Photocopiers and Water-coolers: The Affordances of Informal Interaction

Abstract

There has been increasing recognition of the importance of informal interactions in organizations, but research examining the effects of the physical environment on informal interaction has produced contradictory results and practical attempts to control the level of informal interaction by design have been marked by unintended consequences. Drawing on a qualitative study of informal interactions observed in photocopier rooms in three organizations, this paper builds on the work of ecological psychologist James Gibson to develop a theory of the affordances of informal interaction. The affordances of an environment are the possibilities for action called forth by it to a perceiving subject. Research on affordances has typically focused on the affordances of individual behavior. We introduce the notion of social affordances and identify the social and physical characteristics that produce the propinquity, privacy, and social designation necessary for an environment to afford informal interactions. The theory of social affordances provides a lens through which to reinterpret the conflicting results of previous studies and to reexamine the seemingly simple water-cooler around which the organization gathers.

Collaboration in open-plan offices

“…Unlike existing research, where scholars have implied that open-plan offices cause collaboration (Fayard & Weeks, 2007), I found that the open-plan office is better conceptualised as a scaffold for collaboration. The scaffold metaphor (Clark, 1997) captures the idea that open-plan office environments enable, support, and make possible particular ways of collaborating such as instant knowledge-sharing and vicarious learning.…”

“…Yet, researchers who study physical work environments have given little consideration to the reasons why employees interact (e.g. Boutellier et al, 2008;Fayard & Weeks, 2007). Instead, the focus has been on comparing the volume of communication, or employee's satisfaction with communication, that occurs in different office environments (e.g.…”

How things make things do things with words, or how to pay attention to what things have to say

“…theory (Faraj & Azad, 2012;Fayard & Weeks, 2007), structuration theory (Orlikowski, 1992(Orlikowski, , 2007, situated action (Suchman, 1987), activity theory (Engeström, 2000;Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999), or distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995a(Hutchins, , 1995b, amongst a long list of others. Putnam (2015) differentiates five different perspectives, all but one considers discourse and materiality as distinct phenomena.…”

Why space matters for collaborative innovation networks: on designing enabling spaces for collaborative knowledge creation

“…Furthermore, the concept for this design process has been developed by bringing together theoretical research results, methodological considerations, and practical experience from the following fields: (a) Interdisciplinary research in the above mentioned areas and dimensions of an Enabling Space (e.g., the relationship between space and cognitive, social, and emotional processes (Fayard, Weeks, 2007;Harvey, 2010), the relationship between space and creative processes (Kristensen, 2004;Moultrie et al, 2007;Lewis, Moultrie, 2005), space syntax (Sailer, 2011;Sailer, et al, 2010), etc. ); (b) Design patterns for innovation-and knowledge processes (e.g., Scharmer, 2007;Verganti, 2006;Kelley, 2004;Brown, 2009); (c) the action research or action science approach has been applied as a main tool for developing and doing research on this design process (compare Argyris et al, 1985;Ballantine, 2004;Senge, Scharmer, 2001;Scharmer, 2007); (d) Finally, experience from a large number of applied projects helped to shape and adjust the details of this design process.…”