Is there more to achieving collaborative open office spaces than just good design? The all-too-common dissatisfaction with the performance of open offices would suggest so. A note to myself and other architects involved in this pursuit; be humble, and look at the broader picture.
As evident from the situations described in the article creative employee responses to open office design, post-project performance evaluations can uncover a surprising degree of employee dissatisfaction in open office projects; projects that, on the surface, appeared to be very well designed. These evaluations can prove to be enlightening and useful in developing project solutions that are truly functional – not just cool in appearance.
But of equal importance, post-project evaluations have also taught me the value of looking at the broader picture that goes beyond the basic design principles that I learned in school and have practiced throughout my career.
The Broader Picture
In summary, the broader picture encompasses the characteristics of an organization, including those of its management and employees, that go beyond the actual work practices that most design professionals use as the basis for their design concepts. The broader picture includes such intangibles as leadership behavior, compensation, office culture, etc.
Let’s consider the following examples that may help an architect better understand the factors that affect the ultimate performance of a well-conceived open office design.
Collaborative Spaces Scenario
You have invested in designing an open office with the hope that the mix of conference rooms and informal spaces will spur collaboration throughout your office. Collaboration, in turn, will create synergy and innovation that will help your organization be more connected and more competitive with other organizations. After moving into your space, collaboration is not happening as you envisioned. What factors contribute to the lack of collaboration in an open office environment?
Leadership Behavior
One example of the effect of leadership behavior on the efficacy of open office design might be a situation where a company’s management team is a strong proponent of collaborative interaction among its employees. However, the managers do not use collaborative spaces.
This may send a message to the employees that the collaborative spaces are not where “serious” work is to be performed, and in using the spaces, the employees fear they are being viewed by management as wasting time. This situation may require the management team to abandon its private offices and conference rooms and actively use the collaborative spaces to confirm that they are useful and productive facilities.
This situation seemed likely to occur during one recent open office space transition project in Southern California. During the program-of-requirements phase, it became clear that the management team members were not on board with accepting shared spaces for themselves. They still wanted dedicated offices and private conference rooms. It took several sessions of change management coaching to establish management team participation in the use of shared spaces and avoid what would likely have resulted in a failed design effort.
Compensation
Compensation practices can also have an impact on design solutions. Most organizations, even proponents of collaborative work practices, compensate their employees with bonuses based on individual performance. This practice may not encourage employees to emphasize collaborative solutions and, as a result, could minimize the use of open office spaces designed to support teamwork.
Organizations that combine personal and team bonuses may be much more successful in promoting collaborative work practices.
A 2013 article published by the Society for Human Resource Management – Making Team Incentives Work – notes that incentive plans are an ideal way to encourage employee performance. But while individual incentives work well in organizations with little employee interaction or teamwork, many successful organizations rely on a team-based environment to be innovative and productive.
In these organizations, team-based incentives can effectively encourage collaboration because they focus on shared goals, group decision-making and problem-solving, and supportive behaviors that achieve results. The article cited a study that “incentivized teams increased their performance by 45%; incentivized individuals increased performance by an average of 27%.” The author described several factors to consider in a team-based incentive program, including:
They are avoiding competition between teams and focusing instead on having teams compete against themselves (perhaps by surpassing a previous goal) or against an external entity, such as a competitor.
Designing the incentives to reward the entire group so that collaboration and team successes are rewarded
Creating opportunities for personal growth for individuals that don’t necessarily focus solely on upward mobility (which can discourage collaboration), perhaps by increasing team members’ responsibilities
Obtaining input and feedback from team members to ensure the incentive program is effectively supporting the team
By creating an incentive program that emphasizes the value of teamwork over individual behavior, managers can often shape the company culture and promote collaborative work practices.
Territoriality
One of the goals of collaborative spaces is to promote interaction within and across offices or divisions within an organization. Instead of having people with similar skills together as a group, the hope is that different skill sets will blend in collaborative spaces to foster the cross-pollination of ideas and culture. This is a noble goal, but our nature to segment into groups can hinder progress.
It is human nature to want to be with people like us, including people with common backgrounds and interests. For this reason, an open office environment can form "regions” where an office or division chooses to work. The participants in such regions discourage others from working in the area. Through verbal and nonverbal behavior, an office or division may make others feel unwelcome and undermine collaboration goals.
Suppose management desires cross-collaboration and universal use of collaborative spaces. In that case, it must take a leadership role in ensuring its employees disperse and mingle in collaboration areas with other offices and divisions.
I recently observed management make practical improvements in encouraging cross-collaboration in a new central collaborative space for a large multi-divisional corporate office. I periodically meet with professionals from other firms engaged in open office planning. This improvement was accomplished by:
Emphasizing the importance of the individual divisions’ combined contribution to the success of the entire organization
Leading by example through active, public interaction between managers of different divisions
When necessary, encouraging employees that tended to isolate frequently in collaborative spaces to follow management’s lead.
Conclusion
On the one hand, non-design considerations affecting the outcome of open office projects may seemingly take some of the design professional's responsibility for producing perfect solutions. There may be many other considerations that affect success. But on the other hand, this concept places an even more significant burden on the design professional to be aware of and consider the non-design factors that can determine collaboration success in open offices.
