The average home supports the average employee better than the average new office. It is a body blow, an own goal, a damning indictment of the quality of the offices millions of employees have endured.
Why? Perhaps because design has been allowed to veer from a “form follows function” imperative as much as the fact our homes and our access to technology has been revolutionised in the last 10 years. Maybe those buying these designs feel they need to get 10-year’s use unchanged, despite how the business changes. Whatever the reason, the pandemic has offered an opportunity to wholly reappraise our people / place preconceptions…
I used that “average home, average employee, average office” line recently in response to a social media post that filled me with frustration and dread. It suggested that the knight in shining armour for the future success of the office and hybrid working was ‘marketing’. It conjured images of marketing teams being deployed to market and sell offices to employees, to have them flocking to return rather than told to return, despite the quality and effectiveness of the environment being marketed.
The data Leesman has captured shows exactly where offices have failed and where homes are winning. And we’ve made that information as widely available as possible. Yet most design teams choose to conveniently ignore those insights, in favour of a path well-trodden. One that focuses on the aesthetic outcome over the business outcome.
This will further amplify the battle raging both in corporate boardrooms and in domestic sitting rooms around the world, that has home vs office pitted in a bitter confrontation.
These debates are like a custody battle over employees caught between the comfort and effectiveness of their own homes and the social camaraderie of the corporate office. Neither individual option offers all the benefits of both together, so asking them to choose is simply wrong.