The Role of Facility Managers in Creating Good Office Space

[Craig Knight]

Written in answer to a suggestion that:

 Facilities Management holds useful
sway in answering some of the problems of modern office management.

There is little authoritative work connecting the physical business environment with psychological factors and work performance. The main reason for this is that there is a lack of understanding as to how to measure these factors. For
example, there is a lot of talk about productivity in the workplace (e.g., it was a leading theme at the Worktech Singapore conference and is likely to be so again in London next week) and yet workplace experts are generally clueless as to how to measure productivity.



How, for example, do you measure productivity in an HR or Accounts Department? And when the best way to measure productivity is deemed to be cost cutting (e.g., space sharing, flexible working etc.) we enter the world of quack cures where by definition the most productive office is one where costs are cut to the maximum, which would be when it is closed down altogether. En route to this self-contradictory vision of productivity we have developed the dystopian office which unsurprisingly – research overwhelmingly suggests – is psychologically disastrous (e.g., Baldry & Hallier, 2010;
Elsbach, 2003). Much of today’s design and management of space increases stress, with an inevitably deleterious impact on well-being (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2011).


In trying to address the lacuna in the office-based literature between suggested methods of space management and properly measured and referenced effects, our research at Prism at The University of Exeter has developed quantifiable, peer reviewed and published measures for psychological comfort and productivity (e.g., Knight & Haslam 2010). In eight years of quantitative and qualitative study we have found the correlation between well-being and productivity to be stubbornly uni-directional (i.e., direct) and proportionate. Meanwhile every piece of causal data we have suggests that miserable spaces make for miserable performance. The most miserable space of  all -- and there are a few from which to choose - being one that is tightly controlled, uniform and spartan.



FM is in a great place to make a difference here. However the profession is often hog-tied by Boards wedded to space management principles that are toxic to organizational health (e.g., Skinner, 2005).



Prism, using scientific methodology is trying to address the shortfalls caused in large part by psychology’s absence from the conversation on office development. If anybody reading this would like more details, it would be splendid to talk. Good luck!

Craig

Further reading:

Baldry, C., & Hallier, J. (2010). Welcome to the house of fun: Work space and identity. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 150 – 171.

Elsbach, K.D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 622-654.

Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D., & Platow, M.J. (2011) The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Hove, Psychology Press.

Knight, C.P., & Haslam, S.A. (2010). Your Place or Mine? Organizational Identification and Comfort as Mediators of Relationships Between the Managerial Control of Workspace and Employees’ Satisfaction and Well-being. British Journal of Management, 21, 717-735.

Skinner, C.(2005). First steps to making your office lean. In The lean office: Collected practices and cases (pp. 65-69).
New York: Productivity Press.

[Garry Gordon]

FM will be the key to unlocking workplace performance. It will be measured not by cost cutting, nor by space per employee. It will be measured by a "Happiness Index" through satisfaction surveys. We need to plan carefully what questions we ask. What we do know is that FM must be customer focussed. Roles must be redefined and new functions such as "concierge" must become common place. The journey begins...