The Effects of Physical Environment on Communication in The Workplace

It is a well-known and established fact that the physical environment a group is in greatly affects how its members interact, perform tasks, and are lead.  Every group is inescapably implanted in an intricate setting and environment, unique to each situation.  Physical environment will be considered any aspect of the work environment which directly affects the human senses.  Something as simple as the seating arrangement around a table or the amount of ambient light and sound can completely change the way each individual relates to their partners.  These material factors are the most obvious ones; they include light and sound intensity, interaction distance, time of day, size and shape of room, table, or work area, and dozens of other conditions.  Each of these subtly changes interpersonal interactions and thus productivity.

Spatial arrangements within a room have a significant impact on how groups interact.  In situations in which members are seated around a circular table, group members are more likely to communicate with someone directly across the table from them than with someone next to them.  As a result, persons are more likely to speak following the person across from them (most distant) rather than those adjacent (closest).  This is known as the Steinzor Effect.  The explanation posed for this is ‘mutual observation;’ it is easier to communicate with someone whom you can see more easily.  Steinzor noted this and, using other research from rectangular table seating arrangements, hypothesized that the greater the mean distance between a member and other group members, the higher the leadership status likely to be attained.  However, it turns out that the greater the amount of formal leadership designation, the more weakly the Steinzor Effect manifests.  It nominally seems that around a circular table King Arthur of legend was correct; seating arrangements do not affect leadership status if not predetermined, and thus all begin as equals.

However, a rectangular table poses an entirely different situation.  It seems that leadership can be determined and obtained by positioning around the table and that power differentials can be created based upon how many people are seated on a side. In 1961 Strodtbeck and Hook did research on mock juries – twelve person groups seated around a rectangular table.   They found that the most communicative (and thus most likely to be chosen to lead) members of the group were those sitting at the ends of the tables.  Other research has shown that people in these positions tend to be the target of more communication than other locations.

By seating an uneven number of people on either side of a table, what is known as a power differential is created.  Howells and Becker did a study published in 1962 regarding this.  They believed that people on the less populated side would make and have directed at them relatively more comments than those opposite, creating a power differential between the two sides.  By setting up twenty rectangular tables with five members — three on one side and two opposite — they expected that ceterus paribus (Latin: all other things being equal)  the number of emergent leaders should reflect these proportions.  A difference in this would demonstrate that seating was, in fact, affecting the balance of power.  Only six (instead of the expected twelve) leaders in fact emerged from the more populated side – Howells and Becker had indeed been able to create a differential.

Nevertheless it seems that seating arrangements do not affect leadership status if the seats are assigned or if leadership status is predetermined. When members of a group are allowed to choose their seats around a rectangular table, persons from upper-level classes, specifically managerial and professional, tend to sit at the head of a table more often than do other classes.  On a similar note, persons sitting at the ends of a table participate more often and are perceived as having more influence over a group’s decisions.

Ambient characteristics of a room or place of meeting for a group have consequences regarding productivity and satisfaction levels.  One interesting thing to note is that the effect of material environmental factors often seems to depend upon the attitude and expectations of the group members.  A prime example of this is a study done by George Elton Mayo while working for Western Electric between 1924 and 1933 concerning the effects of environment upon productivity.  Although initially primarily involving examination of the results of changes in light levels and other factors upon productivity and performance by workers, the study evolved to determine that the principle factor determining a change in workers’ productivity was in fact,

“their perception of the situation: they believed someone was concerned about their welfare and responded by working harder and/or more efficiently than when they believed that no one cared about them.”

This theory later became known as the Hawthorne Effect (named for the Western Electric factory): “an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important.”

Noise levels also affect productivity.  Noise seems to cause a negative influence; frustration levels increase while productivity decreases in relation to persistence and loudness of the noise.  A reason posed for this is that spoken communication becomes progressively more difficult as noise levels increase.  A study done by Glass, Singer, and Friedman in 1969 found that unpredictable noise leads to high frustration levels and low productivity.  However, when workers believed that they had eminent control over the noise (i.e. by being able to turn off music), even indirectly, the effects are greatly reduced.