Research my work in a we world - Gensler · 16 Gensler Research My Work in a We World Completing...

Research

my work in a we world

2 3

Gensler Research | My Work in a We World

Our ability to focus at work has been receiving a lot of attention as one of the major challenges in the workplace today. Many attribute this to the proliferation of open offices. Common critiques of the open office concept say that it’s too loud, too distracting, and not conducive to individual focus work.

Companies are moving employees into contemporary activity-based open office environments in an effort to be more open, transparent, and collaborative. The marketplace has become more global, fast-paced, and competitive, and teams are adapting by becoming more collaborative and agile. Shorter product cycles compel managers to place employees closer together at the office to speed up work processes, communication, and decision-making. At the same time, many teams are becoming more distributed and outsourced. As the global race for talent embraces new technology, workplace mobility, and a “work anywhere” approach, the nature of collaboration has changed, with employees struggling to keep communication chains open and efficient.

In the midst of this greater demand for collaboration, the ability to focus at work has become more important than ever. Despite the emphasis on team work, we still need to find a way to get our individual, concentrative work done.

My Work in a We World is the culmination of a two-year Gensler Research project investigating how people focus in the workplace today. In partnership with a global technology company, we took a deep dive into focus work, interviewing and surveying individuals and teams about all of the factors involved in getting their work done and the role that space plays in this process.

Surprisingly, we discovered that good focus work depends on more than just the physical environment. It's more complex than simply a debate about open or closed offices. Individual temperament and behavior, team dynamics, and corporate culture and policies are all part of the puzzle when it comes to supporting individual focus work in a modern collaborative workplace.

inTrodUCTion

How do we successfully execute our individual focus work in a modern workplace that emphasizes collaboration?

4 5


4 5

wHaT we FoUnd

Creating the right conditions for focus work in the workplace means aligning not only work settings, but also individual work style, team dynamics, and organizational culture and policies.

Making focus work effective isn’t as simple as putting someone in a quiet environment or taking away all distractions and interruptions. So much of the work we do as individuals is tied to our collaboration with others that we simply cannot separate the two things. We have to understand what makes for good focus work and good collaboration work—and get both of them right—in order to create successful workplaces in the future.

How work happens is as important as where it happens.

6 7


Focus work seems to be under siege in the modern workplace. Writers, researchers, and opinion-makers argue that new workplaces have become overbuilt for collaboration, sacrificing quiet “heads down” work, privacy, and productivity.

1

Susan Cain, author of the influential book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, contends that today’s workplace favors the extrovert and teamwork at the expense of introverts and the creativity, invention, and skills that they bring to the table through quiet concentration.

2 Cain's

critique and that of other like-minded commentators have resonated with many office workers who have experienced firsthand greater distractions and increased stress stemming from an emphasis on group work and the proliferation of open work environments. The prevailing belief is that we are sacrificing performance in the name of collaboration.

Recent research supports some of these critiques, showing a downward trend in individual effectiveness. Gensler's 2013 Workplace Survey report found that overall workplace performance nationwide dropped by 6% from 2008 to 2013. Analysis showed the decline in performance was linked to a decrease in the effectiveness of the workplace to support focus work.

The findings also showed that, despite a bias favoring collaboration in many workplaces, people seem to be spending more time doing focus work. Gensler's survey found a 13% rise in time spent conducting focus work during the 5-year period studied. In contrast, survey respondents reported a 20% decrease in time spent collaborating.

3 People are

spending more time focusing, but are feeling less effective doing it.

FoCUs Under siegeeVidenCe BeHind

8 9


All of this is happening at a time when the ability to focus at work is becoming increasingly important for workers and companies looking for a competitive edge in the global marketplace. Studies show that the ability to concentrate is critical to high-level problem solving and creative thinking. It also has been linked to a greater sense of engagement and satisfaction with one's work.

A 2012 global workforce study of 32,000 employees by the consulting company Towers Watson found that only 20% ofrespondents said they were able to focus on one task at a time at work, but those who could often described themselves as 50% more engaged in their work thanthose who could not. Engagement at work has been associated with companies that have 22% higher profitability, 10% highercustomer ratings, 28% fewer thefts, and 48% fewer accidents.

4 Creating an

environment that supports individual focus work and engagement can bring significant bottom-line benefits to companies.

Focus in the workplace is an issue for all knowledge workers, but due to the complex nature of their work, software developers, in particular, have an especially high need for concentration.

