Thursday, October 18, 2018

ENG 123

One of the smartest moves I made when I first began University courses again was to take a refresher course in college composition. It allowed me to fine tune some rusty skills before the very paper writing press of subsequent classes.

********************************************************************


Improving Team Performance through Workspace Arrangements and Manager Styles
Melissa J. Dawson
Southern New Hampshire University



Employee retention and performance is not a one-size-fits-all garment. As companies become more global in scope and aware of the different cultural differences of their sites and employees it would serve them well to also consider the physical arrangements of their offices as well as how direct managers work with, and relate to, their teams. Just as a parenting book instructs you to consider that each child is an individual and that what works well for one child may not work at all on another – so too do companies need to remove the blinders that lets them believe that because they are working with adults that those differences in style are no longer applicable. By not recognizing these differences, or suppressing any allowance for difference, a management team can be creating their own negative consequence in the form of high turnover and employee dissatisfaction.
During the past 10-15 years corporations have looked at the physical layout of office space as a factor in increasing team building and fostering innovation. Consultants presented the idea to management teams that by removing physical walls between co-workers, as well as between managers and teams, that there would be a flourishing of creativity and innovation which would lead to increased profit for the business (Waber, B.  Magnolfi, J. & Lindsay, G., 2014 October). This has proven to not be the case for a large number of workers however. A study published in April 2018 reports the findings of a six-month research project into how workers react to both open office floor plans, along with the concept of the flexible office, where there are no assigned desks or work-stations (Babapour, M., Karlsson, M. & Osvalder, A-L.) This Norwegian group found that in fact productivity and job satisfaction fell with only a small percentage of workers seemingly using the open space as it was conceived. At least half of the employees did not embrace the concept of no set work space and despite company guidelines they claimed a set location for themselves. For those employees the researchers found that there was more stress for them in having no stable work area, and that stress was reflected in their behavior and output. Similar findings have been reported in studies carried out in the United States (Stillman. J, 2018, July 08 and the United Kingdom (Bernstein, E. S. & Turban, S., 2018 July 02). There are several other components to the physical arrangement of the open office plans that have been found to not foster the productivity and teamwork that upper management had hoped for. Lighting and temperature are very individual preferences that can cause employees to lose focus on their work due to feeling physically uncomfortable. Noises and sounds rank among the top five reasons for an employee’s dissatisfaction with a workplace (Bernstein, E. S. & Turban, S., 2018 Jul 02). W. Belk’s article for Hacker Noon (2017 May 02) gives specific findings on a company’s High-Performance Employees (HPEs). After surveying several thousand employees he found that 58% need more private space for focused work and that 62% say their offices are too distracting. HPEs tend to be those who do come up with better processes, efficiency changes or cost cutting measures that retain quality. It would seem that companies should adapt their office plans to five their valuable HPEs the physical space they require.
When upper managers visit an open concept office with either no cubicle walls, or minimal four-foot tall sides, there is usually not lively discussion occurring at a designated meeting space, finance teams are not brainstorming with those from packaging. Most employees are working on their computers wearing earbuds or headsets as they listen to music while doing their own tasks. They use these devices to filter out all the background noise in order to be able to focus on their work and deadlines. It would seem that a better way to increase productivity overall would be to consider the different optimal conditions for different teams For example, departments that create results through interaction with people such as Marketing and Sales, do benefit from being able to be more in touch through an open concept plan, whereas groups requiring more focus and concentration such as Human Resources or Accounting are less likely to benefit from being structured in an open plan and not have dedicated quiet work areas (Belk, W, 2017).
Something that many companies are not doing well is training and mentoring good managers. Managers who arrive at their position merely on the basis of time served with a business, but who have not had any training in being an effective manager, tend to not have the most productive teams. A manager’s understanding of, and interaction with, their team is a component of success that is often overlooked. Recently promoted managers must make the shift between being a member of the team to now leading and potentially disciplining former peers. Without guidance or mentoring this can leave them stressed, overwhelmed and feeling isolated which will not lead to positive outcomes in efficiency or innovation with their team. In her 2004 article outlining the benefits of training on managers and their organization the author summed up the current challenge quite well when she noted: “In this hypercompetitive world, balancing the tradeoffs between managing for current financial performance versus longer-term leadership development is a battle too rarely won” (Hill, L.A.)
A study published in 2017 shows the correlation between manager training on a company’s Total Factor Productivity (TFP) while also noting that these results are seen best in larger organizations and that spending time over training with decrease the wanted result over time. On average an investment into off-the-job formal training of 1 percentage point results in an increase of 0.46 percent to TFP (Fleltrinelli, E., Gabriele, R. & Trento, S.).
Employee surveys have shown that employees are more likely to develop loyalty to a manager before the corporation itself.  Many employees are drawn to work for organizations whose values they feel mirror their own values (Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). And those who feel heard, appreciated and encouraged by their manager tend to perform better and remain with the business longer (Fan, P. 2018). Fan’s research shows a directly linkage to effective management and employee satisfaction which in turn benefits the company overall. Factors such as being sensitive to family obligations and working with the employee, not against them, in finding a balance that fits both parties has a wide-spread positive effect on an organization.
 Businesses are also seeing the benefits of allowing employees more autonomy in their schedules and work locations. As noted in a Washington Post article on December 23, 2015 companies that move towards a Results-Only Work Environment can see employee satisfaction and productivity rise and the manager’s position as attendance taker removed, leaving them time to innovate processes and support their teams. Empowering employees can be a powerful tool to a company’s increased success. One clear example of this is Shree Cement, a company that has seen their bottom line increase year over year by freeing their employees from the fear of failing and to think as an owner: 
“At Shree, we believe that management is a combination of the rationality of
science, imagination of art, and execution of craft. It can never be rigid and static. It has to be dynamic and free flowing. It cannot conform to a single style…Empowering people to work as owners and allowing calculated risk-taking without being afraid of penalization for failures, ignites the entrepreneurial spirit amongst all. We at Shree, however, allow our people to be practical, understand each situation as different and deviate from set procedures, if required” (Kanti, A. 2018).

