12

ACCESS ENABLES COLLABORATION

Access enables collaboration. It’s that important. For any type of collaboration to be successful employees need easy access to others. If this is not a defining feature of your culture, then working together will be thwarted. This chapter will focus on the final Company Practice: fostering an environment in which employees can access coworkers with whom they need to collaborate.

Three critical topics will be covered under the umbrella of “access.” The first is using physical office design to enhance collaboration. Specialists in industrial office design are teaming up with organizational psychologists to help leaders design workspaces in fun ways that increase employee productivity and teamwork. According to Ben Waber, a PhD from MIT who has built a successful career in this area, “Physical space is the biggest lever to encourage collaboration. And the data are clear that the biggest driver of performance in complex industries like software is serendipitous interaction.”¹

The second topic is how employees transcend distances in order to collaborate with others. Geographic dispersal might mean working across the state, the country, or the world. It might mean being located in adjacent buildings on a corporate campus. In some companies just working on a different floor of the same building creates a barrier to effective collaboration. “Dispersal” is in the eyes of the employee.

Even if your company has limited geographic dispersal of employees, this chapter can still supply you with some great ideas for increasing the effectiveness of collaboration.

The third topic relates to working at home.

Let’s start with a story about how one of my Silicon Valley interviewees took the initiative to get better ongoing access to colleagues at the health center where she worked in order to provide the best possible care to patients.

TAKING INITIATIVE TO ACCESS COLLEAGUES MORE EFFECTIVELY

Twenty years ago, when I began working as a surgeon at Kaiser Permanente, technology was much less advanced than it is today. Because of that, I didn’t have immediate electronic access to reports, write-ups, lab results, and other information I needed to review before appointments with patients. I would seek out the patient’s primary physician to talk about the diagnosis that led to the referral. I would similarly seek out the radiologist, oncologist, and any other specialists to get test results and insights from those doctors regarding their interpretations of the results.

There was a lot of running around, and one-on-one consultations with this colleague and that colleague. It was important to do and was standard practice at Kaiser, and, I presume, at most health care institutions. Though it wasn’t hugely efficient in today’s standards, it was necessary and effective for the time.

Not long after that, I and some other colleagues realized that it made more sense for us to meet regularly as a group to discuss patients referred to us for specialized care. Instead of having sequential conversations about a patient, we could all participate in one conversation together. It allowed us to share our findings, interpretations, and previous experience related to that health matter. Others could understand what our views were based on and ask questions that were illuminating. We felt it would benefit patient care and also give us a way to share knowledge and learn from others.

We began these group meetings and found them both professionally valuable and personally satisfying. We met over lunch because that time worked for many and were delighted when it aided us in unexpected ways. “Breaking bread” together helped us get to know each other better. It also made it easier for us to disagree or make requests that might be perceived as unnecessary if made in another venue.

We anticipated that six specialists would form the core group that met weekly. However, when word spread about this meeting others asked to join. Our weekly meeting grew to around 20 professionals, including primary care, surgeons, radiologists, other physicians, nurses, counselors, and others involved in the care of the patients we are discussing. When members are not available to join in-person, they often join using phone or Skype.

The group is diverse not only in professional titles and job duties, but also in ethnicity, nationality, age, and gender. Having these larger numbers of attendees from highly diverse backgrounds has helped the effectiveness of the group, and benefits both the patients and the attendees. Over time, we have come to understand other’s roles, needs, and styles better.

Our agreements allow us to coordinate care and avoid sending patients back and forth between health care providers. It’s much better for patients when we avoid this shuttling, and it reduces frustrations between us as well. Our guiding principle is that patient care is always our primary concern.

The fact that the group still meets regularly today is testament to its effectiveness. We would not still be meeting if it wasn’t highly worthwhile, especially since technological advancements have supplanted some of the original reasons for this group’s formation.

