Author: naomiorgdesign

Having said a couple of weeks ago that I wasn't going to comment on the Marissa Mayer thing about teleworking I now find I am. Someone sent me an email asking for a blog piece. His exact words 'There has been so much controversy about the subject in the past few months (because of Yahoo and others), it would be interesting getting your take on the pros and cons. Perhaps you already have something written'.

Unfortunately I didn't have much already written on the topic. Although I did write a blog on my portable office and I see from a quick search of my site that I wrote several blogs using the word 'teleworking' during 2010 which suggests to me that I must have a take on it.

So here goes. Drawing on my experience – I have worked on a large scale project to introduce teleworking to an organization and I am a full time teleworker – I've mustered nine takes about it which are neither pros nor cons, just observations. Before I get to those – a tenth over-arching take on it is that teleworking is an individual and organizational performance variable and cannot be considered in isolation from other factors.

Take 1: Teleworking is good for certain types of work. If a job requires a great deal of travel then one is de facto teleworking. This means having the support and infrastructure to be self-sufficient on the road, in an aircraft, or wherever and suggests that decisions about teleworking should be made in relation to the type of work that is being done and the technology available to do it.
Take 2: Teleworking suits particular types of personalities and personal circumstances. I was amused to be sent this week a presentation titled '9 successful people who work from home' – all men. I wondered if there were any successful women working from home. Is one of my takes on teleworking that men are more successful at it than women? I think not, but I do think there is something about personality, motivation, resilience and discipline that comes into play that makes individual teleworking more or less successful.
Take 3: Good technology is a must for effective teleworking. The technology is somewhat of a fraught issue in many teleworking examples that I've come across. Lugging heavy laptops because tablets are not provided is a case in point. Use of shared file drives that are only available on-site is another. There are many areas where work is less than optimum because the technology to make for good work is unavailable or patchy in its effective use. It can also be costly in terms of time lost, stress, and actual money in workarounds if systems go down, or equipment fails, or is simply unavailable. In my case, I'd like to have the facility to use my cell phone as a modem or have an aircard as I'm often in locations (like client sites) where I can't get internet access and having it would make a positive difference to my productivity.
Take 4: Teleworking expands the labor market. Where skills are in short supply in a local geography but available in other geographies it makes business sense to employ people who can do the job from where they are. As I am and do. This is one of the great benefits of teleworking. It expands the labor pool and opens up job opportunities.
Take 5: Flexible individual approaches to teleworking are better than mandates or policies of a 'one-size fits all' type. Some people work better on their own and some people work better surrounded by co-workers. I think teleworking policies or mandates that do not recognize individual work-style, work, personal characteristics, choice, and circumstance lead to difficulties. A better approach is to have a flexible policy that accommodates not just the work activity but also the personal preferences and demonstrated capabilities of the worker.
Take 6: Managers and co-workers need to consciously learn the skills to interact effectively with remote colleagues. Many managers (and co-workers) don't know how to manage remote workers or how to involve them in interactions with the on-site workers. The skills for this can be taught and acquired but there needs to be positive investment (time, money, interest, etc.) in developing them. Anyone who's tried to participate as a 'dial in' to an in-room meeting will know instantly if the people in the room are aware of remote colleagues or oblivious to them.
Take 7: For remote workers learning to be visible to on-site people and teaching on-site people skills of inclusion of remote workers are both necessary. Related to take 6 is the issue of 'visibility'. A common complaint amongst teleworkers is that people who are on-site and visible to the powers that be (formal or informal) get preferential treatment over those who are not physically visible in the day to day. Teaching remote workers the art of being visible is probably a good idea, and teaching on-site people the skills of inclusion and recognition of off-site people is another.
Take 8: Teams of all remote or all on-site seem to work better than mixed teams. Teams comprising a mix of off-site and on-site workers seem to have particular difficulty but perhaps that's because of a lack of joint understanding and practice on what it takes to work together. A team which is either fully on-site or fully off-site seems easier to manage and be part of – perhaps because there is more in the way of shared experiences and expectations.
Take 9: Remote worker isolation might be mitigated by co-working A lot of the time I like working on my own but some days I have found there's a certain isolation and I miss the camaraderie of the office. Saying hello to the assistant in the post office is not quite the same as chewing over the oddities of such and such a manager in the coffee area. To get over the times I feel not included and isolated I have thought of trying out co-working. A Fast Company article Co-working spaces beyond the cube explains co-working as 'falling into one of three categories. The most typical is the NextSpace model- a big, well-appointed office where the employed and self-employed go to make contacts, stare at a laptop, and sip coffee. A second, newer iteration is sometimes called company-to-company sharing, in which a group of companies pool space, employees, and ideas. The third and arguably most radical type might be described as private-to-public sharing–in effect inviting outsiders to work inside your company building or campus.' So maybe I'll give co-working a go.

Would I give up teleworking to work on-site? The answer is definitely not. I like being a teleworker and for me the gains of autonomy, flexibility, and productivity outweigh any losses. Could my lot as a teleworker be improved? Absolutely, but when I've been an on-site worker I've also felt my lot could be improved. Teleworking isn't an answer for everyone and neither is on-site working. What's your take on it? Let me know.

Here's a short survey I just made up: Do you:

• Attend a webinar?
• Participate in a webinar i.e. pose or answer a question, or comment?
• Log into a webinar and do something else while it's going on?
• Learn from a webinar?

Over the last two weeks I've logged into five webinars and participated in three and attended (i.e. didn't interact with the technology) two. Here's the list – some of them are available to replay:

• GSA on Smart Occupancy
• Leveraging Mobile Work to Engage Your Employees
• How to make Advisory Board-style presentations
• Making Organization Design Knowledge Actionable
• An info session on the new IFMA/Workplace Evolutionaries Group.

I've also attended three presentations using Webex or Go-to Meeting, or Lync

• A session demonstrating some software
• A presentation about one US state's healthcare system
• A faculty briefing (I teach on-line) on 'Planning for the Future'

which might qualify as webinars (which I take to be formal informational/learning events) but they feel different. One I participated in but the other two I found myself multitasking i.e. logging in and doing something else.

Additionally, I participated in several operational meetings where people were just sharing a desktop as the meeting proceeded. These definitely do not qualify as webinars but would benefit from some of the disciplines of well run ones. Further, I've proposed a series of seven webinars to a client, and also discussed with a co-facilitator on a different client project the possibility of running action learning sessions via collaborative technologies, not quite webinars but on the same lines. So all reasons why I've got webinars on my mind,

Thinking back on my experience of these various events I've found them immensely variable in quality, content, approach and meeting management. In brief the webinars were much more thought through than the presentations. The webinars were specifically designed, for the most part with clear messaging, for a dispersed audience from a range of organizations. The better ones made use of the interactive functionality of the medium – 'raise your hand', use of the chat facility, voting, etc.

