How the Physical Workspace Affects Employee Productivity

As mentioned in a previous post, the physical work space of a business has a lot to do with promoting or discouraging employee productivity. Honestly, who ever thought it was healthy to throw an employee in the equivalent of a square box and call it a day, or place people in offices with absolutely no windows? How is that conducive to promoting sanity, yet alone productivity? Why has the word "office" become synonymous with words like bland, drab, lifeless, standard? What's so wrong with an office space being fun, energetic, lively, and a place that doesn't box you in (literally)?  No wonder more and more people are telecommuting. I'd opt to work from home or choose my own work environment any day over coming to work and sitting in a cube. Trust me, I've done it. Dilbert has, too.

A lot of thought has been put into the idea of creating effective workspaces, as exhibited in this HBR article. The article goes on to say,

"The key metric companies use to measure space -- cost per square foot -- is focused on   efficiency. Few companies measure whether a space's design helps or hurts performance, but they should. They have the means. The same sensors, activity trackers, smartphones, and social networks that they eagerly foist on customers to reveal their habits and behavior can be turned inward, on employees in their work environments, to learn whether it's true that getting engineers and salespeople talking actually works."

The idea of an open office plan, while ideal for some, might not be right for others. Workers who often crave solitude and silence might find it more distracting than before. Dilbert, for example.

This article, appropriately titled "The Death of the Cubicle..." talks about how many companies in the Silicon Valley are moving or have moved toward open space layouts, like Google and Facebook. But again, these companies thrive on collaboration, innovation, discovery, teamwork. A completely open space arguably suits them. Maybe more of a balance between open space and separate private spaces would better suit your company. It's all about assessing that need. They key is for companies to strike a balance. Give employees a variety of different environments within one space, so that they can pick and choose what suits their mood at the moment. Give them flexibility. This Microsoft Blog sums it up nicely:

"The key is to create an office space without barriers that can also be private. Given the increase in mobile devices used in the office, it's important to have a flexible work environment where people can move around and work in different places. One way is having private breakout rooms where a person or small group of people can work together. Other solutions include alcove sofas and workbays to break up an open space and provide workers with more private options. 

The challenge for tomorrow will be designing a space that creates a feeling of psychological privacy but is also flexible enough that people can easily move around and collaborate. With technology enabling a more grab and go work style, we need workspaces to reflect that increased flexibility."

In conclusion, workspace design matters. If telecommuting is not something you want your employees to lean towards, make the office a place where people will actually want to spend their time. Strike a balance between open, collaborative space and private, quiet rooms. Make it a fun, colorful, energetic environment where employees will be encouraged to thrive, not bang their heads against the four walls of their cubicles. With that said, I'm going to end with this Dilbert comic, partly because it's semi relevant, but mostly because it's funny.

Is Telecommuting Right For You?

With the workforce gradually moving towards the act of telecommuting, how do you as an employee decide if that's right for you? Forget all the outside noise for a second -- what your boss thinks, your company's policy on telecommuting, whether or not it suits others -- and think about yourself. It ultimately boils down to a personality thing. How do you work best -- with hyper or minimal supervision? Do you thrive in an environment where you're surrounded by people, and a conversation is just a minute or a cubicle away, or do you prefer to work in solitude and silence? Are you capable of effectively managing yourself and not giving in to tempting distractions, or do you need to be in a more structured environment where those decisions are ultimately made for you? These are just some of the many questions one should ask his/herself when trying to decide whether telecommuting is a good personal fit. This article does a good job of pin-pointing some things to keep in mind when making the telecommuting decision. The 5 main questions presented in the article are:

1. Are You Self-Motivated?
2. Do You Have A Strong Understanding of Your Responsibilities?
3. Has Your Company Had Past Experience With Virtual Workers?
4. What Will You Be Providing and What Will Your Employed Provide?
5. Are You Capable of Scheduling a "Reasonable" Day?

Some helpful tips if you do choose to telecommute:

• Set boundaries for yourself. Have a space at home that is just dedicated to work, and is not associated with anything else. That way, you'll stay focused and not be tempted by distractions often. (Occasional distractions are ok, though. There would be a limited benefit of working from home if you couldn't enjoy yourself a bit.)
• If you are unable to set boundaries at home, go somewhere else where you will be productive. Telecommuting does not necessarily mean you have to sit at home and do work. It gives you the freedom to enjoy other atmospheres such as coffee shops, libraries, and outdoor areas. Figure out what suits you best, and go there. 
• Try not to let your working hours extend beyond what they normally would be. In a way, your working hours are already naturally extended because you are working through your would-be commute time. Stay productive during your normal work hours, so that you can enjoy not having to commute, and make the maximum use of the rest of your day. In addition, you don't want to come to associate telecommuting with work overload, so keep it balanced. 

