Territory + Personal Space (social) Flashcards
personal space
- An area with invisible boundaries, surrounding a persons body, into which intruders may not come!
- The size of these zones can be influenced by:
> Individual factors: age, gender , a person’s cultural background , personality (introvert, extrovert)
> Situational factors: temperature, light
Theory 1: Personal Space – Hall (1969) Different Zones
In western culture there are sort to be four zones of interpersonal distance.
1. Intimate 0 - 45cm
2. Personal 45 – 120 cm
3. Social 120 – 365 cm
4. Public 365cm +
Invasion of personal space Middlemist (1976)
- investigated impact of invasions of personal space
- results confirmed that closer distances is bathrooms leads to increases urination delay + decrease in urination persistence
- proposes that close interpersonal distances are interpersonal stressful, increasing arousal and discomfort
types of territory - Altman 1975
- Primary- Clear boundaries-inappropriate to invade without permission (house)
- Secondary- Temporary ownership- sit in the same seat every lesson then someone sits there one time (classroom)
- Public- May use markers to claim areas that are mostly respected by others (area of beach)
Key Study – Wells (2000)
Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalisation in employee and organisational well-being
extent to which the 3 types of territory is occupied
- primary = high - perceived to be owned in a relatively perenant manner by occupant + others
- secondary = moderate - not owned; occupant perceived by others as one of a number of qualified users
- public = low - not owned; control is very difficult to assert, and occupant is perceived by others as one of a large number of possible users
likelihood of defence if violated
- primary = extensively personalised - owner has complete control and intrusion is a serious matter
- secondary = may be personalised to some extent during period of legitimate occupancy; some regulatory power when individual is legitimate
- public = sometimes personalised in a temporary way; little likelihood of defence
background of Wells
- people personalise their workspaces with things such as family photographs and mementoes.
- previous research has suggested that there are gender differences in personalisation but has not empirically tested whether personalisation of an employees workspace can enhance well-being.
- Meredith wells wanted to test whether this was the case as well as looking at gender differences
aim of Wells
- Is office personalisation associated with employee well-being?
- Does Gender effect how we personalise our office space?
- Does Gender effect whether office personalisation effects well-being?
hypotheses of wells
- Men and women will personalise their offices differently.
- Personalisation will be positively associated with employee wellbeing (improve job satisfaction due to work environment)
- Workspace personalisation will be more integral to the well-being of women than men.
- Companies that have more lenient personalisation policies will report higher levels of organisational well-being than companies with stricter policies
research method
- Self-report method to gather data in relation to the four research questions and hypotheses to determine whether office personalisation is associated with employee well-being and to determine the effect of gender on this relationship.
- The self-reports included:
> An employee survey
> A co-ordinator survey - The researcher also observed and photographed workspaces and interviewed some employees at five of the companies who agreed to participate as case studies
Sample - The participating companies - of Wells
- A letter study sent out
- companies would receive a report of the study’s findings, a report of the findings specific to their company, and recommendations for simple changes to their work environment
- 20 companies in Orange County, California during the winter and spring of 1997 volunteered.
- All companies involved at least 30 employees with at least 15 being office employees.
- 20 participating companies
Sample-The human participants
- 338 respondents
- 187 (55%) were male and 138 (41%) were female.
- 69% Caucasian/white
- (55%) were married
- 23 employees agreed to be interviewed
procedure of surveys
- The first assessed workspace personalisation (e.g. the number of personal items displayed)
- The second assessed satisfaction with the physical work environment
- The third assessed job satisfaction
- The fourth assessed well-being using measures of global well-being, physical health and psychological well-being (all used rating scales)
- The fifth assessed employee perceptions of organisational well-being
- The sixth assessed personality traits
- The final section consisted of personal demographic information.
procedure of case studies
- Coordinators at each company completed the employee survey and questions regarding the company’s personalisation policy and organisational well-being
- five of the 20 companies agreed to participate as case studies. interview some employees and observe and photograph their workspaces.
procedure - the interview
- Participating employees were interviewed at their workspaces for 10-15 minutes.
