Where You Work Shapes How You Work
Matching work modes to work spaces
Work from home productivity levels tend to ebb and flow. Sometimes I'm locked in, cranking things out. Other times my mind is detached, like a ball bouncing from thing to thing, unable to really tune into anything. Everyone I know that works remotely reports a similar waxing and waning of energy, motivation, and creative energy.
What creates this effect? What's going on here?
My setup is just about ideal for remote work: dedicated office, quiet neighborhood. But when I fall into traps of slowness or feel stuck, I'll hit the coffee shop or sit outside or go for a walk and dictate some ideas. The shift of environment is often what I need to shake my mind loose. I’m still not sure why this is effective, but it works almost every time I switch things up.
But I think I figured it out.
Spaces of isolation, like my desk at home, are great for execution — when I already know what needs doing, and I need to plug in and get it done.
Spaces of connectedness, activity, and motion, like the bustling coffee shop, help unlock creativity. It's like the energy of the space physically dislodges something in my head.
So, restated:
When thinking about what to do: motion, energy, a new environment.
When doing: quiet, stillness, focus.
It might be just me, or there may be something universal about this relationship between modes of work and our physical space.
Our environments shape us as much as we shape them. Our workspaces create a context that we get used to over time. We associate certain activities with each space, creating a bias toward a mindset. At the little league field I feel active; I want to get out there and throw with the kids. In the garage shop I feel like making something.
There's a connection to how not just the space, but the energy of the space influences behavior.
It reminds me of the debate about the relative merits of remote vs. in-office teams, which companies and employees are still in hot contention about. Trying to determine which one is better approaches the question in too totalizing a way. It's a false dichotomy.
One is not universally better than the other. If your organization has no choice but to go all-or-nothing on one mode, sure, perhaps there's a net positive choice on one side of the other. But when you look under the hood of the actual work getting done in its discrete parts, certain work benefits from solitude, other types from connectedness and kinetic energy.
The work we do in organizations hinges on collaboration. When human interaction and high-signal back and forth conversation is required (often on the creative end vs. the execution end), it's hard to beat being in a room together. When the time comes to buckle down, going off the grid might be the best bet.
Fully remote teams don’t have the benefit of togetherness energy we get from the collaborative office. Each of us individually has to make these distinctions and fit the necessary mode to its complementary environment.