Dr. Philip J. Stone might make business leaders a little uncomfortable. This professor of psychology at Harvard University frequently quotes the movie Office Space (famous for its depiction of disgruntled employees), doesn't care for cubicles, and says the comic strip Dilbert has done a lot of his work for him.
But Dr. Stone's research and analysis is based on extensive, demanding, and rigorously scientific work. He's been a member of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences since 1960 and a Gallup Senior Scientist since 1995, and he's taught as a visiting professor at universities around the world. Dr. Stone has published dozens of books and articles on -- among many other things -- the study of interpersonal and group dynamics, the formation of teams based on their complementary strengths, time budgeting, environmental psychology, and organizational psychology.
 |
In short, Dr. Stone knows how work works -- and his insights provide a wealth of information that management can capitalize on. In the following interview, Dr. Stone discusses the optimal office environment, whether to interview candidates on the phone, and why too many businesses feel like train stations.
GMJ: You won an award from the French government's Ministry of Culture for work on office environments. What was your work?
Dr. Stone: The award was based on work we did on how offices can be designed to support different kinds of activities. Rather than have a person sit in only one place, the idea was to provide a diverse place, especially for team activities, so that people could more effectively consult with others.
GMJ: So what would the optimal office environment be?
Stone: It depends on what people are doing. To find out, you study what employees are trying to do, then design spaces that facilitate those activities. Often, organizations don't have the luxury of much space -- many of them lease or rent -- and they have to think ahead for what their needs will be years in the future. Many companies, though, waste space tremendously.
But people's psychological response to the environment is very important. There's been a lot of effort to rethink the office, providing a club-like space where people meet and not a train station where they just pass by each other. We emphasize that companies must give people an identity at and with the place they work. Too many times, people feel like they're just passing through or not interacting much, and that's alienating.
This is especially important because people spend so much time at their workplace -- or are so involved in their work these days -- that work is replacing many other social organizations. The place they work becomes the center of their activities, the center of their social lives. It's amazing to me that so many people, if you ask them, would rather spend a couple thousand dollars on their work environment than make a couple thousand dollars more in take-home pay to redecorate a room in their homes. But it makes sense -- they spend nine hours a day in their workspaces and spend maybe a tenth as much time in some rooms of their homes.
GMJ: What do you think about telecommuting? Are telecommuters as productive?
Stone: I think it has an upside and a downside, and people have to optimize. Working from home two days a week would create 40% less traffic congestion. Less time spent commuting means less frustration. And some people can focus much, much better in a quiet home environment. But I think a lot of people are lonely working at home. I've talked to a number of people who say, "I spent the whole day on my laptop in my bathrobe, and I never left the house."
Whether working from home is more productive depends on an individual's optimal ways of focusing. Think about college: Some people like to study in their rooms, while other people go to the library to study because they need the stimulus of other people studying. There's a contagion effect. And people vary tremendously on whether they would rather have a contagion effect or just do their own thing. There's a basic fundamental division in people's work activity -- some want to be at the center of action and see other people as they go by, while others want to get their work done. But people do need to meet, interact, and socialize.
GMJ: How often do you think coworkers should meet face to face?
Stone: It varies according to what they're doing. Amazingly intensive projects can be carried out by e-mail. But other kinds of activities require employees to interact in person. So it's not that one form is limited and the other is rich, it's that they address different kinds of agendas more effectively. The amount of time employees need to spend in person with coworkers depends on those factors.
GMJ: In global companies, employees can work with people for years and never meet them. Would you recommend making efforts to videoconference, or are phone calls and e-mails sufficient?
Stone: Again, it depends on the people, and it depends on their relationships with their coworkers. I'm not much of a phone person, and a few people will get annoyed with me because I'd just as soon get off the phone. It's psychological resistance. Some people are much more comfortable when they can read facial expressions and get that kind of feedback.
However, there's an interesting phenomenon associated with phone conversations. People are often better at sensing whether a person is lying by listening on the phone than they are in face-to-face conversations. Psychologists call it "leaking" -- the voice leaks emotion very well, gives away the truth. Some people are better than others at tuning in to the emotion expressed in voices. They'll often prefer phone conversations because they can focus and not be distracted.
GMJ: What about survey interviews? Is in-person better than phone or Internet?
Stone: The issues regarding phone versus in-person and Internet interviewing vary enormously by country, the survey topic, the survey length, and whether the survey is cross-sectional or a panel. I'm impressed with what some of the Internet-based panel surveys have been able to accomplish. The overall picture may change, however, if Internet panel surveys make some seriously bad predictions and we learn more about their limitations. Internet panels, on the order of at least a 100,000 persons, now exist for each of the larger Western European countries as well as North America. Even though respondents are usually paid or given another form of remuneration, speed and cost advantages are impressive.
GMJ: So, say you're a hiring manager, evaluating a candidate in another city. Should the candidate come in for an interview or be interviewed over the phone?
Stone: I think phones are fine. People get themselves all fixed up for a face-to-face interview. Then the plane is late, and they can't get a cab, and by the time they rush in, they're uncomfortable and nervous. I think an advantage of a phone interview is that people can make themselves a pot of coffee before the interview, relax, and be comfortable in their environment. I've read a lot of very good interviews that have been conducted on the phone. I'm not so sure that there's anything to be gained by getting interviewees spiffed up and in uncomfortable clothes.
For his thesis last year, a student at Harvard had business school students conduct mock interviews and rate the interviewees on how well they did. Unbeknownst to the interviewers, he told some of the interviewees to think of the top four or five things they wanted to impress the interviewer with. He told others to think of their single most important qualification and really go sell it. He found that having to think of several things led interviewees to be more mindful during the interview, and they had more successful interviews. So I think that when people are more relaxed, as they would be on the phone at home, they're able to address more issues than when they're all primed for selling themselves. So I think you might get a better interview on the phone.
GMJ: And, of course, you don't have to depend on someone else's questionable coffee supply.
Stone: True.
-- Interviewed by Jennifer Robison