tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/office-environment-35782/articlesOffice environment – The Conversation2018-09-06T21:04:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1014252018-09-06T21:04:11Z2018-09-06T21:04:11ZThe science of multitasking, and why you should doodle in class<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233330/original/file-20180823-149493-1adqbk3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Distractions at work can take up more time than you think, but doodling may just help you get through that lecture or meeting.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When somebody can juggle lots of things at the same time, we often say that they are good “multitaskers.” All of us multitask once in a while. </p>
<p>But psychologists have been warning us about it for decades. <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/multitasking-2795003">Some say it’s harmful to productivity</a> and others say <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/creativity-without-borders/201405/the-myth-multitasking">you can’t do it at all</a>. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006776412135">talking on the phone while driving makes your driving worse</a>, because you’re distracted. (Laws allowing hands-free cellphone use are misguided; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006776412135">distracted driving has nothing to do with whether you’re using your hands or not.</a>)</p>
<p>But there are other studies that suggest multitasking may have benefits. One study showed that talking on the phone during long, monotonous drives <a href="http://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/izvw/texte/2011_Jellentrup_etal_DDI2011.pdf">might help keep drivers alert</a> and awake. And other studies show that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1561">students sitting in a “boring” lecture may be better off doodling</a>, because the combination of activities keeps their minds occupied. </p>
<p>As someone who works on broad models of how the mind works, these seemingly contradictory findings are intriguing. Is multitasking good, bad or impossible? </p>
<h2>Switching tasks</h2>
<p>What many people might call “multitasking” may actually be something psychologists call “rapid task-switching.” </p>
<p>For example, when you answer texts while watching a movie, your attention flips from the movie to the text. You aren’t really paying any attention both at the same time. When you read a text, you miss part of the movie. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233333/original/file-20180823-149484-1pgcuuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Face it: you can’t watch a movie and text at the same time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is what psychologists mean when they say multitasking is impossible. Your attention and consciousness only can focus on a little bit at a time, so it’s one task or the other. </p>
<p>And then there’s the cost that comes with task-switching. There’s a delay when you switch from one thing to another, and sometimes a temporary drop in performance.</p>
<p>An hour spent on one thing followed by an hour on another is fine. The task-switching cost is much less than the time you’re spending on each task. But if you’re switching tasks every few minutes, or every few seconds, the cognitive cost of switching from one task to the other interferes with performance. </p>
<p>You can think of it like losing money. If it costs you a quarter to switch from texting to paying attention to class, doing it once or twice is no big deal, but if you do it all day, you’ll have to adjust your budget. </p>
<h2>Calculating the cost</h2>
<p>For <a href="http://www.apa.org/research/action/multitask.aspx">some tasks</a>, such as identifying the gender of a face, and then switching to identifying the facial expression, the switch only takes only about <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08221-007">200 milliseconds</a>. But even this small cost can reduce productivity by 40 per cent if you try to study while watching a movie.</p>
<p>These results, and others like it, come from the field of cognitive psychology, where researchers study volunteers in a controlled laboratory setting, usually doing rapid-response tasks on a computer. </p>
<p>But how well do these findings translate to the real world?</p>
<p>In offices, people get interrupted repeatedly throughout the day. Your work on a budget might be disrupted by a coworker who wants to tell you about their kids. </p>
<p>The cost of this kind of multitasking adds up. Interruptions cost the United States an estimated <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/technology/14email.html">US$650 billion a year</a>. University of California, Irvine computer scientist <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/944128/worker-interrupted-cost-task-switching">Gloria Mark estimates</a> that it takes <a href="https://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Egmark/CHI2005.pdf">25 minutes, on average, to get back to task!</a> Some people in the study never did.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/235285/original/file-20180906-190642-100l3nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It takes an average of 25 minutes to return to a task after you’ve been interrupted.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Measurement is never perfectly accurate, but when science has a range of a <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08221-007">200 milliseconds</a> to <a href="https://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Egmark/CHI2005.pdf">25 minutes</a>, that’s a good sign we need to dig a little deeper.</p>
