[PPT] - Unearthing five key factors influencing workplace performance PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Unearthing five key factors influencing workplace performance

Eleanor Forster, Managing Director North America Copyr

pyright LeesmanLtd

d September 2017

SLIDE 2

The world’s leading business intelligence tool that benchmarks how workplaces support employee and organizational performance, , usin ing a sin ingle le product based on a sim imple proposit ition: Is Is your workp kplace worki king?

| Who are Leesman?

SLIDE 3

No vested in

interest

Entir

irely in independent

Driv

iven by curio iosity

Free dis

issemination of knowledge

| Who are Leesman?

SLIDE 4 www.lee eesm smani nind ndex ex.com

m/r

/res esourc rces es

SLIDE 5

Leesman Lmi

Standardised “Workplace Effectiveness” score Work activities important to an employees role Overall impact space has on employees The service features employees use The physical features employees use Employee internal & external mobility

+ =

Poorly supporting Highly supporting Lmi 0 Lmi 100

| The Leesman Lmi model

SLIDE 6

250,927employee responses 381

| Data growth

SLIDE 7

| Research investigations

SLIDE 8

1. . Profiling Productivity

Pol

ll

l Q: : What is is th the most im important workplace feature to su support productivit ity?

SLIDE 9

Workplaces globally are failing to support employees’ sense of personal productivity. | Profiling productivity

SLIDE 10

WE DO NOT MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 11

My workplace enables me to work productively How much do you agree with the following statement?

WE DO NOT MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 12

My workplace enables me to work productively

28% 57%

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 13

How doe
es th

the workpla lace experience

f
f th

the tw two groups dif iffer?

Gap

Gap an anal alysis is to

se

see where dif ifferences in in experience ar are greatest

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Space between work settings Dividers (between desk/areas) Noise levels Ability to personalise my workstation General décor People walking past your workstation Variety of different types of workspace Desk Meeting rooms (small) Personal storage Office lighting Quiet rooms for working alone / pairs Meeting rooms (large) Air quality Accessibility of colleagues Informal work areas / break-out zones Atriums & communal areas Shared storage Archive storage Natural light Desk/room booking systems Chair Plants & greenery Temperature control Art & photography % agreeing feature is supported

Gap Gap an anal alysis is dif ifferences: Sa Satis isfaction with ith Physical l features. 42 42.0 .0% - Sp Space between work se settin ings 38 38.1 .1% - Di Divid iders between desk / / ar areas 37 37.1 .1% - No Noise le levels ls 34 34.6 .6% - Abili ility to

personalis

lise my y workstation 34 34.1 .1% - Ge General decor

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Space between work settings Dividers (between desk/areas) Noise levels Ability to personalise my workstation General décor People walking past your workstation Variety of different types of workspace Desk Meeting rooms (small) Personal storage Office lighting Quiet rooms for working alone / pairs Meeting rooms (large) Air quality Accessibility of colleagues Informal work areas / break-out zones Atriums & communal areas Shared storage Archive storage Natural light Desk/room booking systems Chair Plants & greenery Temperature control Art & photography % agreeing feature is supported

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 16 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thinking / creative thinking Reading Individual focused work, desk based Telephone conversations Business confidential discussions Collaborating on focused work Spreading out paper or materials Private conversations Collaborating on creative work Individ' focused work away from desk Using tech/specialist equip' / materials Hosting visitors, clients or customers Informal, un-planned meetings Audio conferences Relaxing / taking a break Individual routine tasks Learning from others Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Informal social interaction Planned meetings % agreeing activity is supported

Gap Gap an anal alysis is dif ifferences: Support ag agreement for

r im

important Act ctivitie ies. 51 51.0 .0% - Thin inking / / cr creative th thin inkin ing 49 49.6 .6% - Readin ing 40 40.9 .9% - In Indiv ivid idual l focused work, desk sk base ased 40 40.9 .9% - Tele lephone conversations 38 38.9 .9% - Busi siness con

nfid

idential l dis iscussions

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 17 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thinking / creative thinking Reading Individual focused work, desk based Telephone conversations Business confidential discussions Collaborating on focused work Spreading out paper or materials Private conversations Collaborating on creative work Individ' focused work away from desk Using tech/specialist equip' / materials Hosting visitors, clients or customers Informal, un-planned meetings Audio conferences Relaxing / taking a break Individual routine tasks Learning from others Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Informal social interaction Planned meetings % Support