THE TAKE AWAY

This story from Kaiser is a great example of employees accessing others to improve their work and provide even better patient care. Most of them worked in a cluster of buildings in close proximity to each other. They needed a space that could accommodate 20 people and the equipment to connect colleagues who could not attend in person. They also needed a meeting format that helped them to be successful. The main thing they needed was a commitment from each of these extremely busy health care professionals to make this meeting a priority.

DESIGN YOUR PHYSICAL SPACES WITH EMPLOYEE INPUT

Although these medical professionals at Kaiser do not need to speak with each other daily, many people in other companies need frequent interaction. Physical space configurations can make a big difference when it comes to effective collaboration. Many leaders in Silicon Valley have realized this, and have concluded that the cost of redesigning workspaces is well worth the money when it brings employees together more effectively.

It is becoming increasingly common for companies to create different workspace designs to meet the needs and desires of various employee teams. One Silicon Valley leader summed this up nicely, saying: “Comfort helps collaboration. People fight over the thermostat. If engineering wants it at 65 degrees and legal wants it at 75, you have to figure out how to do that.”

Some companies pay significant attention to physical space design to encourage employees to spend more time at the office and make it more comfortable for them to do it. Google, for instance, offers employees at their East Coast headquarters in Manhattan: “[g]ourmet cafeterias that serve free breakfast, lunch, and dinner; Broadway-theme conference rooms with velvet drapes; and conversation areas designed to look like vintage subway cars. . . . The library [boasts] a bookcase [that] swings open to reveal a secret room.”² Their headquarters campus in Silicon Valley is just as amazing, reflecting Google’s commitment to “create the happiest, most productive workplace in the world.”³

The attention and money that companies put into making their physical space fun, unique, and comfortable varies widely from company to company. Every company needs to decide what’s right for their particular circumstances. There is a theme, however, that underlies this notion of workplace design, and I believe that it’s stronger in Silicon Valley than in many other geographic regions and industries. That theme is a desire to make the physical workplace so comfortable that employees will want to spend long hours there.

Consider what some Silicon Valley leaders I spoke with had to say about physical office design. As you read these remarks think about whether any of their ideas might enhance your environment.

   “Our spaces are designed for collaboration. The look varies from building to building and depends on your work. Most buildings have rooms for stand-up meetings. Some have nice project space. Our individual work spaces are generally open work areas, cubes without the partitions. Our newer buildings have nice joint spaces— ‘living room’ types of comfortable areas, and meeting rooms. The only weakness of these arrangements is that you cannot leave the white boards full of stuff because they’re a shared commodity.”

   “As soon as we add new conference rooms they become very popular. Every time we build a new space we think about the best things to include (needed technology, etc.). This is especially important since some participants cannot attend meetings in person.”

   “Our physical layout is a significant contributor to our culture of collaboration and its success. We have lots of open cubicles between the different groups. It makes it convenient if someone from finance wants to meet with someone from marketing. It makes conversations easier and more effective because they have a place to sit and chat. While this open configuration has drawbacks (other people can overhear things that you may want to remain private), overall it works great for us. There are pluses and minuses of any set-up. You have to decide what you want and then make it work.”

   “Our environment is not individual offices, its all cubes. One group recently decided they wanted a true open-space environment that wasn’t even cubes. We did it for them. They also wanted an all-glass board that they could write on. It cost a bit of money but it’s worth it if it improves productivity. If it works for them, we’ll be open to doing it with other groups who may also want it. We won’t impose it, though. If different groups want different physical spaces, that’s fine.”

   “If a group wants one of our smaller meeting rooms for an extended period of time, they tell facilities and it becomes theirs for that time (for instance, if marketing wants a war room for a brand campaign). But staff cannot leave stuff in big conference rooms when they leave for the day. We also have private booths that seat from one to six people. Open space is available on every floor; comfy couches and chairs, monitors near windows, white boards, etc. We have lots of glass and white boards to write on. They can be used by anyone.”

