Tag: knowedge work

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.

Knowledge organizations suffer “future shock”

Posted onLeave a comment

In 1970, futurist Alvin Toffler coined term “future shock.” It occurs when the future arrives too quickly for people and organizations to adapt to it. Consequently, they get out of sync with the onrushing change in their environments, leading to maladaptive behaviors such as:

 • Crisis-Driven Decision-Making – Reactive rather than proactive approaches to industry disruption (e.g., panic layoffs, rushed technology investments).

• Over-Centralization & Micromanagement – Leadership tightens control in response to perceived chaos, stifling innovation.

• Resistance to virtual work — A rigid preference for traditional centralized commuter office-based operations, despite clear benefits of decentralization.

• Internal Conflict & Cultural Breakdown – Generational clashes between leadership and younger, more digitally native employees.

Two related major forces of change are affecting knowledge organizations. Both have been building over the past five decades or so and have reached critical inflection points in the past few years, accelerated by public health measures taken in response to the 2020 pandemic.

The first is advances in information and communications technology (ICT) that has decentralized knowledge work out of commute-in offices in metro areas. Microcomputers and personal communication devices like smartphones allow knowledge work – researching, reviewing, analyzing and communicating information to arrive at decisions on how to use it – to be done most anywhere. Beforehand, that required dedicated office space and meeting rooms — and staff to commute to and from them.

The second is housing costs and transportation systems in metro areas. Housing tends to cost more nearer to their centers, increasing demand for more affordable, lower cost housing more distant from them. That in turn boosts demand on transportation systems that could in earlier decades enable knowledge workers to rapidly commute from homes located far from centralized commuter offices but no longer have adequate capacity to do so.

Knowledge organizations can overcome future shock, build resilience and adjust to change that shows no sign of slowing down. This requires them to assess and examine the evidence supporting how they conceptualize how their work is done, how their value proposition and strategic advantages are created and the best means to sustain them.

It takes courage to challenge long held assumptions and thinking. This isn’t an easy task for many knowledge organizations since for many, their foundations are built on a pre-digital era where ICT played a far less prominent role. But the benefits are many, allowing them reduce internal tensions and move forward more confidently and with greater capacity to adapt to the changing world of knowledge work. Help is available.

Return to office tensions point to reassessment of employment for knowledge work

Posted onLeave a comment

“Increasing numbers of employees may leave traditional employment, choosing to start their own businesses as freelancers and contractors.“

So predicts management author Lynne Curry in a blog post today. The context of her post is tension in knowledge organizations. The source is conflict between managers’ beliefs that knowledge work – gathering and the analysis of information to reach a decision – can only be done optimally at centralized, commute in offices – and the practical experience of knowledge workers who have done their work outside of this setting with no commute necessary.

What’s noteworthy is Curry’s prediction that is the decentralization and virtualization of knowledge work is eroding the concept of employment as well. “Traditional employment” as Curry terms it means the employer determines when, where and how an employee performs their job duties. When knowledge work can be done outside of a set “workplace” or time frame, that definition doesn’t fit as well anymore. Employers operating from this framework might sense that not only are their beliefs about how knowledge work is best done are being challenged, but also their agency and authority.

In that sense, the tensions we are seeing expressed as the “return to office” debate are fundamentally questioning whether knowledge work necessarily involves employment. Or can it be done as Curry suggests on a contract basis with knowledge workers paid to complete defined projects? That would require a serious rethink by knowledge organizations of whether employment as traditionally defined continues to make sense or if another model of management would be more appropriate taking into account advances in information and communications technology over the past 30 years.