Typically the presentations were being given to people in a room and 'dial-ins' were merely an afterthought. In some of the cases that was a real difficulty – sound quality was poor, there was no invitation or means to participate, people in the room were talking to each other in the room, the presenter only took in-room questions only, etc.

In both cases (webinars and presentations) I've found myself really having to focus on staying 'in the room' as it were. The temptation to randomly check emails, switch into staring out of the window mode, or book travel while listening but not watching is immense. However, I'm schooling myself. I've come across so much recently about how multi-tasking is not possible (the hyperlink is to a great video) that I am forced to recognize that I learn/participate much more if I pay close, undivided attention. In the well run webinars I was able to pay attention better when I felt I was actively being involved in the session – that is, being invited to vote, raise my hand, answer a question in the chat room. Where I was just a listener as in the presentations my attention wandered.

Then in the way that things happen, I got an email from the CIPD on how to run excellent webinars giving some resources to access. 'The (WebEx based) webinars run by The Ken Blanchard Companies (management and leadership, etc) are a good example not so much of dynamic content but slickness in delivery or the brief case studies provided by Cisco of organising delivering great webinars are a useful reference point .'

From this I discovered the Webex University with a wealth of webinar training info, and GoToMeeting has similar but fewer resources.

The CIPD email offered points for webinar presenters, including some that seem obvious but I think were not to some of the presenters I 'met with' in the last two weeks. The points cover four aspects of webinar skills: capability in use of the system (both presenters and participants), delivery of the material, content presentation, and follow up. Below is the list – slightly adapted.

Use
1. Ease of logging in by audience and prompt greeting from host
2. Audience understanding the functionality of the webinar platform before attending the session
3. Where used in the session, put URL links in the text chat window not the slide deck itself to avoid issues of technical problems of opening links within the webinar platform
4. Additional documents (e.g. Word based) already open and minimised at the top of the screen to aid ease of movement by speaker between slides and documents
5. Minimal use of video within sessions to avoid technical issues re bandwidth – effective visual slides can achieve something similar to video
6. Ensure slick use of functionality (polls, whiteboard, text chat, raise hand, audio on/off, etc) within the session precipitated on suitably trained host and speaker and forearmed delegates
Delivery
1. A well prepared speaker (having done a trial run before the session) able to concentrate on content with host working alongside to 'manage' the session
2. Audience able to contribute over audio (advice given to audience prior to session if they are dialling in from an open plan office)
3. No background noise at the speaker's end/good quality headsets
4. Natural delivery from speaker – not scripted, appropriate use of humour, appropriate use of personal examples/analogies
5. Ensure interactivity (even in speaker led webinars) working to the rule of asking a (engagement) question every 6-10 minutes (see speaker guide re; effective questioning in webinars)
6. Have a good quality headset to ensure the best sound quality for particpants
Content
1. Effective (bio based) introduction of speaker by host at start to demonstrate gravitas/credibility to audience
2. Clear objectives communicated both before the session in joining instructions and reiterated at the start of the session
3. Session well structured and signposted (along the lines of a typical F2F training workshop – 'tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them' what you've told them'
4. Strong visual content to trigger delivery from the speaker and learning from the audience. However, animation within slides kept to a minimum
Follow up
1. At end of session confirm how delegates can obtain a copy of the slides:
2. Follow every webinar up with a short email that:

• thanks participants for attending
• reiterates a maximum of three key points from the session
• provides any URL links provided in the session

I'm hoping I now have all I need to design a great webinar. I'm wondering if I should include designing meetings and learning events as part of the standard toolkit of organization design. What's your view?

Google's St Patrick's Day graphic made me smile this morning. It's of Irish dancers and they're dancing. I'm also amused by the animated emoticons I can send on Skype. My favorite is the bear hug one. It makes the thousands of miles that separate me from my daughters feel less as I send them the bear hug. What's fun about things like that is that they are simple expressions of cheerfulness and I've spent time this week thinking about celebration and fun at work.

I've reached the section in the new book I'm writing where I give the instruction to 'Celebrate success' as you go through an organization design transition. But now I'm not sure whether that's what I want to write about. I think as well as celebrating success – which seems more spasmodic than frequent – ramping up the everyday fun aspects of transitioning would be good. We tend to focus on 'issues' on what's not working, and the drudge aspects. But a week of reading stuff on positive psychology and how various workplaces work (or not) suggest that everyday fun and keeping spirits up is what makes things work better than addressing 'issues' in a po-faced, and sometimes punitive way.

The office that I went to a couple of weeks ago added me to their general announcement email list and it's given me a lot of good cheer during the week: I've read about recovery from leg surgery, a retirement party for someone, someone else leaving after 16 years saying how much he's enjoyed the time there, and the annual wu-hu egg hunt. It's building the impression of a sense of community where people enjoy each other's stories and make an effort alongside what, I know, are some of the difficulties experienced in that workplace.

Then someone sent me a piece about ZocDoc. The CEO there says:

'Find ways to make work fun. While the occasional happy hour or Ping-Pong tournament certainly doesn't hurt, there is a distinction between having fun at work and making work fun. Whether it's including a funny Easter egg on our 404-page or rewarding success with a victory lap (cape and all) around the office, I'm always impressed by how innovative our team is at bringing happiness to their experience at ZocDoc. If the work you do brings a smile to your face and the faces of your colleagues, it's a pleasure to contribute in person every day.'

Someone else sent me a piece about Google's Manhattan office which states that:

'Google's various offices and campuses around the globe reflect the company's overarching philosophy, which is nothing less than "to create the happiest, most productive workplace in the world," according to a Google spokesman, Jordan Newman.'

And my daughter told me that last week was Comic Relief Week in the UK (it's a charity fundraiser with the tagline 'Doing something funny for money') with Friday March 15 being Red Nose Day. During the week she and her work team had done all kinds of things to raise money in a fun way – including coming into work on Friday wearing plastic red noses.

Look at the Pennsylvania University Authentic Happiness site and you'll find a wealth of resources on positive psychology and positive neuroscience. The focus throughout this work is on human flourishing as:

'Research has shown that positive emotions and interventions can bolster health, achievement, and resilience, and can buffer against depression and anxiety. And while considerable research in neuroscience has focused on disease, dysfunction, and the harmful effects of stress and trauma, very little is known about the neural mechanisms of human flourishing'.

The book I've been reading the whole week is Pursuing the Good Life by positive psychologist Christopher Peterson, who sadly died last October 2012. It's 100 short essays roughly categorized. The essay on What is Positive Psychology and What it is Not has a list of points about what has been learned about the good life starting off with:

• Most people are happy
• Most people are resilient

Further down the list are points relevant to a happy workplace:

• Work matters if it engages the worker and provides meaning and purpose
• Good days have common features: feeling autonomous, competent, and connected to others.

In the book Peterson has four short and delightful reflections on the workplace 'seen through the lens of positive psychology', my Tweet version of the set of four is that 'social contact, shared purpose, autonomy, and enforced guidelines on doing the right thing (using humanistic values) make for a good workplace.

