The Influence of Workplace Office Lay-Out’s on Social Interaction

7/28/2019 The Influence of Workplace Office Lay-Outs on Social Interaction

1/15

The Influence of Workplace Office Lay-Outs on Social Interaction


2/15


3/15

sexist and nationalist concept, to a more discreet and systematized process (Green,

p.95). However, racial and sexist discrimination still does exist in the workplace and is

often referred to as a glass cage (Kalev, 2009). In fact, when men and women interact

in a fundamentally unequal workplace, status beliefs are put in the forefront, leading tothe intentional or unintentional recreation of the unjust gender system (Kalev, 2009). As

Green states, as in a study conducted in 1995, fewer than 1% of top-level executives in

Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 industrial and service firms were of caribbean descent

(Green, p. 38). Similarly, even though white males made up 43% of the workforce, 97%

held high-ranking job titles in these firms (Green, p. 38). Essentially, although this type

of discrimination is made less blatant through newly implemented equal rights for

workers, it still exists in less identifiable forms.Although todays workplace environment is an improvement from the pasts in

which discrimination prevented individuals from even attaining jobs, it is also relevant for

those who have received employment and find themselves marginalized in their

workplaces. It all began with the standardization of the workplace by addressing the day

in and day out motions and tasks of workers, which led to grouping these tasks into

jobs, and later into departments (Scott, 2004). In todays offices for example,

organizational constructs (which are mechanisms in place to define among other

things, physical arrangements of work spaces), employ the terms communication,

control, territoriality, privacy and status as a basis for social constructs (Rashid &

Zimring. 2003 p. 1). However, being as new of a study as it is, researchers do not

provide or rather cannot provide information on whether certain office layouts are

fundamentally good or bad layouts because how these spaces influence social

interaction are still being studied (Rasid & Zimring. 2003 sec. 43.2). In fact, all office

layouts examined in the Environment and Behaviour journal since the 1970s only

provide limited illustrations of office layouts (Rasid & Zimring. 2003 sec. 43.3).

Additionally, office layouts vary by industry and preference of the interior designers and

architects, meaning that there is usually many differences in spacial organization which

influences social interaction differently (Buchanan, 1974).


4/15

As described by Carolyn M. Anderson and Matthew M. Martin, people

communicate in the workplace to meet interpersonal needs which influences who they

talk to and their choices and behaviours in that specific setting (Anderson & Martin.1995

p. 249). Of these needs and motives, inclusion (which is characterized by the need toestablish and maintain a favourable relationship with another co-worker) is one of the

most identifiable (Anderson & Martin. 1995 p. 250). Studies have also shown that when

people meet their needs of communication they also build relationships with the people

they successfully interact with, often staying in those relationships and experiencing

some form of satisfaction (Rubin, 1993). Similarly, the motive of duty is also observable

through the interactions between co-workers and bosses as it is meant to help get the

job done as well as lead to increased employee satisfaction at work (Anderson &Martin. 1995 p. 251). What one can gather from this assertion is that people acting from

a control/duty motive seek reward-type affinity seeking strategies while those who act

from the affection/inclusion seek altruistic behaviour and being concerned for the well-

being of the other (Anderson & Martin. p. 251). In essence, co-workers seek

relaxation in one another when acting out of the inclusion motive which is seen most in

co-worker to co-worker relationships. Furthermore, commitment and relationship

satisfaction in the work place has shown to lead to co-workers sharing a belief that their

companies were committed to their well-being (Anderson & Martin. p. 252). When

workers communicate with employers however there is a prevalent sense of duty and a

motive to get the job done rather than establish solid, interpersonal relationships

based on altruism (Anderson & Martin. p. 252).

While in the workplace, organizational workplace structures which promote

opportunities for peer-like collaborative relationships, allow co-workers to operate and

communicate with reduced stereotyping and discrimination towards other co-workers

(Kalev, 2009). In addition, many workplace structures have no turned to group work as

alternatives to regular work in order to boost these co-worker relationships and

productivity while reducing workplace stereotyping and the possibility of discrimination

(Kalev, 2002). Communication, which is defined as the exchange of information from


5/15

person to person, is made more prevalent through increasing accessibility with regards

to office layout (Rasid & Zimring. 2003 sec. 43.4). This, as explained by Rasid and

Zimring, 2003 enhances localized group identity. Additionally, if this accessability is

decreased through employers using control to limit it, this group identity may bediminished in the spacial arrangement of the office space (Rasid & Zimring. 2003 sec.

