Every organisation has a structure on paper and a structure that actually holds the weight. The second is where the tools people genuinely depend on live, where the person everyone asks sits, and where the arrangements nobody wrote down quietly carry things.
This site examines that: technology, offices, teams and careers, looked at rather than promoted.
The name
Load-bearing is the engineering distinction between a wall that holds the building up and a wall that divides a room. Both are walls. Only one can be removed.
Organisations are full of both, and most of the expensive mistakes come from confusing them — removing something that was carrying weight, or reinforcing something decorative.
Who it is for
Mixed, and separated by section rather than by article.
Technology and teams are written mainly for people making decisions about tools and structure.
Careers is written for the person in the job, not for the employer.
The office is for both, since it is a subject where the two sides consistently talk past each other.
Editorial policy
We separate strong evidence from weak. A randomised controlled trial, a study using administrative records, and a survey commissioned by a company selling the thing being measured are three different kinds of claim. Where they disagree we say so, and where the research genuinely does not settle a question we say that rather than picking a side.
We do not repeat unsourced figures. This subject circulates a great many precise numbers — how many years until a skill expires, how long it takes to recover from an interruption, what share of jobs are at risk — that trace back to nothing. Where the underlying research supports a direction but not a number, we give the direction.
We check before writing, not from memory. Facts in this area move, and a large share of published guidance is out of date.
We do not present forecasts as findings. Claims about the future of work are either supported or not made.
We say when a claim is weaker than it sounds. Including when it is a claim we would like to be true.
What we will not do
No sponsored content, affiliate links or paid placement. The analysis of tools and vendors is a substantial part of what this site is for, and it only works if nothing here is bought.
No product reviews or rankings. We describe what to ask a vendor and what to check before signing. We do not rate them, for the reason above.
No monitoring or surveillance how-to. Where the subject arises, it is treated as a question of proportionality and cost.
No motivational content. Advice that treats structural problems as personal failings — telling people to focus better in an environment designed to prevent it — is worse than no advice.
Where the limits are
Not legal, financial or professional advice. Where a topic touches employment law or benefits, it is out of scope here.
Not comprehensive. Thirty-five articles on four large subjects is a starting point.
Not neutral about everything. Some of these articles take a position — that activity monitoring is a poor proxy for work, that reorganisations are used for problems they cannot solve, that consensus does not scale. Where we take a position, we say so and give the reasoning rather than presenting it as consensus.
Corrections
Factual errors are corrected on the relevant page, and material revisions are noted rather than made silently.
Authorship
About this domain
This domain previously belonged to a different organisation. Details here.
For broader public guidance and background, consult the National Academies.