?What's with the working environment?“ – Revisited

This is an updated version of an article I posted on Medium a few months ago.

When I watched one of Apple’s newest release video, I couldn’t help but notice the futuristic makeup of the background in the first moderated scene of the shoot.

Situated next to — presumingly apple — trees and a photoshopped-looking lawn, the shot gives a glimpse of the environment in which the building is situated. Yet, it only depicts a tiny part of what actually is an immense circular office complex within the so-called “Apple Park” in Cupertino, California.

Everyone who’s interested in an entire virtual tour of the thing, I refer to this video, but those who are more interested in the architectural side of it, look here. And anyone who is more keen on getting to know all about the health benefits of the Park, follow me.

I will start by listing some facts which make the headquarter of the tech-giant appear to be “healthy” for the people who work there:

• It has an at least 3.2 km long running track (Foster + Partners who designed the whole thing mention that it’s over 6 km long, but that might as well just count in the outer side of the building too, so let's leave that number in the unknown)
• There are an estimated number of 9000 trees in- and off-side the loopy office (https://twosidesna.org/US/apples-newest-campus-includes-9000-trees/). Therefore, there’s fresh air (and fruit) everywhere
• The glass facade of the office structure has been surrounded by oak trees to prevent workers from inquisitive glances from visitors and thus secure privacy (= mental health)
• Rumor has it, there’s 1000 bikes to “commute” and a 2-floor yoga studio. In any case, what can be said for sure is that there’s several courts for work-outs inside the structure and a gym close by where

?expansive glazing opens light-filled exercise and treatment rooms onto the parkland. Between its two volumes, a juice bar serves healthy drinks and snacks around a courtyard shaded by olive trees.“ (https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/apple-park)

• Speaking of food, apparently not even pizza becomes soggy at Apple Park (https://theoutline.com/post/1555/we-got-one-of-apple-s-patented-round-pizza-boxes)
• Plenty of terraces, meadows and a pond, as well as the “Steve Jobs Theater” and a restaurant with 15 m high walls provide space for cultural and social engagement (also = well-being (at least mentally))
• Plus, even the most environmentally friendly people at Apple can sleep well at night, since all the energy used within the Park is 100% renewable

If Dave Egger’s 2014 book “The Circle” was inspired by this utopian endeavor opened in 2017? It seems as if I am not the only one to wonder about this, as an article by Alissa Walker shows. Here, in question 1 of her comparative quiz between the corporate realm in Egger’s science-fiction-soon-became-reality novel and the real Apple headquarter, Alissa points out that those fortunate 12000 people who work in Apple Park even call the building “The Ring”.

Further I wonder; Do all these features really improve the well-being of people at their work place?

And, starting from the time you are willing to spend at an enclosed space with strangers peeking in from the outside (even if you potentially cannot see them), to the eagerness of enjoying a delicate pizza when the next Iphone release is just around the corner (which, is always the case as it seems) – How much do the 5.000.000.000 $ spent by Apple to build that working environment really pay off?1

To answer these questions, let us take a look at Steve Jobs vision of work-life-balance and the ways in which we (will) work now and in the future.

Starting with the latter, it appears to be clear that technology is disrupting the reality of work for all of us.

Whether it’s meetings conducted with VR-glasses, cutting hours to spend more time with our loved-ones or providing everyone with the least amount of money that is necessary to look out for ourselves and our kids – Not only do recent implementations and proposals for change show that work can be done differently; working environments also have to be conducted differently, if they want to remain appealing both to those who work there, and, consequently through this work, let customers benefit from this work. Furthermore, sticking to old ways of work place-design might in many cases simply not make sense anymore, if for example no one is coming to the office anyways, as seen recently in the case of Employee Ghosting, or, as an almost old-fashioned example, remote work.

So, while Steve Jobs has shown with the design of Apple Park, it might be possible to create a space which is technically “perfect” according to assumptions about human well-being, what still remains to be assured is that employees actually use such opportunities to fuel their minds and bodies.

In line with this claim, Enrique Dans shared that many Apple workers where protesting to return to their corporate desks after a phase of lock-down during the pandemic regardless. In his article published in Forbes Magazine Dans thus wonders:

“If this tug of war is taking place in a company like Apple, with a historic culture of face-to-face work, an expensive, symbolic and newly built headquarters, and a management determined to return to the old ways, what must be happening in other companies where the workforce wants to continue enjoying the benefits of distributed work?”

He ends his report with the notion “Let’s not return to the past” (ibid.), meaning that if people work better at home, they might just as well stay there.

Christoph Keese on the other hand once pointed out that all the companies located in Silicon Valley actually value real in-person interaction, because “physical distance hinders creativity” (cf. Christoph Keese, Silicon Valley, german edition published by Penguin in 2016, page 35). Now this was before Covid, but with stress levels rising and the security of work places decreasing one could also pose the question, if some of the employee's wishes to stay home these days actually stem from the fact that they are fearing their work places more than their work itself.

But even if this might be the case, if we follow what researchers show us2, people are generally healthier if they are not alone and work well with others (although being alone of course doesn't equal lonelines), so fearing the working environment would be a terribly sad reason to stay home alone, even if there are kids, dogs and cats around to make up for the lack of physically present colleagues.

I know there are cases where mobbing at work take place and colleagues do not benefit the health of employees at all, but finding a middle ground between the personal preference of workers and the basics that secure qualitative work & health in general can at least start with in-person interaction.

Whether this means that we conduct regular in-person talks to speak about – among other things – why it is that someone wants to stay away from the office, or have at least one regular meet-up a month in order to assure that colleagues remain known to each other (and since everybody is already there, maybe check in on the OKRs once in a while).

It could be a way to at least try to get to know the reasons why people want to stay at home and act accordingly, especially when it is about avoiding to spend millions of dollars on office environments or prevent employees from their peers.

Of course, there are activities which require a high level of concentration and/or solitude. But tasks within companies are not always a one-person matter, and so I propose to bring people together first, and then work from there onwards.

Ultimately I believe, we are better together.

1 I won't give you a number on this since, as a cultural studies major, I do not believe in numbers, but in results (this is a joke)

2 I'm cannot list all research done in this regard here, but see for example https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-04548-2; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324417024_Typologies_of_loneliness_living_alone_and_social_isolation_and_their_associations_with_physical_and_mental_health; https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12456; and the studies conducted by Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris, & Stephenson, 2015; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Haslam, Jetten, Cruwys, Dingle, & Haslam, 2018; Haslam, O’Brien, Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005; referenced in the last linked article