2022.07.06 混合工作注定要失败

shiyi18

Hybrid Work Is Doomed
Office workers work in offices, for better or for worse.

By Ian Bogost
An octopus arm grabbing an office chair
Adam Maida / The Atlantic; Getty
JULY 6, 2022, 12:08 PM ET
SHARE
I noticed the shoes first. That I was wearing them. Real shoes, the leather kind, with laces. After a year and a half, I was finally returning to the office, and that meant giving up the puffer slippers and slides that had sustained me for so long. Real shoes, I quickly remembered, are terrible. Likewise pants. Likewise getting to work, and being at work. Whew.

That was summer 2021. I’ve since acclimated to the office once again: I don the uniform; I make the commute; I pour the coffee; I do my job; and then I go back home. There are costs to this arrangement, clearly. I lose some time—time I could spend working!—transporting myself, in shoes and pants, from one building to another. I miss the chance to finish household tasks between my meetings, or fix myself a healthy and affordable lunch. As a university professor and administrator, I have more flexibility than most professionals, and I’m not required to go in each and every day. But even so, I have less control over each hour of my life than I used to—a fact that could very well be making me less productive overall. Indeed, it’s possible, or even likely, that my employer—and yours—could help their workers and the bottom line, simply by allowing us to work from home or come in on a hybrid plan. Remote, flexible employment might be a win for everyone.


But actually, it isn’t. A rational assessment of your time and productivity was never quite at issue, and I think it never will be. Companies have been pulling employees back to work in person irrespective of anyone’s well-being or efficiency. That’s because return-to-office plans are not concerned, in any fundamental way, with workers and their plight or preferences. Rather they serve as affirmations of a superseding value—one that spans every industry of knowledge work. If your boss is nudging you to come back to your cubicle, the policy has less to do with one specific firm than with the whole firmament of office life: the Office, as an institution. The Office must endure! To the office we must go.

This should be obvious, but somehow it is not: The existence of an office is the central premise of office work, and nothing—not even a pandemic—will make it go away.

What is an office, even? One answer: an institution that organizes labor, but does not carry it out. The office is the structure that makes work possible, a kind of mothership for productivity, centuries in the making; a place to construct and preserve a way of life.


The first offices were monasteries, Gideon Haigh argues in The Office: A Hardworking History, and the first office workers were monks. There, among the scrolls and codices they copied, religious professionals sat at desks and performed skilled labor that couldn’t be done elsewhere. The substance of their work—the duplication of religious texts—helped sustain the Church’s legacy. In another sense, their workplace did the same, by giving monks a way to demonstrate their lifelong dedication.

RECOMMENDED READING
A woman slips on a banana peel
Go Ahead and Fail
ARTHUR C. BROOKS
A medieval knight sleeping
Can Medieval Sleeping Habits Fix America’s Insomnia?
DEREK THOMPSON

SPONSOR CONTENT
Sales Is a Science Now
CLARI
During the Early Modern period, Haigh observes, office took on another meaning too: a position held by a bureaucrat such as a magistrate, whose work was carried out in an official building. The specific role of such an officeholder was less important than the fact that his office structured, preserved, and handed down authority. Around the same time, office came to refer also to a space for administrative effort, as in the back office of a retail shop. To keep a law firm or a tailor or a tavern running, clerical tasks such as bookkeeping had to get done. Later on, in the 19th century, a factory would include an office for the bourgeoisie to oversee the proletariat.

Read: Under the fluorescent lights

From there the office expanded into office buildings, and then office towers and office parks. Along the way, the office sorted labor into novel categories: pedantic clericalism, bureaucratic management, executive power. As a kind of factory for knowledge work, it standardized what work should get done, how, by whom, and under what conditions. A worker’s output (for instance, a balanced ledger) became their role (say, an accountant), which was, in turn, slotted into work divisions and careers, a logic of office life shared across organizations. Employees dressed in uniforms and arranged themselves in rows and floors that rose, literally and figuratively, above the cities and the landscapes that their companies controlled.


Offices began to define those cities, and modern life itself. Skyscrapers erected in the International Style—made of glass and steel, self-contained thanks to air-conditioning—could be built anywhere: New York, Frankfurt, Tokyo. In America, the suburbs proliferated, called “bedroom communities” because they housed office workers from 5 to 9. “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us,” Winston Churchill once said. The office has shaped knowledge workers, twice over. As a building, it defined where, when, and how their work should happen. As an institution, and as the culture that emerges from all those office buildings put together, it creates a superstructure for workers’ lives.