Gap Gap an anal alysis is dif ifferences: Support ag agreement for

r im

important Act Activitie ies. 25 25.6 .6% - Le Learnin ing fr from ot

thers

24 24.0 .0% - Lar Larger group meetin ings or

r au

audiences 22 22.9 .9% - Vid ideo con

nferences

22 22.8 .8% - In Informal so social l in interaction 21 21.6 .6% - Plan lanned meetin ings

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thinking / creative thinking Reading Individual focused work, desk based Telephone conversations Business confidential discussions Collaborating on focused work Spreading out paper or materials Private conversations Collaborating on creative work Individ' focused work away from desk Using tech/specialist equip' / materials Hosting visitors, clients or customers Informal, un-planned meetings Audio conferences Relaxing / taking a break Individual routine tasks Learning from others Larger group meetings or audiences Video conferences Informal social interaction Planned meetings % agreeing activity is supported

| Profiling productivity

More Individual Activities More Collaborative Activities

SLIDE 19

| Profiling productivity Obstructer

Sup uppor

rt for
r colla
llabor
rative bu

but no not t indi ndivid idual l task asks Support for Collaborative activities Support agreement for Individual activities

Obstructer

Su Suppor

rtin

ing neit neither colla

llabor
rativ

ive no nor r ind ndividual task asks

Catalyst

Su Suppor

rtin

ing bo both th colla

llabor
rativ

ive and and indi ndivid idual l task asks

Enabler

Su Suppor

rtin

ing indi ndivid idual but but no not t colla

llabor
rativ

ive task asks

SLIDE 20

What does th the data say?

Perception of

f bein

ing ab able le to work productively is is most clo closely lin linked to

in

indiv ividual an and concentrative act activitie ies (as as op

pposed to
coll

llaborativ ive act activit ities). ).

| Profiling productivity

SLIDE 21

Focusing singularly

n the perceived

‘challenges’ of younger workplace generations is misguided. | Demographic diversions

SLIDE 22

Generation X 1965-1984 Millennials Born 1982-2004 So now 13 (18) – 35 Said to present the biggest challenge

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Baby Boomers 1946-1964

1950

| Demographic diversions

SLIDE 23 4.4% 27.7% 25.4% 11.8% 30.8% Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

32.1%

| Demographic diversions

67.9%

SLIDE 24 25.4% 30.8% Lmi 67.9 Lmi 61.9 Lmi 61.6 Lmi 60.4 Lmi 60.1 Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ 4.4% 27.7% 11.8%

+Lmi 7.8 | Demographic diversions

SLIDE 25 % selecting activity as important to their role 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Audio conferences Business confidential discussions Collaborating on creative work Collaborating on focused work Hosting visitors, clients or customers Individual focused work away from your desk Individual focused work, desk based Individual routine tasks Informal social interaction Informal, un-planned meetings Larger group meetings or audiences Learning from others Planned meetings Private conversations Reading Relaxing / taking a break Spreading out paper or materials Telephone conversations Thinking / creative thinking Using technical/specialist equipment or materials Video conferences Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 or over

Le Learning fr from oth

thers

Rela laxin ing / / tak aking a a break

| Demographic diversions

SLIDE 26

Leesman Lmi

Standardised “Workplace Effectiveness” score Work activities important to an employees role Overall impact space has on employees The service features employees use The physical features employees use How mobile the employee is

+ =

Poorly supporting Highly supporting 100

21

| Demographic diversions

SLIDE 27 Work activities important to an employees role Poorly supporting Highly supporting 100

| Demographic diversions

21

# # of

f Activit

ities se sele lected as as im important use sed as as a a proxy of

f ac

activ ivity or

r rol
le

complexity

SLIDE 28

| Demographic diversions

No

No of

f act

activitie ies se sele lected as as im important grouped

SLIDE 29

| Demographic diversions

69 69% of

f employees under 25

25 se sele lect < 10 10 act activit ities as as im important to

th

them in in th their ir rol

le
Those 45

45-54 Hig ighest act activity comple lexit ity

Those 45

45-54 Hig ighest act activity comple lexit ity

Those 35

35-44 Lo Lowest Lm Lmi effectiv iveness sc score (Lmi 60 60.1 .1)

