Who would you like to sit near at work?


Sounds a simple enough question, but likely to provoke a mix of emotions that strikes at the heart of the social and business dichotomy. On one hand we like to sit with people that we can get on with; people that potentially share our interests, both inside and outside of work. But also they might be people that are different enough from us to challenge and stretch us without descending into acrimony. On the other hand we might put our ‘business’ hat on and consider our current role. As a technical specialist we might want to sit near other like specialists to share our learnings and experiences and deepen our capabilities. As a line manager I may consider whether I would like to sit with my boss and be more visible and aligned with the strategic directions of the organisation, or alternatively be with my team, to be a ‘hands on’ manager. As a client facing person I would similarly be considering whether it is best to sit near my customers or my service providers. As a senior executive I would also have to consider which stakeholders I would benefit most in being near. Even the idea of individuals being allocated a ‘seat’ is becoming outdated. Hot desking was established to enable facilities to be shared by staff not requiring a permanent location. A recent workplace study conducted of its CBD premises by one large organisation found that staff only spent 63% of their time at the office and of that time, were away from their desk 47% of the time, with the rest of the time being mobile between other workspaces and meeting rooms. The average occupancy was just over 30% overall. Facilities managers are now looking to design workspaces that can accommodate more modern and productive activity based work practices, while at the same time, making more economic use of the spaces provided.

 SNAW1In reality, when it comes to where we sit and co-locate with at work, most of us do not get asked. The task of assigning workspaces is left to line management and facilities staff. By default, workspaces will often be aligned with the formal organisation chart, making the assumption that the formal structure also reflects the preferred work patterns. This assumption is becoming highly questionable as workplaces become increasingly interdependent. Workspace allocation can become a highly emotive issue. It’s not just about the corner offices. It can be impossible to meet everyone’s expectations, yet its important that organisations maximise the opportunity that co-location offers. Despite the facility offered by modern communications technology, physical co-location is still by far the best means for sharing knowledge and maximizing productivity.  So how can we converge the duplicity of personal co-working preferences, natural team collaboration patterns with physical workplace design, to achieve maximum possible productivity?
SNAW2

Social Network Analysis and Workplace Design

Modern organisations are rapidly moving away from ‘command and control’ structures to more ‘empower and support’ frameworks, with of course social business initiatives leading the way. It is therefore not surprising that staff would be given more input into their physical working environment and in particular who they would like to sit near. The essence of this change is cleverly articulated in “Re-imagining Work”, part of the popular RSA animate series, where the choice of who we choose to work with and near is increasingly becoming a personal one. Social Business principles would dictate that it’s the people themselves, more so than their management,  that are best placed to choose their most productive collaboration partners. One doesn’t need to look further than the successful open source software industry to see this in action.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a method of choice for analyzing and understanding informal collaboration patterns. Typically an SNA study surveys staff about who they benefit from working with.  Social networking maps and analytics can then be developed to assess where the most productive patterns of collaboration exist and also potential productivity bottlenecks or blockages.

The “who would you like to sit near at work” question was designed to support projects looking to consider productive networking patterns into workplace occupation activities. Forward thinking facilities design and development firms are now appreciating that having a deeper understanding of the natural collaboration patterns of their prospective clients will enable them to provide a more convincing design and development proposition. In a recent project Optimice worked with one of Australia largest developers in developing an occupation plan for their key client, a major telecommunications organisation that was looking to refurbish their central city facilities. Their objective was not only to optimize their floor space, but to configure their physical spaces to be aligned to their ‘future way of working’ vision, which of course included much more mobility and technical enabled communications. Some 5,000 staff were asked to nominate and rate the people they would benefit most in terms of their personal productivity, by being co-located. As with any SNA study it only takes a relatively modest sample to characterize an organisation’s overall collaboration patterns. By aggregating at the ‘Team” level we were able to quickly identify those teams that feel they would be most productive when co-located. Additionally, because we were able to measure the ‘strength of ties’ between teams we could incrementally “fill” a building floor with teams preferentially by manipulating the strength filter, as illustrated below:

SNAW4The top panel identifies the two teams with the highest collaboration score (94), along with the total number of staff (230) contained within those teams. Decreasing the strength filter exposes additional teams with collaboration scores above (24) as shown in the middle panel, constituting a total staff of 1589. Decreasing the collaboration strength even further down to (12) exposes even more teams configured in several clusters. The clustering patterns, along with the staff counter, can be used by occupancy designers to effectively ‘stack’ building floors according to stated collocation preferences. Note that only just over 3,000 of the 5,000 staff would have been allocated at this point. We could continue to decrease the strength of tie filter to allocate the remaining teams or we could determine that those teams with only weak connections could be placed anywhere without seriously impacting their productivity. If you like, these teams could be used as ‘fillers’ for floors only partially occupied.

