Page 118 - WHERE WE WORK - Schlegelmilch

Reconfiguring workplaces
“The [CWT] contributes, so that you are more often in touch [...] But if it substitutes for the physical [interaction], I don’t know. It doesn’t feel that way.” (P16, employee, medium tenure)
“when we collaborate, it's always a... there's always a [virtual] meeting attached, but I'll always ask people if they're going to be in the office. Because if they are, I prefer to meet in person.” (P19, employee, low tenure)
While the technology was able to support working during the closure to some extent, it became clear that there was a fundamental difference between virtual and face-to-face interaction. One vlog echoed the general sentiment very well,
“At the office, you always meet someone who makes you think: I was looking for you. And then you talk, and you get new ideas you can develop. So, the creative part is missing. Now, you really have to think: Whom do I need? I need to call them or maybe send a message ... lots of ideas used to develop when you were networking at the office.” (D17)
This quote above and the quotes in Table 3.7 illustrate well that while the technology was able to facilitate interactions, the employees lacked creativity and intimacy.
3.6 Discussion
The article started with a discussion on how the extant literature’s focus - on individuals working in a single work location or on the distance between locations - is not always reflective of the contemporary worker. To provide insights into this issue, we studied workplace configurations and how they affect work relationships during a change. Our study contributes to our understanding of how workplaces influence work relationships by introducing the concept of workplace configurations and relationship layers. Furthermore, we identified three dimensions of workplace
116