Back before telephones, and then computers and smartphones, allowed everyone to work (or “be at work”) from anywhere, the office kept its culture somewhat cordoned off. Yet even now, as office space expands like poison gas into our homes, we’re still drawn back to the mothership. We are called there, both by career ambition and by bosses’ demand, on account of what the office as a place represents in terms of the office as an institution: comfort, structure, reward, certainty, privilege, and prestige. The office imposed these values on its workers, and workers accepted them—whether willingly, under duress, or because no other option seemed possible.

The New York Times
Don't miss a single news story. Save now.
Enjoy complete news coverage on the subjects that interest you most. Save now.
SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
See More

The pandemic was supposed to change all that. When COVID-19 sent everyone home, the office, too, appeared to be at risk. Pandemic life was hardly easy, but at least you could do your work in slippers, or squeeze in a Peloton ride between Zoom meetings. Road traffic plummeted, and so did greenhouse-gas emissions. Headlines said there wasn’t any going back: Employees had tasted flexibility and freedom; employers saw a means of cutting costs. Gideon Haigh published a follow-up book, subtitled A Requiem for the Office, suggesting that his subject’s long, troubled history might end. With office towers and parks emptied, some speculated that the multitrillion-dollar commercial-real-estate market would collapse entirely. The pandemic, eventually, would pass. Office life might never be the same.

Disconfirming evidence soon arrived. With the rollout of vaccines came “return to work” or “back to office” updates pointing to the future. Though still aspirational and grounded in public-health considerations, that language should have been a red flag. “Return to work”? Employees had been working the whole time, and yet that work now seemed incomplete absent office life—and subject to review. Coronavirus variants delayed returns-to-work from one season to the next, and knowledge workers could have mistaken these delays for progress. It’s happening! Nobody wants to go back!

The New York Times
Don't miss a single news story. Save now.
Enjoy complete news coverage on the subjects that interest you most. Save now.
SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
See More

Then plans became reality. White-collar workers “returned to work,” and to the office, in large numbers last year, at least for meetings or retreats—sometimes outdoors, often masked. This year, when mask mandates ended and infection data languished, more and more offices reopened, perhaps one or two days a week at first. Though less occupied, the office hadn’t perished; its demands were resolute. Workers who refused to return were headed for a fight.

Read: How the rest of the world is doing RTO

Perhaps they failed to understand the stakes. The office gives identity to office workers and firms alike, by imposing its practices across the workforce. That makes calls for flexibility much harder for the Office to adopt than workers may have thought. Office workers are also, as Haigh writes, “massively diverse” in their activities. Coders or graphic designers or accountants who work independently most of the time might not want to return to work, while their bosses, who have to coordinate those activities, may find it much easier to do so in the office. And looking beyond individual roles to cultural ones, the habits and rituals of office life develop slowly, shaped by ideology. The weekend, for example, was invented about a hundred years ago, a compromise struck between religiosity and management culture, and facilitated by the specific economic and political conditions of late industrialism. Hybrid work schedules could become standardized in the same way. And yet, standardization is the opposite of flexibility.

The New York Times
Don't miss a single news story. Save now.
Enjoy complete news coverage on the subjects that interest you most. Save now.
SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
See More

In May, more than 1,000 current and former Apple employees signed an open letter to the company, arguing that “office-bound work is a technology from the last century.” The letter cites the value of flexibility, and the diversity it brings to the workforce. It also notes the waste of time—and work—brought on by commuting. “We estimate that the average time getting to work is about 20% of a work day,” the workers wrote. Those relatively well-off Apple workers aren’t alone. Post-pandemic workers tend to lean on productivity as a rationale to avoid returning to the office, saying they feel no less productive working from home. And isn’t productivity the point?

Not really. Offices have never been about increased efficiency. Instead, the office has acted as a brake, slowing down a company’s mission to sell products or services. Haigh reminds his reader that the French novelist Honoré de Balzac lamented, in the early 19th century, the pointless waste of time that consumed the administrative professions. Balzac called it “slow and insolent,” useful “only to maintain the paper and stamp industries.” Two centuries later, not much has changed. The TPS reports and Workday forms persist, serving someone’s interests, though maybe not the bottom line. Many tiresome distractions have been tolerated because the Office needs them. The intrigue and plotting of office politics, the sense of importance or position afforded by a corner room, the holding of court in a meeting—these inefficiencies are not opposed to office life but central to it.