Over the last two years, Gensler has been working with a global technology company to learn how software developers work. Through interviews and surveys with software developers and other engineers, we found that these individuals spent about 65–70% of their time doing focus work, including such tasks as coding, testing and debugging, as well as other less intensive individual activities such as responding to email and instant messaging.

Most of the people interviewed explained that the nature of their work often required a lot of concentration. Though they all indicated that they made themselves available for periodic questions and conversations with their coworkers, most found that these interruptions regularly caused their own productivity to suffer to some extent.

Despite the high level of concentration needed among many of its workers, many tech companies have shifted towards more collaboration and the adoption of the agile work style. “Agile” work is characterized by fast development cycles supported by self-organizing, cross-functional teams,

Ground Zero for Focus:

Software Developers and Agile Team Work

Focus defined: To concentrate; to bring all efforts, faculties, activities, etc. to bear on one thing or activity.

and an iterative approach that relies on rapid and flexible responses to change. The agile method breaks tasks into small increments with short time frames, and agile teams typically work in small groups, favoring face-to-face interactions. Software developers write and test code daily, gathering at frequent stand-up meetings to discuss accomplishments, road blocks, and next steps. Problems are often resolved through ad hoc conversations and brainstorming sessions with team members.

5 Overall, the agile process

necessitates periods of both intense focus and intense collaboration.

10 11


Collaboration, team work, and agility have grown in importance in many workplaces, but unstructured collaboration or too much of it can quickly devolve into distraction. This becomes evident when workers are asked to identify their biggest distractions. Among the software engineers interviewed as part of this research, interruptions from coworkers, email/instant messages, and overheard conversations were the top three hurdles for focus. Similar interviews with other professionals and knowledge workers

yielded similar responses, with a majority of respondents citing interruptions by coworkers as their primary source of workplace distraction, along with overheard conversations, noise, and email.

6

The challenge lies in the fact that these top “distractions” are also fundamental parts of the work process. To put it simply, work often distracts us from work. Important activities that promote communication and problem-solving can simultaneously function as disruptors.

10

How can I be effective when

"team" seems to mean "distraction"?

THe dilemma:

One person's interruption is another's interaction

12 13


Take away distraction and you may jeopardize collaboration Getting work done involves balancing both collaboration and focus.


1514

16


Completing tasks at work requires more than just a lack of distractions. Individuals need optimal levels of interest, engagement, and alertness to do a task well. In his extensive work on happiness, creativity, and motivation, psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi theorizes that people are happiest when they reach a state of "flow"—a state of complete concentration and absorption with the task at hand. Individuals in the flow not only feel great commitment and fulfillment from their activity, but also experience a sense of skill and ability.

While all humans seem to be happiest when in a state of flow, how they achieve it varies widely. Individuals have their own idiosyncratic work styles that require specific tools, processes, and conditions to support their personal engagement in a task.

7

Our initial research began with interviews of 20 software developers about their personal work habits. All study participants had the same job type, but came from different office environments (open plan and private office), and different demographic groups (region, tenure, gender). When we asked about their ability to focus at work and how they

achieve a “state of flow,” we heard a variety of responses. Though the small population size interviewed did not allow for discernible correlations between demographic conditions and focus habits, definite patterns emerged related to individual personality and preferences.

We found that differences in personality and cognitive style determined varying levels of engagement, satisfaction with their work space, productivity, and perceptions regarding interactions with others. While half of the developers interviewed in open plan environments indicated that they preferred quiet, private spaces to concentrate effectively, the other half said that they worked better in “buzzy” spaces or stated that they could focus anywhere. We were unable to find consensus among interviewees regarding what space types or conditions were preferable for focus work or how much noise was acceptable for effective concentration. These responses align with other studies that suggest that one’s perceptions about acceptable levels of distraction often relate to individual preferences or expectations more than to the actual environmental performance of the space.

8

Optimal performance requires personal engagement, but that means different things for different people.

17

18 19


Noise is not always bad. Audible conversations aren’t always negative distractions.Oftentimes, noise is identified as the most typical source of distraction in the workplace. A 2013 study by the Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, Berkeley analyzed survey responses from 42,764 samples collected from 303 office buildings in numerous different industries. They found that people perceived uncontrollable noise and lack of sound privacy as the biggest source of work disruptions and overall workplace dissatisfaction over any other factor in the workplace.