<p>The cognitive psychologists are doing very controlled laboratory studies, where you’re doing fairly simple tasks with simple stimuli. The task in those experiments often involves simply attending to another aspect of what you’re looking at (such as gender vs. facial expression of faces). But you can see how this is very different situation from getting a phone call in the middle of writing a report. </p>
<p>In the real world, when you get a phone call, you have to take the call and you might get distracted by other things. It might even take you <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/are-you-a-self_interrupter">68 seconds to remember what you were doing</a>.</p>
<h2>Practical advice</h2>
<p>The negative effect of multitasking is real, but it’s particularly problematic because people don’t realize these negative effects are happening. Interruptions and doing many things at once generally make us less productive. </p>
<p>The advice is simple: when doing something that requires thinking, don’t do anything else.</p>
<p>To remain focused but at the same time cover a lot of ground, try structuring your day into half-hour chunks. Work on something different just about every half hour. </p>
<p>I do this and to some people this sounds like multitasking. But it’s actually focused work, because I do <em>nothing else</em> during each half hour. <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/are-you-a-self_interrupter">I don’t check my phone</a>, email or switch tasks at all during the half hour. Even though I do many different things in a day, each one stays fresh in my mind for when I get to it the next day. </p>
<p>Multitasking isn’t all bad. If one of the tasks is really easy, or something you can do unconsciously, there is little downside. Listening to music while you exercise <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9ad/50173051ad84ec9f9865e039092dea47f6cd.pdf">makes you exercise more.</a>Doodling during a boring lecture, or <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86.1131&rep=rep1&type=pdf">listening to instrumental music while you program computers</a> or <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1989.69.2.531">study</a> helps you focus.</p>
<p>Even task switching isn’t all bad. It refreshes your mind. <a href="http://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Egmark/CHI2005.pdf">Many people deliberately switch tasks to “incubate”</a> a problem they are stuck on. </p>
<p>Knowing that you only have half an hour to work on something can help with motivation, too. No matter how much you dread working on something, it is, after all, only 30 minutes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Multitasking may not be what you think it is and it might not even help you be more productive if you choose to do the wrong things at the same time.Jim Davies, Professor, Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/836132017-09-13T23:05:11Z2017-09-13T23:05:11ZIs Canada’s skills shortage real, or are businesses to blame?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185872/original/file-20170913-20306-xvr5hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=607%2C5%2C2494%2C2158&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Canadian companies say there's a shortage of skilled workers, but are they investing in training?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Apparently Canada’s labour market has a problem.</p>
<p>Plebians, pundits and politicians alike say Canadian employers <a href="http://www.timescolonist.com/cibc-report-warns-of-education-skills-gap-unless-post-secondary-system-changes-1.22255506?utm_source=Academica+Top+Ten&utm_campaign=e197fc2577-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4928536cf-e197fc2577-47734789_%20which%20in%20turn%20references%20this%202017%20CIBC%20report%20https://economics.cibccm.com/economicsweb/cds?ID=3640&TYPE=EC_PDF">face a serious skills mismatch</a>, or even a full-throttle skills gap. Job applicants are variously described as over-educated, under-adapted or over-credentialed.</p>
<p>Positions are reputedly going unfilled because employers have trouble finding workers with the right skills — hard skills, soft skills, IT skills, STEM skills, writing skills or presentation skills — not to mention those who possess traits like punctuality, discipline or a can-do attitude. </p>
<p>We know these problems exist because studies say so. Mind you, these reports are often written by consultants (e.g. <a href="https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/canadas-skills-gap-widening-survey-shows/article14911139/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&">McKinsey</a>) hired by large employers, industry associations or chambers of commerce. </p>
<p>Even when these studies make nuanced claims, the headlines shout that universities are to blame. And this position is <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/08/universities-cant-solve-our-skills-gap-problem-because-they-caused-it/">parroted widely</a>. </p>
<p>The common prescription for this purported ailment is to compel universities to produce workers who are better suited to today’s (and tomorrow’s) workforce. In Ontario, we even have a non-profit that adopts this position, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (<a href="http://www.heqco.ca">HEQCO</a>).</p>
<p>But before we start implementing solutions to an allegedly serious problem, let’s take a breath and review some facts. </p>
<h2>Where are the high wages?</h2>
<p>Proponents of a skills-mismatch crisis generally point the finger at universities for not doing enough to turn students into “workforce-ready” workers. An alleged glut of under-employed or unemployed graduates is provided as evidence of a skills mismatch. </p>
<p>However, as the <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/unemployment-and-the-skills-mismatch-story-overblown-and-unpersuasive">Brookings Institute</a> notes (and this is consistent with mainstream economic theory), if there is in fact a skills mismatch, it would be reflected in disequilibrium between the supply and demand of workers. How would we know such a disequilibrium exists?</p>
