Why do we still have offices? Key questions for managers

My background is in chemical engineering, including time in the oil and chemical industries, where core assets were operated 24/7. It led me to wonder: why didn’t 24/7 operation happen for office assets? In many cases, an office building was only actually occupied for about 25–30% of the year. And if an estimate is made of the amount of real productive, added-value work taking place in offices, then a figure of around 10% is probably nearer the mark. 

No oil refinery or power station would be allowed to operate at those levels of utilisation. The whole sector, while providing vital basic functions, appeared grossly inefficient and wasteful. 

• Are you trapped in old ways of thinking?

My interest in this subject led me to write a series of articles, which I later expanded on with a PhD on ‘The Future of Offices and Office Work: Implications for Strategy’ in 1995/96. This explored fundamental questions, such as:

• What goes on in an office? Essentially it is a combination of social activities, office politics, running the building/organisation itself, as well as real added-value work.
• Why has the underutilisation of office buildings been allowed to happen? The answer is basically that management could afford to let it happen. 

Another conclusion was that corporate strategy needed to include all the assets of the organisation, and not just be preoccupied with products. Many organisations in the past (but perhaps not so many today) considered that their business was essentially driven by their products, which generated their income – when in fact they were often in the property business, when their physical assets were also considered.

Remote work is not a recent concept

It might surprise many that, over 30 years ago, there was much talk about ‘teleworking’ and ‘the future of offices and office work’.

• How older managers can stay relevant in a changed workplace

 It was argued at that time that change would take place largely because of the advent of new technology, such as computers, fax machines and cellular phones in cars. In retrospect, greater caution over the nature and reliability of the technology might have been appropriate, but the technology now available makes the arguments for change much more relevant. 

It might surprise many that, over 30 years ago, there was much talk about ‘teleworking’ and ‘the future of offices and office work’

 But why did it require Covid-19 to catalyse change? Essentially, the pandemic meant companies had little choice. The traditional approach had survived because of a combination of corporate inertia, bureaucracy (e.g., health and safety and security issues) and the continued ‘profitability’ of the office-dominated sectors, as well as the inflow of overseas demand and investment. 

For managers, the key questions – then and now – can be summarised as follows. Many of these questions are not new, but it is essential that they are asked, and answered, as well as researched. The future of many organisations, as well as the economy as a whole, is increasingly dependent on the answers