Business Insights

Articles, news and upcoming events

The Worlds of Facility Management and Workplace are, by definition, highly mobile and evolutive.

On these pages, you will find technical articles, news, reports on congresses and conferences in which Spaceonmove took part as well as positions or “mood tickets” which should give you a particular insight into these two fields. Nice readings.

The Workspaces of Generations Y and Z: Management Aspiration and Resistance

Generations Y (born between 1980 and 1995) and Z (born after 1995) are redefining expectations of workspaces. Having grown up in a connected world, these cohorts aspire to environments that reflect their values and lifestyles.

However, these aspirations are often met with reluctance on the part of managers, anchored in traditional models. This tension reveals the profound challenges of organizational transformation.

The expectations of generations Y and Z

These generations prefer spaces that promote a balance between work and well-being. For them, an ideal work environment combines flexibility, collaboration and comfort.

Flexibility: The boundary between professional and personal life is becoming blurred for these generations. They prefer telecommuting, flexible working hours and modular spaces that adapt to different types of activity, from dynamic brainstorming to individual work. • Collaborative spaces: accustomed to networking, they value modernized open spaces, co-creation zones and digital tools that enhance collaboration. • Well-being: A pleasant, well-lit environment with relaxation areas is seen as essential. These generations are looking for offices where life is good, with plants, rest areas and even facilities such as gyms or inspiring coffee corners. • Meaning and ethics: Finally, generations Y and Z want spaces that embody the company’s values, incorporating sustainable initiatives, eco-friendly materials and respectful resource management.

Management reluctance

Faced with these expectations, traditional management can show resistance, often linked to fears or lack of knowledge:

  1. Loss of control: managers accustomed to hierarchical management styles fear that flexibility and teleworking will compromise productivity. The feeling of a lack of visibility over teams reinforces this mistrust.
  2. Financial costs: Transforming workspaces to meet these new expectations can represent a significant investment. Some managers are reluctant to invest in infrastructure they perceive as incidental, without understanding its impact on employee engagement.
  3. Attachment to tradition: Entrenched work habits, such as compulsory office attendance or closed offices, reflect a cultural heritage that hinders the adoption of more modern approaches.
  4. Lack of data on benefits: Although numerous studies demonstrate that adapted spaces increase productivity and reduce turnover, this information is sometimes poorly known or underestimated by decision-makers.

Towards possible convergence

To overcome this resistance, a constructive dialogue between generations and managers is needed. There are several ways in which this convergence can be fostered:

• Raising managers’ awareness: Demonstrate, with concrete data, the benefits of new workspaces on employee performance and commitment. • Pilot phase: Testing flexible solutions on a small scale reassures decision-makers, while experimenting with innovative concepts. • Co-creation: Involving employees in the design of spaces can alleviate tensions and foster collective buy-in. • Change management: Training and management support can ease the transition to more flexible models.

Conclusion

The workspaces of generations Y and Z reflect a profound change in the way work is conceived, making it more human and more connected. Despite the reluctance of management, these aspirations should not be seen as constraints, but as an opportunity to reinvent the company.

By adopting an open and collaborative posture, organizations can leverage this transformation to retain their talent and prepare for the challenges of the future.

Happy reading and see you soon!

Recent posts

  • Ethical or social management?

    Management is a key lever for guiding behaviour, structuring relationships within organizations and guaranteeing performance. In this context, the concepts of ethical management and social management occupy a central place. Although they share the same idea of humanist and responsible management, they have different objectives and principles. Ethical management is based on the integration of moral values and ethical principles into decision-making and business conduct. It is not simply a matter of complying with the law, but of promoting practices aligned with principles such as fairness, transparency, responsibility and respect for stakeholders. Ethical management requires constant reflection on the impact of decisions, not only on economic results, but also on employees, customers, suppliers and society at large

