Many companies in the service sector or with large administrative offices are faced with a dilemma when it comes to workspaces. Should they adapt to the demands of the new generations, or listen to the “old” ones? As a joke, we could say “a bit of both, sir”!
First, all the studies carried out in this field indicate that age has nothing to do with the layout of workspaces, nor with any generation gap: you can be modern and flexible at 60 and behave like a “traditionalist” at 25. Any blockages are much more a question of culture and, it would seem, education than age…
It should be added that you can’t move from a traditional model to a system that introduces flexibility into the workplace without going through the “change management” process, whatever the average age of the workforce. Far too many companies skip this step for obscure reasons, even though it is decisive for the future. But let’s return to the gap mentioned in the title.
Cultural and educational aspects seem to weigh quite heavily in the choices made by employees and especially managers when it comes to workspaces.
If we look at the cultural burden or traditions, we can see that Anglo-Saxon countries have a more open approach to this, with the differentiation between “boss”, “deputy boss”, “sub-sub-chief” and “employees” being much more subtle and elusive to the uninitiated.
In some other countries, such as India, castes still play a considerable role in the hierarchical structure of spaces: mixing “superiors” and “inferiors” in the same space is impossible: sharing a place is not even a consideration.
Finally, a differentiation has been observed between southern and northern European countries. The further north you go, the greater the importance of belonging to a group rather than to an individual. In the south, having a private office is an outward sign of wealth. But when we’ve said that we’ve said nothing…
Secondly, it’s interesting to look at modes of education to understand resistance to or acceptance of the new models.
Traditional education, with its deeply rooted values of hierarchy, sharing and non-sharing, sometimes stemming from religion, etc., tends to lock employees into straitjackets, preventing change for both the individuals concerned and the company. And yet, to paraphrase Boileau, “from the clash of ideas comes light”.
Finally, it should be noted that the middle echelons of the hierarchy are the most exposed in every respect: recognition, skills, differentiation. Indeed, if a leader is among his or her teams, mistakes, incompetence, and behaviour can be constantly scrutinized. Senior management is often not confronted with this phenomenon, even if - for some - it would be part of the best therapy, but that’s another debate…
We haven’t yet included the notion of teleworking, which adds to the complexity of the whole issue…
These few points just go to show that moving from one model of workspace to a “flexible” system takes time, know-how and a lot of skill.
I wish you all the best for the future.