Fantastic piece, Byrne!

Your mention of perks in the context of Darwin got me thinking of the free lunch offering as a Fisherian runaway of sorts. For now, companies offer perks because the returns on doing so are increasing. It might be that in the long run, though, that the returns begin decreasing, but upstart companies still believe (incorrectly) that they have to offer these perks in order to compete with those at the top of the sexual food chain — Google, Facebook, etc. — for talent.

I work for a corporate catering platform in Chicago and am witnessing this play out in real time. When I ask companies why they offer free lunch, the answer is often the same: “We’re trying to keep up with other companies in the competition over talent.” This response is something that I in turn incorporate into my sales pitch to companies that have expressed grand growth goals, but are doing little from the “perks” perspective to achieve them. How do you expect to attract the best people, after all, if your lunch program is monthly, and your competition’s is daily? (Could it be that — *gasp* — the job you’re offering them is more objectively fulfilling? Of course not…)

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. My guess is that the inter-company competition over talent will drive up spend on office culture initiatives in the short term. In the long term, I imagine it will remain normal for many companies to offer free lunch, etc. But I also envision many companies emerging that take advantage of remote work and the sort of “global office” that the internet/co-working spaces provide. In the long, long term, I wonder if those companies that can cut costs by offering remote work will be those that disrupt the seemingly in-disruptable — Google, Facebook, etc.

This, of course, is just conjecture. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts!