I recently heard an executive (let's call her Ms. Foo) stress that
collaboration is the key to success, and
in order to collaborate effectively, a company needs to ditch the ubiquitous corporate artifact - the cubicle; therefore, (here's her hypothesis)
eliminating cubicles and replacing them with an open floor plan is best for our organization. As further support for her hypothesis, Foo also has said that the cubicle is the
epitome of a closed corporate culture and that
high-performance companies (e.g. Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter)
don't have cubicles.
As an exercise in critical thinking, let's quickly examine Ms. Foo's arguments - by first examining the argument for fallacies and then examining the veracity of the statements can we determine whether or not Ms. Foo makes a valid argument.
Let's first examine Ms. Foo's argument that 'collaboration is the key
to success'. In its present form, this argument is clearly a
sweeping generalization. Even if the statement were qualified to her own organization in the more precise 'collaboration is the key to our success' it's still arguably not precise enough and is not as precise as would be "collaboration is a key to our success". By increasing precision we can easily see that maintaining the argument in its presented form also creates a
false dilemma.
Let's next examine the statement that 'the cubicle is the epitome of closed corporate culture' (and the connotation that such a culture is not what Ms. Foo wishes to represent). To better examine this, we will ignore the hyperbole and better express the argument as 'closed corporate culture promotes cubicles' - for certainly the epitome of 'closed corporate culture' would be a office door - or at the very least, something that can be physically closed. I would put forward that although Ms. Foo's original argument is a lightly veiled
guilt by association, our restatement of her argument is clearly an example of such a fallacy.
Let's next take the statement that 'high-performance companies don't
have cubicles'. Even if the statement is factually correct, and I am
not in a position to argue that it is not, it still remains an
argumentum ad populum.
Perhaps what Foo intended was to present evidence that
'high-performance companies' have implemented a collaboration-promoting
floor plan and found it beneficial. If this argument is intended as
evidence, let's restate it so that it may more closely represent the
evidence she intended - let's instead say
high-performance companies have implemented an open floor plan and have seen an increase in collaboration.
Even though our more semantically precise argument doesn't fall into the
argumentum ad populum,
such changes in environment design are seldom executed under the strict
controls normal experiments fall under and without control groups it is
typically impossible to determine the veracity of the premise. Without
demonstrating a causal relationship, the argument is, at best, subject
to
cum hoc ergo propter hoc or perhaps to
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It is clear that Foo's arguments are fallacious; however, that does not mean that the conclusion (that open floor plans are best for her organization) is necessarily false, simply that it is
unproven, so let's continue the exploration.
There are additional problems with Ms. Foo's proposition; for
example, it's rife with ambiguity. Perhaps by clarifying this ambiguity we can come to a restatement of the argument that is not fallacious - one for which we can examine the veracity.
First, it's not, generally speaking, as if a
person chooses to
either
collaborate or not, but rather they choose, consciously or
subconsciously, the degree to which and manner in which they collaborate; "collaboration" is
not an all-or-nothing one-size-fits-all proposition. Further, Ms. Foo uses the term success without actually defining how success would be measured. Success may be defined as high productivity, as it is in many cases, or high innovation, or perhaps high engagement among the employees.
Ms. Foo's original argument might therefore be restated as
collaboration in the manner I understand it is one of the keys to what I define as success for our organization;
a floor plan that does not use cubicles, such as those employed by Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, creates the type of collaborative environment I desire; therefore,
eliminating cubicles and replacing them with an open floor plan is best for our organization. This restatement clarifies many of the points of ambiguity, yielding a much less fallacious line of reasoning; however, it also makes Ms. Foo sound a tyrant and generally undesirable boss.
I should point out at this point that I've not ever been to any of the companies classified as 'high-performance
companies' and cited by Foo, nor can I say reliably that collaboration is not a key to success for her company. I can say that I have, in more than a couple of
decades in the industry, worked in a variety of environments -
everything from 'open floor plans' to an office with a door, and while I would avoid a
hasty generalization, or other fallacy, there may be other factors Ms. Foo has not considered.
In my experience, each organization in which I have worked has had a variety of concerns that
weren't related to collaboration that influenced the work space configuration
decisions. The most pronounced concern has typically been security. My experience
has been that the greater the need for security, the more restricted
the work space is. Basically, in the work environments where security
was highest, my workstation was behind a locking door and few people had
access. Collaboration within environments with strict security is,
undoubtedly, lower as knowledge and activity is compartmentalized;
conversely, collaboration within environments with lower security is
higher.
I would also say that I am generally supportive of collaboration -
in fact, I would put forward that the teaching method named for one of
the world's most famous philosophers is based in collaboration between
student and teacher. In my opinion, it could easily qualify as a key to success in many organizations.