9 However, when

we asked our study participants about how noise affected them at work, responses were varied.

We placed acoustic sensors in the workplaces of our initial study participants over a one-week period to try and see if measurements aligned with what participants said about noise levels. The resulting measurements showed that open plan office environments were louder than private office environments by about 10 decibels, on average. Open workplaces also had much more variation in noise levels throughout the day. Yet, when measurements were matched up with participants' statements about noise, no clear patterns emerged. Differences in sound levels went unnoticed by most people. Noise levels alone often were not enough to cause distractions.

More than anything else, speech is the biggest culprit in the "noise problem." Speech, in the form of overheard conversations and phone calls, is often unpredictable, varies in loudness, and has high information content—making it particularly disruptive. “Speech is the most disturbing type of sound because it is directly understood in the brain’s working memory,” explained Valtteri Hongisto, an acoustician at Finland’s Institute of Occupational Health. Studying the impact of noise and speech on work performance, Hongisto and his colleagues found that unwilling listeners of overheard conversations experienced a 5% to 10% decline in cognitive task performance requiring short-term memory, such as reading, writing, or other forms of creative work.

10

Although there is evidence that noise and speech have an impact on both perceptions of distraction and actual cognitive functions, other research suggests that the effects of noise on individuals are more nuanced. The same variations in personality and cognitive style that impact a person’s ability to focus also come into play in their reactions to noise.

The software developers interviewed expressed differences in how they experienced noise and speech. Among

the individuals in our study working in open plan workspaces, where measured ambient noise fluctuated more throughout the day, only a third described significant difficulties in concentrating due to noise. Most stated that they experienced occasional issues or no issues at all. In addition, several developers interviewed did not think that speech, or overheard conversations, was particularly problematic either in terms of their ability to focus or their overall workplace satisfaction. Overheard conversations were perceived both positively and negatively, depending on context. Developers who were located with team members working on the same projects tended to perceive overheard conversations more positively than others. In those cases, overheard conversations were relevant to their work and beneficial to them and their teams.

In fact, other studies go as far as to argue that ambient noise may enhance creativity. Researchers from the University of Illinois have found that while a high level of noise (85 dB and above) reduces information processing and hurts creativity, moderate ambient noise (70 dB) introduces enough stimulus to promote abstract processing and imaginative thinking.

11 Like Goldilocks,

many of us work best in environments that are not too quiet or too loud, but with enough background noise to be "just right."

don't forget acoustics!The majority of the participants in our research had the advantage of working in environments with proper acoustical design already in place.

As a baseline, 10 acoustic planning and construction principles should always be considered in workplace design:

01 Work Patterns

Identify the balance of concentration and interaction among the workers in the office to help create zones.

02 Speech Privacy

identify the level of privacy required for the work based on the work patterns.

03 Behavioral Change

Support behavioral adaptations with mobile technologies, multiple work spaces, and policy.

04 Behavioral Protocols

Develop protocols aimed at reducing distractions and appropriate use of space.

05 Zoning

Develop a layout strategy which will locate incompatible functions apart from each another.

06 Planning

Consider the effects of locating certain support areas (pantry, entrance to conference rooms, etc.) on neighboring workstations.

07 Furniture

Consider furniture that offers noise reduction, but not speech reflection.

08 Sound Absorbing Ceilings and Walls

Specify ceilings and walls with a proper Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC), particularly in open plan office areas.

09 Sound Masking Systems

Specify sound masking systems, particularly in open plan office areas.

10 Walls

Specify Sound Rated Wall Constructions.

For more information, see GSA Public Buildings Service's "Sound Matters: How to achieve acoustic comfort in the contemporary office," December 2011.

20 21


22


Along with noise and speech, interruptions by coworkers top the list of distractions that impede focus work. Individuals commonly refer to external interruptions as the primary issue, but researchers are finding that self-interruptions pose as significant a challenge to workers as interruptions by others. Gloria Mark, Professor at the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine, has been studying how information workers experience disruptions for over a decade. She argues that people are as likely to interrupt themselves as to be externally interrupted. In a study of 36 managers, financial analysts, software developers, and project leaders, Mark and her colleagues observed that people constantly switched tasks throughout their day (every 4 minutes for related tasks and every 11 minutes for unrelated tasks). About 44% of these interruptions were self-inflicted.