<p>In fields without enough qualified workers, you’d expect wages to rise as companies compete for a limited pool of candidates over the short term. </p>
<p>Managers might grumble about high wages, especially if the work is labour-intensive, but what a lovely time those workers would have, picking and choosing among employers. </p>
<p>In fact, consistent with economic theory, we did see this in Alberta’s oilpatch earlier this decade. But that was a regional event, common to boom-and-bust resource extraction industries, and not reflective of the national economy as a whole. </p>
<h2>Standard schooling provides basic training</h2>
<p>In the longer term, companies with labour-intensive work might substitute machines for human beings, even as ambitious people strive to acquire those in-demand skills associated with higher pay.</p>
<p>One way these people could get those skills is to be hired into an entry-level position, then be trained in-house with the necessary company-specific skills. In other words, the employer makes an investment in its workforce. </p>
<p>Another way applicants could get those industry- or occupation-specific skills is to pay for the training themselves. </p>
<p>Frankly, for general industry-specific and occupation-specific skills, workers usually already do this, in part by going to school. General skills such as literacy and numeracy are acquired through kindergarten to Grade 12. Industry- or occupation-specific skills are gained through a mix of apprenticeships, volunteering, internships and colleges. </p>
<p>And let’s not forget universities. They provide students with the opportunity to develop not just industry- or occupation-specific skills, but (even in the much-maligned humanities or social sciences) the critical thinking skills needed to become a lifelong learner. </p>
<h2>Asinine to blame universities</h2>
<p>For practical reasons, formal schooling cannot provide training in company-specific skills, or in skills that relate to the unique functioning of one company. Company-specific skills need to be acquired in the context in which they will be used — at the company in question.</p>
<p>Even if we ignore the cost of higher education providing up-to-date firm- or site-specific training, curriculum developers have no crystal ball. They cannot foresee all the changes that will shape market conditions and identify skills that will and won’t be needed in 10 years. If industries can’t reliably predict the future, it is asinine to expect higher education to do so. </p>
<p>Even Ontario’s Higher Education Quality Council <a href="http://blog-en.heqco.ca/2014/03/martin-hicks-the-alchemists-dream/">agrees</a>. And to be fair to HEQCO, they have published <a href="http://www.heqco.ca/en-ca/Research/ResPub/Pages/The-Great-Skills-Divide-Bridging-the-Divide.aspx">reports that should caution us to be more careful about alleging skills-mismatches</a>, suggesting they indeed are interested in evidence-based research.</p>
<p>What evidence do we see for this alleged skills mismatch? Certainly, Canada’s labour market data doesn’t support such a claim. There is no over-heated national labour market caused by an under-supply of qualified workers. <a href="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69a-eng.htm">Pay rates aren’t skyrocketing as they would if employers were caught in a spiral of upward wages</a>.</p>
<h2>Bankruptcies aren’t up</h2>
<p>Given the lack of headlines, presumably myriad companies aren’t going out of business because they cannot find enough skilled workers. Certainly Canada’s business bankruptcy statistics <a href="https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/eng/br02234.html">don’t show a trend of steadily mounting bankruptcies</a> but instead appear to reflect more general business cycle conditions.</p>
<p>And those consultants’ reports asserting a skills mismatch? </p>
<p>Scrutinize them beyond the executive summary, and the data often don’t substantiate the claims. In cases where they do provide information about employers’ training practices (e.g. <a href="http://www.chamber.ca/media/blog/131009_Upskilling-the-Workforce/">The Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s 2013 Upskilling the Workforce report</a>), they reveal that employers are actually spending less and less on employee training. </p>
<p>Another <a href="http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/JobsInCanada_exec_summary.pdf">2013 Special Report</a> by TD Bank Economics corroborates this claim, and more generally questions the evidence of a skills mismatch. (That claims about skills mismatch continue to be made even after these kinds of reports have been around for most of this decade suggest that evidence-based research is being ignored. That, however, is not my current point.)</p>
<p>If employers care enough about their own operations, they should invest in training their workforce in company-specific skills.</p>
<p>Maybe we don’t have a skills mismatch. Maybe we have a wage mismatch. Or a disconnect between employers’ sense of entitlement and their responsibility to their own operations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Boggs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Canadian firms say there’s a dire shortage of skilled workers. But recent studies suggest they’re not investing in training, apparently expecting universities to train their employees for them.Jeff Boggs, Associate Professor of Geography and Tourism Studies, specializing in economic geography, regional development and cultural industries, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/808812017-07-13T20:16:20Z2017-07-13T20:16:20ZBusiness Briefing: are our standards dropping in the workplace?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178031/original/file-20170713-11517-1mnqoqt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How should you signal that you don't want to be disturbed?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Our workplaces are becoming less formal as the decor resembles what we have at home, companies relax dress codes, and technology makes it possible to work from anywhere. </p>
