- Last year, when WFH became the norm, I was originally initested in how artisans work.
- They are of the few people in society who CREATE their own environment optimised to what they do / the outcome they wish to seek.
- But why should we look at artisans?
- Because they have to create the optmial environment, otherwise they won’t be able to survive. Let’s look at those that thrived.
- Besides: Picasso, for example, was one of the greatest businessmen who ever lived, creating more value in ten minutes than your department in a year.
- Most people go into an existing work environment (fluorescent lights, magnolia paint, grey carpets) without any opportunity to change it, let alone co-create it. An artificial environment with midday light extended artificially.
- How much consciousness went into creating that environment? How much were the outcomes and the ultimate value in mind when it was designed and built?
- Most office space is a waste of space – literally: almost half of them are empty at any given time!
- My original question: why are our offices the way they are? – wasn’t really picked up by anyone. My own impression is that the office space is a physical manifestation of a hierarchy – a structure of status – since those in power get to make the most decisions and more likely to get what they want: bigger spaces, prestige, which in turn physically reinforces a hierarchy – shows who’s who.
- My own experience is that this hierarchy plays some kind of subconscious submissive force – in that, no-one is deliberately oppressing others, it’s more of a willing subordination to a hierarchy / to those in positions of increased power.
- Thus: “we shape buildings then they shape us”
- WFH upended everything. By working from home, leaders that worked in ‘legacy organisations’ cannot rely on the physical reinforced hierarchy to ‘lead’ (coerce, or get people to do things), and perhaps this is the reason many leaders have struggled remotely.
- (interesting tweet from a bank employee: “annoying thing about remote work is there are no status clues so that you know who to ignore”)
- Like the Wittgenstein’s ruler, the leadership’s reaction to working from home may say more about them than working from home (e.g. the Nobel prize says more about the panel than the recipient).
- Likewise: Poor behaviour in classrooms is typically either because the pupils are under-challenged or over-challenged, leading to disengagement, then poor behaviour. People ‘slacking at home’ are not slacking because they’re at home.
- In contrast to legacy organisations, those organisations with clear vision and purpose should have no issue where people work: they’ll be engaged, autonomous and aligned with the vision.
- @Balaji reckons future recruitment will be based on timezone not location.
- And anyway, I’m more interested in the space, regardless of where it is. WFH or office is a false dichotomy. There could be multiple spaces.
- Currently WFH means that many can create their own optimal space to the outcomes they are working towards. How many have optimised their, I don’t know? I did.
- When I looked at artisans, they seemed to have three different spaces: reflection (deep thinking), experimentation (play, maximising happenstance and thus fluke innovation), and collaboration spaces to get stuff done together.
- Most knowledge worker functions are divided into managers and makers (as per Paul Graham’s anolgy)
- Makers need to have the rights space(s) to create value (like artisans do)
- Managers need the right space to make the decisions and take risks: Michelle Wucker talks about how the environment determines the risks that people take (even a lower temperature makes people risk averse. Business is about taking risks! How many leaders have the right environment to take risks and make decisions? Let alone lead and aspire.
- Remote first will also change how we interact. If the organisation is a complex adaptive system, how can it respond quickly? In scaled agile networks, we use scaled ceremonies, typically involving people to escalate information and dependencies. More and information flow will be asynchronous.
What does this all mean for us?
- Possibility in the future that work is arranged around life, instead of the other way round as it is now for most.
- How does an organisation adapt to a a remote first world with engaged workers?
- With the increasing automation and uncertainty, roles will change. New roles will have a greater focus on innovation, facilitation, strategy, creativity etc.
- So the question becomes (yet again) – if that’s likely to happen: how do I prepare myself and my environment to get the upside from the inevitable changes in the future and thrive?