September 26, 2015
Visions of the future of work + Gen Y hype + flexible firms 0
In this week’s issue; legend of the UK office furniture sector, John Fogarty reflects on his five decades of experience; Mark Eltringham argues the TMT sector no more fell from the heavens than Gen Y, and Charles Marks weighs up the pros and cons of the BREEAM environmental standard. The financial sector dominates the annual list of Top Employers for Working Families and we reveal there’s a tendency to drift into caricature when describing multigenerational working. Activity in Europe’s commercial property markets is at its highest level since 2007 and colleagues, not bosses can make people feel more engaged at work. Check out our video evidence which shows how some visions of the future of work can be remarkably prescient while others get it completely wrong. Visit our new events page, subscribe for free quarterly issues of Work&Place and weekly news here. And follow us on Twitter and join our LinkedIn Group to discuss these and other stories.




















One of the most typical claims that suppliers in this sector make about their products is that they will make people more productive at work. Many go so far as to put numbers on what this means, and usually not just 0.4 percent or whatever but something far more. We can understand why they do this because they are seeking to link workplace productivity to whatever it is they have to sell. This is often tenuous for at least two reasons. The first is that even when such a causal link is demonstrably true, it still assumes that all other things at work are equal, whereas they never are because there are so many factors involved. That is why you will find some people cheerfully working in shabby, cluttered, underlit offices while others mope around unhappily in gilded cages with expensive chairs, soaring daylit atria and olive groves. The second is that such claims simply ignore what makes people tick.
A new meta analysis compiled by researchers from Harvard Business School and Stanford University raises questions about the way Government and organisational policies designed to tackle the problems of work related health costs in the United States have largely ignored the health effects of ‘psychosocial workplace stressors’ such as high job demands, economic insecurity, and long work hours. The analysis of 228 existing studies assessed the effects of ten workplace stressors on four specific health outcomes. The researchers claims that job insecurity increases the odds of reporting poor health by about 50 percent, high job demands raise the odds of having a diagnosed illness by 35 percent, and long work hours increase mortality by almost 20 percent. They argue that any policies designed to address these issues should account for the health effects of the workplace environment.




September 24, 2015
Weighing up the pros and cons of the BREEAM environmental standard 0
by Charles Marks • Comment, Environment, Facilities management, Workplace design
(more…)