Tag: information and communications technology

The awkward adjustment to virtual and decentralized knowledge work

Posted onLeave a comment

Since the 1980s, information and communications technology has transformed knowledge work. Much of the work involved in gathering, synthesizing, analyzing, and presenting information can now be performed without a dedicated office or a daily commute.

The decision-making function of many organizations has gone virtual. That does not make offices completely irrelevant. Co-located environments can still support relationship-building, training, brainstorming, and strategy sessions that benefit from real-time interaction. But routine individual work and many forms of collaboration no longer depend on a particular building.

The difficulty is that the physical environment has not adjusted at the same pace. Office towers, business parks, campuses, and the transportation systems connecting them were built around the assumption that knowledge workers would regularly travel to a common workplace. Much of that infrastructure remains in place even as the work it was designed to support becomes more distributed.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this mismatch. Social-distancing measures forced organizations to test whether thought work could be done without the office and without the associated transportation demand. In many cases, the answer was yes. The experience produced a rapid shift in expectations, followed by what might be called a period of future shock.

The adjustment has been psychologically and organizationally difficult. The buildings and freeways are still there, but their necessity for many knowledge-work tasks is no longer self-evident. People are being asked to reconcile the visible permanence of the old system with the practical emergence of a new one.

Organizations are responding by experimenting with different ways of working. Some arrangements are proving more coherent than others. One particularly awkward example is requiring employees to commute to an office in order to participate in virtual meetings that could have taken place from home. Employees can see the contradiction: they spend time and money traveling to a designated workplace so that they can work remotely with colleagues who may be somewhere else.

Policies requiring attendance on prescribed days can intensify this frustration when they are not tied to a clear purpose. The problem is not simply that hybrid work is difficult to manage. It is that many organizations are applying old spatial assumptions to a changed model of work.

This is an awkward adjustment phase between two systems. The old system is organized around centralized workplaces and routine commuting. The emerging system is more virtual, distributed, and flexible. Organizations now need to determine which activities genuinely benefit from physical presence, which can be performed remotely, and how offices should be redesigned around those distinctions.

The transition will be uneven and sometimes contradictory. But the central task is clear: organizations must align their policies, workplaces, and transportation expectations with the work people actually do, rather than with the assumptions built into the previous era.

Buildings and bureaus: RTO isn’t only about trust and control

Posted onLeave a comment

Return to office (RTO) isn’t only about control or trust or workplaces. It’s more fundamental. It’s essentially about organizational identity.

For decades, public and large private sector organizations have defined themselves largely by how they functioned, structured in the industrial age management model as vertical bureaucracies exercising command and control management. The hierarchy is represented in the building with the building as totem. Leadership sits in the upper floors of the building and corner offices. Staff in cubicles in the center and on lower floors.

The building is at the core of organizational self concept and sense of purpose. The org may have started humbly in a garage like Apple but now a large multi building campus represents it nearly as much as its branding. In Apple’s case, for example, the modernistic circular spaceship headquarters building.

Apple founder Steve Jobs described the personal computer as the “bicycle for our minds.” That untethers the mind from time, place and distance. But the spaceship houses the bodies containing the minds of Apple employees. It’s the mothership, the corporate edifice.

Decentralized, virtual knowledge work first made possible by Apple computers and later information and communications technology (ICT) advances is at odds with that. Hence, we see resistance expressed as RTO. It really means return to the organization — get back in the building.

Or as some orgs have framed it to staff, you don’t have a future with this org if you don’t regularly appear at the building that represents it and should find another role outside of the org.

ICT has disrupted that. knowledge work no longer requires the industrial age buildings and bureaus of the 20th century or daily commuting to and from them. It’s done wherever knowledge workers are and thinking. Rapidly processed, communicated and recorded on ICT tools like personal computing and communication devices and the cloud.

The essential questions knowledge organizations face in the 21 century:

How are they defined in the post-industrial age (or “smokestack era” as Alvin Toffler termed it in his 1990 outlook on the 21st century, Powershift)? If buildings and bureaus no longer essentially define them, what does?

Since knowledge work has been traditionally defined by Dave Rolston’s four dead kings of work:

  1. One job title
  2. Performed under one manager
  3. At one time
  4. At one place

How will it be optimally defined and organized going forward?

Redefining office space use in the post CCO era

Posted onLeave a comment

Return to office (RTO) policies have created controversy, framed as a set to between executive leadership wanting staff to work in centralized, commute in offices (CCOs) and staff preferring to work in their home offices as they did during the public health restrictions during the pandemic years.

