<i>If people manage to be productive on a noisy, busy train by not in a quite, nice office, it isn't the interruptions that are the problem.</i>
Trust me, interruption or even conversation from known people is much more disruptive than a noisy train station because in a noisy-train station, there is probably a more scientific explanation for this; probably the familiarity of the person who is talking is what is more disruptive, I do not know. Secondly, you are obligated to be nice to people at work, even if they disrupt you. You don't have to do that at a train station.
At my place of work, people sing, play youtube, talk loudly and are completely oblivious of how it affects those who are in the next cube and are trying to get work done.
It is kinda sad how fragmentation can reduce the quality of an idea. I am not sure why we need a Ted Midwest or Ted XYZ. It is a topic for another time.
Now in regards to the topic at hand, "work" - the presenter has a very simplistic view about work and most of what he suggests applies to knowledge work and not defined work. There are plenty of examples where his notion of work does not make sense. Try pulling a stunt like this in healthcare where every minute counts and can affect some patient at some level.
I think knowledge workers, especially in IT are a pampered lot in comparison to sectors such as healthcare where you are overworked and paid peanuts. I will not say that people need to be radical and suddenly change the office culture of the corporation overnight because it is not going to happen.
Managers and Meetings seem to be picked on because it makes for good video and sounds nice as M&Ms. It sounds lame to be honest.
What offices need to do is quite simply (1) reduce meeting times from one hour to 20 or 40 minutes and (2) create small rooms that are available on a first-come first-served basis where people can come to work and take these rooms for two to three hours of uninterrupted time. Most of us do this anyway; we steal a meeting team room and shut ourselves to get work done. it just needs to be formalized.
I think we ought to cut him some slack. A lot of folks responding don't seem to take too kindly to the way Europe was represented in the post. I guess the tone of the post is evident in the title itself, "please screw up." It is an exaggeration of sorts, hyperbole if you will. Lighten up, please.
There is something wrong about "buying" loyalty. Call me old-fashioned but the reason you want someone in the company is because they want to contribute. How can you "generate" contribution from someone who wants to "leave?" Fundamentally it is wrong, and values outlast everything.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/11/12/when-google...
Your experience isn't that far-fetched. While your observation about risk taking and entrepreneurial spirit may be true in the US, the culture of risk avoidance exists in the US too. Unlike what we see on TV, there is a whole other side to America that people outside America do not see. (I say this as an immigrant myself).
However, I do agree that having 16 managers preview a site pre-launch and having to resort to "getting-back" on the answer to yes/no question appears lethargic. It appears that the organization's legal folks had not been engaged at the right juncture to comment on the content.
Trust me, interruption or even conversation from known people is much more disruptive than a noisy train station because in a noisy-train station, there is probably a more scientific explanation for this; probably the familiarity of the person who is talking is what is more disruptive, I do not know. Secondly, you are obligated to be nice to people at work, even if they disrupt you. You don't have to do that at a train station.
At my place of work, people sing, play youtube, talk loudly and are completely oblivious of how it affects those who are in the next cube and are trying to get work done.