- structured interviews with open-ended questions and were tape-recorded. The questions asked about the personal items participants had displayed
- also asked whether they thought that being able to personalise their workspace affected their job satisfaction, and their overall well-being.
- also asked how they would feel if their company prohibited personalisation.
observation checklist
- list of personalisation categories
- space to list unusual items and themes
- a scale measuring aesthetic quality of the workspace
- the gender of the workspace occupant.
results
- Men and women will personalise their offices differently.
- Personalisation will be positively associated with employee wellbeing (improve job satisfaction due to work environment)
- Workspace personalisation will be more integral to the well-being of women than men.
- Companies that have more lenient personalisation policies will report higher levels of organisational well-being than companies with stricter policies (i.e. lower turnover, lower absenteeism, higher employee morale, and higher productivity)
results for Hypothesis 1 - Men and women will
personalise their offices differently. - quantitative
Reasons for personalising workspace;
- 56% = Express identity
- 30% = Improve the feel of the workplace
- 16% = Express emotions
- 15% = Show workplace belonged to them
- 6% = Show status in the organisation
- 5% = Control interactions with co-workers
- 3% = Everyone did
results for Hypothesis 1 - Men and women will
personalise their offices differently - qualitative
- More women reported personalising to express their identities, individuality + their emotions, + to improve feel of the workplace.
- However more men reported personalising their workspace to show their status within the company
- women personalising their workspaces significantly more
- women’s displays contained significantly more symbols of personal relationships
- men’s displays contained more sports-related items
results for Hypothesis 2 - Personalisation will be positively associated with satisfaction with the physical work environment, which will be positively associated with job satisfaction, which will be positively associated with employee well-being.
- The association between satisfaction with the physical environment and job satisfaction was found to have a positive correlation (p <0.001).
- Job satisfaction was found to be positively associated with employee well-being in relation to global well-being, physical health, psychological well-being.
results for Hypothesis 3 - Workspace personalisation will be more integral to the well-being of women than men.
- Survey results showed that personalisation was no more important to the well-being of women than to that of men, thus not supporting the hypothesis.
- However the hypothesis was supported by the interview data. When asked whether personalisation improved their well-being, women consistently replied ‘Yes’. Men were not so sure that personalisation enhanced their well-being.
results for Hypothesis 4 - Companies that have more lenient personalisation policies will report higher levels of organisational well-being than companies having stricter personalisation policies.
Companies that allow more personalisation, have a more positive organisational climate, a more positive social climate, greater levels of employee morale and reduced turnover
conclusions
- Men and women personalise their workspaces differently.
- Employee well-being is enhanced if individuals are allowed to personalise their workspace.
- Women place more importance on personalisation (of their workspace) than men.
- Companies with lenient personalisation policies have greater levels of organisational well-being than companies with strict personalisation policies.
application 1 - no hot desking
- No desk=no territorial space
- this may be at one of the few desks somewhere in a relatively small room, but in some organisations there could be hundreds of ‘hot-desk’ spaces. there may not be enough space for everyone
- Carstairs argues that having own spaces allows people to gain control within that small environment + personalise it with little things to define their identity. the threats to that of a non-territorial office can result in a lack of motivation and even to stress
application 2 - changing perceptions of open-planned offices
- Kim + de Dear found workers in private offices were most satisfied whereas people in a open-plan office were most dissatisfied with the privacy aspect of their working environment
- in an open plan environment it may be easier to interact with others however there are also more factors to distract them from working
pros and cons of open-planned offices
pros;
+ Economic reasons for the company
+ Ease of communication with co-workers – sharing of ideas
+ Avoids loneliness
cons;
- Lots of distractions/ can’t concentrate
- Very noisy
- Disease spreads amongst work force
- Feel watched- no privacy
- Personal space is invaded by others
application 3 - seating
- Humphrey Osmond, a British psychiatrist (1917 - 2004) .
- Two types of seating arrangements:
> Sociofugal arrangements which promote seclusion by having the seating facing outwards
> Sociopetal encourages interaction by having the seating facing into a group. (circle) - Tajadura-Jimenez studied how and iPod can cause a sense of personal space
