I once worked for a company that had nice office chairs.
It wasn’t a huge perk. They didn’t make a big deal of it. They didn’t even mention it.
But I liked it. There were days without much else to look forward to at work than that chair. So it helped.
When I was procrastinating on starting a project, the nice chair was there to sit in and get me started.
When a meeting didn’t quite go my way, I turned the corner and saw the chair and it brightened things a bit.
I worked for other companies, where chairs were good enough. Nothing wrong with them. They were comfortable. They did the job.
But, not once did I look forward to my chairs there. Just like the folks that bought them, I never gave them a second thought.
Does this mean managers should approve nice chairs for their staff to improve motivation and productivity? I doubt it. I’m sure that benefit would be hard to detect in a way managers desire: “Workers with the nice chair are 10% more productive!”
Part of it was the nice chair. Part of it was a little reminder that the owners thought enough about employees to even think about providing nice chairs without expecting anything in return. That last part doesn’t replicate in a ‘data-driven decision to drive results.’
After all, when employees catch wind that the managers made the decision to drive results, they realize there was no soul in the decision, the employee was an afterthought and, oh yeah, there’s the expectation of more productivity.
In that way, the chair might become more of a sore spot than a bright spot in a person’s day, because it becomes a reminder that there is an expectation to do more because of it, even though it’s not exactly clear what doing more is.
Maybe it does mean that managers who genuinely care about their workers in ways that show up like buying them nice chairs without any expectation on results might be more satisfying to work with than managers who ‘do what the data tell them.’