We’ve all been to lots of meetings. Most of us way, way too many. And we’d all agree, I think, that the ones that have gone best are the sessions when the spaces we’re in make whatever we’re up to easier to accomplish. But why do we have meetings at all?
In 2011, Oseland, Marmot, Swaffer and Ceneda set out to answer just that question. They found that there are five reasons why we meet. We gather to share information among ourselves, make decisions, generate ideas, resolve problems (particularly personnel related ones), and to socialize.
The places where we work must help us with each of these five activities, in comparable conditions, with the exceptions noted below. “Comparable conditions” means that the areas where people will share and decide and generate and resolve and socialize are all equally pleasant places to be.
No relegating socializing to the basement, or only supporting it in the penthouse. A space dedicated to sharing information can’t be windowless while the spaces for the other activities have impressive views of forest glens or city skylines. If one function is slighted desirability-wise, activities will take place in areas that don’t help achieve desired objectives. If the penthouse space is the best place to be, however “best” is defined, all sessions will take place there, whether the heavy conference tables impede party goers at Frank’s retirement cocktail party, or not.
Defining “best” is obviously key here, and requires lots of conversations with space users. Nonverbal messages matter more than the officially stated ones, and the tools for deciphering them are locked into the brains of space users. But, you can access those meanings with effort, as I’ve discussed in previous articles and will review in future ones, as well.
A single zone can support all the different reasons that we meet, if it’s thoughtfully designed. For example, classroom style seating is an efficient and effective furniture formation when information is being shared. Everyone has a clear view of the screen onto which the inevitable PowerPoint slides are projected when people sit in rows and eye contact is minimized between meeting goers – that makes off topic chatting more challenging.
Generally, the same furnishings used to set up pseudo-classrooms can be rearranged into a table island that’s five or six feet across for decision-making sessions. A single table equipped to seat 10 people or so can’t float in the middle of an oversized space, or discussion will be distorted, so moveable walls are in order. They need to be tucked away for big information sharing meetings and socializing and in use otherwise, with spaces for as few as four people created when problems are being resolved.
Rectangular tables result in a meeting leader, which may or may not be desirable – that depends on company culture. If there is a shorter table end, someone will sit there, and they’ll direct the session; science regularly confirms this. A round table eliminates the leader, so it can be a good choice if it’s six feet in diameter or so and shared by no more than six to eight people. A roundish donut made up of tables arranged in a ring ends up creating dysfunctional distances between people sitting across the “void” from each other; meeting outcomes are better with a rectangular table arrangement than if that great middle emptiness is created as furniture is arranged.
Designing to encourage creative thinking means developing spaces where people are likely to think more broadly. These are, speaking generally, places where they’re in a better mood. Since researchers have found people not only excel at creative thinking when they think broadly but also get along better with others in the same situations, there are natural synergies between places for creative thinking and socializing. Views of nature, real or via realistic art, are great for these areas, as are natural materials, particularly wood, and not very saturated but relatively light colors, such as certain sage greens. Specific sorts of seating, architectural details, and other sensory experiences have been linked to more creative thinking and better socializing, and I’ll cover them in a future article.
In situations where there are procedures that must be followed – for example, while some personnel issues are being resolved, a narrower sort of thinking may be best – that way all established processes are followed. So those smaller spaces for four person meetings can, on occasion, serve their owners well by not supporting better moods and broader thinking. That doesn’t mean they should be hell-ish, but if some places need to be without nature views or daylight, these are the best candidates. More on this, also, in an upcoming article.
Organizational and national culture determines whether decision-making outside the highest executive ranks is a more or less collaborative process, and that has implications for the design of meeting spaces. In many organizations, any sessions held outside the C-suite’s private conference rooms are just sharing information about decisions that have been made, however they’re described to attendees. In these cases, it’s better to develop a gathering space that supports the activities that will actually happen there, by focusing attention on the person who will enlighten the others, than to create a place that infers attendee participation. Discontinuities between management practices and the activities actually supported by the spaces management provides undermine leader credibility. Most people who stay at an organization over time accept and value its culture, however alien that culture and its practices may be to outsiders.
Creating places where people will share information, make decisions, generate ideas, resolve problems and socialize is not easy; these areas are often asked to do a number of things well. These spaces succeed when upfront research identifies how things are really done at an organization – and the insights derived from that research are reflected in design decisions made. Cultures change slowly and not via design-directed decree. Because real estate is expensive, it’s best if in meeting areas mere mortals, without superhuman strength or special tools, can transform a space streamlined for one activity into one that aligns with another. Wheels remain one of human kinds greatest inventions!
Nigel Oseland, Alexi Marmot, Felicity Swaffer, and Sophia Ceneda. 2011. “Environments for Successful Interaction.” Facilities, vol. 29, no.1/2, pp. 50-62.
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.