Even in the technology sector, where the tools of remote work are manufactured, the Office reigns supreme. Before the pandemic, Big Tech companies doubled down on the sorts of work environments that had been common for almost a century: urban high-rises and suburban office parks. (Think of Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, Washington; Google’s and Facebook’s in Silicon Valley; Apple’s spaceship in Cupertino; and the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco.) Their deluxe office amenities—free food, gymnasiums, medical care, etc.—only underscore this point: The tech industry has a deep investment in the most conservative interpretation of office life.

If the companies that design and build the very foundations for remote work still adhere to the old-fashioned values of the Office, what should we expect from all the rest? It’s still possible that hybridized knowledge work will become the norm, with work-from-home days provided as a perk. But to get there, office workers must organize, and take the goals and power of the Office into account. It does not want to be flexible, and it cares little for efficiency. If the Office makes concessions, they will be minor, or they will take time; hybrid work is not a revolution.

If it once seemed otherwise, that was just a fantasy—one brought on by the psychedelic freedoms (and heavy burdens) of the pandemic. Given a taste of greater freedom, one might easily conclude that office work had changed, or that it was sure to do so. But if you’d been chained to the office before the pandemic, you’re no less captive to it now—even though, in certain comfy moments, you could let yourself forget it. You were at home, but still, you were in the office. For you are an office worker, and the office is your home.

Ian Bogost is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the Director of the Program in Film & Media Studies at Washington University in St. Louis. His latest book is Play Anything.



混合工作注定要失败
办公室工作人员在办公室工作，不管是好是坏。

作者：伊恩-博格斯特
抓住办公椅的章鱼臂
Adam Maida/The Atlantic; Getty
2022年7月6日，美国东部时间下午12:08
分享
我首先注意到这双鞋。我正穿着它们。真正的鞋子，皮革的那种，有鞋带。一年半之后，我终于要回到办公室了，这意味着我放弃了支撑我这么久的泡沫拖鞋和滑板。我很快记起，真正的鞋子是很糟糕的。同样，裤子也是如此。同样，去上班和工作也是如此。呜呼。

那是2021年夏天。此后，我再次适应了办公室的生活。我穿上制服；我上下班；我倒咖啡；我做我的工作；然后我回到家里。显然，这种安排是有代价的。我失去了一些我可以用来工作的时间！--穿着鞋子和裤子，把自己从一栋大楼运送到另一栋大楼。我错过了在会议间隙完成家务的机会，或者为自己准备一份健康而实惠的午餐。作为一名大学教授和行政人员，我比大多数专业人士有更多的灵活性，我不需要每天都去上班。但即便如此，我对自己生活中的每一个小时的控制力也不如以前--这一事实很可能使我的整体工作效率降低。事实上，我的雇主和你的雇主有可能，甚至有可能，仅仅通过允许我们在家工作或以混合计划来帮助他们的工人和底线。远程、灵活的就业可能对每个人都是一种胜利。


但实际上，它并不是。对你的时间和生产力的合理评估从来就不是问题，我认为它永远不会是问题。公司一直在把员工拉回来亲自工作，而不考虑任何人的福祉或效率。这是因为重返办公室计划在任何根本上都不关心工人和他们的困境或喜好。相反，它们是对一种超然价值的肯定--一种横跨知识工作的每个行业的价值。如果你的老板催促你回到你的隔间，那么这项政策与其说是与一家具体的公司有关，不如说是与办公室生活的整个苍穹有关：办公室，作为一个机构。办公室必须持续存在! 我们必须到办公室去。

这应该是显而易见的，但不知何故，它不是。办公室的存在是办公室工作的核心前提，没有什么--甚至是一场大流行--可以使它消失。

甚至什么是办公室？一个答案是：一个组织劳动的机构，但不执行劳动。办公室是使工作成为可能的结构，是一种生产力的母舰，经历了几个世纪的发展；是构建和维护一种生活方式的地方。


吉迪恩-海格（Gideon Haigh）在《办公室》一书中说，最早的办公室是修道院。勤奋的历史》一书中认为，最早的办公室是修道院，而最早的办公室工作人员是僧侣。在那里，在他们复制的卷轴和手抄本中，宗教专业人士坐在办公桌前，从事着其他地方无法完成的技术性工作。他们工作的实质--宗教文本的复制--有助于维持教会的遗产。在另一种意义上，他们的工作场所也起到了同样的作用，给僧侣们提供了一种展示他们终生奉献的方式。