Businesses also have to make the decision of whether telecommuting is right for the company. Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer decided it wasn't for them. If you are a business, how do you decide? This article spells it out nicely. Four helpful guidelines to follow when making the decision, as presented in the article, are:

1. Assess the Potential Benefits and Pitfalls
2. Understand What Kind of Work Needs to Be Done
3. Evaluate Your Employees' Work Styles and Preferences
4. Consider How to Build Culture and Promote Teamwork Remotely

If you, as a business, do choose to take the telecommuting step forward, try it out first. Implement a trial run maybe, and see how it goes. If it seems to be working, embrace it further. If it doesn't, assess different angles and methods, and see what sticks. Or, run an elaborate experiment that messes with all of your employees and drives them nuts. Just kidding, don't. But it introduces my Dilbert comic well. 

Managing Telecommuters

As more and more employees are leaning towards telecommuting practices, it is important that other workplace dynamics shift simultaneously. As mentioned in my first post, the group of people that are seemingly having the toughest time adjusting to this shift is middle management. The argument can be made that upper management, especially at larger companies, telework often, due to their necessity for travel, managing and integrating global branches, time management, etc. However, traditional middle management is the link between employees and upper management, and they seem to be having a problem with letting go of their attachment to a worker's physical presence in the office. Having employees physically present means that a manager can "see" them "working." Telecommuting removes that perk, and thus makes managers more apprehensive when it comes to measuring productivity and effectiveness. I put the word "working" in quotes above because even if an employee is physically present in the office, that does not necessarily mean they are accomplishing much. Their presence gives off the illusion that they're working, but numerous studies keep surfacing regarding the decreasing productivity rates of workers in the office. This could be due to an idea mentioned in a previous post, namely that in the office, employees experience a series of work moments instead of a full workday due to constant interruptions. Or, it could be due to the fact that workers are forced to work in a space that, simply put, doesn't encourage productivity in their eyes (something I look forward to exploring in a later post).

But, back to managers. In their eyes, if they can't see you working, then you must not really be working. How can they trust you? How can they, dare I say, continue to micro-manage? (Am I right, Dilbert?)

In order for this new management relationship to work, managers need to show their employees more trust and respect. Schedule weekly one-on-one check-ins so that the employee can update his/her manager on progress. Managers should establish an open line of communication with their workers, so that workers feel comfortable asking questions when necessary, and seeking guidance in-between check-in meetings if warranted. In addition, several workplaces are moving towards a results-oriented practice. While I see the value in this, (If you're working, you'll produce results. If you're not working, you won't. Sounds simple, right?), I believe it's simpler in theory than it is in actual practice. This is namely because in some cases, results can be difficult to define or measure. Jobs that are less "numbers based" are hard to quantify and track. What does "results" mean to your manager? Clearly spelling out those goals and expectations are key to success. Sales jobs are easy to track by results, as are monitoring the number of calls made by individual employees at a call center, etc. Not all jobs and projects are as clear cut. This is also why getting to know your team is essential as well. Managers need to know who they're managing, and need to spend time cultivating those relationships. The rest -- trust, respect, open communication, increased level of comfort -- will follow.

And for those managers who just can't seem to let go, there's this arguably shady thing I found called BossEye. It's essentially a way for managers to see what screens their employee has up on his/her computer, and literally engage in real-time employee monitoring. I dub this as shady because the description in the site is filled with English errors (sup, grammar mistakes), and it just seems like spy ware posing as employee monitoring. In fact, I just tried to check some reviews and it seems like a scam, which is why I did not provide any links for it. So...that was a fail. But is it? If managers actually had that kind of tool, that'd be just plain creepy, and you'd be the worst manager ever if you used it. So, I suppose that's a win that it doesn't really exist. Also, like, privacy issues.

Telepresence Robots

We all the know robots are going to take over the world in the future. (Hello, we've all seen I, Robot)

In the meantime, what does that mean for telecommuting? Quite a few robotics companies have established technologies that enable workers to feel more present and engaged, without leaving the comfort of their homes or respective far-off places of work. At first, this seemed a little counterintuitive to me. You work from home to take a break from being in the office, but you still want to "be" in the office, and at meetings, and in the hallways, and in the break room. But that initial thought aside, it's actually pretty cool. If you're sick and can't physically be in the office, you can be present in a more dynamic way than a normal video call. If you're the CEO of a company and your time is stretched thin as it is, your robot identity can still troll the halls of the office. If you're a global company and want to hire talent in another country, this gives the employee an opportunity to be more than an occasional presence and feel like part of the team. If you're a doctor and want to provide an increased level of care to your patients, be at their bedside in a jiff.

Revolve robotics has a product called kubi, which hovers around $500, and is the cheapest telepresence robot I've found in my research. While it's a step forward from a normal video call -- namely, it has a mounting dock for your tablet that enables you to pan and tilt your video -- I don't see much value in it, as it doesn't provide any self-sufficient mobility. It's still a fairly stationary video call, not much different than what already exists.

Suitable Technologies has their own version of a telepresence robot, with two different varieties. One is called a Beam+, which stands at 53" high, has a 2 hour runtime, a 10" monitor, and a conversation radius of 8 feet. This version is about $2,000. BeamPro is a step up, standing at 62" high, with an 8 hour runtime and a 17" monitor, able to hold conversations up to 20 feet away. A price quote for this version was not available on the company website, though you can request one through an agent. Both versions add a valuable mobility component, moving at a speed of approximately 2 mph.