Generally speaking transitions to a new organization design are experienced as chaotic, demoralizing, and disconnecting. In having to get to grips with new routines, new workstyles, and sometime new workplaces people lose the capacity for fun. I think we need to underpin an organization design transition with fun, irreverence, good humor, and a very strong orientation that people matter. Not in a ponderous, intermittent 'celebrate success' way but in the everyday attitudes and characteristics we demonstrate.

A good workplace that is fun to be in and engenders employee emotional well being (aka happiness) is not a Utopian, non-achievable. It can be designed in. Peterson is firm in saying, and I believe him: 'The good life can be taught'. He says that this point is 'especially important because it means that happiness is not simply the result of a fortunate spin of the genetic roulette wheel . There are things people can do to lead better lives, although I hasten to say that all require that we live (behave) differently … permanently. The good life is hard work and there are no shortcuts to sustained happiness'.

Organizations are collectivities of people like us, so we can learn 'the good life' and we can also help by designing aspects of it in. We have good examples to look at – ZocDoc and Google, I've mentioned, Zappos springs to mind and I know there are others. Is your organization one where people are happy and flourish, if not what are you going to do to design the conditions in? Let me know.

I am in the intriguing position of writing a change management point of view paper, methodology and toolkit that doesn't involve the words 'change' or 'management' or any combinations of the two. So far, I've done a couple of presentations on the proposed new approach, and had several conversations with people in various roles, industries, and generations on whether it has any merit. Like me they think it has but the challenge is converting it to something crisp, actionable, and simple enough to grasp. So far I've had two goes at writing the paper and after 3 pages each have given up on both. My personal BS monitor points to too much consultant jargon, too high a level of concept/abstraction, and not enough to guide the organizational seller-doers let alone the actual clients.

So mulling this over I started to review my own week. Do I engage in, embrace or resist change? Is it that clear cut – what keeps me positively engaged in the various types of change that I meet in my life? The week opened with an exciting text message reading 'Will pay in American dollars'. That sounded a promising change worth pursuing but I had no idea who it was from or what they would pay for. I answered 'Excellent, but who are you?' I got an even more delightful reply: 'Pls send honey cake mix if you find it. Need 6 boxes'. I'd never heard of honey cake mix but embraced that potential knowledge change and looked it up. So now I know that it's a cake traditionally eaten at Jewish Passover. Some of the (many) mixes are reviewed and there are a multitude of make from scratch recipes. I was a little disappointed then to get a third message reading . 'Sorry, wrong Naomi' just when I was engaging in the changes to my culinary repertoire (and getting paid in US $ to do so).

The next change was more challenging and I think I did start to resist this one. I'm not going to talk much about it but I have collected thirty-four different takes on Marissa Mayer's corralling of her Yahoos. This was without even trying. The blogs, articles, op eds, etc. just dropped into my email inbox sent by various friends and colleagues who knew I'd be interested. The number thirty-four excludes the hundreds of comments each item attracted from readers. At some stage someone will do a data visualization of the torrent of stuff on the edict but that won't be me. (If anyone is interested in the list let me know and I'll send it). I felt my resistance to the Mayer Edict because I am a full time remote worker. In fact I looked at my employment contract to check. It says 'You will continue to live and work out of your home in Washington DC, but your position will require a fair amount of business travel.' Good. Although I hadn't been asked to be in Seattle office full time from June I strongly resisted the very notion that I might be. I even felt myself feeling vaguely miffed at receiving a note, nothing to do with the Mayer Edict, from a colleague saying 'I would like to know when you could plan a trip to Seattle for at least 1 week, hopefully 2.' However, my reading of Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman has taught me something (I've embraced several of the changes it suggests), and I am going to Seattle for two weeks in May.

The third change I met was due to a snowstorm forecast. I was booked to fly from my local airport on Wednesday morning. As my book club friends were arriving to my apartment on Tuesday evening – I host the book club – I was checking into my next morning flight. I found it was cancelled because of said forecast snowstorm.

So I contacted my company's travel department who told me that there were two seats left on the last flight out of DC that evening – 10:10 p.m. flight. After some shall-I/shan't I? I decided I would get the flight which gave me 30 minutes to pack, order a taxi, and then leave the book club members in full flow in my apartment. I did remember to give them the keys so they could lock up for me when they left.

The flight left on time and arrived in a terrific snow-storm. One of the passengers over-heard the pilot saying it was the most difficult ice landing he had ever made! There was a long line for taxis and there was very heavy snowfall with no snow ploughs in sight. Eventually I got a taxi with three lawyers all headed in the same direction as me. The taxi was slithering all over the place and driving about 10 m.p.h. A little scary. However we made it.

The following morning I woke up and found that the snow was melting, and the main roads were ploughed so I got to the office and to all the various meetings that had been booked. As I told the story in the office one person remarked that the taxi driver wouldn't have dared to crash with three lawyers in the car! I'm not sure of my choices on putting work over friends and am wondering about this but they seemed ok with it.

So thinking about these various incidents – all three different types of change I was faced with, and then going through some introspection on my responses to these and similar changes – it seems that there are some patterns of responses to change that I recognize in myself:

• Things that offer something new and potentially fun with not much risk to me or my values I go along with and want to engage with – maybe even embrace
• Things that seem to threaten what I value I am resistant to
• Things that I can't control but that don't threaten my values and that I can adapt to on some form of risk/reward calculus I can still engage with

This seems to be a fairly standard human response (so I'm normal) to what seems to be the type of change people could face in a week. It doesn't address death, birth, divorce, tsunami, etc which takes a different form of resilience. But going back to the Kahneman book 'Thinking Fast and Slow' and also the book 'Nudge' by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein and other research on brain function it seems that responses to change are much more complex than those three statements I've come up with. They involve little understood interactions which make me wish I could rewind my career and go back and study.

Failing that though I'm still wrestling with the point of view paper which I must get out this week. I have some lines to follow. One colleague observed that, 'Change is an evolutionary process for constant exploration and curiosity' and now I'm asking myself whether the 'change' we resist is that which is a jarring deviation from expectation. For the most part we can all handle change that flows relatively seamlessly in a whole shifting context – both figure and ground simultaneously – and inevitably we are engaged in some way in what's going on so perhaps it's much less about managing change and more about how we engage with the ebb and flow of it. In a constantly evolving context can organizations foster a positive engagement that energizes staff and that doesn't provoke resistance by undermining their value set? Maybe in the course of writing the point of view paper I'll come to some conclusion on this. As always, your thoughts welcome.

I was working with a client group the other day who'd got the high level design ready and were working to detail the operational design and implementation plan. We had a discussion on the resources required to move from the current to planned redesign and they came up with the following

Tangible resources required
Equipment
Software
Furniture
Money
People
Workspace
Data
Intangible resources required
Time
Goodwill
The right politics
Readiness
'The moment'
Skills
Trust

It seems like an eclectic list but for their project it made sense. What is interesting about it is that it specifies intangibles that are needed: things that they felt could be derailers and that needed intentional activity to obtain. Sometimes it is difficult to work out what resources, either tangible or intangible, are needed and if this is the case a good approach is to try out Gary Klein's pre mortem exercise.

