Inspired by a comment to one of my prior posts (You know that story of the Russian cosmonaut?), a comment about noise and getting into love with it, I thought it may be worth sharing some of our experience with building (office) space for building teams.
When we moved large-scale into Lean and Agile Software Development methodologies five years ago, the role and work of “the [cross-functional Scrum] team” got more and more important and we started to consider office space concepts that would better fit the new working model than our traditional 3-4 people offices that we had in some of our development locations (e.g. in the headquarter offices).
Colleagues were in search for collaboration space, needed spots for daily Scrum stand-up meetings and their Scrum boards, needed meetings rooms for the takt-start planning and takt-end review and retrospective meetings (all at the same time, of course). Also, we wanted to be able to move individuals easily and quickly around, if e.g. teams were changed or a UX designer was supposed to join a team, and we didn’t want to always wait for weeks to get an official move approved and implemented by facilities or contractors… “Grab your laptop and make yourself comfortable at your new spot” was the goal…
As a first try, we had experimented with 3 “team rooms” which had been set up by tearing 2 walls down and making 3 normal offices into a bigger team room. While the pilot teams that moved in liked the space after some adjustments for their team related work, it quickly became clear that a) they had only accepted the room because each one of them still had their original desk in their prior office room and b) the team room was “an island” that was missing support infrastructure around: ad-hoc meeting rooms the team could retreat into to not disturb the others, “phone cells” for phone conversations that were disturbing the others or private in nature. So we figured out that we need more than “team room” islands in the classical office environment, but a space for teams that has been designed for that purpose from the ground up.
That’s how we started the initiative called “Office Space for Teams” (OS4T), a collaboration of Facility Management, our central Lean unit and “the business”, i.e. parts of my R&D unit. The goal was to pilot concepts for office space particularly tailored at teams and their need for communication and collaboration, supporting innovation and creativity.
There’s meanwhile a short video about it on YouTube that you might want to check out (3 minutes) to get an impression yourself:
We quickly figured out that in a “Lean” environment, it would be stupid to not involve the main stakeholder into the whole design exercise: the Scrum teams themselves. So we ended with having a joint team from the three units above, plus external architects, plus representatives from the development teams themselves that gave input and guidance to the actual design the architects and interior designers came up with.
The declared goal was to emphasize “networking over nesting”, i.e. priority 1 was to provide teams with an environment that would foster communication and collaboration supporting innovation and and that would not make the individual’s wish for “nesting” the main goal. “Nesting” meaning: “let me alone, I want my private spot where noone disturbs me and I can ‘nest’ in”.
The area affected was two “H”-shaped wings of our building, seating around 280 colleagues before the remodeling. The restructuring of the old smaller office rooms, meetings rooms, coffee corner into a coherent overall concept, resulted in more than 30% additional workspaces, places where people could sit and work, simply due to the fact that a lot of space was “wasted” in the past with pathways to connect the offices. So the new design made better use of otherwise “dead” space.
I don’t want to bore you with the full story and all the nitty-gitty details — this goes beyond a blog post I fear and the video above may already give you a good sense of what Office Space for Teams is about — but share a few of the insights and learnings that we have made over the past months while “living” in the new space (I myself as well):
So that’s my personal experiences with our Office Space for Teams project, without the claim of completeness or final truth. I love to work in the new office space. But that, of course, is personal preference and taste.
P.S.: Uh, I forgot, we heard some concerns about “private space” in an open office environment. Developers (sometimes even managers) are a creative species. Nature always finds it’s way… 😉
Men are expected to be assertive and confident, so we welcome their leadership. In contrast, women are expected to be kind, nurturing, and compassionate, so when they lead, they go against our expectations and often face pushback as a result. Challenge these stereotypes by pointing out bias and supporting your female colleagues. You have a strong incentive to make sure that women succeed in your organization—men who work well with women and tap the full talents of their teams outperform their peers.
Success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. When a man is successful, his peers often like him more; when a woman is successful, both men and women often like her less. This trade-off between success and likeability creates a double bind for women. If a woman is competent, she does not seem nice enough, but if a woman seems really nice, she is considered less competent. This can have a big impact on a woman’s career. Ask yourself: Who are you more likely to support and promote, the man with high marks across the board or the woman who has equally high marks but is just not as well liked?
This bias often surfaces in the way women are described, both in passing and in performance reviews. When a woman asserts herself—for example, by speaking in a direct style or promoting her ideas—she is often called “aggressive” and “ambitious.” When a man does the same, he is seen as “confident” and “strong.”
When you hear a woman called “bossy” or “shrill,” request a specific example of what the woman did and then ask, “Would you have the same reaction if a man did the same thing?” In many cases, the answer will be no. Remember that you can also fall into these bias traps, so think carefully about your own response to female coworkers.
DID YOU KNOW?
In a Columbia Business School study, different groups of students read a case study about a venture capitalist with one single difference—gender. Students respected both “Howard” and “Heidi,” but Howard was described as likeable and Heidi was seen as selfish and not “the type of person you would want to hire or work for.”
Women are often hired
based on past performance,
while men are often hired
for their potential.
Male performance is often overestimated compared to female performance, starting with mothers overestimating boys’ crawling ability and underestimating girls’. This bias is even more pronounced when review criteria are unclear, making individuals more likely to rely on gut feelings and personal inferences. Over time, even small deviations in performance evaluation have a significant impact on women’s careers. This difference in the perceived performance of men and women also helps explains why women are hired and promoted based on what they have already accomplished, while men are hired and promoted based on their potential.
