedIn and Twitter to grapple with what it all meant for the future of work. They fell broadly into two camps: everything and nothing
The first — advanced by the thought-leaderati and legal disruptor crowd — was to say, “this time is different”: the scales have fallen, we are no longer in the ’60s and even though we can leave our homes without being arrested, we shouldn’t have to, and a diverse and dynamic economy of gig-working, side-hustling cosmopolitan youngsters now requires flexibility so, since we now know the business can manage it — right? — there is no reason it shouldn’t. You can’t unsee it: flexible working is now a fact of commercial life.
The second — The Man’s — was, “get back into the the office, you punks”. With a twist: The Man teetered for a while between “I’m not having these good-for-naught meatsacks in their goddamn pyjamas on my dime”, and the more squirrelly “hold on: if these clowns work at home on their own PCs we can nix half the downtown footprint and slash our IT bill so let’s not rush this”. The two impulses then merged and The Man compromised by ditching half the office space and making everyone go back to work.
Who is right? Well, for the reasons stated, neither, but the JC reluctantly senses The Man is on the right side of history, but not for the reasons The Man thinks are the right ones.
It isn’t COVID any more
Working from home during COVID was, for white-collar types of a certain age — older ones — a revelation. By some measures, productivity rose during lockdown, at least at first, but we should not close the book just yet. COVID was a weird, sui generis time, and it lent itself to ephemeral productivity boost.
First, there was nothing else to do, bar pacing the perimeter at a safe distance from other humans and listening to podcasts. No wonder we threw ourselves into work.
Second, all those in-office distractions — the casual interactions & unsanctioned interludes of humanity that are the inevitable externality of penning humans up in air-conditioned battery farms — were abruptly cut off. Since each person was isolated in her own private hell[1] of solitary confinement, there were no “watercooler moments”, no sotto voce carping about the boss, no frank exchanges of view about last night’s Celebrity Love Island — we just got on with what we were meant to be doing.
Third, when we did that, we found to our delight that it wasn’t just us who was disoriented. Middle management was too. All the busy-bodies and bureaucrats struggled to glom on to people whose time they could waste: out of sight, out of mind. The calendar was blissfully bereft of opcos, steercos, stakeholder check-ins, MIS dashboards and line manager one-to-ones. Even meetings that could have gone ahead online vanished from the calendar. Suddenly we had the time, space and lack of distraction to get on with things. The bureaucratic military industrial complex got its act together soon enough, and the work-creation schemes returned, but things took a while to get back to how they once were. Something about physical separation makes pencil-pushers easier to avoid, and even when the weekly operational robustness legal and compliance workstream catchup goes online it is a lot easier to multi-task on Zoom.
Lastly, there was no competitive advantage to lockdown. Every firm was in the same boat. We don’t know how it would have played out, relatively, had Goldman been allowed back to the office, but Morgan Stanley forced to stay remote. Who would have done better? Maybe being in the office in a time of cholera would have been even more productive. During COVID, we had no way of knowing. Now, post-COVID, since firms can organise their own approaches to hybrid and remote, we do. We will see.
Just because things worked well during lockdown, doesn’t mean they worked best that way, or that the change is permanent.
Deep cultural layers don’t change overnight.
Fast learns, slow remembers. Fast proposes, slow disposes. Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous. Fast and small instructs slow and big by accrued innovation and by occasional revolution. Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy. Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.
Stewart Brand’s pace layers, from the top down, are fashion, commerce, infrastructure, governance, culture and biology. Humans have worked together in communal offices for over two hundred years — that was when the enabling infrastructure arrived to satisfy our cultural impulse to be together. That we could centralise and concentrate people in previously unimaginable ways powered the industrial revolution.
Then came COVID. For a brief moment, the biological imperative, to be distant, overrode everything else. Culture and governance fell into line, and the network infrastructure stunned everyone by coping. Commerce carried on, in rude health.
