There’s only a day left to the end of Singapore’s circuit
breaker and like much of the nation, I’m about to head back to the “normal”
life of being in an office. The prospect of going back to an office like existence
brings me back to a letter I submitted to the Today Newspaper, which they
subsequently rejected.
The letter in question was a response to a commentary by the
FT correspondent Lucy Kellaway, who had praised the concept of office and said
that we would miss the office when it died. Ms. Kellaway’s commentary can be
found at:
I think Ms. Kellaway has hit the nail on the head in her
description of offices as social places. Think about it, we spend at least a
third of the day in an office and most of the people we probably spend more
time with people in the office than we do with our families. Offices are great
melting pots and I’m surprised that our social planners seem focused on creating
the imaginary “kampong” (Malay for village) experience in housing estates when
they should be focusing their efforts on offices. Offices are effectively
social places masquerading as work places. My only joy at returning to the
office is that I’ll have a reason to leave the house for a few hours each week.
However, with the exception of its social value, I don’t
miss the office and I believe that far more can be achieved outside the office.
Offices are generally bad for productivity both for the business and the
individual.
I have had two stints working in an office and I’ve found
that my happiest moments in both stints came from doing task that required me
to be outside of an office, even if it was just for 15-minutes. Leaving the
office was when I actually did productive and meaningful things. If one looks
at the eight hours a day that one is obliged to spend in an office, one has to
question how many of those hours are actually spent on doing productive things.
Contrary to what you may be told about an office being a place to do work, the
truth is that an office is often a place where people indulge in petty power
plays and ego building.
The main case against offices is that they are often vanity
projects and focus a corporation on paying for the vanity rather than actual
work. I think of the common complaint that clients had against advertising
agencies, which was they expected 50 cents on the dollar of advertising spend
was wasted, they were just not sure which 50-cents was wasted. Big agencies are
known for having big offices in the swanky parts of town. Advertising isn’t the
only industry where the big players need big offices.
The need for offices, particularly the big ones has made
landlords very rich. This is especially true in places like Hong Kong and
Singapore, where land is scarce and the service economy is larger than in other
parts of Asia. With the exception of Li-Ka-Shing who ventured into ports,
telecoms, retail and technology, the great fortunes of Hong Kong and Singapore have
predominantly been made from owning office space. Think of Lee Shau Kee of
Hendersen Land in Hong Kong and the Ng and Kwek Families on Singapore.
Having worked in liquidations in Singapore in the last
five-years, I did notice that the landlord was inevitably one of the largest creditors
in most cases and the business that went down was inevitably paying rents that
were forming a high percentage of the actual revenue.
Hopefully, the “home-based” work that was forced on us by
Covid-19 will get businesses to question the high rents. Why do you need to pay
millions a month for office space when the revenue is generated by people working
from home? Hopefully land used for office space will be used for more productive
things like residential property, hospitals and schools. One should also hope
that the tycoons like Lee Shau Kee and the Ng’s of Far East would then focus their
money in more productive technology industries.
The other issue that I have with offices is that they
encourage tribalism. As was often discussed in anthropology, humans have a tendency
to define their identity by finding opposites. In the old days, race and
religion were the usual tools of forming identity. These days, its increasingly
about profession and being in the right office.
While there is nothing wrong with being a working
professional in itself, the problem with offices is that they give you a false
sense of the wider world. They encourage you to sort yourself out according to profession
(accountants, lawyers, architect, PR professional etc) or by department (finance,
marketing, HR etc). You are obliged to spend the day with “your people,” which
gives you a sense that your people are the only people around and that only
function in a business is yours.
Lucy Kellaway talked of the great office romance, where
people fell in love with the people they met at the office. I guess this is to
be expected, that one meets a future mate from one’s immediate social circle. However,
isn’t that the crux of the problem, that we only meet and mingle with the
people from our industry and organization. This is a form of intellectual inbreeding,
which like other forms of inbreeding is distinctly unhealthy.
Let’s not mourn the office and celebrate freedom from the
right to inbreed with our own kind.