However it is done, focusing on what resources are needed to achieve a successful transition is an essential step in the planning process. It may be that in some cases a workstream devoted to obtaining resources would be appropriate while in other cases each workstream might be responsible for obtaining specific resources. In any event, for each of the resources required in a particular project ask five questions:

1. Why is this resource necessary – can we do without it?
2. Have we already got this resource and if so where is it?
3. Can/should we obtain it internally and if so how?
4. Can/should we obtain it externally and if so how?
5. How do we mobilize the resource once we have acquired it?

One of the issues around obtaining resources is that control of them is often tied to an organizational power base, or bases. Leaders and others can choose to give or with-hold resources depending on their view of the benefits or dis-benefits of the organization design, their standing in the organization, the political and social systems they engage in and so on.

Working with this 'shadow side' of the organization takes awareness of and ability to operate within five dimensions according to Chris Rodgers (citing Egan) in his book Informal Coalitions

1. The impact of real-life messiness and informality on a planned organization design which confounds the idea of how a plan should work
2. The perspectives and idiosyncrasies of individuals that can run counter to organizational expectations or wants
3. The operation of the organization as a social system 'with its in-groups, out-groups, social routines and rituals, all of which distort the inter-relationships and decision making processes implicit in a transition plan
4. The organization as a political system which recognizes that the organization reflects a diverse range of viewpoints, motivations, and self-interests leading to competing coalitions of people, each seeking to define the organization's agenda and to shape its course of action
5. The cultural assumptions of the organization through which many of the above characteristics become embedded and taken for granted ways of operating – whether these are outside people's awareness or known but undiscussable.'

Peter Senge, in The Dance of Change, describes these aspects of the organization in terms of ten key challenges for organization consultants and designers that manifest in statements like

'We don't have time for this stuff'
'We have no help'
'This stuff isn't relevant'
'You're not walking the talk'
'This stuff is '
'This stuff isn't working'
'You don't understand what we do'
'Who's in charge of doing this?'
'We keep re-inventing the wheel'
'Where are we going and what are we here for?' (Senge, 1999)

Obtaining resources requires the ability to meet these challenges. Resource fulfilment is not just a matter of asking for it: it requires influencing ability, lobbying skills, business savvy, and attentive listening, among other attributes that make for effective operation in the shadow side of the organization. Thus it behoves organization designers to hone these characteristics whilst maintaining authenticity, ethical standards, and self-efficacy.

Asked to identify what the key resource shortage and requirement is many leaders will say that it is the time to work on the organization design whilst maintaining business continuity. This is a very real resource issue and one that Senge writes with insight on. He points out that a design project will fail if people do not commit time to it and makes a number of suggestions on how to think differently about time in order to make it more flexible and available. Here are eight of the many strategies he presents that have proved effective to those managing and working on OD projects.

• Integrate initiatives: combine several different initiatives, even if they started with different champions and participants. The goal is to share the resources, enable progress on key issues and mitigate risks associated with interfaces, overlap, and duplication.
• Block off time for focus and concentration: Organise working and design sessions in blocks of time. A one-day workshop is far more intense and productive than two half-days. Time blocks encourage people to reflect and concentrate. A block of time makes better use of this scarce resource than short bursts of time.
• Trust people to control their own use of time: Those asked to work on the project have to manage their own resource balance of keeping their 'day-job' going and doing the design work. Allow people to schedule themselves and reward them on results. Letting people schedule their own time builds motivation and trust.
• Recognize the value of unstructured time: People who work on design projects must keep the pace up. They have to meet deadlines and targets. Too tight a focus on this is counter-productive. People's productivity increases if they meet each other casually to compare notes, see how things are going, and discuss concerns or issues. Without the pressure to rush into a decision or produce immediate results they can sometimes solve problems and gain insights to the benefit of the project.
• Build the capability to eliminate unnecessary tasks: This not only saves resource it frees up resource for other purposes. Encouraging people to stop doing things may seem counter intuitive but many tasks are done because they always have been not because they serve a useful purpose at this point. For example, stop the generation of reports that no one reads. Cancel regularly scheduled meetings that have no specific purpose or decision-making role.
• Say 'no' to political game playing: Lobbying and influencing stakeholders to support the project might involve politics and game playing but keep focus on the interests of the organization and the customer. Maintain integrity and demonstrate openness and fairness in dealings. (Unfortunately, in some organizations, this approach may be a 'career limiter').
• Say 'no' to non-essential demands: Check that what is done makes the best use of people's time. If something non-essential is in the schedule does it need doing? Distinguish between urgent and important. Cut out the non-essentials to give people more unstructured time.
• Experiment with time: Ask questions about time use in your organization. In useful book QBQ! The Question Behind the Question: Practicing Personal Accountability at Work and in Life, the author suggests that personal accountability begins with asking a "what" or "how" question, contains an "I" and focuses on action. Try this with questions about time use. Answer the questions 'What if our purpose is vital, how can I avoid wasting the time we have to get there?' Assess the problems with time flexibility – what controls the amount of time availability in the organization?

Since obtaining resources for organization design work is challenging in a number of ways organization designers are often in the position of working out how to deliver a project with fewer resources than required, with a shifting context in terms of potential resource allocation, and a potential political minefield around the whole resource issue. This calls for workarounds, creative thinking, and judicious deployment of the resources that are forthcoming. Although it may feel easier to focus on the explicit, tangible resources required and aim to get these, the implicit, intangible resources are often more useful in driving to a smooth transition.
What are your thoughts on what resources are needed for organization design work?

Note: This is an extract from my forthcoming book. Organization Design for HR Managers.

Over the past several months my brother has been discussing with me all the books he's been reading on consciousness, habits, brain behavior, willpower, and similar topics in the neuroscience dimension. It's all very fascinating and I have read some of his recommendations, (Willpower) others I put on my Amazon wishlist (check it out here).

Then last week he sent me the email below that I started to think about. It came in at much the same moment as the March issue of Fast Company which happens to be on the topic of the world's 50 most innovative companies. Briefly he makes an analogy between fast and slow brain operation and innovative/entrepreneurial companies. At least that's how I read it. See what you think – my comments are at the end.

'If you haven't read 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman, I highly recommend it. He says that current brain research shows that the brain operates in two modes, the fast, automatic mode that runs without conscious intervention, and the slow, conscious mode where we contemplate and take deliberate actions. Almost all our activity and decision-making is done in the fast mode, but explained to ourselves in the slow mode.

There is an analogy here for business organization. There are two kinds of business:
Type 1. The established business that has discovered a set of activities that brings in more money than they expend, so is consistently profitable. These businesses are low-risk, and depending on the maturity of the market they are in, high reward (developing markets), medium reward (mature markets with weak competition) or low reward (mature, competitive markets).