SLIDE 30 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Variety of different types of workspace Audio Visual equipment Informal work areas / break-out zones Atriums & communal areas Guest/visitor network access Art & photography Accessibility of colleagues Reception areas Desk/room booking systems Shared storage Internal signage Archive storage Remote access to work files or network Hospitality services (e.g. guest… Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs General décor Health & safety provision Plants & greenery Wired in-office network connectivity People walking past your workstation Space between work settings Shower facilities Access (e.g. lifts, stairways, ramps) Office lighting Meeting rooms (large) Mail & post room services Security Leisure facilities onsite or nearby (e.g.… Dividers (between desk/areas) Ability to personalise my workstation Computing equipment, mobile (e.g.… Telephone equipment Air quality Natural light General tidiness WiFi network connectivity in the office Noise levels Meeting rooms (small) Personal storage Printing/copying/scanning equipment Parking (e.g. car, motorbike or bicycle) Computing equipment, fixed (desktop) Toilets/W.C. IT Help desk General cleanliness Temperature control Restaurant/canteen Tea, coffee & other refreshment facilities Chair Desk % selecting feature as important 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-21

| Demographic diversions

SLIDE 31

What does th the data say?

You

unger employees plac

lace margin inall lly lo lower im importance

n
n alm

almost all all ac activ ivities s an and ar are generally ly mor

re sa

sati tisfied with ith th their ir wor

rkpla

lace th than old

lder coll
lleagues. Workplace

needs ar are base ased on

n wor
rk comple

lexity more th than an an any y stereotypes bas ased on

n your birt

irth year.

| Demographic diversions

SLIDE 32

A third of refurbishment and fit-out projects deliver below average results*

*productivity agreement < to 57% of respondents

| New is no guarantee

SLIDE 33

| New is no guarantee

2160 # workplaces total 1138 # workplaces >50 145# workplaces >50 post-

ccupancy

How do

th

these sp spaces perform compared to

th

the rest?

SLIDE 34

| New is no guarantee

20 14% 8,891 24% 75 52% 19,783 55% 39 27% 6,565 18% 11 8% 1,197 3% Distribution of employees Distribution of workplaces

34 34% Ca

Cataly lyst

48 48% Enabler 18 18% Obstructer

Leesman Lmi effectiveness score No of respondents

How do

th

these sp spaces perform compared to

th

the rest?

SLIDE 35

| New is no guarantee

Physical feature satisfaction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Atriums & communal areas Variety of different types of wkspace Art & photography Plants & greenery General décor Quiet rooms for working alone / pairs Informal work areas/break-out zones Air quality Shared storage Desk/room booking systems Ability to personalise my workstation Office lighting Dividers (between desk/areas) Temperature control Space between work settings Meeting rooms (small) Personal storage Meeting rooms (large) Archive storage Accessibility of colleagues Natural light Noise levels Chair People walking past workstation Desk

SLIDE 36

| New is no guarantee

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Private conversations Video conferences Reading Spreading out paper or materials Business confidential discussions Relaxing / taking a break Telephone conversations Larger group meetings or audiences Individual focused wk, desk based Thinking / creative thinking Audio conferences Using tech/spec'st equip't/materials Informal, un-planned meetings Hosting visitors, clients or customers Individ focused wk away from desk Collaborating on creative work Collaborating on focused work Informal social interaction Planned meetings Learning from others Individual routine tasks Activity support agreement

SLIDE 37

What does th the data say?

Ach chievin ing pos

sit

itive ou

utcomes fr

from a a workplace relocation or

r fit

fit-out is is no

foregone con
nclu
lusion. De

Desig ign teams still till mis issi sing th the im impact ce certain in hygie iene factors contin inue to have – like ‘noise’. The role of change man anagement needs to

be better understood.

| New is no guarantee

SLIDE 38

De-demonizing open-plan

Poll Q: When you consid ider th the predomin inate typ type of

f of
ffice in

in your

r
rganization, what typ

type of

f of
ffice sp

space is is it it?

SLIDE 39

De-demonizing open-plan

Poll Q: What do you think of open-plan office solutions?

SLIDE 40

9/10 of the highest performing workplaces in our research are fully or extensively open- plan. | De-demonizing open-plan

SLIDE 41

| De-demonizing open-plan

SLIDE 42

| De-demonizing open-plan

A private office assigned solely to you Lmi 72.2 Other Lmi 62.9 A cubicle assigned solely to you Lmi 61.9 A workstation assigned solely to you in a shared office Lmi 61.8 A flexible / non allocated setting Lmi 59.5 A workstation assigned solely to you in open plan area Lmi 59.2 48.5 17.7 13.9 9.1 1.5 9.3 % distribution

SLIDE 43

| De-demonizing open-plan

A private office assigned solely to you Lmi 72.2 Other Lmi 62.9 A cubicle assigned solely to you Lmi 61.9 A workstation assigned solely to you in a shared office Lmi 61.8 A flexible / non allocated setting Lmi 59.5 A workstation assigned solely to you in open plan area Lmi 59.2 48.5 17.7 13.9 9.1 1.5 9.3 % distribution

SLIDE 44

| De-demonizing open-plan

Leesman Lmi workplace effectiveness % of employees in private or shared enclosed offices

What t are th the e key dif ifferen ences betw tween en th these tw two

gr

groups?

Lmi 70+ Lmi 61.2 Workplace with >50 respondents Top 10 Lmi workplace with >50 respondents Bottom 10 Lmi workplace with >50 respondents

SLIDE 45

| De-demonizing open-plan

It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively 79% 72% 64% 10 highest performing workplaces 10 lowest performing workplaces

SLIDE 46

| De-demonizing open-plan

It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively Informal unplanned meetings Collaborating on creative work Informal social interaction Learning from others Individual focused work, desk based 79% 72% 64% 65% 59% 53% 38% 36% 10 highest performing workplaces 10 lowest performing workplaces

SLIDE 47

| De-demonizing open-plan

It’s a place I’m proud to bring visitors to It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It enables me to work productively Informal unplanned meetings Collaborating on creative work Informal social interaction Learning from others Individual focused work, desk based Variety of different types of workspace Quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs Informal work areas and breakout zones Noise levels 79% 72% 64% 65% 59% 53% 38% 36% 73% 65% 64% 41% 10 highest performing workplaces 10 lowest performing workplaces

SLIDE 48

What does th the data say?

Open-plan can an be hig ighly ly effective or

r not
t. So

So too can an a a more enclosed ce cell llula lar envir ironment, but 9/ 9/10 10 of

f ou
ur

hig ighest perf rforming sp spaces ar are eith ither predominantly or

r

fu full lly op

pen-plan.

| De-demonizing open-plan

SLIDE 49

| De-demonizing open-plan What do organizations need to do?

Ig Ignore media ia naysayers. And sp spend tim time con

nsid

iderin ing what th the rig right op

ption is

is for you bas ased on

n a

a deep understandin ing of

f what employees do
in

in th their role

les.

SLIDE 50

| De-demonizing open-plan What do organizations need to do?

Ig Ignore media ia naysayers. And sp spend tim time con

nsid

iderin ing what th the rig right op

ption is

is for you bas ased on

n a

a deep understandin ing of

f what employees do
in

in th their role

les.

… And remember th this is ch chart fr from ou

ur 10

100k 0k research

SLIDE 51 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The design of my wp is important to me It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It contributes to a sense of community at work It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to Private or shared enclosed office

| De-demonizing open-plan

agreement

SLIDE 52 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The design of my wp is important to me It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It contributes to a sense of community at work It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to Private or shared enclosed office Cubicle or designated desk in open plan area

| De-demonizing open-plan

agreement

SLIDE 53 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The design of my wp is important to me It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It contributes to a sense of community at work It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to Private or shared enclosed office Cubicle or designated desk in open plan area Flexible with low choice

| De-demonizing open-plan

agreement

SLIDE 54 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The design of my wp is important to me It enables me to work productively It creates an enjoyable environment to work in It contributes to a sense of community at work It's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to Private or shared enclosed office Cubicle or designated desk in open plan area Flexible with low choice Flexible with high choice

| De-demonizing open-plan

agreement 74% agreement 30% agreement

SLIDE 55

Working in an ‘activity-based’ way can deliver significant benefits, but not necessarily for everyone. | Managing mobility

SLIDE 56

| Managing mobility Flex Agile Activity Based

All based on the premise that no employee 'owns' or has an assigned workstation

Lack of definitions causing confusion and misinformation

SLIDE 57

| Managing mobility

SLIDE 58

| Managing mobility

34,912

Main focus of study

74,582

Total responses 615 workplaces, c. 12-months

39,670

Pre-occupancy 335 workplaces (excluded from study)

23,546

Post-occupancy +

ther “steady state”

240 non ABW workplaces (control group)

11,366

ABW group 40 workplaces

SLIDE 59

34,912

Main focus of study

11,366

ABW group 40 workplaces

23,546

Post-occupancy +

ther “steady state”

240 non ABW workplaces (control group)

| Managing mobility

Leesman ‘Lmi’

Aggregated workplace effectiveness score

65.1 ABW Group 63.8 Control Group Lmi +1.3

SLIDE 60

| Managing mobility

“I perform most/all of my activities at a single work setting and rarely use other locations within the office.”