Researchers also found that the habit of self-interruptions was strongest in open-plan environments, suggesting that such environments tended to encourage unmanaged collaboration and multi-tasking, which, in turn, habituated people to interruptions and undisciplined individual work.

12

Interruptions, whether self-created or caused by others, have a significant impact on individual focus work. Although 82% of all interrupted work is resumed on the same day, Mark found that it took about 23 minutes for people to get back on task. This constant task shifting slows down work flow. Moreover, in much the same way as multitasking has been shown to diminish mental acuity, scientists hypothesize that constant interruptions and task switching diminish the kind of deep thinking that leads to high achievement and problem solving.13

We can be our own worst enemies when it comes to distraction.

23

24


Individuals are frequently frustrated with interruptions, but personal frustration does not always translate into a drop in productivity for teams or organizations. In fact, the benefits of collaboration and even disruptive interactions can often outweigh the loss of productivity from individual work. In an experiment conducted by California State University, San Marcos, researchers tested an "electronic brainstorming" system in order to better understand the impact of interactions on productivity. They found that the group that was forced to interact more intensively in their task measurably outperformed the group that interacted less. This was the case even though individuals in the higher interaction group felt that they experienced more interruptions, were less productive, and were less able to concentrate.

14

An earlier study of computer-enabled collaboration conducted in the 1990’s showed similar results. Participants working collectively produced more and better results than individuals working alone, despite their perceptions of being less productive and their frustrations with the interactive process.

15

This trade-off between frustrated focus work and collaboration benefits can be seen among software developers as

well. In workplace surveys conducted at a large technology company, Gensler found that many new occupants of agile workplaces experienced low satisfaction with their ability to focus, even as they acknowledged improvements in collaboration and team problem-solving. In one particular case, survey scores rating workplace effectiveness in supporting heads-down work plummeted from 79% satisfied to 8%, while scores rating the workplace for supporting collaboration jumped from 24% satisfied to 61%. When follow-up interviews were conducted with the developers and testers on-site, most agreed that there was a “net positive” impact of the agile space, even as they felt a decrease in individual focus time and personal effectiveness.

Despite such "net positives" for teams and organizations, greater interactions/interruptions come at a cost to individual workers beyond lower personal productivity in the form of physical and emotional stress. A study by Cornell University psychologists Gary Evans and Dana Johnson observed that exposing clerical workers to open-office noise for three hours raised adrenaline levels and triggered a fight-or-flight response.

16 In

another experiment, researchers had people answer a set of e-mails, with one

group interrupted by phone calls and instant messages and another group completely left alone. At first, researchers found no significant errors in those who were interrupted. In fact, interrupted participants worked faster than the uninterrupted group, suggesting greater productivity among this group. However, when researchers measured the two groups for stress using a NASA workload scale, differences between the groups emerged. Interrupted individuals showed higher levels of stress, mental overload, and frustration.

17

These studies demonstrate that humans are highly adaptable. They can perform, and even excel, in highly interactive environments. The key is to provide workplaces and work processes that look beyond productivity and performance, and that take into account physical and mental well-being.

Frustrated work isn't always unproductive.

25

26 27


Ironically, a lot of what constitutes individual work involves some degree of collaboration, with interspersed moments of problem-solving and communication with colleagues. When we conducted a survey with our partners at the global technology company, we found that individuals spent approximately only one tenth of their workday doing intense, uninterruptible focus work. Filtering the data for software developers, we discovered that the average remained consistent, at 11%. Similar work patterns emerged when we asked the same question to workers at a non-tech, professional services firm.

Rather than intense focus work, what we found was that the majority of people's "individual work" comprised some

form of collaboration or availability for collaboration with others. Tech workers and non-tech workers alike reported spending approximately half of their time either doing focus work that could be interrupted by others or individual work, such as email, that involved communication with others.

The results of our research illustrate the nature of individual focus work as part of a spectrum of work activities that incorporates work with others. People often combine individual and collaborative work, or toggle between them, throughout a typical workday.

Good collaboration actually enhances good focus work. People are willing to put up with overheard conversations and

interruptions from coworkers when they see the benefit of those interactions for themselves and their teams in knowledge-sharing and relevancy to their work. Much of the frustration and problems that people experience happen through undisciplined interactions. Environments, teams, and work processes that allow for too much unstructured collaboration tend to diminish the effectiveness of both focus and collaboration. On the other hand, time saved in shorter meetings or productive conversations translate into time gained back for individual focus work.