RTO mandates have been used to encourage resignations as a blunt personnel reduction strategy, sending the message if you don’t put in office attendance you don’t belong in the organization and should move on.

Another way to view RTO is future shock. As information and communications technology (ICT) and personal devices grew increasingly sophisticated and useful over the preceding four decades starting with the personal computer in the 1980s, it was becoming increasingly clear that they would disrupt the office as it had been known. No longer would daily office attendance with the often time and energy sucking commute be necessary.

The majority of knowledge organizations however didn’t adjust to this slowly emerging reality until the pandemic restrictions forced them to do so and in a space of just two years. The future of knowledge work had arrived but too quickly for organizations to adjust.

So many adopted RTO to lessen the shock. That’s not necessarily maladaptive, but a natural reversion to the known and familiar. That creates a pause to allow time to figure out how to go forward —  and not going backward per se.

What’s truly adaptive is recognizing the primary impact of ICT: that knowledge workers no longer must necessarily report to CCOs because that’s the only location where the tools they needed to work were situated. Now they are portable and can communicate easily. That requires rethinking the use of office space and determining its best and most logical use going forward.

One model that looks promising is that of Stamford, Connecticut–based Synchrony, a branded credit card issuer.

According to this item posted October 6, 2025 at Fast Company, the company’s 20,000 employees work in their home offices and at company offices “when in person gatherings occur for training, leadership meetings, innovation sessions, and culture-building events.”

That redefines the office from a regular workplace in their traditional sense to an event driven gathering venue. There, both the presence in the office and the transportation of staff to get there is defined by a specific business purpose and not just showing up. That provides a guiding vision for the post pandemic future, offering a useful template to knowledge organizations experiencing future shock.

No assembly required

Posted onLeave a comment

As information and communications technology tools decentralize and virtualize knowledge work, it challenges knowledge organizations to reconceptualize working. In the pre information economy industrial age, work and education involved assembling: in schools, factories and offices.

Now the office is optional.

Making this conceptual shift has proven difficult for many knowledge organizations. That’s because their leaders often believe assembly is essential for collaboration and teamwork. Hence, they demand staff attendance at least some of the workweek in a centralized, commute in office.

Assembly is no longer needed is when information of all forms is easily shared virtually.

Forced assembly hasn’t gone over well for staff who find themselves going though the motions of assembling, swiping their badges to create a record of attendance. Or sitting in a cube farm and having Zoom or Teams meetings with colleagues in other nearby cubicles – something they could just as easily done without making the commute trip there.

Future shock and past snapback

Posted onLeave a comment

Before advances in information and communications technologies over the past four decades, knowledge work required industrial scale centralized commuter offices (CCOs), often staffed by hundreds or thousands of knowledge workers.

Much of the staff worked processing repetitive tasks that shifted from paper to digital form that did not require centralized creation, processing and storage. Information then became portable and decentralized, moving along with knowledge workers on personal computer and communication devices and later internet-based telecommunications and the cloud.

That made CCOs obsolete as exclusive work and meeting places by making knowledge work far less dependent on time and place, allowing information to travel as text, data and video most anywhere and asynchronistically.

These ICT advances have sped up considerably in the current decade with widespread adoption of working from home accelerated by the pandemic and the emergence of generative and agentic artificial intelligence.

These changes have come so rapidly that they challenge knowledge organizations to constructively adapt to them. They are experiencing what futurist Alvin Toffler termed “future shock” in his 1970 book of that title. It happens when the pace of technological change is so rapid institutions and organizations feel overwhelmed by it and experience cognitive dissonance as past, present and future seem to merge.

Understandably so considering the as built environment of office buildings concentrated in central metro areas and connected by what were originally designed as “high speed” highways to bring knowledge workers to and from them from outlying bedroom communities.

That world of the 20th century when companies grew and staffed up and occupied offices at industrial age scale no longer easily jibes with the 21st. That scale no longer make sense when knowledge, innovation and strategic judgment are the most valuable resources, resources that no longer require large numbers of staff regularly concentrated in office buildings.

Future shock produces what could be described as past snapback. It’s resistance to the future and nostalgia for when knowledge workers regularly commuted to the office because that’s where the job was. It’s clearly seen with “return to office” expectations.