  • Large companies: identifying with a project…

    Large companies are often faced with a major challenge when it comes to projects: how to ensure that members identify with them, personify them, live them and carry them emotionally. The most direct answer would be to say that the project must be sufficiently interesting and self-sufficient for the people involved to support it. Naturally, this is a bit short-sighted and, above all, inaccurate. To put it simply, first, a member of the company’s senior management must be the real ambassador for the project, talking about it enthusiastically, encouraging the teams and the beneficiaries of the project and acting as an advocate for the cause with the board of directors, even when clouds gather, or challenges arise. In many cases, projects go well, even very well, thanks to the technical skills and the various internal and external networks, but they often lack the real ‘soul’ to make them unique, unforgettable and convey a message. How many projects have I seen or taken part in that were successful, but left me with no real satisfaction or sense of belonging? Without getting into a philosophical debate: do company managers really want this ‘attachment’ to a project? Having observed some of the reactions and heard some of the comments made by senior managers, my answer is clearly ‘no’, even if it is distressing.

  • Empathy, resilience and the festive season

    Geopolitical, economic and societal challenges and disasters of all kinds once again punctuated 2024, transforming what should be a harmonious and happy life desired by and for most people into difficult, demanding and even terrible moments. Certain despots and dictators have once again darkened the skies in many countries when their populations most certainly did not want them to. This lack of empathy on the part of some of the world’s top leaders, who are condemning the vast majority of the world’s people to survival or to wandering in nauseating and terrible unknowns, is not acceptable, even if we haven’t moved a single step forward when we said that, unfortunately… The major aid bodies and organisations are being flouted, and the minimum of respect for others no longer seems to exist, as the life of a human being no longer seems to count for anything. Added to this are the natural disasters that are indicative of the climate disruption we have caused. Is it still reasonable to hope for a little empathy and resilience, at least during the festive season? To give up these festive moments, which are certainly sometimes commercial, would be to capitulate to the barbarism of a minority of dangerous egomaniacs.

  • Antinomy between workplace flexibility and resource management

    Workspace management, particularly in the service sector, seems increasingly marked by a form of collective frenzy. A new divide is emerging between senior executives who are demanding a return to the office after the pandemic to better control their teams, and those who are adopting a tolerant approach.

    Each has its own line of argument, citing statistics from the media and polling institutes to denounce the flaws in the opposing “system”, while neglecting the middle way of “at the same time”, which seems to work well in many cases. Why have we reached this point? It would be difficult to give a definitive answer to this question, but we can safely draw a parallel with the evolution of the geopolitical world, which is becoming increasingly rigid and divisive.:

  • Conceptually right, operationally wrong

    The somewhat barbaric title of this column in fact conceals a reality that concerns a certain proportion, not to say a certain number, of companies: the concept is correct, but its implementation or marketing is “off the ground”. Let’s look at concepts that have reached a certain intellectual maturity but are not “taking off” in operational or commercial terms. (…)

    Certain “problems” of this type can also be found in the service sector, where processes and flows are correct but totally prohibitive.

  • Does true quality still exist?

    To imply that true quality no longer exists has an element of provocation about it. However, this is not an insignificant statement, because in many areas, quality of service in the emotional sense of the term has been transformed into ‘pseudo-quality’, which seems - and this is a pity - to suit a large proportion of the population who are ultimately undemanding.

    On closer examination, quality levels have risen sharply thanks solely to technologies and certain perfectly oiled and standardised processes. This improvement has made it possible, whether voluntarily or not, to reduce the quality of services delivered by employees. (…) Today, outside a closed circle of ‘top-of-the-range’ companies or businesses, service has often lost its credentials. For some managers, once the service has been delivered in accordance with the ‘contract’, the job is done, full stop. This is to forget that form is just as important as content, which no longer requires any effort thanks to technology, equipment and infrastructure, and above all no longer differentiates the product.

  • FM - Is long-term thinking still relevant?

    We know that there is such a thing as long time and short time, particularly in business, even if over the last ten years or so there has been a paradigm shift: long time seems to be disappearing in favour of short, or even very short, time.

    The pace of consumption and production, programmed obsolescence and economic models all play a major role in these changes. While this may make sense from a financial point of view, it is becoming increasingly difficult to think in the long term in the field of facility management (FM) and, more surprisingly, in the property sector.

    These two fields are working on investments that range from a minimum of 5 years for certain FM contracts to more than 20-30, or even 50, years for construction projects.

Contact us

Contact from
☛ Don't forget to include an email address or a phone number if you wish to be contacted.