By Professor Adrian Furnham

It has become fashionable to explain much of human behaviour, even at work, in terms of socio-biology. We are indeed naked apes, whose apparent sophistication and development is paper thin. So much of what we do is governed by cave men needs and concerns.

Few doubt that we are fiercely territorial animals. Neighbours literally kill each other because of very minor infringements of plants, trees and hedges. And we still laugh at the beach-towels-around-the-pool behaviour of our European friends, eager to mark their territorial possession.

Space at work is always a hot bed of contention. Office size is, or was, a pure index of power. The view from your window (if you are lucky enough to have one) may be important too. How close or far from certain facilities (car park, canteen, customers) also make your space less or more desirable.

The size, shape and location of workspace for many people is a result of accident and history. Certain spaces, be they offices, cubicles, or just desks in a room, are usually considered more desirable than others. People have, over time, manoeuvred themselves, either with or without official blessing, so that those with most seniority or service get the best space. Strange walls of files and desks can re-emphasize the distinction between public and private space; between my bit and your bit; and between good and bad space.

Architects, designers and ergonomists are often appalled by what people do in offices to rearrange their space. They do things that go completely against the original concepts, clear aesthetics and even common sense, let alone health and safety requirements.

Work space allocation and entitlement really comes to the fore when people move buildings. Take an intact department, even a whole organisation with all its psychological complexity and try to relocate it. Struggles for power and superiority begin. Old animosities surface.

The best predictor of friendship at work is propinquity. You get to like those you see most often. That is why you marry the girl/boy next door. Enemies we put at arm's length. Or, at least, friends become acquaintances become strangers as they drift away spatially as well as psychologically.

So a physical move nearly always leads to a psychological move. Indeed, some managers use a physical move to attempt to achieve corporate culture change. Most often it is to save money and the change can lead to many unforeseen consequences - mostly negative - if the move is from closed to open plan. The two central questions for managers are workspace allocation and entitlement. They are closely related and very "hot" problems.

Entitlement can be considered essentially by four options. It can be and usually is select provision of space decided by all sorts of factors: rank, task, history. Your workspace can be a reward for long service or task complexity or because you did well in the past. Sometimes the criteria for space entitlement are explicit, but frequently not. As anyone who moves house knows, it is profoundly disturbing and surfaces some issues that have "sunk to the bottom of the pool."

Old animosities can arise over space entitlement debates. People feel challenged on how, when, where and indeed why they work as they do. Things become exposed - all very upsetting. And answers to reasonable and rational questions are wrapped in powerful emotional overtones.

Another entitlement method is universal provision. Whoever you are, whatever you do, however long you have laboured in this particular vineyard, you will get the same space. And it is more than likely to be open space. Soon one can feel particularly exposed and vulnerable and rendered equal despite patent non-equality in input and output.
This democratic option becomes ever more popular despite massive resistance, special pleading - even attempts at sabotage. But it can be and is often enforced with a sense of ideological zeal.

There are two other options. One is that space allocation is done by work teams. The team gets the space and works out between the team members how it is used. This shifts the problem from the manager to the work-leader.

The last option is becoming most common but seems to fly in the face of what we know about our animal past, our basic instincts and needs. This is non-territorial allocation. This is not even the world of hot desking. It is the world of each day finding a space and working there. And it presents the same dilemmas and tactics as the holiday sunbathers who all want to mark their territory around the pool at least a day in advance.

Whatever the management gurus might say and whatever the explicit values of the organisation (manifest in the "vision-thing"), space entitlement decisions are often made on criteria that are not, strictly democratic, fair, logical or even profit oriented.

Space can be allocated by grade/level/seniority, by task or function, or simply giving everyone the same. It is easiest to make an argument for doing allocation by task. Given the nature of the task (i.e. complexity), or the nature of the tools, people need different space. Complex cognitive tasks might not need much space (except between the ears), but they usually require that people have a quiet (i.e. non-shared) space.

Other tasks require frequent team interaction and the space can be designed to facilitate easy work-flow.

What you do; when you do it; and how you do it seem reasonable criteria for meting out the cubic metres. There will, of course, be odd mavericks who claim that they can't work except under particular spatial conditions. This is usually somewhere between special pleading, flim-flam and downright attention seeking.

For the ergonomist or architect, the task is to understand the nature of the work, optimal conditions and design around them. Unfortunately this may fly in the face of organisational politics, powerful lobbies and of course our animal past. The alpha male will always grab more space whatever he does for a living. There is always more to meting out the metres than meets the eye!

Adrian Furnham is a Knowledge-Counsel member. He offers motivational training, executive, performance and knowledge management coaching. He undertakes psychometric testing and lectures on a wide variety of psychology-related topics.

Back to Top of Page

Knowledge-Counsel believes that employers are largely unaware and possibly ignorant of the health implications and risks associated with disregarding best practice ergonomic principles. What follows is a selection of case studies and recent experiences of some Knowledge-Counsel members.

