Presentation at XXXVI Sunbelt Conference of the International Network of Social Network Analysis, Newport Beach, California 6 April 2016

1. Teams and Ties April 2016
Teams and Ties
Workflow, Organisational Cultures and the Role of
Workplace Design
Dr Kerstin Sailer
Space Syntax Laboratory, Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London, UK
Director of Research and Innovation, Spacelab, UK
XXXVI Sunbelt Conference of the International Network for Social Network Analysis, Newport Beach, 5-10 April 2016
@kerstinsailer

2. Teams and Ties April 2016
Workflow, Organisational Cultures and the Role of
Workplace Design

3. Teams and Ties April 2016
The Role of Workplace Design
FACE TO FACE
INTERACTION
NETWORKS
construct affects
Layout of office building as affordance to face-to-face interaction networks

4. Teams and Ties April 2016
The Role of Workplace Design
Propinquity effect:
Co-workers with desks located closer to each other have a higher probability of
frequent face-to-face communication (Allen and Fustfeld 1976)
Including walking distance between desks improved models of interaction network
structures while controlling for network structural effects, team affiliation and perceived
usefulness between actors (Sailer and McCulloh 2012)
Floors as barriers:
Being located on different floors of an office building forms a significant barrier to
frequent face-to-face communication (Allen and Fustfeld 1976) → E-I index analysis shows
interaction internal to a floor can be as high as 91% of all interaction ties (Sailer 2010)

5. Teams and Ties April 2016
Introduction
Advertising Agency, Frankfurt
Very frequent face-to-face encounter
(several times a week)
Colour of nodes: Departments
Shape of nodes: Floor
What drives face-to-face
interaction within and across
departments in organisations?
What is the role of workplace
layout?

6. Teams and Ties April 2016
Types of Ties
Advertising Agency, Frankfurt
Very frequent face-to-face encounter
(several times a week)
Colour of nodes: Departments
Shape of nodes: Floor
Same dep,
same floor
Diff dep,
diff floor

7. Teams and Ties April 2016
Types of Ties
Tie: frequent face-to-face interaction → capacity for interaction limited due to cost;
Four types of ties between individuals (aggregated count by department):
SDSF – same department, same floor
organisational and spatial closeness, i.e.
localised patterns of interaction
DDSF – different department, same floor
spatial closeness, i.e. proximity /
watercooler effect
SDDF – same department, different floor
organisational closeness (distributed
department, matrix organisation)
DDDF – different department, different floor
no closeness, i.e. global interaction
Increasinginteractioncost

8. Teams and Ties April 2016
Types of Ties – Comparative Data Set
23 different organisations, 10414 staff members in total, organised in 578 departments
(mean size = 18.0) and distributed across 131 different floors (mean size = 945 sqm)
72% same dep ↔ 28% different dep
86% same floor ↔ 14% different floor

9. Teams and Ties April 2016
Methodology
SNA:
Online survey of each organisation; survey
distributed to all staff members; return quote: 49%
(lowest) to 90% (highest);
Asked each participant to name top 25 contacts and
indicate frequency of face-to-face encounter;
Analysis of network of strong ties (daily encounter);
Network attributes: departmental affiliation & floor
where desk is (information provided by org);
calculating proportions of ties in each category
(same/same, same/diff, diff/same, diff/diff)
Spatial Analysis:
Anaysis of spatial configuration using VGA on eye
level (visibility) [connectivity, average mean depth];

10. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Exploring the Impact of Cultures
Analysis of variance for % DDDF and industry (R2=0.11**, p<0.0001); for % SDSF and
department task (R2=0.32**, p<0.0001) and for % DDDF and organisation (R2=0.22**,
p<0.0001)
→ Importance of industry cultures, professional
cultures and organisational cultures
Industry
Dep Task
Org

11. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Exploring the Impact of Spatial Structure
Correlation between % DDDF (diff dep, diff floor) and average size of floor plate (R2=0.24*,
p<0.0239)
→ In buildings with smaller sized floor plates, people tend to interact more with those
outside of their own department and own floor

12. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Exploring the Impact of Spatial Structure
Correlation between % DDDF and average connectivity of
spaces (R2=0.28*, p<0.0227)
Lawfirm–localvisibilityinoffice(degreecentrality)
→ In buildings with smaller sized spaces on average,
people tend to interact more with those outside of their
own department and own floor Integrated Segregated

13. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Summary
Ties spanning the boundaries of organisation (departmental affiliation) and space (floor
assignment), tend to occur more frequently for:
• Certain industries (architecture, creative agencies, finance, public sector)
• Certain roles (admin, facilities, senior management)
• Certain organisations due to their organisational and spatial cultures
• Organisations with smaller floor plates
• Organisations with more partitions and smaller spaces on average
→ Importance of % DDDF:
Bringing the whole organisation
together
cohesion

14. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Summary
Two mechanisms for social cohesion between people (Hillier and Hanson 1984):
1. Sharing same local world and coming together in physical space (spatial solidarity);
2. Shared interests or goals, which may overcome / transverse boundaries of physical
space (transpatial solidarity → ‘homophily’);
Spatial Solidarity: ‘WHERE WE ARE’ Transpatial Solidarities: ‘WHO WE ARE’
The Guildhall, City of London

15. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Summary
Do spatial and transpatial solidarities correspond? (Hillier and Hanson 1984)
Non-
Correspondence
Model
Correspondence
Model
Spatial and transpatial solidarities
do not correspond
Openness, equality, inclusivity and
global strength
Spatial and transpatial solidarities
correspond
Locally strong, exclusive and
hierarchical with pronounced boundaries
→ Strength of weak ties
(Granovetter 1973)

16. Teams and Ties April 2016
Results – Summary
Non-
Correspondence
Model
Spatial and transpatial solidarities
do not correspond
Openness, equality, inclusivity and
global strength
Counterintuitively, less open and smaller floor plates create higher
affordances for organisational cohesion and overall social strength
(Granovetter 1973)
→ Strength of weak ties

17. Teams and Ties April 2016
Conclusions and Further Research
Aim to unravel the subtle impact of the spatial layout of an office for organisational
behaviours and network structures (beyond the level of the individual)
Problem of signal and noise in large comparative data sets
Further research
Multiple regression models and deeper statistical analysis including other intervening
variables, e.g. location, size and type of shared facilities (such as canteen or on-site café)
Further focus on embeddedness of ties rather than departments as unit of analysis
Exploring organisational and spatial cultures more deeply, i.e. the way an
organisation performs collectively through norms and rituals shared by its members

18. Teams and Ties April 2016
Dr Kerstin Sailer
Lecturer in Complex Buildings
Bartlett School of Architecture
University College London
140 Hampstead Road
London NW1 2BX
United Kingdom
Thank you!
k.sailer@ucl.ac.uk
@kerstinsailer
http://spaceandorganisation.org/