Profile 1 Camper squatters

“I perform the majority of my activities at a single work setting but also use other locations within the office.”

Profile 2 Timid travellers

“I perform some of my activities at a single work setting but

ften use other locations within the office.”

Profile 3 Intrepid explorers

“I use multiple work settings and rarely base myself at a single location within the office.”

Profile 4 True transients

SLIDE 61

| Managing mobility

Profile 1 Camper squatters Profile 2 Timid travellers Profile 3 Intrepid explorers Profile 4 True transients Leesman Lmi

59.6

Productivity agreement

41.8%

Pride agreement

54.6%

Pr

65.7

Productivity agreement

54.5%

Productivity agreement

73.1%

P

68.4

Productivity agreement

60.0%

Productivity agreement

81.4%

Pr

71.9

Pr

67.1%

Pr

85.9%

SLIDE 62

| Managing mobility

Profile 1 Camper squatters Profile 2 Timid travellers Profile 3 Intrepid explorers Profile 4 True transients Leesman Lmi

59.6

Productivity agreement

41.8%

Pride agreement

54.6%

Pr

65.7

Productivity agreement

54.5%

Productivity agreement

73.1%

P

68.4

Productivity agreement

60.0%

Productivity agreement

81.4%

Pr

71.9

Pr

67.1%

Pr

85.9%

SLIDE 63

| Managing mobility

Profile 1 Camper squatters Profile 2 Timid travellers Profile 3 Intrepid explorers Profile 4 True transients Leesman Lmi

59.6

Productivity agreement

41.8%

Pride agreement

54.6%

Pr

65.7

Productivity agreement

54.5%

Productivity agreement

73.1%

P

68.4

Productivity agreement

60.0%

Productivity agreement

81.4%

Pr

71.9

Pr

67.1%

Pr

85.9%

SLIDE 64

30% 41% 19%

| Managing mobility

Profile 1 Camper squatters Profile 2 Timid travellers Profile 3 Intrepid explorers Profile 4 True transients 10%

Dis Disappoin inting adop

pti

tion rates es des espit ite apparent ben enefi fits

11,366

ABW group 40 workplaces

SLIDE 65

| Managing mobility

Mobility profile groupings # of activities selected as important Profile 1 Lmi Profile 2 Lmi Profile 3 Lmi Profile 4 Lmi Group average Lmi < 5 62.1 66.3 66.9 68.5 64.7 6-10 59.8 65.5 68.3 70.7 64.9 11-15 57.8 65.9 70.1 74.7 66.1 16-21 56.2 65.6 67.4 73.4 64.8

Acti ctivity com

mplexit

ity is is th the e str trongest t in indic icator

f
f whether an

employee will ill see ben enefi fit fr from workin ing in in an ABW way.

Activity complexity Benefits of ABW adoption

SLIDE 66

| Managing mobility

Activity based design Activity based behaviour

Activity Based

Working

SLIDE 67

What does th the data say?

The more complex an employees’ activity profile, the greater benefit they will receive from working in a more activity-based way. Those with low activity complexity may not benefit at all. Those who try and retain old workstyles in new ABW space will perform the lowest.

| Managing mobility

SLIDE 68

Organizations are not getting what they should from their workplaces Employees are routinely weathering workplaces that fail to support their basic operational needs Opportunities to position CRE as a tool in competitive advantage being routinely missed

| Summing up

SLIDE 69

| Leesman+ and the impact code

An elit elite e gr group of

f

wor

rkplaces ach

chieving g Le Leesman Lm Lmi of

f 70+

Provid ides an ach chie ievable le high igh perf erformance bench chmark gr group.

SLIDE 70

| Leesman+ and the impact code

What t th the e most effectiv ive workplaces do

dif

ifferently

SLIDE 71

How the best beat the rest

+ -

SLIDE 72

1. New online tools 2. Occupation data 3. Retail banking 4. WELL 5. More content 6. More events 7. Training

Ahead

SLIDE 73

Thank you!