   “The physical environment is super important. Giving staff their choice; making the space work for them. People are at work for a really long time and it has to be comfortable. I’ve seen some companies that have bikes and scooters to get between buildings or even between floors. We haven’t tried that but might at some point.”

   “The state-of-the-art regarding office space seems to have gone from individual offices to open space (cube-land). It’s like that here; wide open space with desks. Personally, I think the ‘no office’ concept is less effective. Different people have different work styles, though; some folks need more quiet and others need less. This open style does have advantages in many other ways. The bottom line is that it is hard to design something that meets everyone’s needs.”

   “We try to get folks to sit cross-functionally. Get finance to sit with their clients. It’s hard. They like sitting with other finance folks. They feel they need to interact with their peers even more frequently than their clients.”

   “It’s easier for staff to work together in these shared spaces. Folks shout to others; they communicate more. It’s different than it was 10 years ago.”

   “We probably need to do a better job with this. We are realizing how important spaces are, and are doing a better job of tailoring to each group’s desires as we redo buildings. We are not leading-edge in this regard, but we are learning.”

   “We intentionally have conference rooms with glass to emphasize transparency so as you walk by you can see whatever is on the projector.”

   “Physical offices are almost always designed thoughtfully. But not from a central philosophy. Most of our spaces are quite open, except for some senior executives or HR staff who need privacy. They have the few closed offices. Generally, people sit out in the open with desks. We have some private spaces with desks and phones that you can go in and use.”

   “I don’t think I’ve seen any closed private office spaces here. There are meeting rooms and temporary offices to work if you need privacy, but not private offices. Most of the floor plans are very open. We will create customized spaces that can be reserved for the length of a project, if that is what a team needs.”

   “Our buildings have a lot of open space and meeting areas. But there’s no prescribed way of doing it. Every team gets a space. Generally, it’s cubed space. Engineers tend to get desks. But you don’t have to work at your desk. You can find any space that works for you. Sometimes you need quiet to concentrate. I encourage folks to go wherever they need to get their work done well.”

THE TAKE AWAY

Ideally, workspaces should be designed to meet the needs of both individual employees and groups within your company. Some employees benefit from regular ongoing interaction. In those instances, companies have found that workspaces in an open configuration encourage spontaneous conversations that result in better products.

Other employee groups benefit from frequent interaction that isn’t necessarily continuous. They don’t need to sit within earshot of each other. One person may realize they need a quick brainstorming session with several colleagues, and contact them asking if they can meet somewhere convenient. The physical needs of a group like that often are met with comfortable seating in a relatively quiet area, equipped with a white board to capture their thinking.

Companies that employ more than several hundred employees in different disciplines (engineering, operations, market research, sales, finance, human resources, and so on) are likely to find that they need a variety of workspaces.

There are a number of ways that you can obtain information about the physical set-up that will best meet the needs of your groups of employees. Internet research will provide ample information on this topic. Or you can hire a professional in the growing field of workplace design.

One of the things I consistently found in speaking with Silicon Valley leaders is that they involve their employees in discussions about how they want their workspace to be designed. Soliciting input from your employees will provide you spaces that best meet their needs, and assure staff that their views are important.

GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL WORKS BETTER FOR SOME THAN OTHERS

Whether to have employees in different geographic locations is a controversial topic from a number of viewpoints. It raises questions about the cost of maintaining workplaces in more than one location. If locations are in different countries it can raise a host of questions including: language, cultural, and time differences between employees who need to work together; physical and cyber security issues; and socio-political issues regarding the employment or contracting of workers from other countries. These challenges are often counterbalanced by the very real cost savings associated with moving some functions, for example the call center or some coding groups, to regions with lower costs of personnel. Also, when two companies merge, their bases are usually not next door to one another, and key employees are often rooted in the two distant communities.

Some believe that hiring staff in different countries increases greater productivity. Having personnel who work in a wide range of time zones can extend the hours that the company is able to be productive. This often allows projects to move faster by creating two or even three “shifts” of work among professional disciplines.

