When I was traveling last week, a magazine caught my eye, one I don't normally read: Scientific American Mind and the article “Cubicle, Sweet Cubicle: The Best Ways to Make Office Spaces Not So Bad ( Preview )“.
The whole article isn't online, unfortunately, but it's good reading if you want to buy it on the newsstand or online. It re-emphasizes some of my points, I think, about the overly strict and overly restrictive instances of “bad office 5S” (like this joke video I made). Here is the subtitle for the article:
The article cites a lot of psychological research and studies to prove something that should be obvious: people like to have control over their own workspace – they don't like to be told how to arrange things. Being “resistant” to standardized work is often an understandable reaction to being told what to do.
The article makes the further point that an office with overly-controlling top-down management styles might be harming productivity and making people sick.
Now, in the Lean world when we talk about 5S and standardization, I think it's worth thinking about WHAT matters. Does a certain organization and standardization impact the customer or workplace? For example, it might be good for patients to be restrictive and NOT allow nurses to just put medications wherever they want (each nurse having a different spot or putting it in a different spot each time). That lack of standardization might lead to errors… so the need for standardization probably outweighs the need for individual expression.
But in cases like determining how to decorate an office… that's probably a case where there's no customer benefit to having “standardized” decorations or anything like that.
An extreme approach to mindless standardization with no purpose (other than feeling powerful in telling people what to do) is illustrated by this funny Pier 1 commercial I saw last night:
Ugh, who would want to work in a workplace like that? “No inflatables.” That's the movie Office Space come to life.
Back to the magazine article cited psychology studies with different types of office settings with different degrees of employee control.
The article states:
“Employees perform best when they are encouraged to decorate their surroundings as they see fit, with plants and ornaments, comic calendars, photographs of their children or their cats – whatever makes them feel most comfortable and in their element.”
Google and their “campus” where employees are encouraged to decorate their cubicles in their own fun, interesting way is cited as a positive example of this.
More after the ad:
The article reaches back to the days of Frederick Taylor, the favorite historical nemesis of the Lean Blog, and his 1911 publication, “The Principles of Scientific Management.” Taylor insisted that a productive manufacturing workplace was one that included only the tools and materials required to do the work. As the article says:
“…employers soon began to apply his ideas to the white-collar and creative workspaces as well.”
This was a continuation of the evolution from freedom in the professional workplace to control. Before the industrial revolution, medieval scribes (a privileged professional class) were allowed the freedom to “set up the small rooms [in which they worked] however they liked, typically with a motley assortment of chairs, stools, books, and drafting tables.
By the end of the industrial revolution, professional workplaces were “standardized” so that “managers had greater control over their clerical workforce and were able to keep an eye on underlings' progress at all times.”
Lean thinkers will realize this, but it's worth saying – a Lean workplace isn't about top-down command-and-control behaviors.
The article takes the “control” theme further by claiming that the modern cubicle farm open layout is inspired by or borrows from an 18th-century circular prison design called a “Panopticon” where a central tower allowed a small number of guards to monitor prisoners who were around them. Since the guards couldn't be seen, the fear of being watched was just as effective as actually watching every prisoner every single moment. The authors imply the modern cubicle farm allows the boss to sneak up on you at any time (hence the popularity of the cubicle “rear view mirror”, eh?).
Many people think a vibrant or fun-looking workplace is the key to productivity. The authors suggest that it's actually the level of CONTROL over the workplace that makes all the difference.
In an experiment, office workers were put in different settings. The first, unfortunately called the “lean” office was a Spartan workplace with clean desks and zero decorations (see below). There's no evidence in the article that the authors mean “lean” in the sense of Lean Thinking or the Toyota Production System. It could be the everyday use of the word “lean” that's popular (meaning “not having enough”).
The workplace with decorations determined by managers led to a 15% productivity improvement without harming quality. When the workers in the study were given decorations and were given FREEDOM to put them where they wanted, that led to a 30% productivity improvement without a decline in quality. What the authors call “synthetic fun” isn't nearly as beneficial as giving employees control. When the experimenters gave control and then took it away (rearranging things), productivity declined, not surprisingly.
I think this study confirms my suspicion and practice (even in my manufacturing days) that “lean” shouldn't mean “no personality.” I was never one to take away items from the factory that helped create a fun environment (such as a stuffed animal that one production associate kept in her workspace in the last factory I worked in). I've never been one to think a “lean office” means no pictures on your desk or no personality.
As the article points out, the irony is that people who think a plan, Spartan workplace will help productivity would actually do better by giving control to the employees.
The authors also cite research that says employee illnesses are higher in workplaces where they don't have this control. What's often blamed on “sick building syndrome” might actually be “sick culture syndrome.”
I think these are important lessons for those doing “lean office” work or any lean work. If we have the urge to push standardization of the workplace, we should ask what really needs standardized and to what extent. If something really matters for quality or safety, standardization might be appropriate (such as determining where safety supplies go in an MRI suite).
I think you can standardize the nuts and bolts of the productive aspect of a workplace (for quality and productivity) while also allowing people control over the aesthetic aspect (such as how the interior of the MRI suite is decorated to help kids be more comfortable).
I think the research and that article shows that over-the-top standardization isn't just something to laugh at, it really can be harmful. I think it provides some proof that the top-down command-and-control workplace isn't the most effective. If your definition of “lean” means better performance for the organization, benefitting the customers, and improving employee morale, you have a DUTY to forget the ideas that a so-called “lean office” is one where people don't have family photos on their desks.
Something to keep in mind, eh?
Don't want to miss a post or podcast? Subscribe to get notified about posts via email daily or weekly.