26

Productive work environments require both focus and collaboration to co-exist. According to Gensler’s 2013 US Workplace Survey Key Findings report, employees who scored their workplaces as highly effective for both focus and collaboration also tended to report higher performance

Balanced workplaces are more creative and innovative

Balancing focus and collaboration is key

and satisfaction in their jobs and work environment than those who scored focus and collaboration lower at their workplace. In addition, employees who reported balanced workplaces rated their companies highly in terms of encouraging innovation and creativity.

Individual work happens with and around others.

Working alone, not available for interruption

Working alone, but available for interruption

Communicating via email, messenger, and other text-based communication

Individual Work

In spontaneous conversations

In scheduled meetings that are not recurring

In recurring scheduled meetings

Collaborative Work

Global Technology Company

Global Technology Company - Software Developer

Professional Services Firm

How do you spend your time at work?

Percentage of employees who rank their company highly:

Creates climate of innovation

Has creative thinkers

Encourages breakthrough ideas

Has clear strategy of innovation

Leadership encourages innovation

Not balanced

Balanced

40

72

78

52

73

4540

74 74

46

29

Creating a balanced environment where focus work and collaboration are both effective means considering how that environment aligns with individuals, teams, and culture. As part of our research, we looked at one of the contemporary open workplaces of a global technology company. The workplace was composed of a series of open team areas, each housing about 10-15 workstations, with support spaces separating teams. This workplace serves as a case study for what works and what doesn't in agile, open environments, and illustrates the importance of balancing good focus and collaboration.

What worksThe open workplace proved to be largely a success for the teams of developers and testers. They explained that the space fit their team dynamics, their work culture, and their individual work needs.

For most developers and testers, the team areas were the right size to successfully accommodate their teams and work flows. Individuals working on the same project were able to sit in the same space. Coworkers sitting together shared the same periods of intense collaboration and intense focus since their team project schedules were usually in sync. Overheard conversations and periodic interruptions were viewed as productive interactions

rather than distractions. Proximity to team members and shared project schedules made collaboration more effective, helping to cut back on email and accelerating decision-making.

Matching the team area size to the team also allowed for stronger team culture, since they all sat together. Teams were comfortable communicating with each other and setting informal rules for how people should behave around each other.

Overall, synced project schedules, built-in efficiencies based on proximity to team members, and informal protocols made interruptions less frustrating and created a sense of greater autonomy for individuals

and teams. What doesn’t workOn the other hand, user experience (UX) designers in the same workplace configuration reported less satisfaction with the new agile work environment.

Unlike developers who worked with a single team in the same space for the majority of their time, UX designers collaborated on multiple teams and met with different people in different areas throughout the day. Rather than sitting with one of their teams, designers sat with other designers.

imPliCaTions For THe workPlaCe

designing THe rigHT PlaCe: CaSe

STuDy

In interviews, UX designers expressed reticence in entering different team areas to collaborate with their dispersed team members, describing the experience as similar to walking into someone’s living room uninvited.

Since many UX designers did not sit with their teams, they did not benefit from overheard or ad hoc conversations in the way that developers and testers did. For designers, most overheard conversations were distractions. In order to get away from stray chatter, UX designers typically left their assigned desks and looked for focus rooms or other locations to get their work done.

Since their assigned team areas were not always occupied by their team members, designers commonly ran up against conflicting work styles. Clashes, interruptions, and disagreements erupted, reflecting different development cycles, team processes, and cultures.

Moreover, UX designers sitting in the same team area had fewer ties to each other as team members, making conflict resolution more complicated. As a result, they felt less control over their environment and the prevailing culture within their own team areas than developers and testers working in the same type of space.


28

30 31


The differing experiences in our open workplace case study illustrate the importance of autonomy and control for our ability to work. Autonomy can come in two forms. As part of a group, people can feel autonomous when they self-govern, working together to set up protocols for behavior and team work styles. They can also experience autonomy as individuals, by determining their own actions and circumstances.

Employee autonomy can only happen if the workplace culture allows for it, and if individuals, teams, and spaces align with it. The most satisfied occupants in our case study–developers and testers–tended to have team cultures that allowed for broad controllability and autonomy. These people were able to work with their teams to set up rules for their open team areas and for work processes. They were generally self-governing and felt empowered to express their own desires for how they wanted and needed to work, and they cooperated with coworkers to make their desires a reality. In addition, they had varied work spaces that provided them with a choice for where and how they worked and that accommodated a range of cognitive styles.