43.4). Territoriality, which establishes status inside the office, may also diminish the

opportunities of interaction. for example, if the spacial layout of the office entails that

office managers are settling in separate offices, interactions between managers and

workers are diminished as their spaces are either physically and/or visually less

accessible (Rasid & Zimring. 2003 sec. 43.4). Also prevalent in the field of office space

and interaction is the issue of circumvention which is the act of a worker going around orabove ones supervisor (Kassing, 2007). This act in most cases found in the study led to

the typical worker/supervisor relationship to be deconstructed, usually leading to

neutrality, compromise and relationship development (Kassing, 2007). More importantly,

this led to understanding of roles in the office as well as organizational improvements

(Kassing, 2007).

Methodology

The person I have chosen for the interview will meet the required criteria I have

previously established: Male (between 30-40 years of age), a family friend, working in a

cubicle-type setting as an average worker with an average income. This person will not

have any privileged position within the company he works for and will therefore be a

perfect candidate for the interview. For confidentiality reasons, we will refer to this

subject as Rick. I have chosen this person primarily because of two reasons: firstly, he

is very easy to get in touch with and usually cooperative and honest. Also, his job

position as well as age and income coincide with the previously mentioned criteria.

Secondly, his availability was desired as it will make research easier while his

occupation should provide the study with a fair perspective. I have recruited this

individual through the phone, during which he has agreed to the terms of the study

which include: full confidentially with regards to no disclosure of the participants name


6/15

and the name of his place of employment, an alias known as Rick to provide the

reader of the study with a temporary identity and not simply a position. Also, the

information he provides will not be disclosed to his place of employment or anyone

beyond the study. The interview will furthermore be conducted in a neutral location inorder to eliminate bias and make the participant feel as comfortable as possible. This

will specifically be conducted in the stress-free and convenient location located in his

family room as he has insisted that is where he would feel most comfortable. Seeing as

this will not negatively hinder the results of the study, the interview will be conducted

face to face rather than online or over the phone.

For the analysis of my interview, I will use a qualitative method, entailing

constructionivism. Constructionivism will focus on a micro approach, which is theindividuals perspective of the issue at hand, and subjectivism which entails that the

interpretation of the results of the interviewees responses will be fair. I will also employ

a coding method in order to determine any patterns or common phrases and words in

the results of the interview. Also, the participant will be informed about the benefits and

possible consequences implied by the study and interview to ensure full understanding.

Analysis/Discussion

The semi-structured interview conducted on the subject produced some very

interesting results with regards to how they felt about office dynamics, interactions and

roles as determined through the spacial configuration of offices. The person being

interviewed (who will be referred to as Rick for confidentiality reasons) began the

interview by describing his work space. When asked to describe his work environment,

he stated that there were approximately 20-25 people who worked at the same level as

he did. When asked a follow up question of what constituted same-levelness, Rick

replied that he was referring to individuals in the work place who shared similar

responsibilities or job titles. Furthermore, when asked about whether this same-

levelness was a discussed topic or simply understood, Rick stated that it was implied

through the proximity of where they worked and the realization that they were on the

same keel. The notion of same-levelness and shared duty come up frequently in the


7/15

interview. Rick elaborated on this theme through the comparison of his interactions

between his co-workers as opposed to his bosses. In question four, Rick established

that the relationships he formed with his co-workers were based on shared interests and

close and open proximity. However, in the following question he described hisrelationships with managers and supervisors as different, explaining this by stating,

Well, youre not going to talk to your boss the same way youd talk to the guy working

on the same things your working on a desk over from you. Rick also claimed that these

differences were fundamentally based on job titles and the position of one inside the

office. He found it easier and more natural to communicate with those around him

through shared interests and found that even if he did share similar interests as his

managers and supervisors, the relationships seemed more mechanical or forced. Healso went on to explain that it was not only job title which made this interaction different,

but there was a significant influence of what type of office the person worked in (e.g.

cubicle vs. closed office).

The distinction between the manager/supervisor class and the co-worker class

was subconsciously expressed through language by Rick as well. Throughout almost

every question conducted in the interview, whenever the subject was asked a

comparative question between his co-workers and those that employed/supervised

them, Rick would refer to his cohorts as we or us on multiple occasions while

referencing the managerial staff as them or they. This subliminal distinction between

the types of people found in the office was a consistent factor throughout the interview

and is an indicator of how individuals categorize themselves inside their work

environments. When asked if the lack of communication with the supervising staff was

strictly a status and spacial issues, Rick responded that even though there was some

common ground between the two (as previously distinguished) types of people, the

interactions seemed not to be as genuine as those experienced on a worker to worker

basis. Rick went on to mention that these relationships were by no means toxic but

simply a result of a combination of spacial arrangement and job status that was implied


8/15


9/15

workers as it entailed understanding and responsibility for one another. When

interviewed, Rick did not mention that he attempted to have a inclusion type

relationship with his employers as the circumstances created by office layout and titles

restricted him to do so. However, he did manage to maintain close relationships with afew workers based on shared values and similar circumstances.

