Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces?

Summary and commentary by Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Personal control is defined as the perceived control an individual has over various characteristics of his/her environment, which includes: (1) the organization of one's workspace; (2) personalizing one's workspace; (3) control over social contact; and (4) control over temperature, lighting and the work process (Lee & Brand, 2009). Distraction is the extent to which an individual feels diverted, disturbed or annoyed by an unwanted stimulus in the work environment.

Little consensus has been achieved on  on control in the workplace, therefore much of the information was obtained from previous studies to create the control construct for this study. 9 items were developed to measure control using a 7-point likeart scale. Statements were collected from a previous study conducted by Weisman (1986) which measured concentration and noise level. 8 statements were extracted and utilized a 7-point likeart scale. Finally, one's judgement on his/her performance was collected based on Oldham's (1988) aspects of quality, quantity and creativity. These items were scored on a 5-point scale.

A sample population was collected utilizing three manufacturing companies based in Michigan. A total of 384 surveys were analyzed. Information about the physical aspect of each building was also collected, including, year constructed, facility size, renovation history, distribution method of HVAC systems and workspace specifications.

Demographics include the following:

• 62% male; 38% female
• 28% worked in engineering; 12.8% worked in marketing; 58% were employed in engineer/technical/ professional positions; 24% were managers; 13% were clerical/support and 4.2% considered themselves as other
• 74% worked in an open office  with high dividers
• Office type varied based on job category (i.e. clerical personnel were more likely to work in a cubicle and a professional is more likely to have an office

The analysis methodology was unclear and questionable. It is possible that I may not have a background in this methodology but there was no p-value to designate the significance of the results. However, the authors state that perceived control over the physical environment environment mediated the negative effects of distraction on one's performance.  Therefore, the negative effects of distracting noise can be decreased by providing employee's control of their personal work place. 

Results need to be interpreted delicately as they were collected based on self-report. Clearly self-report surveys are vulnerable to biases. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

While the topic requires further research, it does reveal some helpful information. First and foremost, private offices are the ideal workspace for any employee, as it dramatically reduces the possibility of distractions. However, private offices for every individual employee is not always feasible and therefore, companies often resort to a public work environment.

When a public work environment is needed, employers should try to eliminate distractions as much as possible. One popular method is to use cubicle walls to provide employees with privacy. Some companies choose to avoid cubicles due to the stigma it can create. Even with cubicles, distractions, such as noise, are impossible to avoid. This article suggest increasing an employee's sense of personal control can assist them in blocking external distractions. Simple yet effective methods can be used, such as: 

Believe it or not, it is possible to get cubicles with doors

• Instead of using overhead fluorescent lights, give employees lamps with a dimming feature
• Allow employees to layout furniture
• Encourage employee's to decorate their desk with pictures of their liking
• Allow employees to which desk they want to sit at (if possible)
• Enclose a cubicle and give employees the right to have a door

Source: Lee, S.Y., & Brand, J.L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53 (3), 324-335.

Comparing Victim Attributes and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression and Sexual Harassment (Part 2)

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Following their previous research, Hershcovis and Barling (2010) decide to conduct a meta-analysis using 112 studies and 134 independent samples. The authors of previous studies that used the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) were contacted to reanalyze the data with merely a subcomponent of the SEQ. 82% of the samples were returned. Data was analyzed using Hunter Schmidt’s (1990 as cited by Hershcovis & Barling, 2010) for calculating weighted average reliabilities, adjusting for sample error, and measuring confidence intervals. Z tests were used to analyze independent correlations.

Results revealed that sexual harassment had a negative relationship with job satisfaction (r_c = -.29), coworker satisfaction (r_c = -.35), supervisor satisfaction (r_c = -.34), affective commitment (r_c = - .29), and psychological wellbeing (r_c = -.28). Studies continued to show that sexual harassment had positive relationships with turnover (r_c =.21), job stress (r_c =.21) and work withdrawal (r_c =.29). All of the correlations mentioned above were statistically significant with a probability less than .01. The author fails to mention that while the correlations are significant, they are low correlations and thus may have weak effects.

Workplace aggression was found to have stronger relationships than sexual harassment. It was found to have negative correlations with job satisfaction (r_c = -.46), coworker satisfaction (r_c = -.37), supervisor satisfaction (r_c = -.49), affective commitment (r_c = -.40) and psychological wellbeing (r_c = -.40). Positive correlations for workplace aggression were present for turnover (r_c =.39), job stress (r_c =.32) and work withdrawal (r_c =.19). All correlations had a probability less than .05.

As already demonstrated with the correlations, Z-tests comparisons revealed that workplace aggression had stronger negative outcomes than sexual harassment in job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, affective commitment, psychological wellbeing, and turnover and job stress. No significant difference was present for coworker satisfaction. Work withdrawal had a stronger effect with sexual harassment than workplace aggression.

 IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

As previously mentioned in Part 1 of this summary, this research shows that workplace aggressive has effects that are far more influential than sexual harassment. This may be a result of the lack of action that is taken to address this issue. Sexual harassment is a sensitive topic and organizations attempt to correct the harassment quickly to avoid lawsuits. Workplace aggression,however, can not be easily proven and there is no legal implications of an employee that is rude or excludes other individuals. 

Organizations can prevent these negative affects of by implementing a policy stating no tolerance towards workplace aggression or sexual harassment. For this policy to be effective, the organization must investigate all claims of workplace aggression and avoid discrediting any accusations without proof. 

Regardless, sexual harassment and workplace aggression will continue to be part of our society. We do not live in an ideal world and some people have no guilt for their actions. As HR practioners, we should communicate disapproval of any of these actions and the consequences associated with these actions. We should also take immediate action once any complaint is received. These issues should not go unaddressed or else it could have negative effects on company culture and personnel.