Type 2. The entrepreneurial business, which is higher risk, not profitable, that is still seeking to find models and activities that will provide reliable income streams. These businesses are high-risk, potentially high-reward regardless of market.

Type one businesses have a lot to lose. If they mess up, they forgo all the income they would have got if they had simply bumped along. For this reason, their correct business philosophy is to establish and maintain processes and procedures that can run in auto-pilot mode, like the fast-thinking parts of the brain. Don't reflect, just do what we did before that we know works. Be very conservative. Make changes only in tiny increments so as to not break anything. Obviously their environment will change, and they must adapt to survive, but their processes should evolve only quickly enough to keep up with those changes, as fast as the changes their competitors make, or if they want to gain market share, maybe a little faster than their competitors. Sudden, big changes, like New Coke, are not appropriate in this kind of business.

Type two businesses don't have anything to break, so the downside associated with revolutionary changes is low, while the potential rewards are high. So for these the correct strategy is to be highly experimental, going all in on new ideas, and abandoning them quickly if they don't work out ('fail fast'). This is analogous to the "slow-thinking," part of the brain, which acts deliberately after conscious planning and contemplation of options, feeling its way through new situations.

An analogy can be drawn here with local versus global optimization. The fitness landscape in an evolutionary system is visualized as a mountain range, where all the creatures creep up a particular mountain by tiny increments, generation by generation, to reach a peak of fitness for their particular niche. The idea is that a little change has a 50/50 chance of taking you closer to the peak, but a huge change is almost certain to take you off the mountain altogether, into some very unfit space where you die. (In Richard Dawkins' words 'however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead').

Type 1 companies are there on a mountain, and a steady, evolutionary policy of low risk incremental changes will move them up towards the peak. Like Toyota's lean manufacturing, or any continuous improvement program. But they will only get to the peak of the particular mountain they are on. There may be another mountain adjacent that is way higher (e.g. a bigger, more profitable market). The only way to get there by increments would be to get onto the other mountain. So it's almost impossible.

Type 2 companies on the other hand are motivated to flail around in huge jumps, attempting to identify viable mountains (products/markets/niches), recognize when they land on one, then establish themselves there.

So you need two completely different mindsets, two completely different skill sets, two completely different management approaches to run these two kinds of companies.

That's why when a Type 2 company happens on a scalable, reliably profitable activity, it needs to change – no longer try to be revolutionary, but become a process-driven, by-the-book organization to preserve the winning model. This is done two ways: 1. fire the founders and put in a new CEO, or 2. Sell it to a big established company.

The timing for this is critical. The new company must have achieved a degree of market success, and have established some baseline activities that are proven to be profitable. So don't buy technology companies until their ideas are market-validated.

So now we have a way for a Type 1 company to get over to that other mountain. Overpay for a Type 2 company that has established a basecamp at the bottom, and clean out the old culture, replacing it with a Type 1 culture, then scale the sales.

The great thing about this modus operandi. is that the type 1 company doesn't have to pretend to be any good at innovation. It should shut down all its research efforts and focus only on development. Let all the little startups take the risks; 98 of them will fail and 2 will succeed. Then buy one of those.

This is how Cisco operated in its heyday. It lost its way when it started buying other Type 1 companies like Linksys. This also seems to be how Warren Buffett operates. He is only interested in Type 1 companies.

Apple was a type 2 company under Steve Jobs, and with the succession to Tim Cook, has become a Type 1 company. Don't expect any more internally generated innovation from them. But Apple has a vast cash hoard, and can easily buy innovation with relatively low risk – no need to pick winners before they have obviously won.

Acquirers often talk about how they want to preserve the innovative culture of their acquisition. By this analysis, such an acquisition is doomed.'

My comments:
Looking at the 50 most innovative companies listed in the March issue of Fast Company – at the no 1 spot is Nike. The company was established in 1964. And has the hallmarks of being both a type 1 and a type 2 company – the type 1 elements funding the type 2. The article notes that 'based on interviews with top Nike executives, current and former designers, engineers, and longtime collaborators, reveals four distinct rules that guide this company, that allow it to take big risks, that push it to adapt before competitors force it to change':

• To disrupt you must go all-in: 'Flyknit isn't a shoe – it's a way to make shoes. … Nike has gone all-in on that bet, building a whole new manufacturing process around the product.'
• Anticipate a product's evolution: 'three steps ahead thinking is important for any product … if Nike doesn't bet on crazy ideas, its rivals will'
• Direct your partners: 'successful businesses need to constantly evolve, either through partnerships, new talent, acquisitions – or all three'
• Feed the company culture: 'That cohesive culture [of stories and secrets] begets tangible benefits, such as talent retention. That self-image is infused into every marketing message … to a public eager to finally be let in on the secret'

Look at the other companies on the list. There are some big, established companies – but not many (20%) – Amazon is in 2nd, Target (a US retailer) in 10th, Google is 11th, Apple is 13th, Samsung 17th, SodaStream 23rd, Ford 27th, GE Healthcare 34th, Corning 36th, Microsoft 48th.

It's interesting that Warren Buffet has just announced that he is going to buy Heinz – not a recent player in the most innovative company lists.

So maybe there are some lessons to be learned from thinking fast and slow about organizations and designing them from that perspective. What's your view?

The question of 'layers and spans' came up again during the week when someone asked me what the standard number of layers were for an organization and what the ideal span of control is for a manager. This question was followed by someone asking me to comment on the standard ratio of desk/office space to employee. The requests seem related to me: that there is some magic number that can be taken as a kind of universal maxim that runs on the lines of: offices allocating x amount of space to y number of employees reporting to a manager who has the stated span of control and an orthodox position in the hierarchy will lead to an effectively performing organization. I can't believe for one moment that this could be true – it smacks of flat earth thinking to me. But since Thomas Friedman enhanced his already significant reputation as a thoughtful person with his book 'The World is Flat' offering some compelling reasons to believe it is, then maybe I'm wrong and flat-earth thinking about layers, spans, and space ratios is perfectly fine and will help organizations perform effectively.

I'm assuming that the thinking about standard numbers on layers and spans and space allocation is at best misleading for the following reasons:

1. Managers are too ready to take a norm and ratios as an instruction to implement. Without careful thought and relating the value of the norm to the particular situation things are likely to go wrong.
2. Norms do not address the qualitative, cultural, competency aspects of the work and how it is actually performed and the personal preferences involved
3. Where employees have much wider access to information (a generalization because some organizations and cultures do not allow transparency of information or widespread access) this attacks the command and control approach implied in 'layers and spans'. See the HBR blog on radical transparency for more on this
4. As workers have the ability and tools/technology in many organizations to work away from base, and the nature of work itself changes, then ideas of space allocation based on previously tracked occupancy rates erode
5. Organizational network analysis and things like sociometric badges are showing us that the way work gets done is less through layers and spans, or sitting in specific space designated for example, for 4 – 6 person meetings, but more in informal coalitions and networks of conversations. (See Chris Rodgers' book on Informal Coalitions or the work being done on 'neuro leadership' – though I'm not so sure on this one).

