My Work in a We World

Research
my work
in a we
world
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
How do we successfully
execute our individual
focus work in a modern
workplace that emphasizes
collaboration?
INTRODUCTION
Our ability to focus at work has been
receiving a lot of attention as one of the
major challenges in the workplace today.
Many attribute this to the proliferation
of open offices. Common critiques of the
open office concept say that it’s too loud,
too distracting, and not conducive to
individual focus work.
Companies are moving employees
into contemporary activity-based open
office environments in an effort to be
more open, transparent, and collaborative.
The marketplace has become more global,
fast-paced, and competitive, and teams are
adapting by becoming more collaborative
and agile. Shorter product cycles compel
managers to place employees closer
together at the office to speed up work
processes, communication, and decisionmaking. At the same time, many teams
are becoming more distributed and
outsourced. As the global race for talent
embraces new technology, workplace
mobility, and a “work anywhere” approach,
the nature of collaboration has changed,
with employees struggling to keep
communication chains open and efficient.
2
In the midst of this greater demand for
collaboration, the ability to focus at work
has become more important than ever.
Despite the emphasis on team work,
we still need to find a way to get our
individual, concentrative work done.
My Work in a We World is the culmination
of a two-year Gensler Research project
investigating how people focus in the
workplace today. In partnership with a
global technology company, we took a
deep dive into focus work, interviewing
and surveying individuals and teams about
all of the factors involved in getting their
work done and the role that space plays
in this process.
Surprisingly, we discovered that good
focus work depends on more than just
the physical environment. It's more
complex than simply a debate about open
or closed offices. Individual temperament
and behavior, team dynamics, and
corporate culture and policies are all part
of the puzzle when it comes to supporting
individual focus work in a modern
collaborative workplace.
3
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
How work
happens is
as important
as where
it happens.
WHAT WE FOUND
Creating the right conditions for focus
work in the workplace means aligning not
only work settings, but also individual work
style, team dynamics, and organizational
culture and policies.
Making focus work effective isn’t as simple
as putting someone in a quiet environment
or taking away all distractions and
interruptions. So much of the work we do
as individuals is tied to our collaboration
with others that we simply cannot separate
the two things. We have to understand
what makes for good focus work and
good collaboration work—and get both of
them right—in order to create successful
workplaces in the future.
4
5
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Focus
Under
Siege
EVIDENCE BEHIND
Focus work seems to be under siege in the
modern workplace. Writers, researchers,
and opinion-makers argue that new
workplaces have become overbuilt for
collaboration, sacrificing quiet “heads
1
down” work, privacy, and productivity.
Susan Cain, author of the influential
book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in
a World That Can’t Stop Talking, contends
that today’s workplace favors the
extrovert and teamwork at the expense
of introverts and the creativity, invention,
and skills that they bring to the table
2
through quiet concentration. Cain's
critique and that of other like-minded
commentators have resonated with many
office workers who have experienced
firsthand greater distractions and increased
stress stemming from an emphasis on
group work and the proliferation of open
work environments. The prevailing belief
is that we are sacrificing performance in
the name of collaboration.
6
Recent research supports some of these
critiques, showing a downward trend
in individual effectiveness. Gensler's
2013 Workplace Survey report found
that overall workplace performance
nationwide dropped by 6% from 2008
to 2013. Analysis showed the decline in
performance was linked to a decrease
in the effectiveness of the workplace to
support focus work.
The findings also showed that, despite a
bias favoring collaboration in many
workplaces, people seem to be spending
more time doing focus work. Gensler's
survey found a 13% rise in time spent
conducting focus work during the 5-year
period studied. In contrast, survey
respondents reported a 20% decrease
3
in time spent collaborating. People are
spending more time focusing, but are
feeling less effective doing it.
7
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Focus
defined:
To concentrate; to bring all efforts,
faculties, activities, etc. to bear
on one thing or activity.
All of this is happening at a time when
the ability to focus at work is becoming
increasingly important for workers and
companies looking for a competitive edge
in the global marketplace. Studies show
that the ability to concentrate is critical to
high-level problem solving and creative
thinking. It also has been linked to
a greater sense of engagement and
satisfaction with one's work.
A 2012 global workforce study of 32,000
employees by the consulting company
Towers Watson found that only 20% of
respondents said they were able to focus
on one task at a time at work, but those
who could often described themselves as
50% more engaged in their work than
those who could not. Engagement at work
has been associated with companies that
have 22% higher profitability, 10% higher
customer ratings, 28% fewer thefts,
4
and 48% fewer accidents. Creating an
environment that supports individual focus
work and engagement can bring significant
bottom-line benefits to companies.