<p>But the old formality had some advantages, says Libby Sander from Bond University. For example, closed doors used to signal that you didn’t want to be disturbed, and suits are an easy way to look professional. </p>
<p>As Sander points out, new forms of office etiquette, such as not disturbing someone wearing headphones, are filling this void. </p>
<p>To know how to behave in this new relaxed environment, context matters, says Nicole Gillespie, an associate professor of management at the University of Queensland. This means reading the relationships you have with your co-workers and the wider culture in the office, and being aware of the effect you own actions are having.</p>
<p>Never is this more important than in cases of office profanity. It’s not uncommon to hear a bit of swearing in some workplaces, but it could get you fired in certain circumstances. As part of <a href="https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwc145.htm">one Fair Work Commission ruling</a>, the difference comes down to swearing in conversation, versus directly at someone.</p>
<p>“There’s a big difference between that coarse kind of conversation and aggression in someone’s tone of voice, so you’ve got to ask what the intention is,” says Simon Burgess, from the University of New England.</p>
<p>Burgess says it’s up to each of us to hone our communication skills and perhaps improve our office etiquette a bit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Our workplaces are becoming less formal. But there were some advantages to the old formality.Jenni Henderson, Section Editor: Business + EconomyJosh Nicholas, Deputy Editor: Business + Economy, The ConversationNadia Isa, Editor, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773612017-05-09T16:18:09Z2017-05-09T16:18:09ZHere’s why ‘cool’ offices don’t always make for a happier workforce<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168602/original/file-20170509-11023-1pa0xsj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Expedia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who are Britain’s happiest workers? The people who staff the London office of US travel tech firm Expedia, according to <a href="https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Award/Best-Places-to-Work-UK-LST_KQ0,22.htm">Glassdoor’s annual workplace satisfaction survey</a>. In both 2016 and 2017, Expedia rated highest for employee satisfaction, according to anonymous reviews from current and past workers.</p>
<p>Reading this <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/inside-the-happiest-workplace-in-the-uk-where-staff-can-get-a-14000-travel-allowance-2016-3/#from-the-outside-expedias-office-building-looks-a-little-dreary-like-many-others-in-london-1">Business Insider</a> profile of the “happiest office in London” might make you believe that Expedia’s high level of employee satisfaction is down almost entirely to the office itself and the various on-site perks – which includes table tennis, football, gaming consoles and a cocktail bar. There’s no doubt that this is a very attractive office.</p>
<p>But the survey of the employees shows that Expedia’s people like working there because of the business, not the fancy office. The most positive ratings cite “culture” and “career opportunities”. The physical surroundings barely merit a mention.</p>
<p>This is a trend. Workplace contentment is too often incorrectly attributed to the aesthetics of the office, disregarding more influential factors such as job security or work satisfaction. But since we can’t Instagram job security, it’s the offices that get the credit.</p>
<p>It’s very easy, when profiling a company as Business Insider did, to use their expensively designed office as a metaphor for happy employees. It’s a false narrative. Happy workplaces don’t need beanbags, barbecue stations and <a href="http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/coolest-office-ever-10348172">ball pits</a>.</p>
<p>Those are (arguably) nice to have, but they’re not culture. In their attempts to be seen as fun, happy places to work, modern businesses are venturing very close to turning their offices into circuses (or literally in the case of Liverpool, England’s “<a href="http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/coolest-office-ever-10348172">coolest office</a>”) in order to improve perceptions to potential hires and journalists.</p>
<p>Yes, Expedia is a happy workplace and yes, it has a very nice office. But that’s more likely because companies that invest in creating a nice physical environment are also likely to invest in more meaningful areas of employee contentment too. Expedia offers its people up to US$14,000 (£10,800) a year in travel perks, for example.</p>
<h2>Happiness is not a hammock</h2>
<p>Businesses spend <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-shouldnt-be-trying-to-make-people-happy-at-work-all-of-the-time-44768">billions of dollars every year</a> trying to make their people happy. But it’s not working. In America, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/183041/employee-engagement-holds-steady.aspx?utm_source=EMPLOYEE_ENGAGEMENT&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles">70% of the workforce are disengaged</a>. Office workers want more than toys and breakout spaces.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168603/original/file-20170509-10997-191jnxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Driving workplace performance?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Expedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.kiwimovers.co.uk/news/hammocks-and-ping-pong-tables-going-into-storage-is-this-end-of-the-fun-startup-office/">a study</a> I was recently involved with revealed that approval-seeking quirky perks can actually annoy office workers. People rarely want to work in a hammock or <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/absurd-decor-modern-tech-startup-offices-chappell-ellison-2016-3?r=US&IR=T">take a crisis meeting in a ballpit</a>.</p>
