The Performance Improvement Blog

Open Office, Work Culture, and Productivity

Even though there is a trend toward open-space workplaces, views about the effectiveness of this design vary widely. Fast Company editors Jason Feifer and Anjali Mullany take up this debate in a FC interview for an article titled, “Two Cube Dwellers Argue Over Open Offices. Who's Right?” Their differing views on the matter do an excellent job of identifying the issues involved in the open-office controversy.

Jason Feifer: I witness an inability to concentrate, lack of privacy, and absent sense of ownership--which is a problem given that I occupy this space for the bulk of my waking hours. But the business community insists this is good for me. Supposedly, by all of us being mushed together instead of provided the pleasure of private ­offices, we're to form a beating heart of collaboration. And yet, because we're sitting together, we're doing everything we can to create the sense that we're apart.

Anjali Mullany: Where I sit, we don't wear headphones very often, and my team interacts a lot. In fact, we found that the built-in barriers between our desks were an impediment because we couldn't see each other when we spoke, so we recently had them removed. We made that decision together, and the feedback from team members has been positive. Instead of IM'ing each other, we're talking in person. It's way more efficient and less maddening than having my Gchat icon flashing all day, since I already suffer from multitasking overload, thanks to email, Yammer, Campfire, social media, and multiple browser tabs. When we do wear headphones, we take it as a sign that the person doesn't want to be disturbed unless it's urgent.

Despite these disagreements, it’s not one-size-fits-all. Leaders have to decide what kind of design will work best for their organizations given the culture that they want and the strategic goals of their businesses.

Rich Sheridan, in his book Joy, Inc., describes the intentional culture in Menlo Innovations that is a variation on the open-office design. The purpose of the Menlo workspace is to facilitate teamwork, information sharing, and problem-solving in order to develop the best software solutions for their customers. Prospective new hires are given some time to try out this environment before they are hired. They know that their workplace design is not a good fit for everyone and some people walk away after deciding that they don’t want to work in that kind of environment.

I can identify with the positions of both Feifer and Mullany. For some tasks I have appreciated working in an open office environment with few barriers between me and my co-workers and for some tasks I have appreciated being able to isolate myself for a few hours. I’ve had employees who would go nuts in a private office and performed best when they were in the middle of the action, constantly shifting their attention among tasks and bosses. I’ve had other employees who could be good team members but needed time to themselves and could not function well in an open office all day long.

You need to be intentional about workspace based on the culture you want to create and the performance objectives of the organization. You also need to take into consideration the differences in the ways individuals prefer to learn and work. This might mean building in options so that people can change where they work given the nature of the task and the desired outcomes. A default design of all private offices, all cubicles, or all open office, without consideration of culture, might be expedient but it will not help to maximize learning and performance. 

Still Too Much Reliance on Instructor-Led, Event-Based Employee Training

According to the 2013 State of the Industry report from ASTD, instructor-led programs continue to be the primary method for training and developing employees. The researchers estimate that 70% of training in companies is instructor-led. The content of these programs runs the gamut from basic skills to executive development.  

Although classroom-based training has declined over the past few years and some of the instructor-led training is done electronically (i.e., elearning), the predominant method is still sage-on-the-stage. Given that only 15% to 20% of the participants in these programs will end up applying their learning to achieving the strategic goals of their organizations and ASTD estimates $164.2 billion was spent on training in 2013,  a rough estimate of training dollars wasted in 2013 is $92 billion  (.80 X [.70 X $164.2 billion]).

EQMentor lists seven reasons for the failure of traditional, instructor-led training and why alternative methods, such as mentoring and coaching, are needed. To paraphrase EQMentor:

1. Emotional intelligence, one of the keys to personal and professional success, can’t be developed in a one-time program. It must be developed over time with the encouragement and assistance of others.
2. In order for training to be useful, it must occur close in time to when it is needed. Scheduled training programs can’t be timely.
3. Instructors, alone, can’t ensure that knowledge transfer occurs. Even if learning occurs during the course, that is no guarantee that learning witll be applied on the job.  
4. Today’s highly complex organizations, with their shifting customer demands and competitive pressures from around the globe, have rapidly changing learning needs that require agile learners and agile interventions.
5. The cost of learners traveling to events off-site, in terms of time, money, and effort, is not worth the investment if the goal is improved organizational performance.
6. Programs that are designed for large numbers of employees are not designed to fit the different learning styles and content needs of different learners in different situations. While intending to be efficient and cost-effective, these programs fail to meet everyone’s needs.
7. Because these programs are removed from the day-to-day activities of the workplace, they lack relevancy.

The way to address the failure of traditional, instructor-led training is to end our reliance on these programs and develop a culture in organizations that supports continuous and agile learning. This kind of culture integrates many different methods of learning (including mentoring and coaching) into the daily activities of the organization.  In this kind of culture, learning from action is highly valued. People, in the course of their workday activities, are taking risks, reflecting on their experiences, and using that awareness to improve performance. In this kind of culture, formal training events only occur when it is determined that this is the best method of learning given the learning content and goals of the organization.

Why Companies Do Not Need a Chief Learning Architect

Josh Bersin writes in a recent blog post titled, Why Companies Need a Chief Learning Architect, that the technology of learning (digital and otherwise) has become so disorganized, dis-integrated, and confusing in large companies that they need someone to have responsibility for managing all of the learning resources.

He writes:

Learning management systems, MOOCs, simulation tools, content management systems, new content providers, social profiles, collaborative learning, video sharing, mobile learning, on-demand learning, new forms of assessment, and the use of Big Data are all changing rapidly. And companies are spending more money on training (up 15% this last year)… Added to this is the fact that most large corporations have somewhat of a "mess" in their corporate learning infrastructure.

I agree with Bersin that companies need to do a better job of integrating their various learning technologies and collaborating among departments on selection and implementation of learning interventions, but I don’t agree that a chief learning architect is the solution. As I have written before, learning is everyone’s responsibility. By putting learning resources in the control of a centralized executive, we further marginalize the activity.

Bersin’s analogy to architecture doesn’t fit in this case. He writes, “Just like great buildings, cities, and countries are designed by architects, so is great learning.” But great learning is designed by learners in collaboration with their bosses. Great learning is tailored to the needs and circumstances of the learner and supported by the culture of the organization. Great learning makes a difference in individual, team, and whole organization performance.  

The architect’s goal is to design the best solution for the most people based on a current view of the future. They can’t be successful if it’s a moving target. The learning needs of employees are changing so fast that someone distant from the situation cannot know what new knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as the formal and informal training and development methods, are required at any point in time.

I believe we should stop looking for a savior to solve every problem (i.e., chief of learning, chief of innovation, chief of creativity, chief of process improvement) and start holding every executive and manager accountable for developing their employees and improving performance. Applying the appropriate technology is simply one of the means that each of these leaders can use to that end.