A smart Twitter comment on yesterday’s Substack made a really good point about everything I’ve been writing about: While I don’t think Kyle was being literal, there is absolutely a point here about how much of the workforce - in particular with knowledge workers - is predicated on the subjugation of a younger generation that simply “must tolerate” what is happening because the older people say it. I also think that the entire remote work debate - and the negativity toward it from management - is the beginnings of a massive generational war. While there’s a multi-generational hunger by sickos to micro-manage and control people, those making the big statements about remote work are absolutely older. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan (65-years-old) said that remote work “
I am 54. I entered the workforce in 1988. One of the really fascinating and horrifying aspects of what I've been reading recently is this: I never heard the rhetoric we hear today about "culture" until *after* it became possible for most people to work from home.
That's why I believe it's just code for control and what you called the "religion" of work.
The reason I had to be in the office in 1988 was clear. I answered physical phones, filed physical papers, and sent and received snail mail. I typed on an electric typewriter more expensive than a cheap Windows laptop is today. When I worked on a computer, the terminal was connected to a server on a local area network.
The culture of managerial control was baked into the structure, but the structure itself was actually needed.
"Collaboration" and "innovation" as they're used to today are tech lingo. You just never heard from a bank in 1988 that its newsletter editor needed to be in the office to "collaborate" or that the HR benefits coordinator was expected to "innovate."
Those words are the equivalent of, "They must be born again."
The opposition to remote work reminds me of the opposition to loosening dress codes. When I got my first job out of college the company was ran by an older owner who still required suits and ties for every employee in 2010. The arguments we heard against loosening it were abstract (people might think were unprofessional) and were based on the personal preferences of management (this is how it’s always been. Why should we change?).
I think two points are missing, if you are opening the generational debate:
- Young people are also often times bringing a lot of life to the office environment. They care for going out to eat instead of always relying on the cantine, they complain when stuff in the office is dated and fight for improvements. Old people like it, even though they also like to complain about it.
- People in the cities are more and more lonely. This is very true for retired people as well as very young people. For retired people it's that their kids move away and that they stopped working, there is no more office to go to. Also their friends start dying. For young people it's the need to move to other cities for jobs. They break away from friends and family and have to start from scratch. In this environment, of course an office is nice to start building up relationships again, but on the other hand, if they weren't even forced to move that far away (due to home office), the whole issue would be resolved in itself.
I love this, Ed. It's a great point.
I am 54. I entered the workforce in 1988. One of the really fascinating and horrifying aspects of what I've been reading recently is this: I never heard the rhetoric we hear today about "culture" until *after* it became possible for most people to work from home.
That's why I believe it's just code for control and what you called the "religion" of work.
The reason I had to be in the office in 1988 was clear. I answered physical phones, filed physical papers, and sent and received snail mail. I typed on an electric typewriter more expensive than a cheap Windows laptop is today. When I worked on a computer, the terminal was connected to a server on a local area network.
The culture of managerial control was baked into the structure, but the structure itself was actually needed.
"Collaboration" and "innovation" as they're used to today are tech lingo. You just never heard from a bank in 1988 that its newsletter editor needed to be in the office to "collaborate" or that the HR benefits coordinator was expected to "innovate."
Those words are the equivalent of, "They must be born again."
The opposition to remote work reminds me of the opposition to loosening dress codes. When I got my first job out of college the company was ran by an older owner who still required suits and ties for every employee in 2010. The arguments we heard against loosening it were abstract (people might think were unprofessional) and were based on the personal preferences of management (this is how it’s always been. Why should we change?).
Thanks for the post.
I think two points are missing, if you are opening the generational debate:
- Young people are also often times bringing a lot of life to the office environment. They care for going out to eat instead of always relying on the cantine, they complain when stuff in the office is dated and fight for improvements. Old people like it, even though they also like to complain about it.
- People in the cities are more and more lonely. This is very true for retired people as well as very young people. For retired people it's that their kids move away and that they stopped working, there is no more office to go to. Also their friends start dying. For young people it's the need to move to other cities for jobs. They break away from friends and family and have to start from scratch. In this environment, of course an office is nice to start building up relationships again, but on the other hand, if they weren't even forced to move that far away (due to home office), the whole issue would be resolved in itself.
You're batting 1.000, Ed. Keep 'em coming.