<p>If only employers would listen more they’d realise their people aren’t asking for much. Screen privacy is a big thing for many – 74% of the 1,000 office workers surveyed by <a href="https://www.kiwimovers.co.uk/storage/psychology-of-office-layout/">in a related study</a> said the feeling that others can see what they’re working on causes them some degree of anxiety. This is an issue that is cheap to fix and which would improve workplace contentment for many. But it’s hardly Instagrammable.</p>
<p>Employee satisfaction is more often derived from simple measures such as investing in high-quality, comfortable furniture and providing refreshments, not the hay bales and hammocks cited by study recipients as being among the most pointless attempts at creating an Instagrammable office.</p>
<p>A 2016 <a href="https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/2016-Employee-Job-Satisfaction-and-Engagement-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf">Society for Human Resource Management study</a> said it’s pay, prospects, feeling respected and trust that gives the most happiness to employees. Hardly groundbreaking news. Money aside, it’s more about relationships than values, CSR or aesthetics that gets people out of bed on Mondays.</p>
<p>It stands to reason. One of the biggest sources of happiness – in life, not just at work – comes from forging strong and close relationships, according to a study of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2015/05/27/the-secret-of-happiness-revealed-by-harvard-study/#5ce2e8386786">Harvard’s class of 1980</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"857888703116607488"}"></div></p>
<p>So how do companies foster good relations among their people? The obvious answer would be office socials, an open-plan workspace and regular activities, something most modern offices are already investing in. Companies such as Expedia also invest in events which combine training with networking opportunities.</p>
<h2>Deep and meaningful</h2>
<p>But it might not be that simple. If we’re talking about genuinely strong, meaningful relationships, these are rarely forged in comfortable offices. If you want stable, long-lasting friendships from work, you need to get out of the office altogether.</p>
<p>A survey of <a href="https://www.stormlinegear.com/news/fair-weather-friends-fishermen-lumberjacks-farmers-make-longer-lasting-workplace-friendships/">1,000 UK adults</a> conducted in February 2017 found that people who work in highly social environments such as city centre offices with easy access to pubs and bars, or “campus-style” complexes fared worse when it came to relationship building with colleagues than farmers, oil riggers and and night shift workers. In fact, the more antisocial your work environment, the more likely you are to make stronger friendships.</p>
<p>Workplaces that make it easy for their people to socialise effectively foster a casual attitude to relationship building. Harsher work environments, like those based outdoors, drive people to build stronger relationships.</p>
<p>It may seem counter-intuitive, but digging a little deeper reveals that ease of socialising makes for more surface-level relationships. If every night of the week is an opportunity to hang out after work, relationships tend to be based on opportunity and convenience. People with fewer socialising opportunities tend to be more selective about the people they hang out with.</p>
<p>It’s not necessarily the act of being outdoors that contributes to stronger workplace friendships, but more likely the nature of the work itself. Jobs such as sea fishing, construction and defence require physical teamwork and have an element of danger, which can promote relationship building that transcends the job role in a way that office jobs don’t quite do.</p>
<p>In outdoor roles, there’s stricter selection criteria for socialising when the office drinks option doesn’t exist. People who work on boats, building sites or on night shifts have to make more of an effort to socialise with colleagues, so it’s more likely that when they do socialise, it’s with people they’d choose to socialise with regardless of work relationships.</p>
<p>This stricter social selection criteria likely increases the chances of those relationships lasting longer and becoming more meaningful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77361/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cary Cooper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It takes more than cocktails and table football to make a happy workforce. Respect and job security are vital.Cary Cooper, Distinguished Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726282017-02-13T12:05:38Z2017-02-13T12:05:38ZHow hot-deskers are made to feel like the homeless people of the office world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156381/original/image-20170210-23350-2ofdbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you work in an open-plan, hot-desking environment, you have probably at some point found yourself trudging through the office, clutching your belongings, in search of a free desk. This feeling of homelessness is an increasing issue in society more broadly – and in the workplace, employees’ well-being is traded in for the company’s bottom line.</p>