Double Robotics, calling their product Double, has a very similar robot design to the beam, but with a higher starting price point of $2,500. That's just the base price, however. It comes with no screen, but is compatible with the iPad Air or iPad Air 2. The charging dock, audio kit, and travel case are all available at an additional price, bringing the total to around $2,900 if everything is purchased.

As much as this is a step forward in the eyes of technical innovation, there are still some drawbacks. Security risks are definitely present, as often sensitive information is being streamed and remotely controlled. Video and audio quality is probably sub-par compared to other stationary video and teleconference equipment. And lastly, the design, while nimble and mobile, doesn't lend itself well to promoting a sense of authority. It's essentially a stick figure with a bobble head -- seems like a rather goofy presence as opposed to a commanding one. Nevertheless, such technology is still in its early stages. There is much room and time for improvement and more advanced and refined models are sure to come.

My question is, how do you get through a door? Dilbert and company feels my pain.

Introduction and Changing Workplace Dynamics

Welcome to my inaugural blog! That's exciting. In the coming weeks, I look forward to exploring the topic of telecommuting in further detail, and its effect on the workplace, decision making and managing styles, and workplace culture, among other topics. I will also explore the changing technologies that are enabling and encouraging the telework phenomenon. Dilbert will also be a regular contributor, because his words are both inspiring and revelational.   

There is no doubt that workplace dynamics are evolving. Increasingly, people are no longer changing their lives to suit the needs of their work, but it's the other way around. Greater flexibility has become a top priority, and seamless global communication is a necessity in today's international business environment. Working from home has evolved from being a perk to being an expected and completely reasonable part of most jobs. But let's go back to the age old question -- do people actually work from home like they say, or is it treated like an undercover day off, with minimal work productivity and a maximum commitment to doing-anything-and-everything-else? Common sense would side with the latter -- with all the distractions and comforts one associates with home, how could any real work possibly get done? When parents have their children running around demanding attention, and the television mercilessly beckons you toward mindless daytime shows, how do work e-mails and PowerPoint presentations even stand a fighting chance? Such logic makes sense, you'd have to agree, but numerous studies have shown and proven quite the opposite. With the broad range of personalities and work styles that exist within any given company, it is safe to say that not everyone values and thrives in the same type of work environment. This idea that a worker has to come into a defined space every day and productively work for eight hours at a stretch is in fact often counterproductive. Think about it -- you most probably sit in a cubicle, work at a computer, have meetings every so often, and take bathroom breaks just to have a change of scenery. Introverts and independent thinkers are thrown into an environment of forced constant collaboration, that annoying coworker is two cubicles away making inappropriate jokes every two seconds, and everyone is on their headsets talking over each other in their respective meetings. Sounds healthy! I'm not saying by any means that in-person office interaction isn't valuable -- it is indeed, for morale, cohesiveness, synchronicity. But having a balance is OK, and should be encouraged. Some people are having a hard time with this culture shift, namely middle management, because it means having less of a physical watchful eye over employees, and giving them more autonomy. It's a shift, by all means, but it's a necessary one.
  

A Harvard Business Review article that addresses the issue of at-home work productivity stated that telecommuters were a lot happier and more productive working from home, and they were less likely to quit and reported higher job satisfaction. The increased productivity was attributed to a variety of factors, as the article goes on to say:

"One-third of the productivity increase, we think, was due to having a quieter environment, which makes it easier to process calls. At home people don’t experience what we call the 'cake in the break room' effect. Offices are actually incredibly distracting places. The other two-thirds can be attributed to the fact that the people at home worked more hours. They started earlier, took shorter breaks, and worked until the end of the day. They had no commute. They didn’t run errands at lunch. Sick days for employees working from home plummeted. Search 'working remotely' on the web, and everything that comes up will be supernegative and say that telecommuters don’t work as hard as people in the office. But actually, it’s quite the opposite."

Famously controversial in the news was when Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer banned working from home, a bold move that resulted in a lot of kick back from telecommuters around the country. Mayer defended her decision by saying that while productivity may be increased when working alone, collaboration and innovation can only happen when people are together. Yahoo was in need of a culture shift, and that’s the direction she wanted to take the company. It wasn't meant to be a critique on the broader idea of working from home, but just what she thought was best for business at that point in time. 

So yes, it’s not always that straightforward, and certain jobs are more conducive to this shift in work style than others. But there is no doubt that these days, companies not only have to think about their bottom line, but creating a culture in which employees feel happy, productive, and free to work in a way that fits their unique mold. And if allowing workers to telecommute once or twice a week is a way to achieve that, then loosen the reins and let go a little, corporate America. 

For those of you who enjoy Ted talks, here is a talk that addresses a lot of the same ideas about the value of telecommuting, namely that in the office, workers don't experience a workday, but a series of work moments due to consistent interruptions. 

Last but not least, what does Dilbert have to say?

Staying in your nightsuit all day and having groundbreaking conversations with your pup while drinking chai? (Yes, Dilbert totally drinks chai.) I'm in.