In contrast, UX designers at the same location were not able to align their culture with their space, and their ability to take control of their individual effectiveness was thus limited. Since they were not always

sitting with team members, they were not able to establish common work styles or strong team area cultures. Collaboration became undisciplined: common protocols for behavior and space usage did not develop, and interruptions and disagreements occurred frequently. As a result, collaboration happened everywhere and all the time, creating a sense of frustration and helplessness among UX designers trying to focus in those spaces.

Indeed, having control over when, where, and how you work affects workplace satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Gensler’s 2013 Workplace Survey report found that knowledge workers who indicated having choice in how they worked also reported 12% higher levels of satisfaction and job performance than those reporting little choice.

18

This aligns with earlier studies by researchers at the Institute of Millennium Design & Research in Seoul, Korea, showing that the perception of control over one’s environment impacted team cohesion and job satisfaction among their subjects. The research suggested that the flexible use of space (i.e., the ability to adjust one’s workspace, the availability of a variety of space types to do one’s job, and the availability and convenience of meeting rooms when needed) had a positive effect in addressing individual, interpersonal, and group needs.

19

know what you can do and do it

32


It should be the responsibility of the company to provide its employees with the necessary tools for exercising choice. These tools should include a workplace that incorporates a variety of work settings and a culture that allows employees to dictate how they want to use them. It is then the responsibility of the employees to fully embrace the autonomy they are given.

Innovation Job Performance

Job Satisfaction

Workplace Satisfaction

32

2013 Gensler US Workplace Survey Key Findings

Providing autonomy and choice to employees has been shown to be beneficial for companies as well. In a study of 320 small businesses conducted by Cornell University, researchers found that companies that granted workers choice in how they did their jobs grew 4 times the rate and had a third of the turnovers than companies which did not provide much latitude in how employees worked.

20

33

Workplace choice improves the employee experience

Percentage of employees who rank each factor highly: Employees without choice

Employees with choice

40

7176

50

60

52

60

Employees who have choice in when, where, and how to work have higher levels of satisfaction, innovation, and job performance.

34


Without a doubt, the ability to focus is critical to achieve high performance and innovation, as well as to nurture personal well-being and satisfaction. Yet, constant interruptions by coworkers, loud conversations by neighbors, and a continuous stream of emails and messages often make our workplaces challenging settings to conduct quiet “heads-down” work.

Unfortunately, there's no single solution. It’s not as simple as putting people in a quiet space. Although the need to focus is universal, how we do it varies widely, depending on personality and cognitive style. What may be perceived as an inviting work environment by one person may be a distracting setting to another. Even if we were to take away most of the common distractions in the workplace—coworkers, noise, and email—we would still be left with ourselves. Left to our own devices, with brains that relentlessly wander and switch tasks, we are frequently our own biggest enemies, keeping us from getting our work done.

Moreover, what we call “individual focus work” varies widely, depending on the nature of the work and the task at hand. The kind of intense focus work that cannot be interrupted is only a small part of how most people spend their workdays. Instead, almost half of our time is spent doing quiet, individual tasks that allow us to be available for interruptions or that are passively collaborative in nature, such as writing emails or messaging coworkers. Much of the time, we toggle between focus and collaboration. In fact, focus work and collaboration are often so intrinsically tangled with one another that effective focus cannot really happen unless we also have effective collaboration. We need to get them both right in order to be productive.

When designing a workplace conducive to both focus and collaboration, one size does not fit all. A good balance depends on more than the physical environment. We have to start seeing issues around focus work as part of a larger workplace “ecosystem” that depends on how we

collaborate, and that takes into account individual cognitive styles, team dynamics, and organizational culture and policies. With so many variables, we need to create environments and opportunities for autonomy, providing individuals with control over how, when, and where they do their work.

Once we begin to acknowledge that focus is complicated and we start to offer people greater autonomy over how they do their work, we will be able to start turning many of the barriers to focus into opportunities for high performance. By taking a holistic approach, interruptions and overheard conversations can become productive interactions, stimulating new ideas and faster problem- solving, for example. These are the foundations upon which companies can begin to meet the challenge of providing a truly inspiring, supportive, and effective modern workplace.