Back pain and driving

The driver's general health and safety must be considered, the duration of their driving in a day/week, whether they take breaks, have been given advice on posture, and what ergonomic advice has been given to those who use mobiles, lap-tops, etc., in their vehicle?

Do you, as the employer, properly consider ergonomics when providing employees with vehicles?

These issues are more acute in the instance of an employee returning to work after suffering injury or illness. The solutions can appear simple and often the simplest solution is the most effective.

Take for example Ruby, a health assessor, who suffered a whiplash injury in a car accident. She found simple manoeuvres like reversing and parking caused acute discomfort, as did loading and unloading work equipment from her company car. The very nature of her work - as a health assessor - demands that Ruby drives to her clients' homes and has access to various pieces of equipment. A Knowledge-Counsel member carried out an assessment and the recommended solution was:

• to provide Ruby with an appropriate back support
• to install special mirrors in her car to avoid twisting her neck
• to provide a light-weight, fold-away trolley to make transporting equipment much easier

Another example is Robert, a television satellite installer who fell from a roof and suffered severe lower back injuries. On returning to work, Robert was offered light duties by his sympathetic employer. Several months later, our ergonomist was asked to carry out an assessment of all aspects of the injured worker's tasks. Analysis revealed that Robert was perfectly able to drive but unable to manhandle the large aerial cable reels or transfer some of the heavier items from his van to his clients' homes. He also had difficulty bending down to secure and feed the cables into position. The assessment suggested the following pragmatic solutions:

• use an automatic release winder for the cable reels
• provide a small barrow to transport items to and from his van
• provide a special board on castors to allow him to lie on his back to carry out certain tasks instead of bending over.
• change his van for one with an automatic transmission

Workstation risk assessment

Most companies are committed to complying with legislation and providing a working environment that ensures the health and safety of their people, but few place the same emphasis on workstation risk assessment as they do on their other business activities. Managers are under the constant pressure of achieving business targets and project deadlines and anything that automates laborious health and safety processes pays dividends in time saved and in creating an improved safety culture - a point not missed by a large UK law firm when they recently reviewed the way they carried out DSE (Display Screen Equipment) workplace training and assessment.

Regulations call for training and risk assessments to be carried out regularly for every computer user to ensure their health is not adversely affected by their work. With 1500 such employees across four sites, this activity was becoming an administrative burden and using their in-house resources to provide an individual risk assessment service was no longer feasible.

Two options were considered - to outsource the whole activity or to automate the process and manage it centrally. Analysis of the costs demonstrated that with a single scheduled assessment allowing for a reasonable rate of churn/staff turnover, a saving of 40% could be achieved by adopting the computer-based solution in year one - and even greater savings thereafter.
A Knowledge-Counsel member advised the client on the implementation of an on-line software package, which now runs on the company intranet and provides effective computer safety/ergonomics training at every workstation. Self-assessment data is managed centrally to identify risks that require action, and produce reports to validate compliance. Furthermore, an automated e-mail function prompts users to carry out training or risk assessment as often as required with no manual intervention needed.

The customisation of the training content to match the firm's corporate style and to include images of the firm's own offices, people and furniture, removed any impression of this being an 'off the shelf' solution and went some way to compensate for the loss of the personal attention of an assessor visiting each desk. The senior partner in charge of the project remarked: "The interactive training looks professional and means more to our people because it shows the furniture and equipment they use every day"

Three months later: more than half of the employees have now used the system and a single health and safety adviser centrally manages the whole process. This is in stark contrast to the previous situation which called upon the involvement of 12 people across different departments in the firm.

Workplace health and safety

A charitable organisation based in Berkshire experienced rapid growth in just a few years and now employs more than 60 people. Inevitably, the business challenges of such growth took priority, and health and safety was largely overlooked with no one person taking overall responsibility. Under pressure from their business insurers, the absence of rigorous health and safety procedures was identified and a Knowledge-Counsel expert consultant was called in to solve the problem. For the last 18 months, our consultant has acted as the organisation's freelance health and safety representative - spending just two days a month at their premises. He carries out risk assessments, implements and maintains the necessary procedures at the various facilities, provides health and safety training to all the employees, liases with the insurers, and is on call at any time to answer queries. Now that proper procedures are in place, the partners' legal liabilities are reduced, as indeed are the organisation's insurance costs.

Disability Discrimination

Are you aware that the new provisions of The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) became law on 1st October 2004? Have you completed your audit and taken all necessary steps to comply? Knowledge-Counsel is pleased to number amongst its members, consultants who can guide you through the process, including one who is wheelchair-bound, and thus has heightened awareness of the challenges encountered by this form of disability. There are about 10 million disabled adults in this country and the Act gives them important rights of access to employment opportunities and everyday services that others take for granted.

Back to Top of Page