8
Ground Zero
for Focus:
Software Developers and Agile Team Work
Focus in the workplace is an issue for
all knowledge workers, but due to the
complex nature of their work, software
developers, in particular, have an
especially high need for concentration.
Over the last two years, Gensler has been
working with a global technology company
to learn how software developers work.
Through interviews and surveys with
software developers and other engineers,
we found that these individuals spent
about 65–70% of their time doing focus
work, including such tasks as coding,
testing and debugging, as well as other
less intensive individual activities such as
responding to email and instant messaging.
Most of the people interviewed explained
that the nature of their work often required
a lot of concentration. Though they all
indicated that they made themselves
available for periodic questions and
conversations with their coworkers, most
found that these interruptions regularly
caused their own productivity to suffer to
some extent.
Despite the high level of concentration
needed among many of its workers, many
tech companies have shifted towards more
collaboration and the adoption of the agile
work style. “Agile” work is characterized
by fast development cycles supported by
self-organizing, cross-functional teams,
and an iterative approach that relies on
rapid and flexible responses to change.
The agile method breaks tasks into small
increments with short time frames, and
agile teams typically work in small groups,
favoring face-to-face interactions. Software
developers write and test code daily,
gathering at frequent stand-up meetings
to discuss accomplishments, road blocks,
and next steps. Problems are often
resolved through ad hoc conversations
and brainstorming sessions with team
5
members. Overall, the agile process
necessitates periods of both intense focus
and intense collaboration.
9
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
THE DILEMMA:
How can I be
effective when
"team" seems to
mean "distraction"?
Collaboration, team work, and agility
have grown in importance in many
workplaces, but unstructured collaboration
or too much of it can quickly devolve
into distraction. This becomes evident
when workers are asked to identify their
biggest distractions. Among the software
engineers interviewed as part of this
research, interruptions from coworkers,
email/instant messages, and overheard
conversations were the top three hurdles
for focus. Similar interviews with other
professionals and knowledge workers
10
yielded similar responses, with a majority
of respondents citing interruptions
by coworkers as their primary source
of workplace distraction, along with
6
overheard conversations, noise, and email.
The challenge lies in the fact that these top
“distractions” are also fundamental parts
of the work process. To put it simply, work
often distracts us from work. Important
activities that promote communication
and problem-solving can simultaneously
function as disruptors.
11
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
One person's interruption
is another's interaction
12
13
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Take away distraction
and you may jeopardize
collaboration
Getting work done involves balancing
both collaboration and focus.
14
15
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Optimal performance
requires personal
engagement, but that
means different things
for different people.
Completing tasks at work requires
more than just a lack of distractions.
Individuals need optimal levels of interest,
engagement, and alertness to do a task
well. In his extensive work on happiness,
creativity, and motivation, psychologist
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi theorizes that
people are happiest when they reach
a state of "flow"—a state of complete
concentration and absorption with the
task at hand. Individuals in the flow not
only feel great commitment and fulfillment
from their activity, but also experience a
sense of skill and ability.
While all humans seem to be happiest
when in a state of flow, how they achieve
it varies widely. Individuals have their
own idiosyncratic work styles that require
specific tools, processes, and conditions
to support their personal engagement in
7
a task.
Our initial research began with interviews
of 20 software developers about their
personal work habits. All study participants
had the same job type, but came from
different office environments (open
plan and private office), and different
demographic groups (region, tenure,
gender). When we asked about their
ability to focus at work and how they
16
achieve a “state of flow,” we heard a
variety of responses. Though the small
population size interviewed did not allow
for discernible correlations between
demographic conditions and focus habits,
definite patterns emerged related to
individual personality and preferences.
We found that differences in personality
and cognitive style determined varying
levels of engagement, satisfaction with
their work space, productivity, and
perceptions regarding interactions with
others. While half of the developers
interviewed in open plan environments
indicated that they preferred quiet, private
spaces to concentrate effectively, the
other half said that they worked better
in “buzzy” spaces or stated that they
could focus anywhere. We were unable
to find consensus among interviewees
regarding what space types or conditions
were preferable for focus work or how
much noise was acceptable for effective
concentration. These responses align
with other studies that suggest that one’s
perceptions about acceptable levels of
distraction often relate to individual
preferences or expectations more than to
the actual environmental performance of
8
the space.
17
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Noise is not always bad.
Audible conversations
aren’t always negative
distractions.
Oftentimes, noise is identified as the
most typical source of distraction in the
workplace. A 2013 study by the Center
for the Built Environment at the University
of California, Berkeley analyzed survey
responses from 42,764 samples collected
from 303 office buildings in numerous
different industries. They found that
people perceived uncontrollable noise
and lack of sound privacy as the biggest
source of work disruptions and overall
workplace dissatisfaction over any other
9
factor in the workplace. However, when
we asked our study participants about how
noise affected them at work, responses
were varied.