<p>These were <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09534811111175742">some of my conclusions</a> after spending three years studying an organisation that moved to a hot-desk environment. Like many companies, it had switched to hot-desking to reduce property costs and enable precious office space to be used flexibly. In the language of facilities management, an office building can be “crunched” by increasing the staff to desks ratio, and it can be “restacked” as teams and departments are moved around like boxes. But in this bid for cost-cutting, a number of employees are made to feel under-appreciated at best and unwanted at worst. </p>
<p>As an ethnographer, I experienced this first hand by embedding myself within the company. It was when I was traipsing around, carrying my work bag, handbag, umbrella, coat and lunch one day that I suddenly realised: I must look like a bag lady; this is not how high status people have to act.</p>
<p>Proponents of hot-desking say it creates a more dynamic working environment. They espouse that it enhances networking within an organisation, due to all the people you unexpectedly encounter as you move around. Yet the reality seems to be quite different.</p>
<h2>Settlers and strangers</h2>
<p>Hot-desking tends to affect different employees in different ways. There is often a subtle division between those who can “settle” and reliably occupy the same desk every day, and those who cannot. </p>
<p>Settlers arrive first, choose their preferred desk, and by repeating their choice over time, establish this desk as “their” space. Settlers can secure the best desk space (often near the windows), can furnish their desks with all the materials and equipment needed for work, and can sit near their closest colleagues. These routines are advantageous. Contrary to popular belief, these kinds of habits enable creativity because they enable us to put mundane matters (like finding a seat near to people we know) into the background and direct our attention onto problem-solving and innovation.</p>
<p>Employees who for various reasons (such as childcare responsibilities or part-time status) arrive later in the day don’t have a similar choice of desk space. Because some desks have already been taken, the staff to desks ratio is effectively increased. If you find yourself in this situation, your search for a space, encumbered by your possessions, proclaims your uncertain status. Then, once you have found a free desk, you have to unpack all your work things and set yourself up before you can begin productive work (and then repack it all when you leave) – spending more time every day on low-level subsistence activity. </p>
<p>You will also be sitting regularly alongside relative strangers. It’s not acceptable to introduce yourself, because that would interrupt them. Instead, the normal manner is what sociologist Erving Goffman calls <a href="http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/12/encountering-strangers-in-public-places-goffman-and-civil-inattention.html">“civil inattention”</a>. This is the practice of signalling to others nearby that you are not available for communication with them, despite your close proximity – it’s the kind of manner most people adopt on a crowded commuter train. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156382/original/image-20170210-23358-209ag8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Civilly inattentive.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the workplace, this can feel incredibly isolating. As one of my informants remarked: “Every day could be your first day at work.” It does not indicate readiness for networking and collaboration.</p>
<h2>Slippery spaces</h2>
<p>This distinction between settlers and wandering hot-deskers has striking parallels with how vagrants move around a city, carefully giving <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1978.tb00292.x/abstract">priority to the settled “host” population</a>. The host population can occupy the prime space in the city, which offers comfort and pleasure, and indicates their high status (for instance, shopping, business and entertainment). Vagrants must defer to the hosts, carefully observing when and how they might be permitted to enter the city’s prime spaces, resigned to the fact that they will spend most of their time at the margins.</p>
<p>The analogy shouldn’t be pushed too far: the problems experienced by hot-deskers are, of course, not anything like the awful hardship and <a href="https://theconversation.com/defensive-architecture-designing-the-homeless-out-of-cities-52399">marginalisation that homeless people have to cope with</a>. But the analogy helps to show the material and symbolic disadvantages that can come with a lack of ownership of space. </p>
<p>It also points to a wider situation where our ownership and occupation of space is becoming more temporary and tenuous. Many contemporary spaces are <a href="https://works.bepress.com/ian_buchanan/13/">designed to be slippery</a> – shopping malls have few benches and are security-patrolled to deter loitering; transport hubs have uncomfortable slanted seats that hurry us along. There are even <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8310627.stm">“smart” park benches</a> that have been designed to tip the sitter off after the time permitted for relaxation has elapsed. </p>
<p>The plight of the hot-desker therefore forms part of a wider social issue where space is designed in a way that allows it to be used intensively by many different people. But in so doing, it may deprive of us of the ability to put down roots with the places and people we encounter every day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Hirst received funding from ESRC to conduct research on which this article is based.</span></em></p>Hot-desking tends to affect different employees differently – it tends to produce winners and losers.Alison Hirst, Director of Postgraduate Research, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.