4 ms·

To me, after reading the article, it seems like Google saw all these offices they have and realized all the money would go to waste if people don’t use them. A

To me, after reading the article, it seems like Google saw all these offices they have and realized all the money would go to waste if people don’t use them. And then there’s the middle manager aspect. Google made these offices with the idea to make people feel like the office is “home”. Snacks, food, bring your dog, etc all screams “why go home when you have everything here?” The cynic in me believes that is exactly their aim, to keep people at the office longer and middle manage. That said, I do believe that a lot of people have a hard time not working in an office. These people should still have the choice, though, and these offices should not feel like home. Because it isn’t. But this is still something that many companies will take advantage of; it simply costs less to not rent an office. Yes, they should also pay for part of the rent and internet bills for the employee, but it would still cost less than renting a huge building. Especially in Silicon Valley.

wffurr 6y ago
There were reasons they invested heavily in offices in the first place; there’s a strong belief (perhaps justified, I couldn’t say) that innovation is more likely to happen with everyone in the office and partaking of amenities in common spaces were serendipitous conversations occur that spark the next billion dollar project. I’ve heard this theory as maximizing the odds of such a lucky conversation. Increasing the innovation “surface area” by having more people having more chance encounters. There’s probably other reasons to it too, but there’s also reason to believe that same type of innovation doesn’t happen as readily online. It’s the same theory why industries tend to cluster in certain areas; not just access to a pool of ready-trained employees but also a thriving innovation scene due to the proximity of all those experienced, motivated people.

wffurr 6y ago

There were reasons they invested heavily in offices in the first place; there’s a strong belief (perhaps justified, I couldn’t say) that innovation is more likely to happen with everyone in the office and partaking of amenities in common spaces were serendipitous conversations occur that spark the next billion dollar project. I’ve heard this theory as maximizing the odds of such a lucky conversation. Increasing the innovation “surface area” by having more people having more chance encounters. There’s probably other reasons to it too, but there’s also reason to believe that same type of innovation doesn’t happen as readily online. It’s the same theory why industries tend to cluster in certain areas; not just access to a pool of ready-trained employees but also a thriving innovation scene due to the proximity of all those experienced, motivated people.