FoCUs is more THan JUsT FoCUs

ConClUsion

35

37


Lewis, Katherine Reynolds. 2013. “The Slow Death of the Private Office.” Fortune, September 23. http://fortune.com/2013/09/23/the-slow-death-of-the-private-office/.

Mark, Gloria. 2011. Surf IT – Gloria mark.mp4. YouTube video. U.C. Irvine. Uploaded August 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-aWVZgsvqg.

Marshall, Martin N. 1996. “Sampling for Qualitative Research,” Family Practice 13: 522–525.

Mehta, Ravi, Zhu, Rui (Juliet), and Cheema, Amar. 2012. "Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition." Journal of Consumer Research 39 (4): 784–799.

Mullany, Anjali. 2013. “How to Create an Open Office that is More Awesome for Both Introverts and Extroverts.” Fast Company, November 6. http://www.fastcompany.com/3021206/dialed/how-to-create-an-open-office-that-is-more-awesome-for-both-introverts-and-extroverts.

Pattison, Kermit. 2008. “Work, Interrupted: The Cost of Task Switching,” Fast Company, July 28. http://www.fastcompany.com/944128/worker-interrupted-cost-task-switching.

Pentland, Alex ‘Sandy’. 2012. “The New Science of Building Great Teams.” Harvard Business Review, April. http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-teams/ar/pr.

Pink, Dan. 2009. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York: Riverhead Books.

Schwartz, Ariel. 2013. “You’re Not Alone: Most People Hate Open Offices.” Fast Company, November 20. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021713/youre-not-alone-most-people-hate-open-offices.

Schwartz, Tony and Porath, Christine. 2014. “Why You Hate Work.” The New York Times, May 30. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/opinion/sunday/why-you-hate-work.html.

Steiner, Ivan D. 1972. Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Tierney, John. 2012. “From Cubicles, Cry for Quiet Pierces Office Buzz.” The New York Times, May 19. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/science/when-buzz-at-your-cubicle-is-too-loud-for-work.html?_r=2.

1 Lewis 2013; Feifer 2013; Schwartz 2013; Konnikova 20142 Cain 2012, 11, 74-753 Gensler 2013, 94 Cain 2012, 74; Schwartz and Porath 20145 Bjork 20146 Gensler 20147 Gosling 2008, 20−21; Kirsh 2000/1, 428 Lee and Brand 2005, 329−3309 Kim and de Dear 201310 Hongisto et al. 2008; Tierney 201211 Mehta, Zhu, Cheema 201212 Dabbish, Mark, Gonzalez 2011, 4; Mark 2011; Gallup Business Journal 200613 Ibid.14 Center for the Built Environment 2012, 515 Craig 201416 Konnikova 201417 Pattison 2008; Jessup and Connolly 1993, 148; Mark 201118 Hoskins 2014; Gensler 2013, 12−1319 Lee and Brand 2005, 33020 Pink 2009, 8921 GSA 2011, 11

References

Alter, Adam. 2012. Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces that Shape How We Think, Feel, and Behave. New York: The Penguin Press.

Armstrong, Barbara T. 2012. “Open Workspaces Are Here to Stay. Now, How Do We Get Any Work Done?” Forbes, May 24. http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaraarmstrong/2012/05/24/balancing-the-needs-for-collaboration-and-privacy-a-tall-order-in-workplace-design/.

Baker, Sarah Elsie and Edwards, Rosalind. 2012. “How Many Qualitative Interviews is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections on Sampling and Cases in Qualitative Research.” National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton.

Bjork, Aaron. 2014. Scaling Agile Across the Enterprise. Microsoft Visual Studio. Engineering Stories (website). Accessed on August 20. http://stories.visualstudio.com/scaling-agile-across-the-enterprise/. Cain, Susan. 2012. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in A World That Can't Stop Talking. New York : Crown Publishers.

Center for the Built Environment. 2012. “The Holy Grail of Measuring Workplace Productivity.” Centerline, Summer: 3−7.

Craig, David. 2014. “It Doesn’t Matter Whether or Not Your Like Your Open Office.” Fast Company, January 23. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3025052/it-doesnt-matter-whether-or-not-you-like-your-open-office.

Dabbish, Laura, Mark, Gloria, and Gonzalez, Victor. 2011. “Why Do I Keep Interrupting Myself?: Environment, Habit and Self-Interruption.” In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7-12. Vancouver, B.C. Canada. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~gmark/Home_page/Research_files/CHI%202011%20Self-interruption.pdf.