Having staff located in other countries can also make it easier to understand other cultures in terms of customizing products to meet the needs of their citizens. Having local sales staff can make it easier to sell products in those countries. There are many other good reasons to have staff in other countries or in different parts of the country beyond the headquarters location.

Others believe that the productivity gained from geographic distribution is offset by communication problems and lack of continuity since employees cannot talk with each other as easily.

Let’s hear the disparate views of some Silicon Valley leaders on the subject of geographic dispersal of employees. Ask yourself which of these perspectives makes most sense for your company.

   “In this firm, a high value is placed on co-location. You need to sit next to the folks that you interact with regularly. Especially between marketing and engineering. It’s also true within and between other functional groups. We tell folks, ‘No, you cannot work out of Denver just because you want to.’”

   “We do allow dispersal of sales staff. It makes sense for them to be closer to the customers. But we want engineering staff here working together and with others.”

   “I’m starting to form the opinion that when collaboration is critical, you need folks to be co-located. I don’t like distant code development teams that need to be connected to the mother ship. It’s okay when you can divide the work and give those at a distance a separate portion of the project. Otherwise the ‘tax’ is too high. It’s too hard for coders in the United States to stay in close touch with India or London. We do it. We use FaceTime, Google Hangouts, and other tools. But those are individual solutions, not group solutions. It’s extremely hard for groups to have high-quality conversations at a distance. Technology just isn’t there yet.”

   “We have lots of non-co-located employees. We use Skype a lot. And other technologies. All of these tools have pluses and minuses. I’m in a worldwide position and have teams everywhere. I don’t hop on a plane every day. But still, I am communicating with most of those folks all the time. Collaboration needs to happen. And work-life balance also needs to be factored in. As a manager, an employee, a mom, a coach, I need work-life balance. For me, I get the best balance by starting at 5 a.m. Nobody is asking me to do that. It’s my choice.”

   “This is profound for the future of our field. If we are short staffed, someone anyplace in the world can augment our staff. Someone in Afghanistan can help. It increases efficiency. We can scale up or down. You just have to remember that the same rigid criteria should hold for everyone though. You have to train remote workers to your quality and content standards.”

   “We probably do six to 12 meetings per week here, about 500 per year. Lot of conversations, lot of conference calls, meetings. Because we are relationship based and because we’re geographically dispersed, we are continually meeting with others.”

   “Yes, we do have geographic dispersal of employees. When you have employees in so many places, we learned that their productivity goes way up if they meet face-to-face every so often. Creativity is hard to do remotely. It’s much easier if they have gotten to know others. We have also learned that tough conversations are better handled in person. Once we met in London, because the topic was heated. We wanted to look each other in the eye. It was important. It created a much higher level of trust. And we are convinced that the results were much better than what likely would have happened if the meeting had been by phone or video conference.”

THE TAKE AWAY

Is geographic dispersal of employees worthwhile? It depends on a number of factors. Can the work can be isolated into separate segments? If not, can parts of segments be completed seamlessly by employees who are not in close proximity to each other? There isn’t one easy answer to this question that holds across a diversity of products and companies.

You may want to seek information from others in your industry who have already gone this route. Connecting with a professional organization in your field can provide content from the experience of others. If your firm decides that geographic dispersion is desirable or necessary, the challenge will be to ensure that your organization’s Collaboration Ethos bridges the distance.

TELECOMMUTING WORKS BEST IN COMBINATION WITH IN-PERSON TIME

The topic of geographic dispersal also includes work-at-home options. This concept has both supporters and detractors among the Silicon Valley leaders I spoke with. Those in favor of telecommuting believe that employees are more satisfied and more productive when given the option to work from home. They also feel that working at home can reduce distractions and interruptions. Others see it as a perk that increases employee commitment to the company, either when it is offered regularly or just occasionally, such as when an employee needs to be home for an air-conditioner repairperson.

