Shared worksettings are becoming increasingly prevalent as organisations seek to maximise the use of resources, and to provide their staff with an environment that is better quality and more varied (having a range of settings that are each designed to support specific tasks) than would be possible with just the individual allocation of space.
The diagram below shows where some of the offices we've case studied sit on the the owned/shared continuum.
There are certainly advantages to entirely shared work environments, not least increased flexibility and the opportunity to reduce the under-occupancy of workspace. There are also other advantages: for example, at the Sir Frank Gibb Research Hub at Loughborough, the hotdesking policy for research students has entirely alleviated the difficulties of finding somewhere for visiting and short-term researchers to work, and also the recurring issue of students wanting to move desks so they can work near their friends.
But for occupants, allocated work settings can provide significant advantages over non-territorial environments (some of which are outlined below). Occupants tend to express a preference for allocated work environments, and in some of our case studies non-territorial policies have been associated with an increase in homeworking, which may reflect that occupants value an allocated desk over the advantages of being co-located with their colleagues. That said, some of the negative reaction towards flexible space policies is likely to reflect user expectations. At the University of Warwick’s Research Exchange, occupants made no reference to the hotdesking policy during interviews, presumably because their expectations of space provision did not include allocated desks.
The cognitive value of allocated workspace
As David Kirsh points out, the physical work environment is a useful cognitive resource. We can structure it with organisational devices such as post-it notes and to-do lists to help manage our workload, and leave documents that we need to read or attend to in prominent positions. When working on a time-consuming and complex task such as a literature review, we can organise the books and papers to be referenced into piles to reflect, for example, the particular topic to which they relate, or whether or not we’ve included them. And if we’re interrupted from our task, then the way in which things are laid out on the desk serve as a reminder of what we were working on, and make it easier to pick up the task where we left off.
Non-allocated workspace limits the length of time for which occupants can structure their workstation, which in turn limits the cognitive value of their workspace. This tends to be less of an issue for people who like to tidy their desk at the end of the day, filing away even work in progress. When we carried out the Research Club Pilot, whereby PhD researchers moved from allocated desks to a non-territorial office, some of the researchers reported difficulty in managing their documents, and there were also complaints about the time involved in setting up and clearing one’s desk each day.
However, others said that having to clear their desk each night was useful – the enforced filing made them more organized. And of course, there are ways around the lack of allocated desk. For example, outlook reminders can replace post-its placed in conspicuous locations, and work that would otherwise be left set up overnight can be put into a temporary ‘overnight’ file, or better still, on a tray. Sometimes users may a bit of prompting/additional support in adopting such alternative strategies – organisations that are switching to non-territorial work environments should include this in the accompanying change management programme [link to article on the need for change management].
The personal and social value of allocated workspace
There’s something psychologically comforting about having your own, allocated space at work, or put another way, the shift to non-territorial policy can feel rather disquieting. Some of the research students at the Research Hub in Loughborough suggested that the hotdesking policy that is in operation undermines their sense of belonging in the department. They also talked about the “unsettling” experience of coming into work and not being sure where to sit. Unwritten rules can also emerge regarding who sits where, which can be stressful for new occupants who need to work out which of the apparently free desks they can use without offending anyone.
Non-territorial policies also limits occupants’ opportunity to personalise their workspace. As well as helping individuals to feel at home and reminding them of life outside work, the assorted knick-knacks and photographs that occupants may chose to display also serve an important role in establishing and maintaining their identity at work , e.g. distinguishing themselves from their peers through reference to outside interests. For academics, the books that we display also convey important messages to our colleagues about our research interests - which is one of the reasons why discussions about storage can take a seemingly irrational turn [link to role on storage]. There’s some suggestion that by undermining people’s ability to display identity-defining items, non-territorial work environments may be associated with employees who are less committed to their organisation or satisfied with their jobs. That said, occupants who are unable to display personal items in their workspace are adept at finding alternatives; e.g. referring to their hobbies during conversations with their peers, using portable items.
Maximising the usage and usefulness of shared space
The provision of shared space is not sufficient in itself to ensure that it will be used. In new environments where shared space is used to supplement the (reduced) provision of individual space, occupants can find it difficult to change their work practices to take advantage of the shared facilities – in effect ending up with less space than they would otherwise have had.
Provision of appropriate mobile technology
The provision of mobile technology such as laptops and portable phones plays an important role in enabling occupants to work effectively in a flexible environment. In our case study research, we did find examples where a lack of appropriate technology prevented users from getting the most out of their work environment. For example at one of the buildings we studied, occupants were accommodated in open plan office space, supplemented with additional settings for noise-generating activities, such as telephone calls and small meetings, or for undertaking tasks requiring a high level of privacy and concentration. Although the original intention had been to provide laptops and DECT phones throughout the building, many users were instead provided with fixed, wired telephones and desktop computers – and reported corresponding difficulty, and hence reluctance, to work away from their desks. This in turn impacted on their ability to work effectively in the new space, and their overall satisfaction with the building.
Change management – legitimising the use of shared space
It can also be difficult to instil a practice of taking activities away from the desk. A number of the academics we interviewed expressed a reluctance to use 'supplementary' spaces. For example, one senior researcher explained that although her concentration is often impaired due to noise levels in her open plan office, she wouldn't consider taking concentrated tasks to one of the supplementary 'pod' rooms, saying: “I’d feel a bit prima donna-like. I think other people would probably think “how come her work is so important”.
In a similar vein, another interviewee reported that she tends not to take conversations away from her shared office to a break-out area, even though this would avoid disturbing their co-workers. She explained that it ‘seems rude’ – and could be interpreted as a bid to exclude one’s office mates from the conversation.
One way in which these issues can be overcome is through the development of an explicit etiquette for the use of the new office environment.