How will a lack of defined physical space impact our ability to socially network at work?
Will Gen Z show us the way? Or not?
It has been a few years now since my colleagues and I have been all in the same workspace at the same time. Different job roles have meant different rules on being in the workspace, even now. One thing we have all noticed is the exponential decrease of relationship capital in the last six months. We had previously relied on many years of close physical proximity in order to collaborate and cooperate, knowing the working style and level of trust in the others.
One weird thing we notice now is the general lack of movement of people away from their desks. Some folks sit on the same floor of the office but on the opposite side of the building — and never see each other. Swinging by someone’s office to see if they want to have lunch no longer occurs as people do not walk into other areas anymore, likely because they will frequently find no one there and that is depressing.
But we have seen the residual impact of this in burnout and shifting work loads. As we come back together, we are trying to regenerate these links with our sporadic meetings and accidental encounters back in the office.
My Gen Z niece, who started a data science job during the pandemic with one of the major consultancies, had only met her compatriots via concalls and collaboration tools. One ‘assignment’ from her new employer put her in a group of employees who did not know each other and gave them two hours to complete a project. “Hi, I’m Fred. Hi, I’m Sally.” And they are off….
What role does spatial belonging play in how we build social capital? Do we need a physical frame for cooperation? Or do virtual barriers (in / out, belong / external) create the landscape for us to engage? Is it enough to have software tools for belonging or does place set the state of engagement? Even with collaboration tools, there is still a core group and an set of outliers that form the tribe and its drumbeats.
Employment structure still plays a role in why we engage. I joined a community driven by AI matching that we can find people that we would like to engage in discussion with. You give a bio, your reasons for wanting to connect with others and the system (with some help from web-based information on yourself) suggests possible matches. But framing those people is their “badges” of employment (she worked for Google and GE, for example). We still those badges of belonging as context for engagement.
So many of us are used to physical places of employment for relationships and context, whether it be departments, regional offices or centers of excellence. But I am finding the Gen Z crew are less inclined to want to be in a specific location given their digital native / digital nomad status. The technology is more important than the location. But the other interesting thing about the Gen Z is the technology is ultra important, specifically BYOD. They want their own devices, not the tools of the organization. Obviously there are cybersecurity issues here. But would a ban on personal mobile device usage in the workplace lower employee engagement in Gen Z? Is a familiar interface as important to them as a familiar face is to us?
I am asking my undergrads to do a research project on how they curate apps for information flow. And wow, what they find important for relationship building and communication is generationally quite different. Watch this space, presentations should be very interesting.