Steve Jobs was renowned for advocating several firmly held but not always widely accepted points of view on a variety of business issues. One of these was his general disdain and distrust for market research, especially surveys that solicited customer opinion. He believed that market surveys would only yield product parity, as each company doing the surveying would receive similar, if not identical, input from the marketplace and that the result would have no chance of creating any breakthrough innovation from anyone, just responses to what customers said they needed.
If youâre of a certain vintage (read older industry veteran) or if you have an unusually strong interest in the history of laptop computer design, you might recall that some of the early product designs looked a lot like the image shown here (image #1). The keyboard was at the nearest edge to the user of the computer. The Apple model shown here (image #2) was dubbed by some a âluggable computerâ, not exactly portable at nearly 16 pounds, and it sported the same design flaw as the other computers. Jobsâ preferred method of research, contrasted to customer surveys, supported calling it a flaw, because he eventually sought marketplace input from a different market research method… observation-plus-imagination. He purportedly sent some of his product development staff to an array of airports to watch business travelers using those early laptop computers, and those staff observed that the users had no place to put their wrists while they were typing. That insight, generated from real-world observations, then combined with imaginative design, shaped the creation of the first truly user-friendly mobile laptop computer, this one even integrating a track ball (image #3).  For over thirty years this Apple design insight has served as largely the industry norm, an impressive run and a design created from research observation not market surveys.
Another drawback of market research using customer opinion surveys is exposed by an unlikely source, criminal trial attorneys, though they are not the only profession that understands this weakness. Trial attorneys will testify (pun intended) that the most unreliable tactic in their arsenal comes from eye-witness testimony, the first=-person accounts of what happened. Eye-witness testimony is far and away the most unreliable form of evidence. And if you are not fond of believing lawyers (perhaps quick to invoke Shakespeare), the American Psychological Association cites an array of studies that substantiate this reality. The human perception of lived reality most often does not align accurately with objective captures of the same reality. The human cognition and perception process brings along too much baggage that distorts reality, plain and simple.
A final dig at any reliance on surveys of customer perception and preference comes from a long-standing colleague and friend who approaches the issue from a decidedly religious, albeit Old Testament Christian perspective. Heâs fond of saying, âIf our mission is to give people what they ask for, weâd all be worshipping a golden calf.â
There is, trust me, a connection between all this blather and the world of the workplace, the reason you subscribe and read this publication. In the ensuing years since the upheaval caused by the global pandemic, and likely often even before that disruption, there seems to have been a preponderance of surveying of worker opinions, and of late about the âwhereâ for work. The ask of workers has been, âDo you want to return to the office? Would you prefer to work at home? Where do you do your best work? Why donât you want to work in offices?â And the responses to these queries haven been parsed by generational categories (suspect in themselves) geographic regions, industry sectors, etc. I suggest we stop asking, at least for a bit.
This is not an argument for a sort of corporate authoritarianism that ignores the perspectives and preferences of the worker, the customer, and the marketplace. It is, however, a plea to stop using mere opinion surveys as a de facto insight into and determination of true need. The self-reporting is far too unreliable, and the reliance on user perspectives is not enough by itself to feed product development processes and workplace design models that will truly help create the sorts of workplaces where we could all thrive.
So, assuming a moratorium on market research surveys, whatâs a possible substitute? Perhaps the robust combination advocated by Steve Jobs, the implementation of critical observation processes and seriously imaginative thinking. Perhaps itâs time for all the workplace strategists, duly qualified or simply self-appointed, to engage in some serious observational studies of how knowledge workers are really working, the tasks in which they are engaged, the processes and interactions that determine their productivity and performance. With those observation-based data points in hand, the challenge emerges of applying some robust and refined creative analytics and imaginative solution development. This would seem to be our best hope that we might create workplaces that are magnetic, versatile, effective, and ultimately serve corporate performance objectives. Would it be as easy or as inexpensive as a survey? Nope. Can we afford to continue using a seriously flawed method? Again, nope.
The next time you bump against a published report/article/study on the preferences of todayâs office work force that is used to substantiate a point-of-view on the way a workplace really needs to be designed, keep in mind Steve Jobs, a fierce trial attorney, and a frustrated Moses.