Which haven’t gone over well since knowledge workers and not their organizations have traditionally borne the costs of getting there. And once there, sitting in a cube farm doing the same activities they could do in their home offices. That produces cognitive dissonance for knowledge workers.

Knowledge organizations have been trying to reconcile the conflict between the 20th and 21st centuries with “hybrid” office attendance, having staff come in on a designated number and days of the work week. In other words, working in the CCO like in the 20th but with the current century recognition that knowledge work doesn’t necessarily require office attendance.

It eases future shock and cognitive dissonance. But going forward into the third decade of the 21 century, the shifts will require knowledge organizations make a big adjustment to a world that for many seems to have changed in less than a decade.

From workplace to gathering place

Posted on2 Comments

The return to office debate reflects a transition period away from when the tools to process, document and communicate information were located in centralized commuter offices (CCO), making it the primary knowledge workplace. Over the past few decades thanks to advances in information and communications technologies that is no longer the case.

The CCO role as “workplace” is changing from a location where knowledge work is exclusively performed to an ad hoc meeting place where knowledge workers gather for collaboration, brainstorming, social bonding, and training. Offices or some suitable location are still needed. But not every business day. Floors filled with cubicles surrounded by closed door offices have become superfluous.

The conceptual shift underlying the transition is from conceiving of much knowledge or thought work as needing a defined workplace — like a physical factory floor assembly line in manufacturing — to a virtual, much less location dependent activity.

Related is a shift in the view of knowledge workers to the time and travel expense needed to gather. Coming together isn’t a mindless commute trip anymore. It’s now more like business travel and has to be meaningful and clearly of value.

The purpose of co-located work is now emerging as dominant determinant. When and where do knowledge workers gather and for what purpose?

This transition is a big one and coming with much gnashing of teeth and confusion and disorientation that is to be expected in a shift of this scope given how deeply entrenched the office has been as the exclusive knowledge workplace. That organizational discomfort can result in resistance that makes adaption more difficult.

From Office to Output: Redefining Knowledge Work

Posted onLeave a comment

In the first half of the 2020s, two developments emerged with major implications for knowledge work.

The first is virtualization that is deemphasizing when and where it’s performed. The social distancing public health measures of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a tipping point for the longer term trend of information and communications technology (ICT) advances connecting knowledge workers outside of co-located office settings, effectively obsoleting the daily commute.

Then in 2022-23, another ICT development emerged: generative artificial intelligence accepting plain language queries and largely replacing traditional web searches, synthesizing and greatly speeding up access to online information. On its heels came agentic AI that can analyze data, set goals, and take independent actions at the direction of knowledge workers.

Both developments have the potential to profoundly alter knowledge work as we know it, which has been traditionally defined by doing defined tasks while present in a centralized, commute-in office during scheduled work hours.

One likely outcome is knowledge work will be more defined by outputs and deliverables rather than inputs and presence in an office. That could mean dispersed, small project teams that form up for the purpose of completing a project and disbanding when it’s accepted by the sponsor as complete. They may meet up in a co-located setting. Or not, depending on project needs and the team’s preference.

For the knowledge workforce, the implications are similarly sizeable. Less permanent employment by a single knowledge organization. More projectized contract work arrangements where specific subject matter expertise and experience is required. These contractors may work independently or as part of a professional services firm.

This points to a decline in employment in the conventional sense where knowledge work is defined by the terms and conditions of the employer: when, where and how work is to be done.

That in turn has implications for medical care finance in the United States where employers are mandated by state laws to pay for medical care arising from job duties and for large employers, medical benefit plans for non work-related care.

Toffler’s second and third waves colliding in U.S. federal government

Posted onLeave a comment

In his 1980 book The Third Wave, futurist Alvin Toffler depicted the long-term evolution of modern socio-economy as a series of three waves. The first was agrarian – the cultivation and sale of plant crops and animals. The second was the industrial era that began in the 18th century. According to Toffler, this wave reached its peak in the 1970s when services took on a more dominant role relative to manufacturing – the third wave.

The transitions between the waves play out over many decades and are fraught with tension between the receding and rising waves. Not surprisingly since in each, the scale of social and economic change is enormous with broad implications for how and where people work and live. The previous socio-economy and its industries and settlement patterns is remade into the next.

Toffler wrote of advances in information and communications technology and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure that would fundamentally alter the second wave industrial era based on centralization of production in offices and factories in metro centers. The third wave, Toffler prognosticated, would instead bring about decentralization.