Conclusion

In essence, the findings produced from this study were quite beneficial to the

understanding of how the spacial arrangements of office spaces influence relationships

within the workplace. The information extracted from the literature reviewed seemed to

be correlated with the results and final analysis of the interview. The overall researchconducted in the previous sections of this paper have come to conclude that office

layouts do have a significant impact on the way people interact within the work place.

The literature provided a view of the workplace as largely disconnected between the

classes of job titles found in these spaces through a difference in environment

between workers and those who manage and supervise them. In the interview

conducted, the subject proved the research to be accurate, claiming that relationships

between those in similar positions within the office shared more intimate relationships

based on shared circumstances which were not identifiable in the management class

due to spacial arrangement and job title. These findings prompt one to believe that

office space largely influences ones experience at work. These experiences can range

from segregated and negative to inclusive and positive, providing a basis on which to

possibly develop future work spaces that rectify these problems. If I were to improve this

study however, I would implement the use of more interviews from various members in

the office in different positions, include an on-site observation of the office workplace

and extend the time from of the study to ensure more accurate results.


10/15

Works Cited

Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and

bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. Journal of Business

Communication, 32(3), 249-249-265. doi:10.1177/002194369503200303

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of

managers in work organizations. Administrative Science. Q5u3ar3te-rl5y4,619.,

Green, K.T. (2003). Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics toward a Structural Account

of Disparate Treatment Theory. Vol. 38


11/15

Kalev, A. B. (2009). Cracking the glass cages? restructuring and ascriptive inequality at

work. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1591-1591-1643. doi:

10.1086/597175

Kassing, J. W. (2007). Going around the boss. exploring the consequences of

circumvention. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 55-55-74. doi:

10.1177/0893318907302020

Rashid, M., Zimring, C. (2003). Organizational Constructs and the Structure of Space:

A comparative study of office layouts. 43.1 - 43.5

Rubin,A.M.(1993).The effects of locus of control on communication motives,anxiety, and

satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 41, 162-171.

Scott, R. W. (2004). Reflections On a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology.

Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305

Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Skaggs, S. (2010). Organizational approaches

to inequality: Inertia, relative power, and environments. Annual Review of

Sociology, 36, 225-225-247. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120014

Appendix - Interview Transcript

Q1. How would you describe your work environment?

A1. Well, (pause), what do you mean by environment? Like physical arrangement or

how the workers interact with one another?

I mean with regards to the general spacial arrangement between you and your

co-workers.

A1 (continued). Umm, I guess it would be something like your typical office space. Its

not really a big office but the company does employ a fair amount of people in the


12/15

branch I work at. (pause) I can tell you theres probably something like 20 to 25 people

working at the firm that are about at the same level.

Same level?

Meaning we all have similar responsibilities - I guess you could say job criteria or outlineor something like that.

How do you know that you all share job criteria? Is there discussions about work

that led to the (pause) discovery of this or is it something implied?

Well, I mean its not rocket science right? (laugh) Were all kind of situated in the same

area, in cubicles, real close to one another so its not a stretch to assume. We do talk

about work when its appropriate and we have to but for the most part we realize were

kind of on an even keel, more or less, because of how close we are to one another.

Q2. Where do the branch managers and higher-ups work from within the

office?

A2. They have their own spaces. The manager that looks over my department has his

own office space. You know, off to the side with a door and all. (pause) The other

managers are pretty much the same I would say in that they all have similar spaces

which they work out of. Some spaces look bigger than others obviously, like ... the

higher up youre position in the company the better your office I would say? The branch

manager has a pretty nice set up over there but the other guys arent doing bad either

(chuckle). And not to say that they dont come out of there or anything but when theirworking they rarely come out.

Q3. How would you describe the interaction between yourself and your co-

workers?

A3. We all get along for the most part. I mean, there are those people that kind of keep

to themselves because thats just who they are. I wouldnt say theres any animosity

between us. I actually have a few guys from the office that I play hockey with on friday

nights as well so that defiantly helps with the office dynamic. (pause), Is that what you

wanted? (smile).

(laugh). Umm, I mean more on a professional level (pause) with regards to at-

work relationships.

Oh you mean like what we do at work?


13/15

(nod in agreement).

Id say were a pretty talkative bunch. Dont get me wrong, when were doing work, were

doing work but theres obviously time for talk and stuff like that. (pause). Its simple

enough, you know, Ill go over to someones desk for something and we might talk for a

bit about things unrelated to work but I think thats what makes an office bearable. Ithelps you get through the day sometimes when you really dont want to be there.