I'll discuss each of these five points in a bit more detail below.

Norms and ratios: In my files I came across a Federal Agency's 2012 proposed space standards as follows:

Senior Executives, 150 sq ft, enclosed office
Supervisors (80%) 120 sq ft, enclosed office
Attorneys (sensitive info), 100 sq ft, enclosed office
Supervisors (20%) 60 sq ft, workstation
Federal full-time attorney (non-sensitive info) 60 sq ft, workstation
Contractors, grantees, part time, 30 sq ft, workstation
Federal teleworkers @ 3+ days/week 30 sq ft, unassigned shared 2:1

What's interesting about this is that it neatly shows the connection between level of staff and space allocated. I guess it could be extended to show the ratios of span of control for each level of staff. I found that in a Bain Capability Brief: Streamlining Spans and Layers (2012) which states that:

Our analysis shows that in an average company, a manager has a span of six to seven direct reports and the organization has eight to nine layers between the top leadership and the frontline employee. Best-in-class companies in the database have average spans ranging between 10 and 15 direct reports and no more than seven layers. Of course, much depends on the type of job: "skills-based" jobs such as brand managers or engineers are usually well served with a span of six to eight, while "task-based" jobs such as shop-floor or call-center supervisors have higher spans of 15 or more.
.

But is this type of quantitative data useful? The clue may lie in the statement 'much depends on the type of job'. Norms don't account well for the type of work, for managerial style, for employee competence and so on that would make for more informed discussion on appropriate layers/spans/space allocation.

Cultural aspects: Think about the workforce you are part of. Whatever the space allocation is (assuming it has been determined and not just evolved over time), you'll see individuals using the space differently. In one company I worked in which had lots of 'quiet booths' and telephone rooms, people opted to make calls from the stair wells or huddled against the windows. In another the 4 -6 person meeting rooms were rejected in favor of the cafe area (and not because there was a shortage of small meeting rooms). No matter how many utilization studies are done they are simply snapshots, not a dynamic process of how work changes in response to contextual demands. Basing either space allocation and/or layers and span decisions around benchmark and precedent doesn't allow for the continuously changing nature of work and/or the day to day decisions and interactions going on about it.

Information availability: moving people from offices into open plan spaces has upsides and downsides. Many think it increases managerial involvement because the managers become part of the conversations. People can participate in a discussion if they hear something of interest in the open space – the premise behind 'collaboration'. Information availability through multiple channels may make it both easier for employees to have a voice, and for managers to manage more people. On the latter managers have told me that through various technologies such as IM, SharePoint, and video conferencing they have a much better grip on what their staff are doing, and at the same time the staff become more self-reliant, and the managers can effectively manage more people.

Space allocation on precedent: The US General Services Administration last year updated a 2011 guide Workspace Utilization Benchmark which contains comparisons of ten organizations (6 private sector). The guide makes the point that:

When determining the best way to forecast and allocate workspace and support knowledge workers, today's architects, designers, facilities and real estate professionals, and workplace consultants must consider the following factors:

• Space availability;
• Energy costs;
• Operation and maintenance costs;
• Ever-changing mission requirements;
• Security concerns;
• Emergency management planning;
• Alternative workplace arrangements
• The new mobile workforce.

This implies that space norms are just that – usually they are based on averages and precedents and are not based in rigorous thinking into the future about 'ever changing mission requirements' or 'alternative workplace arrangements' – number of contractors, seasonal workers, variations to work schedules, etc. Predictions, scenarios, and simulations on a range of factors drawn from non-traditional data like organizational network analysis or sociometric badging mentioned earlier along with organizational debate on the business strategy for the coming few years might give a different view of space allocation.

Informal networks: what caught my eye in the Bain document was the comment:

Agreement on the right level of spans and layers doesn't always translate into action. Managers protect people or move employees to other areas of the business. Very often excuses mount. ("It's not a good time.") At this stage, senior management reviews, where people are held accountable for the targets, can give momentum to the change. It also helps to link the targets for spans and layers to key performance metrics-and ultimately, the compensation- of top executives.

It hints at the informal political aspects of the organization that come into play – not just in terms of layers and spans, but also in terms of feelings of territorialism around space, or use of it. The cultural, informal, social, and idiosyncratic elements of any specific organization should, in my view, play a much larger a part, if not a key part, in space decisions, and layers and spans discussions than the norms and benchmark data, that appear to currently inform what gets agreed.

Let me know your views on the norms around space allocation and ratios around layers and spans. Are they useful?

At the beginning of last week at the European Organization Design Forum meeting in London I was presenting on the future of work. At the end of the week I was a panelist on FedTalk (Federal News Radio) discussing the challenges US government agencies are facing in developing a workforce of mobile workers . And at some point during the week someone asked me how I handled resistance to change in organization design work. Now I'm sitting on the flight back to DC and I'm wondering about resistance. I have several questions in my mind on this:

1. Does the thought of future work patterns, including mobile working, inevitably provoke resistance from stakeholders?
2. If the answer is 'yes' are there any groups of stakeholders who are particularly resistant to thinking about new ways of working and, if so, for what reasons?
3. Is there then an automatic assumption among organization design and development people that where resistance is evident then it somehow either unjustifiable or wrong and must be 'managed' (i.e. overcome)?
4. If the answer to this is 'yes' are there ways of thinking about resistance not as a barrier but as a positive, healthy, and normal response to work practice changes?
5. If so how can resistance lead to conversation and dialogue that yields useful information and new insights to a design project?

I'll briefly tackle each one of the five questions and see what I come up with. (I've always rather liked the quote from somewhere 'When I hear what I say, I'll know what I think'.)

It's easy to say that people are resistant to changes in work patterns. Take the increasing use of robots to do work that was done by humans. The extract from the article below (in my stash of articles on the work of the future is rather typical)

Beyond the technical challenges lies resistance from unionized workers and communities worried about jobs. The ascension of robots may mean fewer jobs are created in this country, even though rising labor and transportation costs in Asia and fears of intellectual property theft are now bringing some work back to the West.

Then someone sent me this piece from the London Evening Standard about the move to hot-desking at the BBC.

Signs seem to be proliferating at the BBC's revamped Broadcasting House. Last week the Londoner reported that a notice had been put above a kitchen sink in the current affairs department asking staff to refrain from washing their feet there. Another sign has appeared in the ladies lavatories. It reads "Senior Management Hotdesks".
It had obviously been dumped there by someone who is less than impressed by staff directives at the BBC's new corporate cathedral.

And several of the questions from the FedTalk moderator related to the challenges of introducing mobile working and, in particular, manager resistance to managing remote or virtual workers.