Source: Herschcovis, M.S., Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 95 (5), 874-888.

Comparing Victim Attributions and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression & Sexual Harassment (Part 1)

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Sexual harassment has had a large presence in male-dominated organizations. It is believed that it occurs in these organizations because women are holding positions that were traditionally filled by men. Surprisingly, if a woman had masculine traits, then she is more susceptible to sexual harassment. Hershcovis and Barling (2010) suggest that sexual harassment degrades an individuals gender and thus lowers his/her status/credibility. When this occurs, female victims view the incident as an attack on their gender instead of on themselves. Sexual harassment on men is far less threatening and may even reinforce their male gender role.

Unlike sexual harassment, workplace aggression does not focus on one's gender or classification. It is equally threatening to both men and women as it crushes one's status or need to feel a part of a group. Examples of workplace aggression include social exclusion, gossiping, yelling, and rude behaviors, which all suggest that the individual is of lower status. These behaviors often focus on individual characteristics instead of one's member to a social group (i.e. gender).

Hershcovis and Barling (2010) set out to research the attributable differences between sexual harassment and workplace aggression. An online survey was administered to 117 participants. Participants were provided a story that differed based on the following dimensions: gender dominant workplace vs. gender neutral workplace (equal distribution among men & women) and workplace aggression vs. sexual harassment.  Participants were asked to rate the scenario on how descriptive it was of sexual harassment and workplace aggression on a 1-5 scale. They were also asked to allocate the blame based on a hundred points between themselves and the perpetrator. In addition, survey respondents answered questions evaluating internal attribution, personal attribution, gender attribution, external attribution, aggression ambiguity, and severity. Gender was also collected as a controlled variable.

A multivariate analysis revealed a significance between workplace aggression and sexual harassment, F(6,98) = 14.80, p<.001. It was also found that participants in the gender-dominant scenario were more likely to make an internal attribution in the workplace aggression scenario (M = 2.72) than the sexual harassment scenario ( M = 1.67). Participants that were part of the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to take the encounter personally than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Those that partook in the sexual harassment scenario were more likely to blame their bully's attitudes, F (1,108) = 19.01, p < .01, on their gender and account them for the blame, F (1,108) = 8.92, p < .01.  Participants that were in the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to blame themselves instead of the bully than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Gender distribution within the organization had no effect on sexual harassment but participants in the workplace aggression sample were more likely to make a gender attribution than in the gender-neutral environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

Based on the findings in this study, HR practitioners need to be conscious of the fact that victims of workplace aggression are likely to place the blame on themselves. Therefore, when counseling an individual, it is important to emphasize that it is not their fault and that bullying does exist in the organization. In addition, the findings show that bullying can be equally offensive as sexual harassment and should not be taken lightly. HR professionals should examine complaints thoroughly to ensure that bullying does not escalate. 

In regards to sexual harassment, victims are likely to blame the harasser. Which they should! It is vital to understand that no employee is responsible for being a victim of sexual harassment. Regardless of one's clothing, gender, or comments, sexual advances are not acceptable in the workplace and every complaint should be investigated immediately. 

Source: Herschcovis, M.S., Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 95 (5), 874-888.

Dogs in the workplace. WOOF!

I have previously worked for a company that allows owners to bring their dog(s) to work. As an animal lover, this was astonishing to me. More and more companies are allowing owners to bring their dogs to work. PetsMart allows dogs to visit the corporate office once a week. DDB and OMD allow employees to bring their dogs every day of the week. Organizations are beginning to identify that people think of their pets as children.

However, before allowing personnel to bring their dogs to work, important considerations must be taken. Not only should the company take legal precautions but it must also be assured that it matches with the culture. Bringing dogs to work is clearly more prominent on the West Coast as many innovative companies are based there. From my experiences, I have found that companies that encourage innovation and creativity excel by allowing dogs in the work.

However, there are some corporate cultures that would not progress if dogs are allowed in the office. Centralized and structured organizations will not benefit from allowing owners to bring their dogs to work. Since power is often more controlled in these organizations, having a dog at work may in fact weaken the power of higher managers. In addition, organizations that wish to present the company in a professional and conservative manner would not benefit from having dogs in the office as it does not uphold this image.

I personally loved bringing my dog to work and I felt it put my mind at ease. Leaving your pet at home from 9-5 can be heartbreaking and sometimes pet daycare is not an option. For organizations that do allow dogs, clear guidelines must be established and communicated to all employees that wish to bring their pets to work. Paw Rescue (2009) suggests the following:

* Supervise pets closely. Each owner needs to act responsibly. Dogs must be kept on leash, and/or in a closed office or cubicle, or in a crate.

* Post a note at your door indicating that you have a pet in your office. This way, you will avoid unpleasant surprises.

* Owners can put a small folding fence or other sturdy barrier in front of their cubicle door so their pups cannot roam. Also, not all dogs like delivery people, providing another reason to keep dogs on leash.

* Bring chew toys and a water bowl. But do not bring loud squeeky toys and other items that will distract or annoy coworkers.

* Reward your dog frequently for good behavior.

* Be respectful of people with allergies and those who are uncomfortable around dogs.

* Keep the dog quiet, especially during conference calls.

* Avoid taking dogs to company meetings.

* Designate pet-free zones such as conference rooms, restrooms and cafeterias.

References

(2009, June 28) Dog tip: Taking pets to work. Paw Rescue. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.paw-rescue.org/PAW/PETTIPS/DogTip_PetsAtWork.php