Q4. I know you mentioned before about how some people keep to themselves.

Do you attempt to talk to these people as well? Maybe include them in discussions?

A4. (laugh). I think that anywhere you go your going to have people who are just out

there and people whod rather keep to themselves. I wouldnt necessarily say that I try to

include other people into my conversations if we clearly dont share similar interests

though. Everyone finds their own clique that they spend their lunches with and whatnot but its not like I shun people who aren't into sports or things that I like or anything.

Q5. How would you describe your interaction with managers and those with their

own offices that you previously mentioned?

A5. Theres defiantly a difference in the way we talk to one another. I mean, with the

people around me that Ive already formed relationships with - like the guys I play

hockey with for example - its just different.

Could you explain this difference?

Well, youre not going to talk to your boss the same way youd talk to the guy working on

the same things your working on a desk over from you.(pause) Dont get me wrong its

not a respect thing either. I give the same amount of respect for John Doe that I give to

my boss but I would say that its defiantly packaged differently. For the most part, the

managers I work for are pretty cool in a sense that they aren't control freaks and their

pretty reasonable to deal with, but I think because of the work circumstances you have

to be more formal with the way I talk to my bosses.

Q6. In your opinion, whats the reason for this different type of interaction

between co-workers as opposed to the worker-manager type relationship?

A6. Id say it pretty much all comes down to job title. If you have a guy in his office for

most of the day, doing whatever he needs to do and not necessarily communicating with

all of us in cubicles, it makes a difference. We do receive emails daily from the

managers and sometimes they will visit us at our desks, but usually the interaction is

online or whatever.


14/15

When you do communicate with your managers, what is the usual point of

discussion?

Usually the projects were working on. But dont get me wrong their not robots or

anything. They watch the same news as we do, follow the same...I guess youd callthem happenings around the area so there is room for discussion outside of work

related things. My manager specifically is an alright guy. Well talk once in a while about

the Leafs or something but it definitely feels less (pause) authentic than a conversation I

would have with one of the guys I play hockey with for example.

Q7. Im gathering from the responses youve been giving that there is some sort

of disconnect between co-workers and managers. Correct me if Im interpreting wrong,

but do you believe that the way your workplace is physically structured has any influence

on this?

A7. No, no your pretty much right with that claim. There definitely is a difference in the

way we communicate. Um, (pause) I think that first and foremost its because of job

titles and the, uhh, status (said like a question) associated with them more than

anything. But yeah, youre right it has something to do with the layout to an extent as

well. Ive said it before how people find their clique in the office which is based on

personality and not a seating arrangement or anything because some of the managers

do share the same interests as I do to a certain extent. (pause) I would say the reason

that maybe we do not talk as often has to do with the fact that their in their own little

word most of the day (meaning in their offices) and were in a much more open setting.

Id say that the layout, in this sense, does contribute to how communication takes place.

Would you say that the layout of the office or the status associated with certain

job titles, as you mentioned before, is a bigger contributor to this?

Well you cant have one without the other. If you have the private space, you have the

role that goes with it - its kind of an implied thing you know? It doesnt need to be said

to be understood. And Im pretty sure its like a universal concept too when you have

spaces set up the way mine is.

Q8. Do you feel any sense of control or territoriality with regards to the space

layouts?

A8. Your making it sound like its some kind of dictatorship in there! (laughs). No, no Im

only kidding. (pause) Like I said before, there is no doubt a difference between being a

boss and an employee for sure but its not a toxic relationship or anything. Sure, you

have the unwritten rules of the office and things that you can and cant do but I

understand that. Its just something that you go through and everyone understands it for


15/15

the most part. In saying that though, there is definitely some kind of territory restrictions

and control, I think you said, that comes with the title.

If you were in a managers position, how do you think you would view the

situation?

I mean, most of these people have been with the company for at least 25 years. Theyve

payed their dues and worked their way up so its like any other job. If I had my own

personal office I wouldnt be complaining (laugh) but its always something that you want

for yourself...to one day work your way up. (pause) I wouldn't rule out a raise either

(laugh).

Q.9 Do you think this current difference in roles limits you at work?

A9. I wouldn't use the word limit because most of us have the same or similar

opportunities to move up in the company. Its tough though, you have to put in a lot ofwork just like anything else. So, I guess I would say I dont feel limited but with regards

to job status, I definitely feel unequal. Its the kind of feeling, where, you know - you

know the guy down the hall is making more than you. But I mean this strictly in a

workers sense and not as a person. (pause) All you gotta do is keep working, its all you

can do. And hope that one day the work you put in and all the dues you payed pay off.

Documents

The Influence of Workplace Office Lay-Out’s on Social Interaction