We placed acoustic sensors in the
workplaces of our initial study participants
over a one-week period to try and see
if measurements aligned with what
participants said about noise levels.
The resulting measurements showed
that open plan office environments were
louder than private office environments
by about 10 decibels, on average. Open
workplaces also had much more variation
in noise levels throughout the day. Yet,
when measurements were matched up
with participants' statements about noise,
no clear patterns emerged. Differences
in sound levels went unnoticed by most
people. Noise levels alone often were not
enough to cause distractions.
18
More than anything else, speech is the
biggest culprit in the "noise problem."
Speech, in the form of overheard
conversations and phone calls, is often
unpredictable, varies in loudness, and
has high information content—making
it particularly disruptive. “Speech is the
most disturbing type of sound because
it is directly understood in the brain’s
working memory,” explained Valtteri
Hongisto, an acoustician at Finland’s
Institute of Occupational Health.
Studying the impact of noise and speech
on work performance, Hongisto and his
colleagues found that unwilling listeners
of overheard conversations experienced
a 5% to 10% decline in cognitive task
performance requiring short-term
memory, such as reading, writing, or
10
other forms of creative work.
Although there is evidence that noise
and speech have an impact on both
perceptions of distraction and actual
cognitive functions, other research
suggests that the effects of noise on
individuals are more nuanced. The same
variations in personality and cognitive style
that impact a person’s ability to focus also
come into play in their reactions to noise.
The software developers interviewed
expressed differences in how they
experienced noise and speech. Among
the individuals in our study working in
open plan workspaces, where measured
ambient noise fluctuated more throughout
the day, only a third described significant
difficulties in concentrating due to noise.
Most stated that they experienced
occasional issues or no issues at all. In
addition, several developers interviewed
did not think that speech, or overheard
conversations, was particularly problematic
either in terms of their ability to focus
or their overall workplace satisfaction.
Overheard conversations were perceived
both positively and negatively, depending
on context. Developers who were located
with team members working on the same
projects tended to perceive overheard
conversations more positively than others.
In those cases, overheard conversations
were relevant to their work and beneficial
to them and their teams.
In fact, other studies go as far as to argue
that ambient noise may enhance creativity.
Researchers from the University of Illinois
have found that while a high level of noise
(85 dB and above) reduces information
processing and hurts creativity, moderate
ambient noise (70 dB) introduces enough
stimulus to promote abstract processing
11
and imaginative thinking. Like Goldilocks,
many of us work best in environments
that are not too quiet or too loud, but with
enough background noise to be "just right."
19
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Don't forget
acoustics!
The majority of the participants in our research
had the advantage of working in environments
with proper acoustical design already in place.
As a baseline,
10 acoustic planning
and construction
principles should
always be considered
in workplace design:
01
Work Patterns
02
Speech Privacy
03
Behavioral Change
04
Behavioral Protocols
05
Zoning
Identify the balance of concentration
and interaction among the workers in
the office to help create zones.
identify the level of privacy required for
the work based on the work patterns.
Support behavioral adaptations with
mobile technologies, multiple work
spaces, and policy.
Develop protocols aimed at reducing
distractions and appropriate use of space.
Develop a layout strategy which will
locate incompatible functions apart
from each another.
06
Planning
07
Furniture
Consider furniture that offers noise
reduction, but not speech reflection.
09
Sound Masking
Systems
10
Walls
Consider the effects of locating
certain support areas (pantry,
entrance to conference rooms, etc.)
on neighboring workstations.
08
Sound Absorbing
Ceilings and Walls
Specify ceilings and walls with a proper
Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC),
particularly in open plan office areas.
Specify sound masking systems,
particularly in open plan office areas.
Specify Sound Rated Wall Constructions.
For more information, see GSA Public
Buildings Service's "Sound Matters:
How to achieve acoustic comfort in the
contemporary office," December 2011.
20
21
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
We can be our own
worst enemies when it
comes to distraction.
Along with noise and speech, interruptions
by coworkers top the list of distractions
that impede focus work. Individuals
commonly refer to external interruptions
as the primary issue, but researchers
are finding that self-interruptions pose
as significant a challenge to workers as
interruptions by others. Gloria Mark,
Professor at the Donald Bren School of
Information and Computer Science at
the University of California, Irvine, has
been studying how information workers
experience disruptions for over a decade.
