wll.news editorial office “An office should provide optimal support for work activities,” says Bernd Fels, co-founder of “if5 anders arbeiten”. For many years, he has been supporting well-known companies and corporations in the planning, construction and successful implementation of physical and virtual working and office environments. For Fels, the office environment must fulfil four core needs: concentration, communication, collaboration and recharging – in other words, taking a break. This forward-thinker on the subject of new working environments spoke to us about the topic ‘Putting people at the heart of the office’.
Bernd Fels, why should offices be redesigned and the focus placed on the people who work there?
A new world of work should empower people – not weaken them. However, that does not mean it has to please everyone 100 per cent. Different generations, stages of life and roles make it impossible to cater equally to everyone’s needs. The aim is an environment that, on balance, has a positive impact: on people, but also on the organisation and, increasingly, on society. Work remains work – not a haven of well-being, but nor a place that drains energy. Hopefully, despite AI, people will remain the central element for a long time to come – it is only through the interplay of human and artificial intelligence that true quality emerges. And that is precisely why it is worth taking employees and their needs seriously and creating spaces for them that empower rather than weaken them..
What should an office look like if it is to put the needs of the workers at the centre?
An office should provide optimal support for work activities. That is why we distinguish between four core needs: concentration, communication, collaboration and recharging – in other words, taking a break. Getting the ‘right mix’ of these zones, tailored to the individual and the task at hand, is crucial. This is how creativity, cooperation and effective coordination can flourish. As well as the type of work – whether process-based, project-based or pioneering – the individual also plays a role. Diversity in the options available is therefore key: the more choices the office offers, the easier it is to find the right place for both the task at hand and one’s well-being. One person might prefer the open co-working area, whilst another might prefer a quiet retreat. Activity-based working environments offer the best solutions here, as they combine both individual needs and organisational requirements. A fundamental prerequisite for this is that we share our space rather than adopting an ‘first come, first served’ approach.
What is realistic, what is a must-have, and what is at the bottom of the wish list?
What is realistic is what suits the organisation – culturally, financially and in terms of sustainability. ‘Star Trek’ designs or luxury concepts run counter to the idea of environmental, economic and social sustainability. At the same time, flexibility in terms of time and location, as well as a variety of workspaces, offer the opportunity to use space more efficiently and enhance the quality of those spaces. Sharing models and flexible usage concepts enable greater quality in a smaller space. The ‘must-have’ is therefore an office that creates opportunities rather than simply providing workspaces – quiet corners, communication zones, and meeting areas. At the bottom of the wish list is an office that isn’t defined by square metres, but one that motivates and empowers people. Then it becomes not only economically viable, but also a place where work can be a joy.
Isn’t the office simply where people work? After all, there are so many places to work.
Yes and no. The traditional office has long since lost its monopoly. These days, work takes place in many different places: at home, in a co-working space, whilst travelling, at a client’s premises or virtually. At if5, we distinguish between six different work locations – inspired by Ray Oldenburg’s ‘third place’ theory. The key point is this: every person and every task requires different environments. For some tasks, working from home is perfectly adequate – for example, when carrying out defined process-based work. Project work or pioneering work, on the other hand, benefits from interaction and proximity to colleagues – for this, the physical office is needed as a meeting place. And here, it’s actually appropriate for the boss to summon staff to the office – not for monkey business, but for genuine collaboration, for example. However, this does not apply to those carrying out process-based work, but rather to those engaged in project and pioneering work. Companies should therefore not impose blanket ‘return-to-office’ requirements, but rather differentiate: which type of work and which activity requires which location? The future lies in finding the right balance – one that makes sense both individually and organisationally.
The Aftermath of Working from Home: Does working from home really make employees lazy and lethargic?
No, working from home does not automatically make people lethargic. I believe in the intrinsic motivation of every individual. Good employees are characterised by self-organisation and personal responsibility – these are fundamental prerequisites (inner qualities) for flexible working. This is where leadership comes into play: it is the manager’s job to recognise who needs support – and who might be taking advantage of working from home. Ideal leadership is based on four elements: setting an exemplary standard, providing intellectual stimulation, taking individual needs into account, and inspiring communication. Leading in this way empowers people and enables them to perform at their best – regardless of where they are. Of course, in many cases, collaboration works better in the office. But ‘office compulsion’ does not solve motivation problems. Those who can lead do not need to control.