However, there are companies that are choosing to remove that option for their
employees as they once again seek to improve their bottom lines by trying to increase innovation. Organizations such as IBM, Facebook and Reddit are also involved in this trend, which is not making workers happy which results in them either being let go or quitting (The Washington Post, 22017 March 24).
Employee retention can be a big part of a company’s profit or loss. While there will naturally be a cycle of those who leave for better opportunities, are let go for poor performance or retire from working there can be systemic issues within a business that cause a high turnover rate that leads to a reduction in productivity and profits.
Companies can be quick to say that an employee leaving is no big loss for the organization, either to save face at losing a high value asset or to avoid admitting that there was not quality management in charge of a team. However, the lost momentum of having to replace and train a new team member is higher than most managers realize.
Ten years ago, the average cost to replace an employee was $14,000 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a group within the United States Department of Labor. Currently there are varying estimates of 30%-70% of an employee’s base salary is spent by businesses to fill an opening. Yet this is just an approximate number as factors such as specialized experience, availability of talent pool and the pressure on a team to cover the work gap are much more difficult to calculate. A recent publication from a business research group listed the current average costs:

Position Type
Average Replacement Cost
Entry-level / non-skilled
30-50% of employee’s annual salary
Service / Production
40-70% of employee’s annual salary
Clerical / Administrative
50-80% of employee’s annual salary
Skilled Hourly
75-100% of employee’s annual salary
Professional
75-125% of employee’s annual salary
Technical
100-150% of employee’s annual salary
Supervisor
100-150% of employee’s annual salary
Figure 1 - Average cost of employee turnover by position type (GNAPartners, 2018)
An additional cost factor that is much harder to quantify is the time it takes a new hire to come “up to speed” with a company’s procedures, products and policies. This process tends to not happen in a vacuum and current staff naturally will see their work time redirected to onboarding a new employee which can leave their projects lagging. While these softer metrics are much harder to calculate they still have an effect on specific teams, and often supporting teams as well (O’Connell, M & Kung M-C, 2007).
The physical arrangement of a company workspace and how managers relate to, and empower, the workforce is not a one-size fits all solution. In order for companies to be profitable in the new global economy managers and management teams will need to adjust some of the paradigms they have lived with for decades in order to ensure the success of their business going forward. Taking into consideration the training of management, the empowering of employees and arranging their physical spaces to allow for optimal output may go against current trends, but in the long term a work force that is more stable and satisfied with a business’ commitment will benefit both.