She argues that people are as likely to
interrupt themselves as to be externally
interrupted. In a study of 36 managers,
financial analysts, software developers, and
project leaders, Mark and her colleagues
observed that people constantly switched
tasks throughout their day (every 4
minutes for related tasks and every 11
minutes for unrelated tasks). About 44%
of these interruptions were self-inflicted.
22
Researchers also found that the habit
of self-interruptions was strongest in
open-plan environments, suggesting
that such environments tended to
encourage unmanaged collaboration and
multi-tasking, which, in turn, habituated
people to interruptions and undisciplined
12
individual work.
Interruptions, whether self-created or
caused by others, have a significant impact
on individual focus work. Although 82%
of all interrupted work is resumed on
the same day, Mark found that it took
about 23 minutes for people to get back
on task. This constant task shifting slows
down work flow. Moreover, in much the
same way as multitasking has been shown
to diminish mental acuity, scientists
hypothesize that constant interruptions
and task switching diminish the kind
of deep thinking that leads to high
13
achievement and problem solving.
23
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Frustrated work isn't
always unproductive.
Individuals are frequently frustrated with
interruptions, but personal frustration
does not always translate into a drop in
productivity for teams or organizations.
In fact, the benefits of collaboration
and even disruptive interactions can
often outweigh the loss of productivity
from individual work. In an experiment
conducted by California State University,
San Marcos, researchers tested an
"electronic brainstorming" system in
order to better understand the impact of
interactions on productivity. They found
that the group that was forced to interact
more intensively in their task measurably
outperformed the group that interacted
less. This was the case even though
individuals in the higher interaction
group felt that they experienced more
interruptions, were less productive,
14
and were less able to concentrate.
An earlier study of computer-enabled
collaboration conducted in the 1990’s
showed similar results. Participants
working collectively produced more and
better results than individuals working
alone, despite their perceptions of being
less productive and their frustrations with
15
the interactive process.
This trade-off between frustrated focus
work and collaboration benefits can
be seen among software developers as
24
well. In workplace surveys conducted
at a large technology company, Gensler
found that many new occupants of agile
workplaces experienced low satisfaction
with their ability to focus, even as
they acknowledged improvements in
collaboration and team problem-solving.
In one particular case, survey scores rating
workplace effectiveness in supporting
heads-down work plummeted from 79%
satisfied to 8%, while scores rating the
workplace for supporting collaboration
jumped from 24% satisfied to 61%. When
follow-up interviews were conducted with
the developers and testers on-site, most
agreed that there was a “net positive”
impact of the agile space, even as they felt
a decrease in individual focus time and
personal effectiveness.
Despite such "net positives" for teams
and organizations, greater interactions/
interruptions come at a cost to individual
workers beyond lower personal
productivity in the form of physical and
emotional stress. A study by Cornell
University psychologists Gary Evans and
Dana Johnson observed that exposing
clerical workers to open-office noise for
three hours raised adrenaline levels and
16
triggered a fight-or-flight response. In
another experiment, researchers had
people answer a set of e-mails, with one
group interrupted by phone calls and
instant messages and another group
completely left alone. At first, researchers
found no significant errors in those who
were interrupted. In fact, interrupted
participants worked faster than the
uninterrupted group, suggesting greater
productivity among this group. However,
when researchers measured the two
groups for stress using a NASA workload
scale, differences between the groups
emerged. Interrupted individuals showed
higher levels of stress, mental overload,
17
and frustration.
These studies demonstrate that humans
are highly adaptable. They can perform,
and even excel, in highly interactive
environments. The key is to provide
workplaces and work processes that look
beyond productivity and performance,
and that take into account physical and
mental well-being.
25
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Individual work happens
with and around others.
Ironically, a lot of what constitutes
individual work involves some degree of
collaboration, with interspersed moments
of problem-solving and communication
with colleagues. When we conducted a
survey with our partners at the global
technology company, we found that
individuals spent approximately only one
tenth of their workday doing intense,
uninterruptible focus work. Filtering
the data for software developers, we
discovered that the average remained
consistent, at 11%. Similar work patterns
emerged when we asked the same
question to workers at a non-tech,
professional services firm.
form of collaboration or availability for
collaboration with others. Tech workers
and non-tech workers alike reported
spending approximately half of their
time either doing focus work that could
be interrupted by others or individual
work, such as email, that involved
communication with others.
Rather than intense focus work, what we
found was that the majority of people's
"individual work" comprised some
Good collaboration actually enhances
good focus work. People are willing to
put up with overheard conversations and
The results of our research illustrate the
nature of individual focus work as part
of a spectrum of work activities that
incorporates work with others. People
often combine individual and collaborative
work, or toggle between them, throughout
a typical workday.
interruptions from coworkers when they
see the benefit of those interactions for
themselves and their teams in knowledgesharing and relevancy to their work.
