I was fortunate to speak at the CUREM conference at the University of Zurich a
couple of weeks ago – I love mixing travel with work, perhaps the topic of a
future blog. One of my co-presenters, Itai Palti of UCL and Hume, made a point
that struck a chord.
Itai basically said that workplace design is not just about
providing the right spaces to facilitate the required work activities, but also
about providing the right environmental conditions. I immediately thought of Activity Based Working (ABW) environments and realised I had not quite appreciated their
design is much broader than the look of the different types of work settings in
the space. And that is despite my research on psychoacoustics, highlighting how
different tasks (and people) require different levels/types of sound.
I recently
chaired the Workplace Trends (WT) conference in Copenhagen - after 15 years of
running WT, it was the first outside of the UK, so quite a milestone. One of
the recurring themes was around designing for individuals, or specific groups
or types of individuals. The speakers referred to personal factors such as age,
personality and parental status. There was some discussion around whether we
should design for the individual or the organisation. The general consensus
appeared to be that we should design for a majority (perhaps the average ± 1sd)
as we can’t design for everyone. But to achieve this we must offer choice, of a
range of spatial and environmental settings, rather than a one-size-fits-all
solution based on the assumed (or sometimes dictated) average.
In previous blogs, I’ve covered the what, how and who we
work with, so now I want to touch on the where we work – my main area of
expertise. This field is well-reported on by advocates of activity-based working (ABW), agile working or new ways of working (a term still used despite
early adopters like Interpolis and Chiat/Day around 25 years ago).
In recent posts I have focussed on how we can make ourselves
more productive by selecting the work we do and choosing who we work with. I
think the next logical subject, before moving on to where we work, is deciding
on when we work.
Only the other day I was on route to yoga (I’m of that age now) and
planned to be there at 6.30pm. However, I arrived late because I hit the “rush
hour” (or more appropriately “slow three hour”) traffic. Isn’t it bizarre that
in an age when most large businesses have offices across all regions of the
world, and many of us liaise with offices in different time zones, that we
still have the 9 ‘til 5 office hours? One consequence of which is the morning
and evening “rush hours”. I wondered what any aliens observing us would think
when seeing us all queuing, in our cars or at stations, to get to and from work
at exactly the same time as everyone else.
In my first blog of the year I shared how we can prioritise
our workload to be more productive. I continue that theme this month, but with
a focus on who we should work with (and who we should avoid) in order to
deliver our work objectives.
As a scientist (yes psychology is a science albeit a
“social” one) I love it when other disciplines can shed light and offer
alternative points of view on my own field of expertise. Cross-discipline input is not
blinkered by groupthink and occasionally it offers a paradigm shift in how to comprehend
and resolve a problem. In the past I have referred to the Workplace Zoo,
recognising we are different “animals” with different needs. If we continue the
analogy of the workplace as a living system, after-all biomimicry is on-trend, and
if we focus on our relationships and interactions then logically we should also
consider the relevance of symbiosis.
It is the time of the year when we sit down, bloated from Christmas excesses, reflect on the past and plan the year ahead. Undoubtedly this will involve a list (of resolutions) which will gradually be forgotten over the next few months. But “to do” lists (or “action plans” if you are reliant on others) are a good and simple aid to productivity. Crossing off a completed item offers a warm feeling of satisfaction, positive reinforcement and does the world of good for our psychological wellbeing.
But don’t just write a list, prioritise the items – which is easier said than done. How many of us go into the office in the morning with our mental “to do” list but the day pans out more like this:
I recently had the pleasure of travelling to Cape Town to present a keynote address at the Dare to Lead conference organised by Green Building Council South Africa (GBCSA). I had just 20 minutes to speak on a psychologist’s view of health, wellbeing and performance; that’s a huge subject area and pretty much my whole career condensed down to the typical time it takes to boil a pan of potatoes. So, I focussed on just three psychological theories: motivation, personality and evolutionary psychology.