Where to Next?

 The above example identifies how SNA can be used to realize social business principles for collocating teams. The science of social networks can assist in mediating the politics that regularly pervade office space allocations. There is more to do however. Cohesive, co-located teams can deepen capabilities and enhance efficiency. Productivity however, is not just about efficiency.  We know that a certain level of diversity of connections is needed to facilitate creativity and to deliver innovation. Such connections may not require extended co-location but will require an environment where serendipitous connections are more likely. Those staff in roles requiring diverse networks tends to be those that are more often not in the office and/or not at their desk that often. These people may feel that nominating permanent co-location partners is incongruous with their desired mode of operation. Like teams that have no strong ties to other teams, at the individual level, those staff without strong ties are far from being outcasts, especially if they are seen to ‘bridge’ between cohesive teams, providing the important balance between cohesion and diversity that characterizes high performance organisations.

For the individual, the network ensuing from the simple question of “who would you like to sit near as work?” can be much more than your position in a popularity contest. While you may have a view of who you would benefit from being co-located with, even more insightful is who, if any, have nominated you as someone that they would benefit from being co-located. But that’s another story!

 

ASX Gender Scorecard 2014

Here at Optimice our interest in ASX board members has mostly been about mapping the board room connections, and some of this has previously been covered by Women’s Agenda and Crikey.  However, since it is International Women’s Day on 8 March 2014, we wanted to focus on something different – interesting findings that are not entirely about connectivity.

In our most recent analysis of more than 9,000 ASX board directors, we have uncovered some other facts regarding gender diversity, which we hope you will also find interesting:

  1. Board positions and gender 
  2. The age distribution and differences
  3. Gender diversity by industry sector
All of the data we base these findings on was sourced from Thomson Reuters and extracted on 28 February 2014.

#1: Chairmen and Chairwomen

If, next time you meet a female board director, you ask them, “Are you are a non-executive board member?”, then the answer is probably yes. 80% of these women are non-executive directors. If the answer you get is “No actually. I am the Chair”, then you have met someone very special. Just  4% of the female ASX directors are Chair(wo)men. 

ASX Gender Diversity by Position












When we look at the overall gender distribution among Chairmen (or even Deputy Chairmen), the women have less than 3% of the positions, and the men have more than 97%.

#2 – Older men and younger women

We have also compared the age distribution among male and female ASX directors, and there is quite a substantial difference. The women have a number of spikes in the 49-55 age group, while it is pretty clear that the men hang around a lot longer:

ASX Directors Age Profiles 2014











#3: Banks and Insurance are for girls – paper for boys
When we read about the percentage of women on ASX boards it is often represented by a single percentage number, and typically only the ASX200 companies are included. However, when we look at the entire ASX by industry sectors, we start to see some revealing details and interesting patterns.

As far as the overall board gender diversity is concerned, the banks are taking the pole position. The paper sector comes in at an unenviable last place, but since the sector is only made up of 3 companies they could easily get much better representation with just a few female appointments.

ASX Gender Diversity by Sector 2014
In the second last place we find the mining industry, and it is here the real challenge lies if we are to really change ASX board room gender diversity. While you could argue that there are more women on mining boards than in any other industry (the 3.81% represents more than 100 women), the problem is that it doesn’t really make a dent in the overall percentage because there are more than 3,000 men (96.19%). 

The big question is therefore what can be done to get (a lot more) women on mining boards.

And while we’re thinking about that, we might as well start thinking about why there are so few chairwomen and what can be done to improve that as well. Here at Optimice we don’t have the answers, but we will keep monitoring this space and hope we can inject some motivation for change by publishing these statistics. 

Last point – if you are a board member for an ASX listed company and would like to know how your board’s gender diversity percentage stacks up against your industry peers, or you’re interested in finding out how your board is connected to other board through overlapping directorships, just send us an email and we’ll let you know.