Much of the frustration and problems
that people experience happen through
undisciplined interactions. Environments,
teams, and work processes that allow for
too much unstructured collaboration tend
to diminish the effectiveness of both focus
and collaboration. On the other hand, time
saved in shorter meetings or productive
conversations translate into time gained
back for individual focus work.
Balanced workplaces are
more creative and innovative
Productive work environments require
both focus and collaboration to co-exist.
According to Gensler’s 2013 US Workplace
Survey Key Findings report, employees
who scored their workplaces as highly
effective for both focus and collaboration
also tended to report higher performance
and satisfaction in their jobs and work
environment than those who scored focus
and collaboration lower at their workplace.
In addition, employees who reported
balanced workplaces rated their companies
highly in terms of encouraging innovation
and creativity.
Balancing focus and
collaboration is key
Percentage of employees who
rank their company highly:
Not balanced
How do you spend your time at work?
Balanced
78
Global Technology Company
Global Technology Company - Software Developer
74
73
72
52
46
45
Working alone, not
available for interruption
26
40
40
Professional Services Firm
Individual Work
74
Collaborative Work
Working alone, but
Communicating via email,
available for interruption messenger, and other textbased communication
In spontaneous
conversations
In scheduled meetings
that are not recurring
In recurring scheduled
meetings
Creates climate
of innovation
Has creative
thinkers
Encourages
breakthrough ideas
Has clear strategy
of innovation
Leadership
encourages
innovation
27
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
DESIGNING
THE RIGHT
case
PLACE: study
IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE WORKPLACE
Creating a balanced environment where
focus work and collaboration are both
effective means considering how that
environment aligns with individuals,
teams, and culture. As part of our research,
we looked at one of the contemporary
open workplaces of a global technology
company. The workplace was composed of
a series of open team areas, each housing
about 10-15 workstations, with support
spaces separating teams. This workplace
serves as a case study for what works and
what doesn't in agile, open environments,
and illustrates the importance of balancing
good focus and collaboration.
What works
The open workplace proved to be largely
a success for the teams of developers and
testers. They explained that the space fit
their team dynamics, their work culture,
and their individual work needs.
For most developers and testers, the team
areas were the right size to successfully
accommodate their teams and work
flows. Individuals working on the same
project were able to sit in the same space.
Coworkers sitting together shared the
same periods of intense collaboration and
intense focus since their team project
schedules were usually in sync. Overheard
conversations and periodic interruptions
were viewed as productive interactions
28
rather than distractions. Proximity to team
members and shared project schedules
made collaboration more effective, helping
to cut back on email and accelerating
decision-making.
Matching the team area size to the team
also allowed for stronger team culture,
since they all sat together. Teams were
comfortable communicating with each
other and setting informal rules for how
people should behave around each other.
Overall, synced project schedules, built-in
efficiencies based on proximity to team
members, and informal protocols made
interruptions less frustrating and created a
sense of greater autonomy for individuals
and teams.
What doesn’t work
On the other hand, user experience
(UX) designers in the same workplace
configuration reported less satisfaction
with the new agile work environment.
Unlike developers who worked with a single
team in the same space for the majority
of their time, UX designers collaborated
on multiple teams and met with different
people in different areas throughout the
day. Rather than sitting with one of their
teams, designers sat with other designers.
In interviews, UX designers expressed
reticence in entering different team areas
to collaborate with their dispersed team
members, describing the experience as
similar to walking into someone’s living
room uninvited.
Since many UX designers did not sit with
their teams, they did not benefit from
overheard or ad hoc conversations in the
way that developers and testers did. For
designers, most overheard conversations
were distractions. In order to get away
from stray chatter, UX designers typically
left their assigned desks and looked for
focus rooms or other locations to get their
work done.
Since their assigned team areas were
not always occupied by their team
members, designers commonly ran up
against conflicting work styles. Clashes,
interruptions, and disagreements erupted,
reflecting different development cycles,
team processes, and cultures.
Moreover, UX designers sitting in the same
team area had fewer ties to each other as
team members, making conflict resolution
more complicated. As a result, they felt less
control over their environment and the
prevailing culture within their own team
areas than developers and testers working
in the same type of space.
29
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Know what
you can do
and do it
The differing experiences in our open
workplace case study illustrate the
importance of autonomy and control for
our ability to work. Autonomy can come in
two forms. As part of a group, people can
feel autonomous when they self-govern,
working together to set up protocols for
behavior and team work styles. They can
also experience autonomy as individuals,
by determining their own actions and
circumstances.
sitting with team members, they were not
able to establish common work styles or
strong team area cultures. Collaboration
became undisciplined: common
protocols for behavior and space usage
did not develop, and interruptions and
disagreements occurred frequently. As a
result, collaboration happened everywhere
and all the time, creating a sense of
frustration and helplessness among UX
designers trying to focus in those spaces.