The data isn’t conclusive from the standpoint of the bottom line. Having a significant number of employees telecommute can mean a smaller office and lower rent. Yet, it also typically means increased technology costs to equip employees to work effectively from a home office. Detractors point to the burden of managing employees who are not in the same location, and the challenges employees may have in working with each other.

Once again, let’s tap into the wisdom of our Silicon Valley leaders. You will see distinctly different views from different people. They may provide your company with some new perspectives on the topic of telecommuting.

   “There are no strict company rules on this. I’d feel very uncomfortable hiring someone who was mainly going to work at home, though. I’d allow it one day a week. But we need regular face-to-face contact to get things done. I expect people to come in when they need to.”

   “We allow staff in some positions to work at home and it will probably increase.”

   “We do allow working remotely; for employees much more than managers. Managers need to be in meetings most of the day and that’s too hard to do remotely.”

   “Yes, we allow both managers and individual employees to work remotely. Telecommuting does make collaborating and other factors of organizational life a bit more challenging. We have Skype and video conferencing in some offices. We have recruiters in several different states. I never see them. We have engineers in numerous places too, including internationally. They come in once in a while, not very often. It’s working. It depends on the job and the location as to how well it works. It’s just the way the world has gone.”

   “To work remotely, you have to realize that there is both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ technology. Evil technologies are the ones people hide behind (you cannot see my face in email, so I may blast you and run). Or we may go through 20 interactions before we get to agreement. Good technology includes video. You see my face and we can interact in a rich way. You also have to spend a little money and bring people together at times. That human interaction is important; it’s a false savings to not allow it. You learn much more about others when you are face to face. Having a personal relationship increases trust and enhances collaboration.”

   “Yes, we do allow it. At first it was very hard to get folks who were working or managing remotely to feel part of things. They felt isolated. We had to work hard to get them engaged. It has taken two years of effort. We’ve had to consciously create opportunities. It’s starting to be more effective. One thing we’ve learned is that some face-to-face contact is critical. Either they come in to work with us, or we go to them. That’s made all the difference. And it is an investment. Not just in the activities, but in getting people to buy into it. We’ve always had the needed technology. That’s never been an impediment. It’s these other (soft) issues.”

THE TAKE AWAY

Telecommuting offers both employer and employee many benefits. You may find that it’s a viable option for some or all of your employees. If it does have potential for your firm, you may want to encourage your leadership to pursue it.

If you do pursue it, I suggest you keep in mind that “[e]motional energy ebbs over time and must be renewed through face-to-face interactions.”⁴There is also another important reason for bringing employees together occasionally. Experts validate that “[t]he brain is always scanning for risk . . . and among the things it uses to determine if someone is friend or foe are non-verbal cues.”⁵ Even the best technological tools do not provide the chance for people to carry out that assessment and to develop the bonds of trust that are at the foundation of collaboration.

SUGGESTED POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Here are a few of the important policies and practices that companies typically put in place if they decide to offer telecommuting options.

1. Create an overall telecommuting policy. Identify which positions allow it, and with what frequency. Identify what requirements need to be attached to which positions, such as the acceptable work hours, and how communication with other employees will be handled. It’s also very important to identify which positions will be exempt from work-at-home.
2. Share these policies with employees as appropriate. Let employees know that these policies might need to change and that work-at-home privileges are not guaranteed indefinitely.
3. Create a process for employees to apply for telecommuting.
4. Determine how you will figure out whether telecommuting is effective for certain positions and for specific employees who try it.
5. Determine when you will bring employees together for face-to-face interaction.
6. Create health and safety policies related to work-at-home and ensure that employees’ home spaces meet those criteria.
7. Check your company’s insurance coverage for employees working at home and ensure that your policy is sufficient.
8. Figure out what equipment an employee working at home will need, and who will be responsible for procuring and maintaining it.
9. Ensure that employee technological devices meet your company’s standards regarding security.