In my second job, my workspace was essentially the opposite of the first. In this office, I worked in a cubicle within a large room lit with fluorescent lights. There were windows but I was nowhere near them and my coworkers often kept the blinds partially closed. My cubicle was positioned right next to the main walkway that my coworkers used to navigate the office, and my computer faced away from them. This meant that my coworkers walked back and forth behind me, all day, completely eroding any sense of privacy. Again, I wasn't looking to slack off - I just found it distracting to have people behind me and potentially watching what I was doing without my knowing.
Why do I bring these examples up? Because workplace environments are significant contributors to stress if they are not planned properly. Like Ray said in class, 36% of Americans regularly experience work stress , according to the APA (2011). While these statistics don't focus specifically on the contribution of the workplace environment on stress, I think that it would be fair to assume that it has some sort of impact on these statistics. After all, there is a reason why there are so many references to workplace environments in popular culture. There is also a reason why Google has so many images to display when you google "cubicle stress". (Seriously, try it out - they're hilarious.)
 |
| Image source: Cody Carlson |
However, in my second job, environmental preference was not as high. The cubicles were still high in coherence (I'd guess that "coherence" is one of the concepts most associated with cubicles) but it lacked legibility, complexity, and mystery. It did not feel legible because I could not discern who was walking behind me and when, thereby giving me a general sense of unease throughout the day. Additionally, I eventually (unconsciously) tried to add some complexity to my cubicle by hanging a few decorations inside of it, but its effect was limited. Additionally, the only aspect of my cubicle that I can retrospectively consider as contributing to its mystery was my office plant that I began to grow because I was always curious about its progress. However, before I introduced my office plant to this environment, there was very little mystery incorporated into the work space.
Now that I've provided an introduction to the possibilities of workplace environments that are preferred and not preferred, I'm curious to know what you all think about this subject. What are the best ways to create environmental preference in office spaces? And have you worked or interned in an office that was environmentally preferable (or not preferable at all)?
 |
| Image Credit: Office Space |
American Psychological Association. (2011). Stress in the workplace: Survey summary. Online publication. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/phwa-survey-summary.pdf.
Kaplan S., & Kaplan J. (1982). Stress and the failure of preference: Introduction. In S. Kaplan & J. Kaplan (Eds.), Humanscape: Environments For People (194-199). Michigan: Ulrich's Books Inc.
Great topic, Jessica! Your first office space sounds like one I would enjoy as well. It seems very functional and provides just the right level of preference attributes. I like how you’ve added some personal touches to your office to make the space even more complex, mysterious, and preferred by you.
ReplyDeleteDuring my years in undergrad, I've worked in a cubicle office for my co-op (like a recurring internship) at an engineering firm. My cubicle was decently sized with standard high-rise dividers and lots of storage drawers and overhead shelves. Unlike you, I did not decorate my space. However, as someone too who needs her private space to feel safe and stay focused on my work, I thought my cubicle office space did its job to give me that, especially when paired with a set of headphone. I, however, would not thrive in an open office.
Open office spaces, like those deployed at Google, Facebook, and 70% of other U.S. offices last year (The Washington Post, 2014) are meant to create an environment conducive to sharing of information, transparency, and collaboration between employees.
Since its introduction a decade ago, open office layout has been receiving backlash for the sense of “oppression” it imposes on its workers. The feeling over whether open office spaces support creativity and collaboration is mixed (Fortune, 2016).
Although some companies have thrived from the use of open office, many found it ineffective and, worse, detrimental to employee performance. Without enclosed structures in an open office, people no longer have a sense of privacy at work, which can take a toll on their mental wellbeing. Also, with the endless interruptions from coworkers and distractions from surrounding noise and movement, concentration becomes difficult and productivity goes down.
Since a workplace tends to consist of a mix of introverts and extroverts (and on a side note, an even mix of these two groups can bring forth just the right pool of talents and work dynamics), perhaps the recipe for an effective work space is by having a mix of enclosed workspaces and open workspaces to cater to the individual needs of these groups. Depending on the nature of the company, viz. whether it is a startup that requires spontaneous collaboration or one that demands productivity, the workspace can be designed for more openness or enclosed spaces. Better yet, the workspace should be customized with the inputs of its workers since they are the one to be using it on a daily basis.
Reference:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/30/google-got-it-wrong-the-open-office-trend-is-destroying-the-workplace/
http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/the-open-office-concept-is-dead/