I recently wrote a piece about sensory customer experiences for Relate where I imagined how software could create sensory work experiences that included music, visual environments, and even aromatherapy. Then I found out that Nan Zhao at the MIT Media Lab already designed software like this. Itâs called Mediated Atmosphere and itâs connected to a device that reads a workerâs biometric signals.
With Mediated Atmosphere, each employee would have their own large screen with a special aspect ratio (relation of height to width) that makes it not look like a TV. The screen shows various scenesâa forest, a coffee shop, an artistâs living roomâdepending on the employeeâs preferences and the atmosphere most conducive for the type of work the employee needs to do. In future iterations, Mediated Atmosphere will include sound, fragrances, lighting, and thermal control.
âWe imagine a workspace that, when asked, can instantly trade the engaging focus of a library with the liberating sensation of a stroll through the forest,â Zhao explained. âWe want to create an environment player that can recommend or automate your space similar to how Spotify or Pandora gives you access to a world of music. We want to help people to manage their day by giving them the right place at the right time.â
Welcome to the âsmart officeâ of the future
Personalized employee experiences like this are the wave of the future. We live in a world where customization has changed from being something special to being standard. So, to expect employees to adjust themselves to a workplace environment, culture, tools, and rewards that donât allow for that personalization is likely to hurt companiesâ ability to recruit and retain talent in the future. To people unaccustomed to the idea of a personalized workplace, that might sound like pandering to entitled snowflakes. But it makes good business sense. Zhaoâs research indicates that peopleâs ability and zeal to performâtheir ability to be productive, creative, clear-thinkingâis impacted by the environments theyâre in, but that those impacts are different for everyone.
To people unaccustomed to the idea of a personalized workplace, that might sound like pandering to entitled snowflakes. But it makes good business sense.
A study by KPMG shows companies that invest in the employee experience are four times more profitable than those that donât. And KPMG attests that companies âmust deliver a new kind of employee experienceâone that feels personal, relevant, and responsive to individual needs.â
Gregory Laurence, associate professor of management at the University of Michigan has written several papers on the importance of personalization to an employeeâs psychological state, including their ability to surround themselves with symbols that are important to them.
âFor me,â he said, âmore individualized approaches seems a natural extension of changes in the economy as a wholeâŠâ In the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one and then a knowledge-based one, he said, âeach of the windows of the dominanceâŠhas gotten shorter, and so we already have to start thinking about what the âpost-knowledgeâ economy is going to look like. A first step in this direction, I think, is an economy in which personalized work arrangements dominate. Some of these might be based on âgigâ type employment while others will be based on full-time employment in virtual organizations that allow people to be where they want to be, working when they want to work.â
In recent years, companies have experimented with numerous ways to personalize the workplace, making it possible for employees to choose individual perks and benefits plans, use their own devices and software, and design their own jobs.
People are dynamic, tech is constantly evolving, markets change. So, maybe job descriptions shouldnât be written in stone. While itâs essential to have a legal job description that covers a personâs responsibilities, a bespoke job description is one that is written with that employee in mind, rather than trying to fit the person to the description, like Procrustesâ bed. As Vivek Bapat, SVP and head of marketing and communications strategy at SAP suggested in a Harvard Business Review article:
âIf you think one of your direct reports is prime for job personalization, I suggest beginning the process with a true-north conversation. Ask the person to describe themselves and their career, and listen closely. What are they especially good at? What gets them excited about their career successes? What kinds of responsibilities have they not sought? Which ones did they seem to talk around or emphasize less? What youâre looking for is how their skills (professional), their passions (personal), and their value (as perceived by the organization) intersect.â
While itâs essential to have a legal job description that covers a personâs responsibilities, a bespoke job description is one that is written with that employee in mind, rather than trying to fit the person to the description.
At Asana, a collaboration software company, for example, people have âAreas of Responsibilityâ that âmap discrete responsibilities to individual peopleâânot just to roles. The AORs are reevaluated at least once a year to ensure employees are working on projects and in areas theyâre interested in and competent to handle. If someone wants to work on an area not in their traditional role but for which they show aptitude and have the skills, theyâre considered for that responsibility.