Employee autonomy can only happen if
the workplace culture allows for it, and if
individuals, teams, and spaces align with it.
The most satisfied occupants in our case
study–developers and testers–tended to
have team cultures that allowed for broad
controllability and autonomy. These people
were able to work with their teams to set
up rules for their open team areas and for
work processes. They were generally selfgoverning and felt empowered to express
their own desires for how they wanted and
needed to work, and they cooperated with
coworkers to make their desires a reality. In
addition, they had varied work spaces that
provided them with a choice for where and
how they worked and that accommodated
a range of cognitive styles.
Indeed, having control over when,
where, and how you work affects
workplace satisfaction, motivation, and
performance. Gensler’s 2013 Workplace
Survey report found that knowledge
workers who indicated having choice in
how they worked also reported 12% higher
levels of satisfaction and job performance
18
than those reporting little choice.
In contrast, UX designers at the same
location were not able to align their culture
with their space, and their ability to take
control of their individual effectiveness was
thus limited. Since they were not always
30
This aligns with earlier studies by
researchers at the Institute of Millennium
Design & Research in Seoul, Korea,
showing that the perception of control
over one’s environment impacted team
cohesion and job satisfaction among their
subjects. The research suggested that the
flexible use of space (i.e., the ability to
adjust one’s workspace, the availability
of a variety of space types to do one’s
job, and the availability and convenience
of meeting rooms when needed) had a
positive effect in addressing individual,
19
interpersonal, and group needs.
31
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
Providing autonomy and choice to
employees has been shown to be
beneficial for companies as well. In a study
of 320 small businesses conducted by
Cornell University, researchers found that
companies that granted workers choice in
how they did their jobs grew 4 times the
rate and had a third of the turnovers than
companies which did not provide much
20
latitude in how employees worked.
It should be the responsibility of the
company to provide its employees with
the necessary tools for exercising choice.
These tools should include a workplace
that incorporates a variety of work settings
and a culture that allows employees to
dictate how they want to use them. It is
then the responsibility of the employees to
fully embrace the autonomy they are given.
Workplace choice
improves the
employee experience
Employees who have choice in when, where,
and how to work have higher levels of
satisfaction, innovation, and job performance.
Percentage of employees who
rank each factor highly:
76
71
60
Employees without choice
Employees with choice
50
60
52
40
32
2013 Gensler US Workplace Survey Key Findings
Innovation
32
Job
Performance
Job
Satisfaction
Workplace
Satisfaction
33
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
FOCUS IS
MORE THAN
JUST FOCUS
CONCLUSION
Without a doubt, the ability to focus
is critical to achieve high performance
and innovation, as well as to nurture
personal well-being and satisfaction.
Yet, constant interruptions by coworkers,
loud conversations by neighbors, and
a continuous stream of emails and
messages often make our workplaces
challenging settings to conduct quiet
“heads-down” work.
Unfortunately, there's no single solution.
It’s not as simple as putting people in a
quiet space. Although the need to focus
is universal, how we do it varies widely,
depending on personality and cognitive
style. What may be perceived as an inviting
work environment by one person may be
a distracting setting to another. Even if we
were to take away most of the common
distractions in the workplace—coworkers,
noise, and email—we would still be left
with ourselves. Left to our own devices,
with brains that relentlessly wander and
switch tasks, we are frequently our own
biggest enemies, keeping us from getting
our work done.
34
Moreover, what we call “individual focus
work” varies widely, depending on the
nature of the work and the task at hand.
The kind of intense focus work that cannot
be interrupted is only a small part of
how most people spend their workdays.
Instead, almost half of our time is spent
doing quiet, individual tasks that allow
us to be available for interruptions or
that are passively collaborative in nature,
such as writing emails or messaging
coworkers. Much of the time, we toggle
between focus and collaboration. In fact,
focus work and collaboration are often
so intrinsically tangled with one another
that effective focus cannot really happen
unless we also have effective collaboration.
We need to get them both right in order
to be productive.
When designing a workplace conducive
to both focus and collaboration, one size
does not fit all. A good balance depends
on more than the physical environment.
We have to start seeing issues around
focus work as part of a larger workplace
“ecosystem” that depends on how we
collaborate, and that takes into account
individual cognitive styles, team dynamics,
and organizational culture and policies.
With so many variables, we need to
create environments and opportunities
for autonomy, providing individuals with
control over how, when, and where they
do their work.
