This is not the office of the future

Courtesy of office[insight], here’s a good article on the office of the future, or rather, how many of the reports on the office of the future turn a blind eye on several aspects of this trend watching.

It seems like we don’t have to wait more than a few days at a time before some or other organisation is making its own prognoses about how we will be working in the future. The thing these reports all share in common, other than some or other variant of a title and a common lexicon of agility, empowerment and connectivity, is a narrow focus based on their key assumptions. While these are rarely false per se, and often offer extremely valuable insights, they also usually exhibit a desire to look at only one part of the elephant.


In the past month alone, I have encountered four such reports. The most high profile was PSFK’s comprehensive Future of Work report which garnered some excellent press coverage. At the end of 2012 Intel produced a more sober white paper entitled The Future of Knowledge Work (pdf). January saw Sodexo publish their detailed and FM-focussed Workplace Trends report. Most recently I came across a report sponsored by SAP called The Future of the Workplace.

In addition to these, there is the regular stream of features and articles including this remarkable feature from the Chartered Management Institute which offers the following timeless advice: ‘adding some feng shui to your workplace is a great idea. Consider adding a fountain wall in your entrance, cement flooring throughout, and placing some lavender in pots to help calm the senses’.

The more serious reports invariably make excellent points and identify key trends, it has to be said. However, across them there are routine flaws in their thinking that can lead them to make narrow and sometimes incorrect assumptions and so draw similarly flawed conclusions.

They place undue focus on Generation Y. While it’s understandable that we should be interested in the influence of the next generation of people on the way we work, not least because of their lifelong technological immersion, it’s worth noting that Millennials will still be a minority of the workforce in 2020 – the appropriate end date for many of these reports.

1 tennis table

A more sophisticated approach would be to consider the multi-generational workplace, a subject covered intelligently and in detail by the Helen Hamlyn Centre at the Royal College of Art.

They like gimmicky designs. When these reports depict the office of the future there is a perhaps understandable tendency to focus on design quirks such as slides, isolation pods and that now somehow ubiquitous shorthand for cool workplaces – the table tennis table. It’s misguided to suggest anything other than these are appropriate features for only certain types of firms and employees. Even in those, it’s likely that some people will react against the idea of corporate prescribed fun. For many other people, the office of the future will be a sober and nuanced evolution of the office of the present. That is likely to include blue carpets and grey worksurfaces and a definition of cool that extends no further than the Egg chairs in reception. And there’s nothing wrong with that in the right place.

They ignore the complexities of behaviour and motivation. Too much emphasis is placed on design as a way of changing behaviour. People are motivated by a range of factors, many of them outside the control of the organisation, never mind the design of the workplace. For example, the idea posited in the PSFK report that the organisation can influence emotion and wellbeing by designing the workplace in a particular way is entirely dependent on the idea that an individual works in a bubble. Design only influences behaviour when all other things are equal. And they never are.

They fail to distinguish between people and technology.  There is an enduring assumption that just because a technology exists people will use it and will use it in the way intended. Many of these reports fall into the same trap. Similarly, there is an ongoing and hastening problem with the pervasive influence of technology which means that many people are essentially working for all of their waking hours.

Walter Cronkite predicting in 1967 what the2001 home office would look like
Walter Cronkite predicting in 1967 what the 2001 home office would look like

They subvert language. The Newspeak of modern management is evident in the partial inversion of supposedly positive terms such as empowerment, agility and collaboration. Technology does not only empower people, it enslaves them, especially when firms start measuring them on their social media profile. Agile working means giving people flexibility, as well as extending the workplace beyond the walls of the office. Collaboration means not only sharing ideas but also ensuring that knowledge workers don’t withhold their intellectual capital which is the only thing most of them have to sell to employers in the first place.

They ignore the influence of the present. When George Orwell wrote 1984, its title was derived by inverting the numbers of the year in which it was written – 1948. Orwell understood it was a book as much about the world in which he lived as the one to come. Our images of the future are invariably refracted through the prism of the present. Predictions must accommodate this distortion to some degree.

Loud business group.

They focus too much on extroverts. The tenets espoused in many of these reports place too much emphasis on extroverts in the workplace. This is evident not only in the provision of quirky design features such as slides – which even many introverted Millennials wouldn’t be comfortable with never mind 50 year old accountants –  but also in more generally acceptable and widespread facets of office design such as the open plan. There are signs of a backlash to the undue focus on design based primarily on the needs of  extroverts but many of these reports continue to promote values that ignore the needs of nearly half of the population. It’s worth reminding ourselves that this would include archetypal introverts such as Warren Buffett, Charles Darwin, J.K. Rowling, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi and Larry Page, all of whom preferred less stimulating environments, more quiet concentration and more listening than talking.

[twitter-follow screen_name=’sourceyour’ link_color=’009933′]

Follow Me on Pinterest



Mark Eltringham

HI Bastiaan

Thanks for reposting this. Would be great if you could post a link to the website as well

Bastiaan Brouns

Hi Mark, done, with our compliments. Best regards, Bastiaan

Leave a comment


email* (not published)


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

* indicates required
Email Address*

Email Format