In an increasingly fractured and divided world, we are even moving in this direction in the field of workspaces.
The general political environment leans towards divisions and extremes, whereas consensus and compromise should be cardinal values. It is true that the media and the emphasis on the ‘me’ do not support the middle way, as it may seem boring to many: the show must go on…
On closer examination, we seem to be returning to periods and principles that seemed stale and over, those inspired by Stakhanovism in the 1930s or Taylorism at the end of the 19th century, which aimed to optimise work to the extreme. When we look at the wishes of generations Y and Z, we are far from it…
In European service companies, the technological challenges, the complexity of the business and the extreme division of responsibilities between units ignoring each other make thinking of the workspace as a whole an illusion, even a crime of lèse-majesté.
Many companies, often out of ignorance (hopefully not out of perverse calculations), pit face-to-face against remote, HR against image, technology against security, internal billing against cost optimisation. All this leads to inconsistencies in operation and ultimately to a loss of visibility for employees and their managers.
To say that creating a nice corner with a couple of green plants in an office means that the space has been conceptualised and the needs of the employees have been taken into account is, to put it politely, going too fast.
To achieve a good overall result, you have to take into account the
• Type of company, its culture, its history.
• Composition of the staff, their functions and needs.
• Flows and operational processes to make them “neutral” and to allow, if possible, face-to-face and distance working.
• Spaces and infrastructures available and what arrangements are possible.
• Technology including maximum mobility while ensuring security.
• Way of leading or rather the leadership required by the new generations.
As you can see, the subject requires a broad treatment with all that this implies: splitting up the themes in such a context can only lead to dissatisfaction and a negative relationship between investments and results.
It is not so difficult to get all the ‘protagonists’ around the table and to discuss all the issues, from paid and unpaid coffee to the workplace and the way in which distance working is dealt with. But top management must be willing to do this…
Even if the path is strewn with stages, the journey is a whole and if one part of it does not go well, the whole experience is spoiled. Why should it be any different with workspaces where you spend 8-9 hours or more of your day?
Thinking holistically takes effort but the reward at the end of the process can only be satisfying.
Have a good week, good thoughts and see you soon.