The arrangement of furniture and cubicles within an office can influence productivity in complex ways, depending on a company’s culture and the nature of its work. No one design fits all companies. Just ask Ethan Bernstein.
The Harvard Business School professor’s research conclusions over the years follow a distinct, measured pattern: If leaders at a company are bracing to implement a new management structure or philosophy, they should be aware that the solution could yield a range of effects, including unexpected ones.
This was the case with his study of holacracy, a non-hierarchical organizational structure that some believe foster productivity and engagement, while others call it a naive idea. Bernstein and his colleagues determined that holacracy is neither all good nor all bad: “Organizations can use elements of self-management in areas where the need for adaptability is high, and traditional models where reliability is paramount,” he tells Entrepreneur.com.
Similarly, with transparency in organizations, which tends to be the focus of Bernstein’s research. “Overly transparent work environments, because they leave employees feeling exposed, may produce less-transparent employees who seek to actively conceal what they are doing -- even when making improvements -- thus reducing productivity and, paradoxically, transparency,” he says.
The findings of his most recently published research, on “the impact of the “open” workspace on human collaboration,” are no different. He and co-author Stephen Turban didn’t find open floor plans to boost human interaction, per se, but they’re not saying every wall-free company out there is doing it wrong, either. Overall, the paper might even leave some managers with more questions than answers. But here’s what Bernstein wants them to know about the effects of open office environments: To say open offices are good or bad is to oversimplify.