With those qualifications being disclosed, I'll continue, using, instead of Ms. Foo's original argument, the restated argument, and looking to the veracity and whether or not it follows from beginning to end.
First, I believe there is little room for doubt that physical environments can affect collaboration. The argument that a floor plan that does not use cubicles facilitates an open and collaborative environment may be true. However, possibility is not actuality, and I do not believe that an open floor plan is either a necessary or sufficient condition for collaboration.
There are, in my experience, a number of things that hinder collaboration. I would separate these hindrances into physical and non-physical obstacles. Non-physical obstacles typically include
who can collaborate but also go beyond into
how individuals are encouraged, or even allowed, to collaborate. In fact, I would posit that physical obstacles to collaboration, whether it be minor physical barriers, such as a cubicle, or more significant physical barriers, such as lacking a physical presence in a location (e.g. telecommuting), are less significant than non-physical obstacles in the face of technology, primarily because they are easily controlled. We can easily move into shared physical space in the case of cubicles or use email, phone (whether land-line or mobile), and instant messaging when lacking a shared location. In fact, organizations distributed across the globe typically use a combination of these tools and more to collaborate.
Since the non-physical barriers to collaboration - for example, a culture that does not value the contribution of specific individuals, whether that is because of their role in the organization or their position in the organizational hierarchy - are generally both more significant and more difficult to address and control, these issues should be addressed first. Seeing a physical environment as
the obstacle to collaboration is a red herring, especially considering the number of methods available to work around physical environments. Further, because the features of a physical environment that affect collaboration can so easily be bypassed, we might conclude that if those features affect collaboration, and it hasn't been demonstrated that they do, that result is desired by at least one party to the collaboration. In other words,
the processes for collaboration must be addressed prior to the environmental issues that may hinder collaboration, in part because it is quite possible that the very environmental issues seen as obstacles to collaboration may serve another purpose within the organization.
As an example, lets assume for a moment that one party in our 'collaboration' model has a constraint that creates an inverse relationship between a
success and interpersonal interaction. If such a constraint existed, would it not follow that productivity would be improved in those situations where the amount of interaction was controlled? If physical barriers are easier to overcome - to manage - would it that factor not make it the preferred control? If we can see an affirmative answer to either of these questions, then is it not a simple matter of asking ourselves "can such a constraint exist?" The answer to that question is a definitive "yes" - AD/HD is a physical condition (and an ADA protected class in the US) that creates an inverse relationship between many measures of success and interpersonal interaction.
We've seen how this argument applies to cubicles, but how might the same general thought process apply to another collaboration-reducing environment, telecommuting? It is in this question that we will demonstrate the importance of the ambiguity of the word
success as well as
collaboration.
We can be certain telecommuting is a greater barrier to some forms of collaboration than cubicles, because at a very minimum the accidental interaction while moving through shared space is no longer available and intentional interaction must be attended to in greater detail. It seems after a two-month silence that perhaps this collaboration was what Marissa Mayer intended to address rather than productivity.
1
In making statement that telecommuting is a barrier to face-to-face interaction she has, to some degree, stated the obvious. However, she goes on to claim that people are more collaborative when they are together - in itself perhaps not a wild claim - and that it follows that they are more innovative. It is unclear whether this last statement is wishful thinking, a
hasty generalization, an instance of
post hoc ergo propter hoc, or an evidence-based claim.
Mayer clearly defines success as
generating ideas (product development) rather than
delivering on those ideas (productivity). By defining success, not as productivity - which has been the generally accepted measure of success - but as the generation and conglomeration of ideas, Mayer may have made a potentially workable argument for a direct relationship between what she means by collaboration and success; however, it is not a foregone conclusion.
If we define success as the generation and conglomeration of ideas, it might seem reasonable that we ought to look to increase collaboration; or at least interaction, including accidental interactions; however, we ought also recognize that the increased interaction comes at a cost. Further, we ought also recognize that the cost we pay in one area may not show a benefit in another. For example, it would be possible to decrease productivity without increasing collaboration or the generation and conglomeration of ideas.
Finally, even if the elimination of all physical barriers increases collaboration, which has not been proven by either Ms. Foo's arguments, or Marissa Mayer's, does it follow then that the increased collaboration is good for an organization? Not necessarily, and that's where the design comes in. Without adequate design, one that balances the cost against the (real
or perceived) benefits, increasing collaboration is destined to fail; otherwise, edicts intended to promote collaboration leave organizational members who have little chance to contribute to the discussion feeling disenfranchised and generally dismissed by a tyrant, and that environment is definitely
not conducive to collaboration, or in fact anything other than self-protection and evasion.
Notes
- Marissa Mayer Finally Addresses Work From Home Ban
