Recently I heard about a group of office workers who were bored by their current assignments. I was surprised to hear this ennui being discussed so directly, at least in the U.S., because here we seem to like to think everyone in an office building is doing stimulating, thought-provoking knowledge work – even though we know that this is not actually the case. Talking about bored employees is a lot like telling someone that their new haircut is awful; it’s just not done except among the very, very closest of friends.
Cognitive science research consistently shows that when we’re doing work that’s mentally boring, we perform best when the space we’re in is energizing, and, vice versa, mentally challenging work is best done in calming environments. Design can be used to enhance how well less mentally challenging work is executed. But first, the design research process must identify employee groups engaged in doing it.
We’ve all had a starter job and know that not all tasks assigned to newbies are mentally engaging; many are actually cognitively numbing, although they do still require at least a shred of attention. Only a few activities, such as breathing, require none at all. But it’s not just some new hires that can be bored at work.
Work may not capture, or require, our attention for a number of reasons. First of all, it may just be simple – think some kind of sorting work. Work might be what is known in the psych biz as “well-rehearsed.” An activity is well-rehearsed when it’s been done so many times that all the steps in its process can be completed without any real focus or attention. Deciding which standardized response to send to a complaint filed online may often be well-rehearsed work, for example.
So, what sorts of energizing environments are best for people doing work that doesn’t require a lot of concentration? These spaces are ones where workers can see other workers; we get a big energy boost from looking at fellow humans, and brief exchanges between coworkers can keep up momentum without decimating performance. Also, for really straightforward tasks we have become skillful at, we do better work when we’re around others, when they can see us and we can see them.
Spaces for work that doesn’t require much focus can also be packed with energizing sensory experiences, such as saturated colors and soundscapes featuring relatively quick beats. Lighting levels can be brighter and bluer. It’s the cumulative effect of all of the physical inputs in a space that matter, as we add them up at a primal level of our being.
People are complicated so no neat formula exists regarding how many energizing swatches of colors of various sizes combined with how many specific smells or sounds or tactile experiences produce the stimulation level best for some sort of work. Some trial and error is required to ensure correct energy levels are achieved. That means built-in or hard to change elements, such as the color of paint on the walls, need to be carefully selected, and the overall energy effect produced by a space “tuned-in” with components that are relatively easy to change, such as soundscapes and smellscapes and the videos played on wall-mounted screens. This turning requires some honest back and forth between users, their managers and people developing spaces.
If someone or some team’s work is generally not mentally challenging, but occasionally changes and requires focus, designing becomes a little more complex. At those demanding times, it’s great if people can pivot in their seat to block views of others or put on noise cancelling headsets, for example, so roughly the same spot can continue to support them.
The most difficult part of creating spaces for work that doesn’t require concentration is to honestly identify when they’re needed and when they’re not. Frank assessments are key. The energy level of a space needs to be appropriate for the work being done there in order for people to perform to the best of their abilities, whether they’re bored or working to the limits of their mental apparatus.
Sally Augustin, PhD, a cognitive scientist, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com), a monthly subscription newsletter and free daily blog, where recent and classic research in the social, design, and physical sciences that can inform designers’ work are presented in straightforward language. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009) and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.