But there are balancing observations if you keep alert for them. I enjoyed the piece about why everyone should work from a coffee shop even when they have an office as one illustration of an alternate view.
And I rather wonder whether the increasing number of robots will mean an increasing number of people needed to make and service robots. (So far as I know robots are not, as yet, self-propagating).

Also during the week I heard a rather nice story about someone, call him John, in his late-forties whose wife had cancer. John was laid off as part of a redesign but seeing the care that his wife had during her cancer treatment he decided to re-train as a cancer nurse and is well on the way to qualifying.

Whether certain groups of people are consistently resistant to workplace changes I rather doubt. It seems that resistance is situational and contingent on circumstance. The quote about the union resistance above might indicate that groups of lobbyists can put a case for (or against) something and this might be better addressed as a legitimate point of view than a possible conflict situation. But the group may contain individual albeit unheard dissenters from the mainstream.

My experience suggests that some individuals have a harder time than others if the ground shifts under their feet but this is more personality and attitude dependent than anything else. Related to this someone referred me to a book she'd found tremendously helpful in the workplace. It's called Yes Your Teen is Crazy and gives hints and tips on reframing conversations that might result in resistance.

I think that those who appear resistant most fear loss of something they value: office space, status, their job, reputation, community, their easy commute, etc. So resistance may be cloaking fear which could require quite a different conversation (around empathy, support, and suspension of judgment, for example).

Whether organization design and development people automatically assume 'resistance' is wrong I'm not sure. There seems to be a certain OD community norm that people 'resist change' and somehow the role of organization development is to 'get buy-in'. I've written before about OD being potentially manipulative and coercive. In that blog I noted that: 'There are schools of thought that hold that organizational development is manipulative and that organization development consultants 'engage in self-deception'. There is an excellent article by Marie McKendall on this topic The Tyranny of Change: Organization Development Revisited'.

A good while ago I read a book called 'Change your questions change your life' by Marilee Adams which had some powerful arguments in favor of 'learner language' rather than 'judger' language. And I am of the view that the language and framing used makes a big difference to resistance management.

So on that basis it seems that seeing resistance as normal suggests that rather than trying to 'overcome' it, work with it and aim to understand it. There might be insights and understanding gained that actually aids the organization design or change process. Bob Tschannen-Moran wrote a useful piece on asking open questions that shows how appreciative inquiry techniques can help with this. And listening to the maverick or outlier, the devil's advocate or authentic dissenter can work well as some academics suggest. (If you are a statistician you'll know the debates around the value of outliers).

Five though provokers then have emerged through musing on resistance:

1. Resistance is situational and contingent on circumstance
2. Resistance may well be a front to fear and so addressing the fear may be better than trying to overcome resistance
3. Organization development seems to have a norm around 'people are resistant to change' and the requirement is to 'get buy-in' which smacks of manipulation and coercion.
4. Changing the language and framing around resistance from judging to learning is worth considering
5. People with dissenting views or resistance to 'buying in' are worth listening to. They may have a useful story to tell.

What are your views on resistance?

I've had several conversations this week about employee value propositions (EVP). A value proposition is the entire employment experience at a company including benefits, career development opportunities, rewards, culture, and management style: essentially, the deal that the company makes with its employees in exchange for their skills, knowledge and experience.

The conversations arose because I'm still wondering about the four types of change that I mentioned in my blog on Good Change a couple of weeks ago:

• Continuous incremental change e.g. Organizational members leaving and joining an organization as part of normal staff turnover
• Intermittent incremental change e.g. Hand written letters to typed letters to email to social media
• Continuous radical change e.g. Stream of policy changes, leadership changes, restructurings, acquisitions, etc. This is essentially a basket of independently planned and unplanned changes that cause disruption but are seen almost as part and parcel of organizational life.
• Intermittent radical planned change e.g. Whole office move to new building, or merging of two divisions of a company.

This week it's the fourth category – intermittent radical planned change – that is the focus of my attention. I had the thought that in office moves to new buildings such as the one I was working on at GSA what we are really doing is redefining the employee value proposition, usually without giving employees much of a chance to decide whether or not the new proposition is what they are interested in and whether they would have joined the organization had this new one been the one on offer.

This, to me, means that approaching an office move or other radical planned change from a conventional 'change management' perspective is not the right way at all.

The language of 'change management' includes phrases like 'getting people to buy-in' a coercive, manipulative approach. The language of an employee value proposition conversely is about trying to attract and retain the people you think would do well in your organization.

It is not really too surprising if someone comes in expecting to work in south London, in his/her own office, with hours that suit his/her family commitments, and with a relatively straightforward commute, etc is aggrieved and resistant if the things they signed up for on joining are changed, and they are told that the office is moving to Sunderland and it will all be open plan. Clearly not everyone will feel the same way, and some people might relish Sunderland over north London. (I've lived and worked both in Sunderland and south London). But others won't. Tackling 'change management' at the broad brush level is not at all the same as wooing employees to join on a case by case basis but I'm thinking that this could be a better way to approach planned radical change.

So it would go something on the lines of the organizational leadership team saying that they are changing the employee value proposition and this is how they intend to help each employee impacted negotiate the changes (at an individual level). This might be more than most organizations could cope with but essentially it's having a mindset of re-recruitment rather than command and control.

In other terms the EVP is the psychological contract between employee and employer. BusinessBalls has a very useful article on the topic. The article offers a definition of the psychological contract 'from Michael Armstrong's excellent Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th Ed., 2006): "…the employment relationship consists of a unique combination of beliefs held by an individual and his employer about what they expect of one another…". ' This definition is very similar to the one for the Employee Value Proposition. The BusinessBalls piece discusses the change management aspects of the psychological contract. The author of the piece notes that:

Change management is a big challenge in today's organizations, and it is very significant in the Psychological Contract. Organizational change puts many different pressures on the Psychological Contract. So does change outside of organizations – in society, the economy, and in individuals' personal lives; for example 'Life-Stage' or 'generational' change. … Our ability to understand and manage organizational change increasingly depends on our ability to understand and manage the most important drivers within the Psychological Contract. … Usually where change is 'sold' to people the Psychological Contract is damaged.

So pursuing the two lines of the EVP and the psychological contract led me to a discussion on LinkedIn on EVP. This has some thoughts around taglines for EVPs but was sparse on examples. One that I had already found and shared with a client was the DuPont India one. This notes the professional growth element of the proposition. GSK Australia's proposition won the 2010 Employer of Choice for Women. On their EVP the spokesperson said that

"This prestigious citation reinforces the benefits of our employee value proposition: GSK In Balance. We expect our employees to apply passion to their work every day and in exchange we recognise and reward their high performance.
The broad range of benefits we offer our employees include flexible work practices, a competitive and equitable reward package and opportunities for development. "To be successful, it's important for us to build relationships based on trust and respect and the Employer of Choice for Women citation shows us that we are achieving this."

McDonald's Canada is one of the few examples of a company's EVP cited on the LinkedIn discussion. This mentions both the work/life balance and the opportunities for growth with some nice videos of employees talking about aspects of their EVP.

