If there is one area where “copy and paste” does not work, it is in the design of workspaces. While the broad design standards are often similar, the devil is in the detail, and one of the details is cultural differences.
We live in a globalised world, so much so that harmonisation - or levelling - in terms of technology, clothing, systems and even language has become the norm. But we should be careful not to try to erase all cultural differences which, if well managed, can become extraordinary assets for a company.
What do we mean by “cultural differences” for workspaces? Here are a few examples, supported by global surveys:
• Pyramid organisation is much more important for staff in companies in southern and particularly Latin countries than in the “Nordic” countries where hierarchy is much less important.
• Having an established place in a company seems to be a guarantee of respect and future in Latin countries, whereas it seems much less essential when analysing countries further north.
• In some Asian countries, origin and social level are determinants for sharing or not a workspace. Put more bluntly, and even though it may seem shocking, some individuals refuse to share their workspace with people from lower income backgrounds or who are less educated.
• In the United States, removing the so-called ‘cubicles’ from office spaces usually leads to a ‘mini-revolution’ because the position of the workspace is a marker of personal success.
• In some companies in the former communist bloc, the ‘egalitarian’ culture still seems to be quite entrenched, and a form of ‘unwritten’ hierarchy remains strong.
When international groups implement a new concept of workspaces, some of the ‘differences’ mentioned above tend to be reduced in favour of the ‘mainstream’. In any case, and as far as possible, it is important to modulate the concept according to the origins, cultures, education of leaders and staff.
With the introduction of the “new normal” in not only shared but also face-to-face and remote workspaces, it is important to opt for a suitable model, which is less architecturally striking but much more “all-purpose”.
Finally, it is essential that management is informed and trained to manage its differences in a positive and creative way. Trying to fit everyone into the same mould is a recipe for disaster unless there is a real ‘monoculture’ in every sense of the word in the company.
Human resources and change agents are the cornerstones for accompanying these changes: they are essential interlocutors for CEOs in these areas.
Good choice, good thoughts, and good reading.