The Fourth Dimension in Architecture

The Impact of Building on Behavior

Edward T. Hall, Mildred Reed Hall

• Editore: Sunstone Press
• Anno: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781611399141
• Argomento: Filosofía
• Categoria: Arquitectura general

This study of how the architecture of a building influences the people who work in it is of interest to architects, behavioralists, and management personnel as well as fans of architecture in general. Mildred Reed Hall and Edward T. Hall founded Edward T. Hall Associates and together consulted and wrote books and articles in the fields of environmental and urban affairs, international business and intercultural and interpersonal relations.

V SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

Methodology of Study

While somewhat surprised at such a request, the top management of Deere and Company was interested in our proposed study and they agreed to cooperate. Without their cooperation, of course, we could never have undertaken this study. We are particularly grateful to William A. Hewitt, Chairman, who not only encouraged us, but who made available many hours of his own time to brief us on the detailed planning that went into the building program. In setting up our study we felt it important to make several visits to the building over a period of at least five years. Any environmental change is unsettling to people, and there is a certain period during which they make adjustments to their new surroundings. This affects both performance and attitude. Most of us have some resistance to change—particularly when the change requires alterations in life-long work habits. Another factor in our decision to take five years for the study was our desire to observe the long term effects of the building and to see how the building would hold up under everyday use.

We considered several possible methods for our study, and finally decided on interviews. For several reasons, we wanted to talk to a variety of people—on all levels of the company, and to observe and photograph different parts of the building. For our interviews, we devised a simple schedule requiring 15-20 minutes. (Copies of the interview schedules appear later in this section.)

When interview schedules are used, there is always the problem of how you handle people’s desire to tell you what they think you want to hear. This was another reason for talking to people several times over a five year period. They forget what they said earlier. We also found that something they thought would be a problem at first, later proved no problem at all. As a group we found the Deere employees remarkably open and candid and as cooperative as any group of respondents with whom we’ve worked. In part this was because each person felt personally involved with this building and very proud of it. They wanted to talk about it, which in itself was as important as anything they said. They were also very interested in what other people thought about the building. For this reason we prepared a short summary of our findings at the conclusion of interviews at each stage in the research. These were distributed to the interviewed employees.

We felt it was very important to interview employees before they moved into the building because we were interested in the ideas they had about the building and how these ideas might affect their adjustment to their new surroundings. When we learned the company was scheduled to move the end of April 1964, we scheduled our first interviews for approximately one month before the move. There was no time to submit research proposals for foundation funding, so we decided to go ahead and do the study without outside support. There was a certain advantage to this because it meant we were free to follow our own intuition as the data developed. Not having to go through the complex and detailed process of submitting research proposals with hypotheses to test, our own minds were not committed to a preconceived plan.

We began our study by asking Lester Kellogg, then Director of Economic Research at Deere, to provide us with a random sample of employees from different departments in the company, selected from all levels of personnel. This random stratified sample was composed of 47 employees; 31 men and 17 women. The sample was weighted more heavily at the top than at the middle and lower levels. While we do not think that 47 people can possible speak for the total number of employees (1,200), certain trends and patterns did emerge.

Most of out initial interviews (before the move) were held in the company’s general office located in the middle of Moline’s industrial area. The others were scattered in different buildings around Moline. Despite their busy schedules and the imminence of the move, we were struck by the friendly attitude of the Deere employees. Their cooperation and kindness and their interest in the new building heightened our own enthusiasm for the project. Our second interviews with the sample took place in the new building four months after the move (October 1964). At that time people were still getting used to their new habitat, and they had not yet settled in completely. We decided to return to the building to interview various key employees outside out sample in the winter of 1966 and again in 1967. Our final interviews of the sample took place in May 1969, five years after the building was occupied.

During the five years of our study we spent approximately fourteen days talking to Deere employees. In addition to the random sample, we decided to interview certain key employees at least once (and in most cases several times) during the five years. As mentioned earlier, we spent many hours with William A. Hewitt, Chairman and Chief Executive. Joseph Dain, Jr., Vice President of Deere, George Neiley, Director of Public Relations, Lester Kellogg, former Director of Economic Planning now retired, P.J. La France, Supervisor of Office Operations, John Doyle, Director of Office Personnel and Administration, and Charlotte Anderson, Librarian, all spent many hours briefing us on the background of the planning that went into the building as well as the result of the move and subsequent adjustments as Deere personnel became accustomed to their new environment. Louella Barritt, the company nurse, spent several hours with us discussing the building and the reaction of employees as it affected her department as well as the special needs of the First Aid Room.

Since our sample was distributed throughout the building, we spent many, many hours walking through the building. This presented us with a chance to observe people at work and to photograph. After the first year the building had become so famous that Deere employees were quite unperturbed by photographers or visitors who go through on regular guided tours. We made a special effort to eat in the company cafeteria—sometimes even dining with friends of the employees in our sample who were amenable to talking to us. We also had several luncheon meetings in the Executive Dining Room talking to top management personnel.

Because our interviews were conducted on company time and all employees in the sample were informed of our study in a letter from management, some employees undoubtedly thought that our study was done for the company regardless of what we said. While we always explained that we were doing this study for ourselves and were beholden to no one, we nonetheless feel quite certain that some of our sample responded to our questions as though it were a company study. This is one of the many reasons why we do not feel that data from the questionnaires alone is adequate in itself for a study such as this one. We chose to supplement our interview with observations and open interviews with key personnel at all levels of the organization. In some instances we would never have known about and sought out some of our respondents if we had not had the advantage of being in touch with the organization at many levels. People would say, “Have you talked to so and so?” or “Mr. — knows all about that.” We made it a practice to follow up on all such suggestions.

EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS

People’s conscious verbalization about the Deere building reveal very little data that is really useful to architects. Their remarks and observations must always be seen in context. It is quite clear that everybody sees the building from his own personal point of view. Most employees are actually very proud of it and in particular of their own work space. Yet their responses have to be considered in the total context of their psychological needs: what they feel about the company, where they are in the hierarchy, whether there has been a symbolic increase or decrease in their status (for example: a few of our sample had actually been assigned smaller offices than they occupied before the move, which sometimes resulted in feelings of loss of status), their socioeconomic background, their personality (people are generally either positive or negative about things), how much they have thought about the kinds of questions you’re asking them to answer, etc. All of these factors and many more influence people’s responses. We noted that in general lower level personnel tended to be more accepting of their surroundings than middle and upper echelon personnel.

If interviews sound superficial, it’s usually because they are. This does not mean that people don’t respond to their environment, but they often lack the vocabulary and the concepts to frame their response. The real function of such interviews, therefore, is to provide the investigator with a reason for being with and observing a cross section of people at work and making his or her own evaluation.

The next few pages contain our interview schedules, which are NOT questionnaires but simply a list of points we wanted to cover. There is also a summary of the responses and our own interpretation of the data gathered in the interviews. We did not use probes; by and large people volunteered information and comments quite spontaneously.

FIRST INTERVIEW - DEERE & COMPANY PERSONNEL

Prior to move into building April 1964

Knowledge of the Building

1.Have you seen the new building?

2.How many times have you visited the building?

3.What parts of the building have you seen?

4.How many times have you visited your own area of the building?

Image of the Building

I haven’t seen the building, ...