推荐阅读
一个女人在香蕉皮上滑了一跤
前进与失败
亚瑟-C-布鲁克斯
一个中世纪的骑士在睡觉
中世纪的睡眠习惯能否解决美国的失眠问题？
德雷克-汤普森

赞助内容
销售现在是一门科学
CLARI
海格指出，在早期现代时期，办公室也有了另一种含义：由地方官等官僚担任的职位，其工作是在官方建筑中进行的。这样一个办公人员的具体角色并不重要，重要的是他的办公室结构化、保存和传承了权力。大约在同一时间，办公室也指行政工作的空间，如零售店的后台办公室。为了维持一家律师事务所、裁缝店或酒馆的运作，必须完成记账等文职工作。后来，在19世纪，一个工厂将包括一个资产阶级监督无产阶级的办公室。

阅读。荧光灯下

从那时起，办公室扩展到办公楼，然后是办公大楼和办公园区。在这一过程中，办公室将劳动力分为新的类别：迂腐的文员、官僚管理、行政权力。作为一种知识工作的工厂，它规范了什么工作应该被完成，如何完成，由谁完成，以及在什么条件下完成。一个工人的产出（例如，一个平衡的账本）成为他们的角色（例如，一个会计），这反过来又被划分到工作部门和职业中，这是整个组织共享的办公生活逻辑。员工们穿着制服，把自己安排在一排排的楼层里，无论从字面上还是从形象上看，都高于他们公司所控制的城市和景观。


办公室开始定义这些城市，以及现代生活本身。以国际风格建造的摩天大楼，由玻璃和钢铁组成，由于有空调而自成一体，可以建在任何地方。纽约、法兰克福、东京。在美国，郊区激增，被称为 "卧室社区"，因为它们容纳了从5点到9点的办公人员。"温斯顿-丘吉尔曾说："我们塑造了我们的建筑，然后它们又塑造了我们。办公室已经塑造了知识工作者，而且是两次。作为一个建筑，它定义了他们工作的地点、时间和方式。作为一个机构，以及作为从所有这些办公楼中产生的文化，它为工人的生活创造了一个上层建筑。

早在电话，然后是电脑和智能手机，允许每个人在任何地方工作（或 "在工作"）之前，办公室在某种程度上将其文化封锁起来。然而，即使是现在，当办公室空间像毒气一样扩展到我们的家中时，我们仍然被吸引回母船。我们被召唤到那里，既是出于职业野心，也是出于老板的要求，因为办公室作为一个地方代表了办公室的制度：舒适、结构、奖励、确定性、特权和声望。办公室将这些价值强加给工人，而工人也接受了这些价值--不管是自愿的、被迫的，还是因为似乎没有其他选择。

纽约时报
不要错过任何一个新闻故事。现在就保存。
享受关于您最感兴趣的主题的完整新闻报道。现在就保存。
由《纽约时报》赞助
查看更多

这场大流行本应改变这一切。当COVID-19将所有人送回家时，办公室也出现了风险。大流行病的生活并不轻松，但至少你可以穿着拖鞋工作，或在缩放会议之间挤时间骑自行车。道路交通急剧下降，温室气体排放也是如此。头条新闻说，已经没有回头路了。员工们尝到了灵活和自由的滋味；雇主们看到了削减成本的手段。Gideon Haigh出版了一本后续书，副标题是《办公室的安魂曲》，暗示他的主题的漫长而混乱的历史可能会结束。随着办公大楼和公园被清空，一些人猜测价值数十亿美元的商业房地产市场将完全崩溃。大流行病，最终会过去。办公室生活可能永远不会相同。

证实的证据很快就来了。随着疫苗的推出，"重返工作岗位 "或 "回到办公室 "的最新消息指向了未来。尽管这些语言仍然是以公共卫生考虑为基础的愿望，但它本应是一个红旗。"重返工作岗位"？员工们一直在工作，但现在工作似乎并不完整，没有办公室生活，而且要接受审查。冠状病毒变种在不同的季节都会推迟返回工作岗位，而知识工作者可能会将这些延迟误认为是进展。它正在发生! 没有人愿意回去!