Second wave office work would migrate back to homes that Toffler termed “the electronic cottage.” Toffler’s prediction came just six years after fellow futurist Arthur C. Clarke issued a similar forecast, envisioning the end of commuting to urban downtown office buildings. “Men Will No Longer Commute, They Will Communicate.” And plenty of women too who have entered the workforce since Clarke’s 1964 prognostication.

Toffler’s and Clarke’s future has arrived – gradually since the mass market personal computer in the 1980s and Internet in the 1990s – and suddenly following the social distancing public health measures of the 2020 viral pandemic. Millions of office workers migrated to the electronic cottage, creating home offices and no longer regularly commuting.

The tension between the second industrial era and third information era waves is now starkly evident in the federal government and in two prominent figures of the current American administration: President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Trump is a product of the second wave and the 1980s in particular when he developed his identity as a real estate developer including office buildings. The younger Musk is more complex, a creature of both the second and third waves. He embraces technology but largely in the context of second wave transportation advances: automobiles (Tesla) and rocket ships (SpaceX).

Both men are essentially second wave industrialists. For them, Toffler’s postindustrial third wave electronic cottage doesn’t exist. It’s a dwelling, not a place to work. Working there instead of commuting to a distant office is even “immoral” as Musk put it. Consequently, the administration has ordered federal workers to report for duty at the office.

The customer service model and government offices

Posted onLeave a comment

The Trump administration’s offer this week to federal employees to either do their jobs in government offices or resign effective later this year reflects a conceptualization of public sector knowledge work similar to that expressed by some state governors who imposed similar personnel rules over the past few years. It likens it to customer facing services people receive in brick-and-mortar locations like retail stores. These locations must be necessarily be staffed during business hours.

Some government services – state motor vehicle departments and health clinics – fit that description. But much of what government does is plan and make decisions on how to allocate public resources and deliver them through government programs. They are what Roger L. Martin would describe as “decision factories” as he termed them in a 2013 Harvard Business Review article.

Prior to the 21st century, these activities were nearly always performed in vast cube farms, closed door offices and meeting rooms in government owned or leased buildings centralized in Washington DC and state capitols.  

Advances in information and communications technology since then have diminished the need for these locations to allow staff to share, analyze, discuss and plan while seated together in these offices. Personal computers and devices and the Internet generally work as well outside of these locations as within including residences, thus eliminating the need to travel to a centralized commute-in office for most forms of knowledge work.

But when they are used in a knowledge worker’s home, a cognitive dissonance occurs, particularly for those who are not digital veterans (early adopters) or younger generations of digital natives. Prior to these ICT advances, the home was clearly for personal time and relaxation – not working. Daily activities were defined by the space in which they occurred. Home is home and offices “workplaces.” That distinction is no longer so sharply defined.

Making the conceptual shift away from those sharp distinctions is difficult, requiring an adjustment in thinking that can be challenging for both public and private sector organizations.

Washingtonian staff goes on strike after CEO Cathy Merrill’s op-ed about remote work – The Washington Post

Posted on2 Comments

In Thursday’s op-ed, Merrill wrote that she had discussed the downsides of remote work with fellow chief executives and estimated that unofficial office duties such as “helping a colleague, mentoring more junior people, celebrating someone’s birthday — things that drive office culture” made up 20 percent of their work.

Source: Washingtonian staff goes on strike after CEO Cathy Merrill’s op-ed about remote work – The Washington Post

The public health restrictions that shut down centralized commuter offices (CCO) shone a spotlight on the high cost of maintaining an office-based culture. There’s the direct cost to knowledge organizations to keep all that brick, mortar and glass that house cube farms occupiable.

Then there’s the indirect commuting cost that has historically been externalized onto workers. The predominant management mindset pre-pandemic was staff chooses where they want to live. How far away that is from the office or how long it takes for them to get here Monday through Friday is not our problem.

But housing choice isn’t fully within the control of knowledge workers. High housing costs in metro cores have forced knowledge workers farther from them in search of affordable housing. That leads to longer commutes — borne directly by knowledge workers who sacrifice time that could otherwise be spent on health promoting activities such as exercise, sufficient sleep, and home prepared meals as well as in their communities and with their families.

Now that so many knowledge workers have been freed of these personal costs during the pandemic, their value has become very clear. They’re understandably reluctant to surrender the personal time they recovered. Particularly since their organizations have gone on functioning largely without the CCO for more than a year, thanks to advances in information and communications technology.