Again in the LinkedIn discussion one of the posts suggested that EVP is linked to employee engagement. which was a line I had also pursued during the week, talking with Linda Holbeche, co- author (with Geoffrey Matthews) of Engaged: Unleashing Your Organization's Potential Through Employee Engagement . Their model for employee engagement suggests four aspects to consider:

• Connection: how strongly employees feel a sense of belonging with their organization both in terms of sharing the same beliefs or values and in their readiness to follow the direction the organization is heading
• Support: the practical help, guidance and other resources provided to help people do a great job. In particular how managers support employees in good times and bad
• Voice: the extent to which people are informed, involved and able to contribute to shaping their work context
• Scope: the degree of opportunity employees have to meet their own needs, to have control over their work and to play to their strengths. At its best this reflects the two-way nature of an adult-adult employment relationship

This is could be a useful model for considering organizational change from an engagement perspective rather than a 'management' perspective.

With these thoughts in mind I'm now I'm planning an organizational change management exercise of changing how to think about change management using a combination of approaches and tools drawn from the dimensions of the EVP, psychological contract, and employee engagement.

Any views on this approach let me know.

The last couple of days I've been feeling a little discombobulated (a more expressive word than disconcerted or confused). Why this state of mind? Well I left Khartoum on the 1:55 a.m. flight – so no sleep to Frankfurt + time zone difference of 3 hours. Two hours later 8:20 a.m. I flew to London and had a four-hour layover in London Heathrow. Next flight was 7.5 hours to DC fortunately from the same terminal I'd just landed in or I would have been even more discombobulated as getting between LHR terminals is not, to use the IT term, intuitive' (or even signposted). DC is 8 hours behind Khartoum. I then got home on public transport – my choice that one as a nod towards a carbon offset – via dinner with a friend. So discombobulation is due to aircraft, airports, time zone changes, and lack of sleep. I forgot to mention temperature drop. I left Khartoum in a temperature of 37 C. (98 F) and arrived Frankfurt to – 4 C. (28 F) and then London 1C (34 F) and Washington (- 6C) 21 F. I was dressed in sandals and a thin top to begin with and in London changed into thermal gear ready for Washington.

Despite discombobulation I was interested to get some information from a colleague on 'Salutogenic Design'. Ever curious I took a look and then a deeper look. It turns out that it's about the role of the built environment within the context of health and well-being. This isn't a new concept, in fact I wrote about it in my book on Organizational Health – Chapter 7 is all about healthy space – but I hadn't come across the label before.

A name in the field right now appears to be Alan Delani who founded the International Academy for Design and Health. He tells us that

"Research on salutogenic design highlights the impact of design factors that inspire the designer and planner toward healthy society to develop conditions that stimulate health and well-being and thereby the promotion of health and prevention of diseases in all levels of society. An increase in the consideration of salutogenic design approaches leads to social innovation and economic growth that requires [the] interdisciplinary application of sciences such as architecture, medicine, public health, psychology, design, engineering, along with culture, art and music."

Good to hear that there's now a fully-fledged Academy for this and here's hoping that they immediately start work on the salutogenic design of aircraft, and airports. Maybe that would help me feel less disoriented and then I could actually work productively as I travel. I don't think they're currently designed with all the most up to date research on promoting productivity, though they do seem to be well designed for mindless shopping in expensive outlets and reading trashy detective stories while waiting in the security clearance line before having to strip off and unpack only to re-clothe and re-pack ten steps later.

Those in the field of salutogenic design are already talking about healthcare, schools, and offices. And it's the last that links to my interest in organization design – the aspect that I pick up in my book mentioned earlier. Workplaces need to be designed to stimulate motivation, productivity, and well-being. Presently there is too little linkage between facility managers and line managers, organization development people, and workplace employees. As I say in my book (in a quote from Working without Walls) healthy business functioning and the capacity for organizational adaptability 'demands attention to all four elements, challenging traditional approaches to change which often ignore the role and dynamic of the physical environment. Arguably, space has the strongest psychological impact on people and behaviours allowing it to become a key catalyst for wider change.'

Not paying attention to the physical design of the workplace in the context of the wider organizational design is a missed opportunity. Apart from any health and well-being considerations, 'the physical environment is a reflector of the culture, values, and preoccupations of the organizational members. Even now, the corner office, for instance, is the prime example of a physical space status symbol, usually reflecting positional power. The choices of marble, wood or other surfaces give clues on organizational values – lavish use of hardwood, for example, might be at odds with corporate statements about sustainability.' (Quote from Chapter 7).

A second piece that came my way this week also caught my attention. This was on napping in the workplace. That's another thing that intermittently crops up: the value or not of 'power naps' (are these a management fad – see the chapter 8 in my book. It's on management fads).

So now I learn that:

"One-third of American workers aren't sleeping enough to function at peak levels, and that chronic exhaustion is costing their employers $63 billion in lost productivity according to researchers from Harvard Medical School.

Managers at a growing number of companies, among them Procter & Gamble Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are waking up to the problem, investing in programs from sleep-hygiene courses to melatonin-regulating lighting to help employees improve their slumber."

That's pretty interesting because if the argument for power napping prevails then architects and designers might have to include sleep rooms in their office designs and managers will have to be 'developed' to think that allowing workers to sleep while at work is a good investment in improved productivity. I don't think I'll put my hand up to facilitate this program.

However, it's worth thinking about in terms of worker well-being, productivity, and organization design (systems and architecture). It might also stimulate innovation as people aim to design sleep pods, office approved pyjamas, etc.

The design that intrigued me recently on these lines was the 'ostrich pillow' – an innovation funded by KickStarter.

"OSTRICH PILLOW offers a micro environment in which to take a warm and comfortable power nap at ease. It is neither a pillow, nor cushion, bed or garment, but a bit of each all at the same time. It's soothing cave-like interior shelters and isolates both your head and hands, perfect for a power nap. You can use the Ostrich Pillow at your desk, on a bench, on the train or while you wait at the air …"

I haven't yet seen one in any of the airports I've been in recently and I can tell you that I will not be buying one in the immediate future but I say that now. Maybe next week when I'm traveling back to the UK I'll change my mind. But will an ostrich pillow clear security I wonder? (Last time I came through I had a baked sweet potato in my rucksack as a snack on the flight – it failed the security agent test. Clearly cold baked sweet potatoes have an incendiary property unknown to me. Or perhaps the security agent was hungry.)

Where am I now (not location) in my thinking about salutogenic design? Though the word 'salutogenic' isn't easy, I do think the field is well worth further exploration and if it brings together HR, IT, Facility Managers, and business operations, so much the better. The partnership of these four groups of stakeholders would, I think result in powerful new workplace designs that did improve productivity, motivation and well-being. Whether the design of aircraft and airports will achieve similar is something I keenly hope for but am not overly optimistic about at this point.

What's your view on the value of salutogenic design in your working practice?