纽约时报
不要错过任何一个新闻故事。现在就保存。
享受关于您最感兴趣的主题的完整新闻报道。现在就保存。
由《纽约时报》赞助
查看更多

然后，计划变成了现实。去年，大量白领工人 "重返工作岗位"，回到办公室，至少是为了开会或务虚--有时是在户外，经常戴着口罩。今年，当口罩任务结束和感染数据滞后时，越来越多的办公室重新开放，起初可能是每周一到两天。虽然占用的时间少了，但办公室并没有灭亡；它的要求是坚决的。拒绝返回的工人将面临一场战斗。

阅读：世界上其他国家是如何做RTO的

也许他们没有理解其中的利害关系。办公室通过将其做法强加给整个劳动力，给办公室工作人员和公司以身份。这使得办公室对灵活性的要求比工人想象的要难得多。正如Haigh所写的那样，办公室工作人员在他们的活动中也是 "巨大的多样化"。大部分时间独立工作的编码员、图形设计师或会计师可能不想回到工作岗位，而他们的老板必须协调这些活动，他们可能发现在办公室里这样做要容易得多。而把目光从个人角色转向文化角色，办公室生活的习惯和仪式在意识形态的塑造下缓慢发展。例如，周末是大约一百年前发明的，是宗教信仰和管理文化之间达成的妥协，并由工业化后期的特定经济和政治条件促成。混合工作时间表也可以用同样的方式变得标准化。然而，标准化是灵活性的反面。

纽约时报
不要错过任何一个新闻故事。现在就保存。
享受关于您最感兴趣的主题的完整新闻报道。现在就保存。
由《纽约时报》赞助
查看更多

5月，1000多名现任和前任苹果员工签署了一封致公司的公开信，认为 "办公室工作是上个世纪的技术"。信中提到了灵活性的价值，以及它给员工队伍带来的多样性。它还指出了通勤带来的时间和工作的浪费。"工人们写道："我们估计，上班的平均时间约占工作日的20%。那些相对富裕的苹果工人并不孤单。疫情过后，工人们倾向于把生产力作为避免返回办公室的理由，说他们觉得在家工作的生产力并不低。而生产力不就是重点吗？

并非如此。办公室从来就不是为了提高效率。相反，办公室起到了刹车的作用，减缓了公司销售产品或服务的任务。哈伊提醒他的读者，法国小说家奥诺雷-德-巴尔扎克在19世纪初曾哀叹行政职业所消耗的无意义的时间浪费。巴尔扎克称其为 "缓慢而无礼"，"只对维持造纸和邮票行业有用"。两个世纪后，没有什么变化。TPS报告和Workday表格仍然存在，为某人的利益服务，尽管可能不是底线。许多令人厌烦的分心事被容忍，因为办公室需要它们。办公室政治的阴谋和策划，角落里的房间带来的重要性或地位感，会议中的法庭--这些低效率并不反对办公室生活，而是它的核心。

即使在制造远程工作工具的技术部门，办公室也是至高无上的。在大流行之前，大的科技公司加倍使用近一个世纪以来普遍存在的工作环境：城市高楼和郊区的办公园区。(想想微软在华盛顿州雷德蒙的园区；谷歌和Facebook在硅谷的园区；苹果在库珀蒂诺的飞船；以及旧金山的Salesforce大厦）。他们的豪华办公设施--免费食品、健身房、医疗服务等--只是强调了这一点。科技行业对最保守的办公室生活的解释有很深的投资。

如果为远程工作设计和建立基础的公司仍然坚持办公室的老式价值观，那么我们应该对所有其他公司有什么期望呢？混合型知识工作仍有可能成为常态，而在家工作的日子则作为一种福利提供。但要达到这个目的，办公室工作人员必须组织起来，并考虑到办公室的目标和权力。它不希望有灵活性，也不关心效率问题。如果办公室做出让步，那也是小事，或者需要时间；混合工作不是一场革命。

如果它曾经看起来不是这样，那也只是一种幻想--由大流行病带来的迷幻的自由（和沉重的负担）。尝到了更大自由的滋味，人们可能很容易得出结论，办公室工作已经改变了，或者它肯定会改变。但是，如果你在大流行之前就被束缚在办公室里，那么你现在对它的束缚也不小--尽管在某些舒适的时刻，你可以让自己忘记它。你在家里，但你仍然在办公室里。因为你是一名办公室工作人员，而办公室就是你的家。

伊恩-博格斯特是《大西洋》杂志的特约作家，也是圣路易斯华盛顿大学电影和媒体研究项目的主任。他的最新著作是《Play Anything》。