By creating more fluid and personalized job descriptions that leave room for people to grow, learn, and evolve, not only are you likely to wind up with a more engaged, creative, and productive employee, but youâll increase your ability to recruit and retain top talent.
A growing number of employees say theyâre more productive when they use their own tools (âBring Your Own Deviceâ) and software of their choice. And research shows employees want to be constantly evolving their skills as new softwares and hardwares emerge. This doesnât always fit with companiesâ goals for operational efficiency or security compliance.
A PwC study shows that 90 percent of C-suite leaders say they take employees into account when choosing tools, but only half (53 percent) of their employees agree. âThat experience gap matters,â the study said. âWhen you donât have a clear and accurate understanding of how your people use technology in their jobs, and what they need and want from those tools, the overall experience people have at work can suffer. A subpar employee experience can have a ripple effect across the organization, shaping everything from how engaged people are to their enthusiasm for delivering a superior customer experience.â
Employees want control over the devices and apps they use, and, like customers, the channels through which they do their best work. For some, thatâs messaging. For others, itâs email or voice. The report went on to state that âchanging work environments mean more people want greater mobile capabilities, but only 60% of employees say theyâre satisfied with the mobile options available to them at work.â
UMichâs Laurence believes this is going to call for a transformation of workplace structures that allow for employees to be digital nomads or otherwise not conventionally situated.
âWhen you donât have a clear and accurate understanding of how your people use technology in their jobs, and what they need and want from those tools, the overall experience people have at work can suffer.â â PricewaterhouseCoopers
âThere are a number of challenges associated with this sort of development, including building and maintaining an organizational culture when employees are not co-located,â he said. âOur traditional idea of what an organizational culture is will probably need to change as these types of work arrangements become more popular.â
An increasing number of employees also want benefits that actually relate to their lives. With four generations currently in the workplace, different incentives matter at different times. One employee might be more focused on having a beefy retirement plan, another on parental leave, and another on the freedom to work wherever they want. Research by HR services provider TriNet shows that 85 percent of employees say nontraditional benefits improve morale; 82 percent said it improves retention.
By personalized benefits, most employees probably mean the freedom to design their benefits to suit their lifestyles. But the industry seems to have a different approach: designing benefits around personal data. A model being developed at Stanford University would collect data from all employeesâ digital health records to determine the best health benefit provider. For example, if a lot of people at the company had diabetes, that might make one provider the obvious choice. The problem is that most people donât want to give access to their digital health records, even if itâs anonymous. John Hancock insurance company got around this by selling insurance that comes with a Fitbit. As the company explains: After your insurance policy is issued, you take a survey to determine how your health stacks up against your age. The company gives you annual personalized health goals and you track your success on the app. Achieving health goals can result in a lower premium the following year.
This version of a personalized employee experience could also be used to measure employeeâs satisfaction or psychological state throughout the day. CXLab, a customer experience consultancy, is doing research with biometrics to measure how customer service employees respond to stressful calls, for example.
The big question, from Laurenceâs standpoint, is how to make a personalized employee experience fair. People in service industries, for example, may never see a personalized employee experience, and this just adds to disparities that are already apparent in the workforce.
âWho will have these opportunities and who will not?â he said. âIf not everyone in an organization is deemed âvaluable enoughâ to have a personalized work arrangement, how do you effectively manage the jealousy/envy/competitiveness of those who canât benefit from such deals against those who can? Or, if everyone in an organization is able to access such arrangements, how does the organization balance the need for control of employees against desire to provide employees with work arrangements that âworkâ better?â
Heâs right. Weâre in territory thatâs a lot more complicated than âpersonalizingâ by allowing employees to have personal effects and tchotchkes on their desks or in their cubicles. Itâs also not about pandering to what employees want; rather, putting the onus on employees to define the environment that encourages productivity and holding those employees to prove the results.
Happy employees means happy customers
Measure and improve employee engagement and happiness.