Feifer, Jason. 2013. “Offices for All! Why Open-Office Layouts are Bad for Employees, Bosses, and Productivity.” Fast Company, November 4. http://www.fastcompany.com/3019758/dialed/offices-for-all-why-open-office-layouts-are-bad-for-employees-bosses-and-productivity.

Gallup Business Journal. 2006. “Too Many Interruptions at Work?” Gallup Business Journal, June 8. http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/23146/too-many-interruptions-work.aspx.

Gensler. 2013. 2013 U.S. Workplace Survey, Key Findings. http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/2013_US_Workplace_Survey_07_15_2013.pdf.

Gensler. 2014. Workplace Performance Index Survey. Confidential client. April 4.

Goldberg, Lewis R. 1990. “An Alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big-Five Factor Structure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6): 1216–1229.

Gosling, Sam. 2008. Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. New York: Basic Books.

GSA Public Buildings Service. 2011. Sound Matters: How to Achieve Acoustic Comfort in the Contemporary Office, January. http://gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/172515/fileName/GSA_Sound_Matters_(Dec_2011)_508.action.

Hongisto, Valtteri, Haapakangas, Annu, and Haka, Miia. 2008. “Task Performance and Speech Intelligibility—A Model to Promote Noise Control Actions in Open Offices.” In Performance: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN). Foxwoods, CT. http://www.icben.org/2008/PDFs/Hongisto_et_al.pdf.

Hoskins, Diane. 2014. “Employees Perform Better When They Can Control Their Space.” Harvard Business Review, HBR Blog Network, January 16. http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/employees-perform-better-when-they-can-control-their-space/.

Jessup, Leonard M. and Connolly, Terry. 1993. “The Effects of Interaction Frequency on the Productivity and Satisfaction of Automated Problem-Solving Groups.” www.interruptions.net/literature/Jessup-HICSS93.pdf.

Kim, Jungsoo and de Dear, Richard. 2013. “Workspace Satisfaction: The Privacy-communication Trade-off in Open-Plan Offices.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 18–26.

Kirsh, David. 2000/1. “A Few Thoughts on Cognitive Overload” Intellectica 30: 19–51.

Knight, Craig and Haslam, S. Alexander. 2010. “The Relative Merits of Lean, Enriched, and Empowered Offices: An Experimental Examination of the Impact of Workspace Management Strategies on Well-Being and Productivity.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16 (2): 158–172.

Konnikova, Maria. 2014. “The Open-Office Trap.” The New Yorker, January 7. http://www.newyorker.com/currency-tag/the-open-office-trap.

Lee, So Young and Brand, Jay L. 2005. “Effects of Control Over Office Workspace on Perceptions of the Work Environment and Work Outcomes,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3): 323–333.

Endnotes

© 2015 Gensler.

The information contained within this document is and shall remain the property of Gensler. This document may not be reproduced without prior consent from Gensler.

www.gensler.com

About Gensler

As architects, designers, planners and consultants, we partner with our clients on some 3,000 projects every year. These projects can be as small as a wine label or as large as a new urban district. With more than 4,500 professionals networked across 46 locations, we serve our clients as trusted advisors, combining localized expertise with global perspective wherever new opportunities arise. Our work reflects an enduring commitment to sustainability and the belief that design is one of the most powerful strategic tools for securing lasting competitive advantage.

Abu Dhabi Atlanta AustinBaltimore Bangalore Bangkok BeijingBostonCharlotteChicagoDallasDenver

DetroitDohaDubaiHong KongHoustonLa CrosseLas VegasLondon Los AngelesMexico CityMiamiMinneapolis

MorristownNew YorkNewport BeachOaklandPhiladelphiaPhoenixPittsburghRaleigh-DurhamSan DiegoSan FranciscoSan JoseSan José

São PauloSeattle SeoulShanghai SingaporeSydneyTampaTokyo TorontoWashington, DC

Locations

Contributors

Laura Mihailoff

Thomas Muchnick

Gervais Tompkin

Lisa Hsiao

Miriam Diaz


gensler.com/research

Research my work in a we world - Gensler · 16 Gensler Research My Work in a We World Completing...

Documents

Transcript of Research my work in a we world - Gensler · 16 Gensler Research My Work in a We World Completing...