5 ms·
Part of it's control, part of it is the market seems largely apathetic. The impact of private offices and 4 day weeks is probably small enough that their lack
by scottLobster 5y ago
Part of it's control, part of it is the market seems largely apathetic. The impact of private offices and 4 day weeks is probably small enough that their lack won't kill companies on their own (you don't have to be the best, just good enough), so the effects are still speculative and on a case-by-case basis. Maybe offices and 4 day weeks will slowly trickle into the market place, like remote work pre-covid. But it'll be a generational change, not a revolution.
Plus management lives on metrics. If you don't have metrics to capture an impact or potential impact you have no argument. Very few companies currently using open offices/full work weeks are going to expend the capital to experiment with private offices for all and 4 day work weeks. So to make your case at said companies someone else your leadership admires has to do it first and then you can quote them, similar to how every startup office basically turned into a Google knock-off once Google took off.
- bluGill 5y agoMaking it worse, it is already known that changing things improves productivity, so it is really hard to study what works. If you make the lights brighter or dimmer it will improve productivity - this has been repeated enough to conclude it wasn't the starting brightness it was the act of change.
- jack_riminton 5y agoI don't think most management are that experimentally minded One quote which stood out in the article was: "hire smart people who get things done, and get the hell out of their way" Perhaps hubris is preventing managers from seeing that their bad-management is actually detrimental. The Michael Scott (or David Brent) effect
- bluGill 5y agoAt least a few are and that is enough to find the above.