Once we begin to acknowledge that
focus is complicated and we start to
offer people greater autonomy over how
they do their work, we will be able
to start turning many of the barriers
to focus into opportunities for high
performance. By taking a holistic approach,
interruptions and overheard conversations
can become productive interactions,
stimulating new ideas and faster problemsolving, for example. These are the
foundations upon which companies can
begin to meet the challenge of providing
a truly inspiring, supportive, and effective
modern workplace.
35
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
References
Alter, Adam. 2012. Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces that Shape How We
Think, Feel, and Behave. New York: The Penguin Press.
Lewis, Katherine Reynolds. 2013. “The Slow Death of the Private Office.” Fortune,
September 23. http://fortune.com/2013/09/23/the-slow-death-of-the-private-office/.
Armstrong, Barbara T. 2012. “Open Workspaces Are Here to Stay. Now, How
Do We Get Any Work Done?” Forbes, May 24. http://www.forbes.com/sites/
barbaraarmstrong/2012/05/24/balancing-the-needs-for-collaboration-and-privacy-a-tallorder-in-workplace-design/.
Mark, Gloria. 2011. Surf IT – Gloria mark.mp4. YouTube video. U.C. Irvine. Uploaded
August 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-aWVZgsvqg.
Baker, Sarah Elsie and Edwards, Rosalind. 2012. “How Many Qualitative Interviews
is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections on Sampling and Cases in
Qualitative Research.” National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National
Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton.
Bjork, Aaron. 2014. Scaling Agile Across the Enterprise. Microsoft Visual Studio.
Engineering Stories (website). Accessed on August 20. http://stories.visualstudio.com/
scaling-agile-across-the-enterprise/.
Cain, Susan. 2012. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in A World That Can't Stop Talking. New
York : Crown Publishers.
Center for the Built Environment. 2012. “The Holy Grail of Measuring Workplace
Productivity.” Centerline, Summer: 3−7.
Craig, David. 2014. “It Doesn’t Matter Whether or Not Your Like Your Open Office.” Fast
Company, January 23. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3025052/it-doesnt-matter-whetheror-not-you-like-your-open-office.
Dabbish, Laura, Mark, Gloria, and Gonzalez, Victor. 2011. “Why Do I Keep Interrupting
Myself?: Environment, Habit and Self-Interruption.” In Proceedings of the ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7-12. Vancouver, B.C. Canada. http://www.
ics.uci.edu/~gmark/Home_page/Research_files/CHI%202011%20Self-interruption.pdf.
Marshall, Martin N. 1996. “Sampling for Qualitative Research,” Family Practice 13:
522–525.
Mehta, Ravi, Zhu, Rui (Juliet), and Cheema, Amar. 2012. "Is Noise Always Bad? Exploring
the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition." Journal of Consumer Research 39
(4): 784–799.
Mullany, Anjali. 2013. “How to Create an Open Office that is More Awesome for Both
Introverts and Extroverts.” Fast Company, November 6. http://www.fastcompany.
com/3021206/dialed/how-to-create-an-open-office-that-is-more-awesome-for-bothintroverts-and-extroverts.
Pentland, Alex ‘Sandy’. 2012. “The New Science of Building Great Teams.” Harvard
Business Review, April. http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-teams/
ar/pr.
Pink, Dan. 2009. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Schwartz, Ariel. 2013. “You’re Not Alone: Most People Hate Open Offices.” Fast
Company, November 20. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021713/youre-not-alone-mostpeople-hate-open-offices.
Schwartz, Tony and Porath, Christine. 2014. “Why You Hate Work.” The New York Times,
May 30. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/opinion/sunday/why-you-hate-work.html.
Gallup Business Journal. 2006. “Too Many Interruptions at Work?” Gallup Business
Journal, June 8. http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/23146/too-manyinterruptions-work.aspx.
Tierney, John. 2012. “From Cubicles, Cry for Quiet Pierces Office Buzz.” The New York
Times, May 19. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/science/when-buzz-at-yourcubicle-is-too-loud-for-work.html?_r=2.
Gensler. 2014. Workplace Performance Index Survey. Confidential client. April 4.
Steiner, Ivan D. 1972. Group Processes and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Endnotes
1 Lewis 2013; Feifer 2013; Schwartz 2013; Konnikova 2014
Goldberg, Lewis R. 1990. “An Alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big-Five Factor
Structure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6): 1216–1229.
2 Cain 2012, 11, 74-75
Gosling, Sam. 2008. Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. New York: Basic Books.