Awareness begets fairness. Make sure everyone on your team is aware of the gender bias in evaluating performance. Be specific about what constitutes excellent performance, and make sure goals are set in advance, understood, and measurable. The clearer your criteria are, the better. Be prepared to explain your evaluations—and expect the same of others. When people are accountable for their decisions, they are more motivated to think through them carefully.
DID YOU KNOW?
Gender-blind studies consistently show that removing gender from decisions improves women’s chances of success. One study found that replacing a woman’s name with a man’s name on a résumé improved the odds of getting hired by 61 percent.
Women and men ascribe their success to different things. Men typically attribute their success to innate qualities and skills, while women often attribute success to external factors such as “working hard,” “getting lucky,” or “help from others.” Women and men also differ when it comes to explaining their failures. When a man fails, he attributes it to situational factors like “didn’t practice enough” or “not interested in the subject.” When a woman fails, she is more likely to attribute it to lack of ability.
Moreover, women are often undervalued by others. When women and men work together on tasks, women are given less credit for successful outcomes and blamed more for failure.
Because women receive less credit—and give themselves less credit—their confidence often erodes. As a result, they are less likely to put themselves forward for promotions and stretch assignments.
Make sure women get the credit they deserve and look for opportunities to acknowledge their contributions. When you introduce female coworkers, emphasize their accomplishments; this helps counteract any preconceived notions about their competence. Push back when women say that they’re “not ready” or “not qualified” for an opportunity—or when others say that about women—and encourage women to go for it!
DID YOU KNOW?
Men will apply for jobs when they meet 60 percent of the hiring criteria, while women wait until they meet 100 percent.
Women get less airtime
and have less influence
Compared to women, men tend to talk more and make more suggestions in meetings, while women are interrupted more, given less credit for their ideas, and have less overall influence. This starts in school, where girls get less airtime and are interrupted more, even by the most well-intentioned teachers. If you watch men and women at the same level, you will notice that more of the men sit in the front and center seats, while women tend to gravitate toward the end of the table and edge of the room—away from positions that convey status.
Without full participation in meetings, you cannot tap everyone’s skills and expertise, and this undermines team outcomes.
It’s important to make sure everyone speaks up and is heard. Start by encouraging women to sit front and center at meetings. If a female colleague is interrupted, interject and say you’d like to hear her finish. Openly ask women to contribute to the conversation. Be aware of “stolen ideas” and look for opportunities to acknowledge the women who first proposed them. And remember, when you advocate for coworkers, they benefit—and you’re seen as a leader.
DID YOU KNOW?
In an eight-member team, three members will make 67 percent of comments. In a five-member team, two members will make 70 percent of comments.
Women take on more “office housework”—service and support work such as taking notes, organizing events, and training new hires. These tasks steal valuable time away from core responsibilities and can keep a team member from participating fully; the person taking diligent notes in the meeting almost never makes the killer point. In keeping with deeply held gender stereotypes, people expect help from women but not from men, so when women do favors at work, they earn no points for doing so—but when they say no, they are penalized. Men, on the other hand, gain points for saying yes and face minimal consequences for saying no.
Moreover, many women—including two-thirds of executive women in Fortune 200 companies—are in support roles, but line roles with profit-and-loss responsibility more often lead to senior leadership positions. Together, these dynamics can have a serious impact on women’s career trajectories.
Pay attention to who volunteers for different types of work, and do your part to help distribute office housework equally. Consider picking up some yourself; it often creates opportunities to collaborate with different coworkers and develop new skills. Don’t fall into the trap of expecting women to take on stereotypical support roles like “team mom” or note taker.
DID YOU KNOW?
In a performance evaluation study, men who stayed late to help prepare for a meeting were rated 14 percent more favorably than women who did the exact same thing. When both men and women failed to help, the women were penalized with a 12 percent lower rating than the men.
assumptions that women are
less competent and committed.
Many studies show that the pushback—or “maternal wall”—women experience when they have kids is the strongest gender bias. Motherhood triggers assumptions that a woman is less competent and less committed to her career. As a result, she is held to higher standards and presented with fewer opportunities.
This also impacts women who aren’t mothers—and men, too. Women often face pushback as soon as they’re engaged to be married, and fathers who leave work early or take time off for family pay a higher price than mothers. Studies show that fathers receive lower performance ratings and experience steeper reductions in future earnings after taking time away from work for family reasons.
Women also often “leave before they leave,” compromising their careers in anticipation of family responsibilities they do not yet have. They turn down projects, don’t apply for promotions, or choose more flexible paths to accommodate families they plan to have someday, closing doors to opportunities and limiting their options even before they become parents.
Don’t assume mothers won’t be willing to take on challenging assignments or travel. Avoid telling moms “I don’t know how you do it,” which can signal that you think mothers should be at home. If you’re a parent, be vocal about the time you spend away from work with your children; this gives other parents in your organization permission to do the same. If it’s available to you, take paternity leave—and if it’s not, push your company for better policies. As more men and women bring their whole selves to work, the bias linked to motherhood—and fatherhood—will begin to break down.
DID YOU KNOW?
In one study, three additional words on a résumé—“member of PTA”—made a woman 79 percent less likely to be hired.