REFERENCES

Anshel, J. (2006, Aug). Visual Ergonomics in the Workplace. Professional Safety, 20-26. 
Babapour, M., Karlsson, M. & Osvalder, A-L. (2018, April). Appropriation of an Activity-based Flexible Office in Daily Work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8(53), 71-95. 
Belk, W. (2017, March 12).  58% of High-Performance employees Say They Need More Quiet Work Spaces.  Hacker Noon. Retrieved from www.hackernoon.com            
Bernstein, E. S. & Turban, S. (2018, July 2). The Impact of the "Open" Workspace on Human Collaboration.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2015, October). Working overtime: who really benefits? Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2018, September 11).  News Release. USDL-18-1451. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2018, September 20). Employee Tenure Summary. USDL-18-1500. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2018, October). Labor Productivity and Costs – FAQs. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov
Calculating the Cost of Employee Turnover. G&A Partners, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.gnapartners.com
Fan, P. (2018). Person-Organization Fit, Work-Family Balance, and Work Attitude: The Moderated Mediating Effect of Supervisor Support. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(6), 995-1010. 
Fleltrinelli, E., Gabriele, R. & Trento, S. (Apr-17). The Impact of Middle Manager Training on

Productivity: A Test on Italian Companies. Industrial Relations, 56(2), 293-318

Fludd, V. (2014, September). Workplace Productivity Drains. Talent Development, 20-21 Hill, L. A (Aug 2004). New Manager Development for the 21st Century. Academy of

Management Executive, 18(3), 121-126

Huangfu, G., Lv, F., Sheng, C. & Shi, X.   (2017). Effect of Workplace Environment Cleanliness on Judgment of Counterproductive Work Behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(4), 599-604. 
Kanti, A. (2018, June 07). H.M. Bangur: Empowering Employees. Business World. http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/global/article/GALE%7CA541656642?u=nhc_main
Kantor, D. & Koonce, R. (2018, August). Consequential Conversations. Talent Development, 50-56. 
King, S. (2017, December 02).  Coworking is Not About Workspace - It's About Being Less Lonely. Harvard Business Review, 2-5. 
Marais, A-M. (2015, December 23).  With flexibility comes freedom, responsibility; Several studies have shown that allowing employees more autonomy in their schedule often boosts productivity in the workplace. Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada). Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/with-flexibility-comes-freedom-responsibility/article28050235/                                              
Marks, G. (2017, March 24). IBM is ordering its work-from-home employees to stop working from home. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2017/03/24/ibm-is-ordering-its-work-from-home-employees-to-stop-working-from-home/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96f114a6ab70                                             
O‘Connell, M. & Kung, M-C (Jan/Feb 2007). The Cost of Employee Turnover. Industrial Management, 14-19.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of congruence: Relationships
between value congruence and employee attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 591–623. https://doi.org/d4p3fd
Porges, S. (2016, July 14). The right office lighting can boost productivity. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A457840073/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=OVICĪ¾d=2aed6fc9              
Saher, N., Khan, D., Muhammad Shahzad, F. & Qadri, S. (2015, September 19). The Impact of Employees' Turnover at the Productivity of a Software. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences, 9 (3), 23-27. 
Spence, M. & Brady, D. W. (2014).  Flex Time. Hoover Digest, No. 3, 51-56. 
Stillman, J. (2017, March 23).  Want to Attract More Star Performers? Ditch Your Open-Plan Office. Inc. Retrieved from www.inc.com 
Stillman, J. (2018, July 09). New Harvard Study: Your Open-Plan Office is Making Your Team Less Collaborative. Inc. Retrieved from www.inc.com                                           
Waber, B., Magnolfi, J. & Lindsay, G. (2014, October) Workspaces That Move People. Harvard Business Review, 92(10), 68-77. 
Zheng, K. (2017). Does High Turnover Affect Productivity? Retrieved from https://www.yourbusiness.azcentral.com         
 Zhou, X., Liao, J-Q., Liu, Y. & Liao, S. (2017) Leader Impression Management and Employee Voice Behavior: Trust and Suspicion as Mediators. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(11), 1843-1854. 
When Numbers Fall: 4 Negative Effects of Employee Turnover. (2017, October 07).  Retrieved from www.gethppy.com                                              

No comments:

Post a Comment