Thoughts: Social dynamics is the ability of a group of people, be it a society, a culture, an organization, a family or a team (at work), to successfully adapt to the nature of change in their system of function, purpose and governance.
What is very clear in the study of work is that the nature of performing work today has less “independence” in the activities leading to business results than in the past. People need other people to complete their work, either from the standpoint of transactional work or creative thinking work. The task delivery process of work (make this widget or fill this order) has been rebalanced with creative problem solving work process (solve this unique problem or create this unique solution). Isn’t it telling that two of the most common work behaviors used to define work today are ‘collaboration’ and ‘innovation’? Innovation can be, and is often, achieved by an individual working alone. However, with the pace of change and the demands for results, innovation can be increased when exemplified within the social dynamics of a TEAM at work. Collaboration and innovation involve superior levels of social dynamics, accentuating the need of a group of people to respond successfully to the nature of change to solve problems and create solutions.
Like it or not, the availability of tools we can use to alter our world is always affected by current events happening on the global stage. I’ve been involved in the architectural profession since the mid-1980’s and the design of laboratory and process environments since 1989. Yesterday, I saw a presentation made by one of our laboratory planners related to fumehood technology. It got me thinking about why we use the tools we use, what events cause the tools to change and why the change takes so long to evolve.
Take the standard chemical fumehood. For as long as I’ve designed laboratories it’s been the go-to tool to protect people from hazardous experiments. Even though today they can look pretty high-tech and sophisticated, they were pretty much just a dumb box working on ancient principals of convection, just like the fireplace in your house, right up to the oil crisis of the 1970’s. After the oil crisis of the 1970’s engineers got serious about the fluid dynamics involved in a fumehood and focused on a tool that would use less energy. By the mid-1980’s these hoods had reached the mainstream and were marketed as “low flow’ hoods. By the time I started designing labs the oil crisis of the 1970’s was a distant memory and I can distinctly remember being told by engineers and owner’s safety officers to never use them. A fumehood should be designed to protect people from hazards, not to save money. I honestly don’t think things would have changed were it not for events affecting the world stage.
Simple but clear words and concepts are powerful tools to help groups of people achieve common goals. If an idea can’t be expressed in very simple, clear terms over long periods of time by a majority of the members of a particular culture it has little chance of being institutionalized. The only way for organizations to act in a coordinated fashion is for individual members to hear, adopt and repeat the ideas over long periods of time. It takes time, patience and strong leadership for ideas to take hold, but once they do they can have a powerful and lasting effect. If you question the concept consider the following example:
On a recent visit to one of our great land grant institutions I had an official describe with great passion their concept of Public/Private partnership. He said: “We see partnership with private industry to commercialize new technology as the next logical step in the mission of a land grant institution.” The idea made logical sense to me, but I must admit that I don’t often spend a lot of time thinking about what land grant institutions should be doing with the public’s investment. After the meeting I decided that perhaps I should have a better working understanding of what a land grant institution should be doing with public funds, so I decided to consult the font of information Wikipedia. To my surprise the concept could be stated in a single simple sentence:
The mission Land Grant Institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class rather than higher education’s historic core of classical studies.
Yes, a 150 year old concept can transcend time and revolutions in technology beyond its authors wildest dreams. It can be re-interpreted and adapted to remain at the core of an institutions culture. In these uncertain days of stimulus spending, and dubious shovel ready projects, where we the public are concerned about the return we’re getting on the investment of our tax dollars I feel much better knowing that there are institutions that have a firm grip on their values and a strong commitment towards achieving their mission.
I spoke to an engineer the other day who was involved in the design of a manufacturing cleanroom for a materials science application. This project required extremely low temperature and humidity conditions. My first question was: “Do people have to work in those spaces?”
He said: “Yes and with special gowning they can survive in this harsh environment.”
I immediately thought of a conversation with a BioPharma engineer. He said: “We’ve spent the last 25 years trying to design people out of the manufacturing process.” The prevailing thinking in the BioPharma industry was that people are unpredictable and have idiosyncratic needs that make them burdensome in cGMP spaces. With the future of the BioPharma industry being focused more on low-volume, high turn-over personalized medicines, the prevailing logic around people in (or not) the manufacturing process may have gone too far. Empowered and knowledgeable workers making real-time decisions may be the key to the TQM process, efficient change-overs and their future competitive advantage.
Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the BioPharma industry that can be applied to Materials Science. The issue is not how people can survive in the environment, rather we should be thinking about the next generation of employees and how they can actually thrive in these highly specialized environments.
Growing up in a house with a research chemist and designing laboratories for the last 15 years I have observed firsthand that we share many similarities in what we do and our process. I guess that my initial predisposition to the above hypothesis starts with a belief that architecture is the marriage between artistry and science. Architects are trained to manipulate and coordinate materials and technology to creatively design space that is informed by people. Scientists are trained to symmetrically study and acquire knowledge which leads to solving a problem.
Groups of people at work rarely benefit from a lack of social dynamics. In general, people strive to perform their functions well with others. Yet, inevitably, changes in the internal dynamics of a team occur. As well, the outside forces of business apply change pressures to the dynamics of a group. Groups at work often require the expertise of an extended team to deliver the process and results. Often the complexity of the system exceeds the ability of an individual to effectively manage the increasing quantity of work.
BHDP has created and implemented a three part approach to building strong social dynamics in a group at work.
Understanding People and Process Resulting in Design of Place
Over the next few blog entries, Brady will be discussing how individuals interact with others and their environment at work and how this affects the planning behind design of space.
How do we choose a place to work? What drives us to join and stay with a company? It is a complex answer that stems from functional, emotional, physical and social aspects of being a human being at work. The balance needed to maintain a positive value proposition between an individual and an organization is in constant flux. Likely the most complex issue that a company should be concerned about is the social dynamics of the work created.
The science of social dynamics is the study of the ability of a group of people who are in relation with each other to react to inner and outer changes. This mathematically inspired approach to people comprises an analysis of the group’s ability to deal with its regulation mechanisms. Workplace design builds upon the systems, sociology and individual behaviors of the group in order to shape space to affect positive results in the dynamics of the group.
Today I was reading the EHS today (Environmental, Health and Safety) for December and read that the American Institute of Hygiene Associations, AIHA, Unveils Top EHS Public Policy Issues for 2011-2012 based upon a member survey.
The top issues for 2011 and 2012:
Updating Permissible Exposure Limits (PELS):
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2)
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)/Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study
Do you occasionally sit back and wonder why work is so complicated? What happened to our worlds of work when we knew almost every day how to attack and beat back the infamous “to-do” list? A good day ten years ago was when I finished all but a couple of the items on my list, and was charged up to refresh and hit it again the next day. Those days are gone. Work and life priorities are in constant change. Reaction times require continuous immediacy. Requirements simply present themselves as “complex”, sometimes bordering on the edge of chaotic.
If Uncertainty was the word for 2010, then Complexity is the word for 2011. Complexity is defined as: “the varied relationship of multiple elements that are relative and changing over time.” The nature of the elements, the relationship of the connections, and the change nature of it all, compound over time resulting is a loss of predictability and order in the system. The personal result is that today our daily lists of to-do’s are often blown up in hour one of the day, never to be returned to again.
In the spring of 2010, IBM released the fourth year of a study of what is on the minds of the world’s CEO’s. The title of the 2010 report is Capitalizing on Complexity. The introduction to the report states:
“In a world fraught with uncertainty, what are today’s CEOs doing to strengthen their situations against competitors?
Previously, CEOs have consistently identified change as their most pressing challenge. Today, CEOs are telling us that the complexity of operating in an increasingly volatile and uncertain world is their primary challenge. And, a surprising number of them told us that they feel ill-equipped to succeed in this drastically different world.” Read the rest of this entry »
When I began working at my current company in 2005, I was completely unprepared for the cultural shift I was about to experience. My ideals and pursuit for professional results were an apparent match for those of the company, but my preferred behaviors and approach to work were very out of sync with “the company”. The resulting tension that was created was palpable. I listened with great interest to the stories about the founding fathers of the company. I learned about the days when, if you needed a refill on a lead holding pencil for drafting, you had to go in front of the owner, Cyrus Baxter, and ask for the new stick of lead. I found great insight in the story our current CEO told about when he was 14 years old cutting the grass at the office, and Cy came down from his second story office and chewed him out for not keeping the wheel lines of the mower straight enough. Read the rest of this entry »
