In April of 2010, “The Virtual Company” appeared in Inc. Magazine. The article by Max Chafkin documents an internal Inc. experiment to “ditch the office.” Inc. temporarily moved its writers out of their New York high-rise office to see if they could work from home, to increase productivity, save money, save energy, drink better coffee, etc.
Not caring to reveal specific numbers, only a few round estimates, the article drifts away from serious consideration of cost savings and productivity. The savings are simply “enormous” but that’s not a good enough reason to leave the office and go virtual, according to the article.
The article suggests serendipitous water-cooler conversations are irreplaceable and priceless, whereas family interruptions are not. A “2-and-a-half-year-old son” mentioned is a constant interruption. One employee says he misses his friends at work, which is the “most powerful argument” according to the article.
Working at home causes psychological and physical problems, according to Inc. But no solutions are offered.
“Our backs ached.” Employees miss their ergonomic chairs at the office, but not enough to buy their own. (For a month-long experiment, why bother investing in a new chair?) With their newfound freedom comes forgetfulness of how and when to eat and exercise. (It seems to me they could have found a routine with more practice.) There is no mention of the benefits of fresher food or home-cooked meals.
Psychologically, many Inc. writers lost their minds. Inc. suggests “work-life” at the office is better, where your “friends” are, but work-life at home “sucks.” Family and relationship problems are referenced, but again no solutions. (I suspect the out-of-sight, out-of-mind relationship problems were waiting at home all along.)
I question Inc.’s openness here. Would Inc. criticize its own culture and workplace problems? Who would want to apply to work with miserable, dysfunctional people with workplace complaints? Better yet: Who would ever hire Max Chafkin after admitting an anti-office, anti-social, work-at-home preference? Better to criticize your own family at home, probably they won’t fire you for writing a destructive, scathing article. But does that make it right? Did Inc. sell out to sell a few “must-have” gadgets?
Inc. decided to keep the office, or at least stay until the lease is up. So why bother criticizing it?
I’m guessing Inc. originally wanted to write something fashionable. Virtual office celebrities like Matt Mullenweg (page 69) should help sell the magazine. At the same time, the article tries to soothe existing office dwellers: offices offer focus, collaboration and command respect. Then Inc. could declare victory (after a month) over its “officeless” competition: the Internet.
At least Inc. tried? “The Virtual Company” should give Inc. at least some street credit in an increasingly electronic world. Inc.’s virtual readiness test lifts its writers ostensibly closer in coolness to the virtual companies it now regularly praises.
–PJ