4 Cain 2012, 74; Schwartz and Porath 2014
GSA Public Buildings Service. 2011. Sound Matters: How to Achieve Acoustic Comfort
in the Contemporary Office, January. http://gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/172515/fileName/
GSA_Sound_Matters_(Dec_2011)_508.action.
Hongisto, Valtteri, Haapakangas, Annu, and Haka, Miia. 2008. “Task Performance and
Speech Intelligibility—A Model to Promote Noise Control Actions in Open Offices.” In
Performance: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN).
Foxwoods, CT. http://www.icben.org/2008/PDFs/Hongisto_et_al.pdf.
3 Gensler 2013, 9
5 Bjork 2014
6 Gensler 2014
7 Gosling 2008, 20−21; Kirsh 2000/1, 42
8 Lee and Brand 2005, 329−330
9 Kim and de Dear 2013
10 Hongisto et al. 2008; Tierney 2012
11 Mehta, Zhu, Cheema 2012
Hoskins, Diane. 2014. “Employees Perform Better When They Can Control Their Space.”
Harvard Business Review, HBR Blog Network, January 16. http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/
employees-perform-better-when-they-can-control-their-space/.
12 Dabbish, Mark, Gonzalez 2011, 4; Mark 2011; Gallup Business Journal 2006
Jessup, Leonard M. and Connolly, Terry. 1993. “The Effects of Interaction Frequency
on the Productivity and Satisfaction of Automated Problem-Solving Groups.” www.
interruptions.net/literature/Jessup-HICSS93.pdf.
15 Craig 2014
Kim, Jungsoo and de Dear, Richard. 2013. “Workspace Satisfaction: The Privacycommunication Trade-off in Open-Plan Offices.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 36:
18–26.
18 Hoskins 2014; Gensler 2013, 12−13
Kirsh, David. 2000/1. “A Few Thoughts on Cognitive Overload” Intellectica 30: 19–51.
21 GSA 2011, 11
Knight, Craig and Haslam, S. Alexander. 2010. “The Relative Merits of Lean, Enriched,
and Empowered Offices: An Experimental Examination of the Impact of Workspace
Management Strategies on Well-Being and Productivity.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied 16 (2): 158–172.
Konnikova, Maria. 2014. “The Open-Office Trap.” The New Yorker, January 7. http://www.
newyorker.com/currency-tag/the-open-office-trap.
Lee, So Young and Brand, Jay L. 2005. “Effects of Control Over Office Workspace on
Perceptions of the Work Environment and Work Outcomes,” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 25 (3): 323–333.
As architects, designers, planners and consultants, we partner with our clients on some 3,000 projects
every year. These projects can be as small as a wine label or as large as a new urban district. With
more than 4,500 professionals networked across 46 locations, we serve our clients as trusted advisors,
combining localized expertise with global perspective wherever new opportunities arise. Our work
reflects an enduring commitment to sustainability and the belief that design is one of the most powerful
strategic tools for securing lasting competitive advantage.
Pattison, Kermit. 2008. “Work, Interrupted: The Cost of Task Switching,” Fast Company,
July 28. http://www.fastcompany.com/944128/worker-interrupted-cost-task-switching.
Feifer, Jason. 2013. “Offices for All! Why Open-Office Layouts are Bad for Employees,
Bosses, and Productivity.” Fast Company, November 4. http://www.fastcompany.
com/3019758/dialed/offices-for-all-why-open-office-layouts-are-bad-for-employeesbosses-and-productivity.
Gensler. 2013. 2013 U.S. Workplace Survey, Key Findings. http://www.gensler.com/
uploads/documents/2013_US_Workplace_Survey_07_15_2013.pdf.
About Gensler
13 Ibid.
14 Center for the Built Environment 2012, 5
16 Konnikova 2014
17 Pattison 2008; Jessup and Connolly 1993, 148; Mark 2011
19 Lee and Brand 2005, 330
20 Pink 2009, 89
Contributors
Laura Mihailoff
Thomas Muchnick
Gervais Tompkin
Lisa Hsiao
Miriam Diaz
Locations
Abu Dhabi
Atlanta
Austin
Baltimore
Bangalore
Bangkok
Beijing
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Doha
Dubai
Hong Kong
Houston
La Crosse
Las Vegas
London
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Miami
Minneapolis
Morristown
New York
Newport Beach
Oakland
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Raleigh-Durham
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
San José
São Paulo
Seattle
Seoul
Shanghai
Singapore
Sydney
Tampa
Tokyo
Toronto
Washington, DC
© 2015 Gensler.
The information contained within this document
is and shall remain the property of Gensler. This
document may not be reproduced without prior
consent from Gensler.
www.gensler.com
37
Gensler Research | My Work in a We World
gensler.com/research