But we had been networked for decades. Was the fact that we still congregated until COVID just a matter of habit? Is our cultural and biological impulse to be together fully satisfied via a real-time webcam and a headset?
For the changes to become permanent, now the biological and governance imperatives for staying away have gone, remote working must still satisfy cultural, infrastructural and commercial imperatives better than does communal working. They might if they solve new problems or present new opportunities we didn’t know we had until the the pandemic illustrated them. But remember: COVID was a weird time. Only non-weird time will tell, as a whole generation steps through its working life-cycle. We must judge that over forty years: not four.
And we middle-agers, with our wealth, nice houses, home offices and expensive pyjamas, who have largely exhausted our practical avenues for career advancement even if we do show up — we are not the ones to judge. We will be long gone. Energetic, hungry youngsters, who don’t yet have home offices and nice PJs, for whom success is yet a potential not an actual, who are hungry to learn, change the world, advance, get preferment and take over the wheel from the comfy fifty-somethings — they will shape working culture over the next twenty years. They aren’t likely to do that working from home.
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. 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
“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.
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.
The formal structure is the bird’s eye view one gets from the executive suite. But a firm working purely according to its formal communication lines, strictly according to its documented policies and procedures is, literally, in a “work-to-rule” — once a popular form of industrial action, shy of an outright strike. To work-to-rule was to refrain from doing anything or exercising any judgment, effort, energy, time or discretion beyond what is officially required — to obey only the formal lines of the org chart — as a means of choking productivity and pressuring management into better working conditions.
Of course, the dynamic nature of the workplace is usually different. We help each other out, we keep eyes peeled, we intervene in matters outside our remit if it will avoid misunderstandings, we ignore obviously redundant procedures and take a view on marginally relevant policies. All these are informal actions: well meant, fundamentally benign and even constructive. To the extent they contravene established rules they do so with the best intentions — it is inevitable that some rules are badly framed, knowing winks, blind eyes and constructive interpretations in the name of keeping the jalopy going. As such they tend to be oral or gestural, and we tend not to commit them to writing. This kind of
Bullshit jobs
Counterpointing this is the implicit fact that most businesses suspect that much of what their employees do from day to day is essentially meaningless. This is a buried, subconscious instinct — no one (other than the late David Graeber) says it out loud or even thinks it (it carries the recursive risk that it may be true of one’s own job, so is best left unsaid and, ideally, unthought) — but it propels much of the modernist dogma of contemporary management: offshore in comma outsourcing, downskilling all must be predicated on the theory that what employees do isn't quite as hard as they like to make it out to be).
But now that the workforce has decided it quite likes staying at home, administrators are beginning to hear their inner voices, louder and louder, saying “our people are swinging the lead”.
At the moment, the connection is only with facetime and presenteeism: “attendo, ergo sum” — all beset around with cuddly but dubious ideas such as “the importance of watercooler moments” and “the spark of spontaneous creativity that only arises through unexpected physical interactions in the office”. But you will spend a long time embedded in the legal department of an multinational bank before witnessing serendipitous sparks of ingenuity. The risk is that this winsome commitment to physical serendipity commutes to cynical suspicion that what these people do, in or out of the office, doesn't add up to a great deal.
Form and substance
So we see impassioned please from Bank administrators for their employees to return to the office at least three days a week. And it is fascinating to see how formalized they are about this. Rather than assessing value added, increased productivity, or rate of generation of serendipitous spontaneous creative sparks, we here Citibank proposing to deny bonuses to staff who do not turn up at least three days a week.[2]
About that serendipitous opportunity
Working from home — the logical final step in the modernist programme of systematically digitising human capital, reducing the prestigious, professional, ineffable to the quotidian, standardised and algorithmic —
See also
References
- ↑ Or heaven, as the case may be.
- ↑ “Bank staff who fail to swipe in for three days a week could lose bonuses” —The Sunday Times, 2 September 2023.