There is a decade-long trend of collaborative workspaces designed to support mobile work, and a growing proportion of the workforce is as comfortable working in a corner coffee shop or airport waiting area as they are in a physical office. Yet I still routinely encounter managers who view teleworkers as akin to root canals – something to be avoided at all costs and then tolerated only when forced to as a last resort. Is there some truth to these concerns or is this merely a case of professionals unwilling to let go of the traditional office, unwilling to embrace change?
Not too long ago, one of the ultimate status symbols for office-based employees was the corner office. These desired spaces often come with more windows, natural lighting, and pleasant views. A larger footprint means more and varied furnishings – a large desk, credenza, plush desk chair, visitor chairs, and often a conference table. You get the picture. And because there is a limited number of corners in a building, these offices are the fewest of spaces. You knew you were moving up when you got assigned to a private office with a window but if you were one of the lucky few to achieve the corner office, you knew you had arrived. But then things started to change.
With recent trends in open offices, workstations in place of offices, and shared collaborative spaces, the individually assigned private office tradition may be dwindling, but is this modern workspace effective? The perceived loss of personal space, privacy, and prestige can produce a resistance to change that causes workers to view an open office unfavorably. Even for employees who are currently in workstations, the reduction or removal of enclosed offices could be seen as limiting their upward mobility within the workplace, as they can no longer envision themselves in that corner office as their career progresses.
In addition to resistance to change, open office environments often introduce other issues: increased disruption from nearby co-workers who talk too loudly or are physically distracting, an inability to concentrate and work efficiently and effectively, and employees who adjust group office settings to meet their personal preferences with no regard for others in the workspace.
Often these conflicts result in the conclusion that problems of this type are inherent characteristics of open offices, and that reverting back to a traditional office environment with private enclosed spaces is the only solution. On the other hand, proponents for flexible workspaces note that a better option could be mobile workers or teleworking – allowing employees to work remotely from home offices part or even all of the time, but is this recent change just the latest cutting-edge trend?
Based on my personal home office experience, I have come to believe that the best solution may not be going back to the recently bygone days of the traditional office, but instead going back even further and creating a contemporary version of an era that preceded the traditional office. A time when home offices were the norm.
During the 1700s, professional services such as legal and financial services were rarely administered from separate office structures. For example, it was not until 1774 that Lloyds of London leased formal office space in the Royal Exchange of London following years of meeting in a……. coffee shop.
According to Colin Jones in his landmark book Office Markets & Public Policy, it was not until the Industrial Revolution, along with technological advances including the telegraph, telephone, and typewriter in the 19th century, that “the office” as a distinct building form evolved to become a more common feature in large cities such as London, New York, and Chicago. Ironically, the contemporary version of these same technologies has now made it easier to move away from the office….to change again.
Even more recently, home offices have continued to exist and flourish. I grew up going to a dentist whose practice was located in the front half of the first floor of his home. He had a designated parking area on one side of his driveway and other than the unmarked interior door off of the reception area that led to the family’s kitchen, the office looked exactly like what it was – a completely professional medical office. So why not extend this once-commonplace practice to modern-day business and organizations?
There are many benefits to working from a home office, including the ability to create a completely personal work space furnished and decorated according to personal preference. Also, the employee is in complete control of the environment – a level of customization and adaptability that can’t be matched, even in the most flexible of open office spaces. It’s totally up to the individual how hot or cold the temperature should be, how clean or organized the desk and work surfaces are, and what type of background noise is used.
There’s a host of other benefits – the lack of a stressful commute (and resulting positive impact on the environment), having family and pets nearby (perhaps on a blanket under the desk, as one of my co-workers does – her dog, not her family members), and the ability to strike a more positive work-life balance.
With all of these obvious benefits, I still find plenty of instances where managers resist letting their employees work from home offices, even part of the time. I recently worked with an organization that had successfully used a part-time telecommuting policy for several years. Employees who could work remotely were allowed to work from home offices up to several days a week with their manager’s approval. The organization had recently hired a new manager from outside the organization and I learned that one of that individual’s first moves was to revoke the telecommuting policy for her staff because she wanted to be able to see them working in their offices (her stated reason). While this action meant that she had her staff present in the office full time, it also resulted in tremendously decreased morale and even animosity among professional employees who had previously worked very successfully from home offices for years before their new manager’s arrival.
Unfortunately, this resistance or even aversion to remote workers isn’t uncommon. Is this due to mistrust? A fear of losing control? A very human resistance to change, which we frequently encounter in workplace reconfiguration projects? I believe that it could be any one or a combination of these, but these reactions don’t have to mean the end to a potentially effective and healthy new workplace benefit. If working remotely really is an effective and healthy new option, change in this direction is likely inevitable. Instead of fighting it, perhaps the focus should be on employees and managers making it work.
Following is a list of some of the more common fears associated with teleworking mobile workers and some potential ways to overcome or even avoid these scenarios.
Change and its counterpoint, resistance to change, can be very emotional and passionate issues for both managers and employees. Still, the reality is that change is inevitable in most instances (from one of my favorite sitcoms, “the only constant is change”). Within the workplace, the office has experienced tremendous changes for centuries and as new technologies emerge, developments in space and work practices will follow. We’ve survived the past, perhaps now it’s time to embrace the things that worked well in bygone eras by welcoming back the home office, this time supported by modern mobile work technology.