Scott Keir makes a number of interesting observations after attending a meeting on the attempts of publishers to be ‘green’. One especially intriguing comment was the following: that
- the single biggest carbon contributor in the lifecycle of the journal is not the paper they used, or the energy efficiency of the printers, or the method of posting… but the commuting habits of the staff that put it together.
In my view, the time has come for journal publishers, and employers in general whose employees’ expertise resides in their heads rather than in physical plant, to consider, seriously, whether commuting is even necessary.
Commenting on the above post, our esteemed NN editor Matt Brown writes that he walks to work each morning, thus ensuring that NN is a fairly green publication. Well, good for Matt. I live in Cromer, on the North Norfolk coast, which is a long way from London, but when I work at home I don’t even have to walk to work. I walk my kids to school (which I would not otherwise be able to do) and then I walk the dog (ditto) and then, refreshed (rather than knackered) I start work, and find that I am more productive when working from home than in the office.
Again, in my opinion, the entire notion of commuting, on foot or otherwise, seems so insufferably archaic – as archaic as snailmail, fax machines, wearing suits and ties, and the rule that Cambridge students have to live within a certain distance of Great St Mary’s Church (or they did, in my day) to be eligible to study.
In this day and age, with the technology now available, why can’t I live where I like?
In this day and age, why do I have to endure immense cost and time spent getting from a place called home to another place called work, when my activities in either place are substantially the same, and just because employers seem wedded to such quaintly outmoded oncepts as offices and (especially) meetings, and do not seem able to view their employees as adults who can work without physical supervision, and haven’t sat down and subjected the working lives of their staff to some serious thought — in all its aspects, from the impact of technology to the happiness and productivity of workers who can achieve a more humane balance between life and work?
Er … discuss.
I agree that much of the physical work that gets done these days could certainly be done anywhere on the planet given a good internet connection, but I also think there’s a lot more to a good workplace than the walled-off cubicle drones (a class of which I am often a member…).
As an example, would you also advocate that children stop commuting to school and learn from online lectures? Surely not: these kids would be missing out on arguably the most important part of an education – the development of social skills that allow us to work with each other and contribute meaningful opinions. Granted, not a perfect analogy, but I think the social interaction at a workplace is crucial to the intellectual output, not to mention morale and social health. A good work environment is greater than sum of its parts.
I agree, Jeff, but there is such a thing as going from one extreme to the other.
Don’t get me wrong – I like going to the office and interacting with my colleagues. I even quite enjoy my very long commute as it gives me time to myself for writing books.
I just don’t need to be at the office all the time. Not because I don’t love my colleagues all dearly, but because it isn’t necessary for me to do my job effectively.
Of course children benefit from the social interactions of school. But they are children, and should be expected to be treated as such. But we are adults, and our schooldays are over, and we should, I’d have thought, be trusted to do our jobs without supervision.
Have you tried working with a large, hairy beast sat on your lap? It certainly decreases my productivity.
Mind you, this morning I walked to the local café and worked there all morning. I can’t get a web connection there, so I’m not distracted by the blogosphere.
Henry – But we are adults, and our schooldays are over, and we should, I’d have thought, be trusted to do our jobs without supervision.
I agree absolutely and have always argued strongly for flexible/home working where it fits the job. When I was at BA many years ago I had long arguments with the IT department’s operation manager. She was convinced that if her workers were out of sight, they’d spend all their time watching TV and not working. In principle the answer is simple – we should reward people on the quality & quantity of their output (subject to deadlines) rather than how long they’re sat at a desk.
But many managers can’t cope with this concept (and admittedly in some jobs it’s difficult to measure output – but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try).
Bob – Have you tried working with a large, hairy beast sat on your lap?
What you do in your private life is your own affair. I certainly couldn’t manage with a full sized golden retriever in my lap, but luckily a) she doesn’t try to do this (just sticks her nose into my side) and b) I have a thing called a door I can shut and keep her out of the office if she’s being a pain.
@Bob: Have you tried working with a large, hairy beast sat on your lap?
No, but I’ve often had to type one-handed as my other hand is being chewed by Heidi the golden retriever pup. Brian’s dog has grown out of such puppyish playfulness, which must be a great relief to Brian.
@Brian: I’m in complete agreement with you, squire.
In principle the answer is simple – we should reward people on the quality & quantity of their output (subject to deadlines) rather than how long they’re sat at a desk.
At Nature, as at many other journals these days, the manuscript handling system is entirely web-based, which means that editors can and do handle mss business anywhere, and editorial productivity is assessed on that non-local basis. This makes going to the office even less necessary in my view, but, hey, that’s just my personal opinion.
Have you seen the NN group, getting science to go green?
I just posted a forum entry about commute and other travel, linking to your post, Henry.
Thanks for that Maxine – I shall take a look.
My ideal week would contain 2 office days (for the social interaction and meetings), 2 work from home days (for doing the actual work), and 3 weekend days (for kayaking).
Go to work? Why? My cat loves my lap when I am in my pyjamas….and she is also a great spellcheckeras cats usually are.
In politically charged places such as publishing houses, anyone who works from home could be at a disadvantage. Out of sight, out of mind; one of my ex-colleagues working from home complains now that her schemes no longer get chosen at the (physical) brainstorming sessions without her there to champion them in person, and she is distinctly out of step with the upper management. A lot can happen at those pub lunches besides gout acceleration, after all.
Jenny – you are quite right of course. The problem of OOSOOM (Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind) feeds into the problems of sexism discussed in your own elegant salon, and variously in Richard’s more ruggedly masculine den. If people aren’t around the water-cooler or in the bar, they might miss out of gossip that would be profitable (literally) for them to learn.
It really comes down to what you want in life. I do not really believe that it’s possible for people to have it all, at least not in the current regime in which there is a clear division that seems to fall, pretty much, between Work and Life – in which Work and Life happen in different places, especially if you have a busy family life outside office hours.
What I’d like to do is nothing less than to change that view, to promote a hange such that people who have hitherto not questioned this paradigm, taking it for granted, wake up and realize that there are other, better ways of achieving the same goals.
I heard a story (which might be apocryphal) about an ambitious, successful female executive who was confronted by one of her small children, who disarmed her completely with one question: “Mummy, do you love your job more than me?”