“Coffee badging” symptom of need to redefine knowledge work

Posted onLeave a comment

As some employees are being called back to the office, many are subtly protesting by returning to the office for as little time as possible, Frank Weishaupt, CEO of Owl Labs in Boston, told FOX Business. “Coffee badging is when employees show up to the office for enough time to have a cup of coffee, show their face and get a ‘badge swipe’ — then go home to do the rest of their work,” said Weishaupt. His firm, Owl Labs, which makes 360° video conferencing devices, did a deep dive into the trend’s data. The new trend of “coffee badging” at work is apparently in response to companies’ requirements that more employees return to the office. “Our 2023 State of Hybrid Work report found that only about 1 in 5 workers (22%) want to be in the office full time, with 37% wanting hybrid work options and 41% preferring to be fully remote,” said Weishaupt. 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/coffee-badging-job-trend-business-leaders-high-alert

This phenom is a symptom of the struggle to redefine knowledge work that has been decentralized out of commute-in offices thanks to information and communications technologies that emerged more than four decades ago with the innovation of microcomputers, personal communication devices and the mass market Internet. The momentum and urgency of which increased considerably with the public health measures to slow the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some organizations have resisted the decentralizing trend, insisting their staffs must commute to centralized offices to collaborate in person. But “coffee badging” shows not everyone is on board with the idea – or that any meaningful collaboration is taking place. Particularly if they are showing up to work in a cubicle when they could just as easily get their work done in a home office and avoid wasting an hour or more a day commuting.

The redefinition of knowledge work will require deeper thought in the ICT and post COVID-19 era that has fundamentally altered it. It is no longer about showing up at a set location at a predefined time schedule — two of Dave Rolston’s “dead kings” of work. The new definition will must center on outcomes and goals and how information is developed and communicated to further a knowledge organization’s mission.

“Seismic shift” in knowledge work

Posted onLeave a comment

According to a new MIT report, 34 percent of Americans who previously commuted to work report that they were working from home by the first week of April due to the coronavirus. That’s the same percentage of people who can work from home, according to a recent University of Chicago publication.

These new numbers represent a seismic shift in work culture. Prior to the pandemic, the number of people regularly working from home remained in the single digits, with only about 4 percent of the US workforce working from home at least half the time. However, the trend of working from home had been gaining momentum incrementally for years, as technology and company cultures increasingly accommodated it. So it’s also likely that many Americans who are now working from home for the first time will continue to do so after the pandemic.

Source: How coronavirus could change your office space and remote work from home – Vox

California’s high speed rail would facilitate redistribution of knowledge work out of state’s costly metro centers

Posted on

Without state and local intervention, San Joaquin Valley cities with high-speed rail stations will become sleeper communities, farming out tech workers on express trains to the Bay Area and Los Angeles, a report released Wednesday by nonprofit think-tank SPUR argues.

While the Central Valley could serve to supply the cheap housing the Bay Area has so far failed to provide its own workers, report author Egon Terplan says that outcome would fail to capitalize on perhaps the single greatest infrastructure investment this state will make in the entire century. Rather than being the tide that lifts all boats, high-speed rail could exacerbate already-stark income disparities between the two regions, he said.

If it’s done right, Terplan said those Central Valley cities can reverse years of high unemployment and disinvestment and become incubators for fledgling companies seeking cheaper rents outside the urban poles while still staying only a one- to two-hours’ commute away from either end, he said.

Source: Report: Vision needed to target high-speed rail investments

California’s metro area knowledge organizations operate largely on an outdated Industrial Age, commuting-based model. That has concentrated demand for housing and residential development in metro areas. That demand in turn has boosted housing prices to unaffordable levels in the Golden State, sending workers to more distant locales where housing is cheaper like the state’s Central Valley region.

This report suggests the state’s high speed rail system could begin a redistribution of knowledge work outside of the high cost metros of Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco by shrinking the distance and time between them and Central Valley locations. However as noted above, “only” a one or two hour commute isn’t a trivial matter if done on a daily basis. It adds up to the equivalent of one or two additional workdays each week.

High speed rail should instead support a once — or at most twice — weekly trip to a metro center office or other meeting location. How? By complementing it with another and arguably more vital 21st century infrastructure: fiber optic to the premise telecommunications connections. High speed rail can move bodies faster than automobiles. But fiber can move knowledge work far faster in mere seconds, virtually eliminating the distance between a knowledge worker in the Central Valley and Los Angeles and the Bay Area.