Erasmus University plans to move to a system of shared workspaces for its academic staff: two workspaces for three scholars, a 33 per cent saving on accommodation costs. The saving will be immediately visible in EUR’s financial statements. The number of publications per square metre of academic office space will rise dramatically. It’s the stuff that makes accountants salivate!
However, this saving is penny wise and pound foolish. No longer providing a fixed workspace for academic staff will result in a minor saving from a cost perspective, but entail lost revenue that will far exceed this saving.
Irreverently put, scholars are the main ‘means of production’ of a university. Excellent scholars are scarce and expensive. Allowing such precious resources to operate in suboptimal conditions is short-sighted and demonstrably counterproductive. It’s like a gardener who buys expensive vegetable seeds and then, to save costs, underwaters his plants.
Accommodation costs minimal compared to staff costs
An estimate based on EUR’s annual report for 2023 shows that accommodation costs for academic staff are about 3 per cent of total staff costs. The saving resulting from shared workspaces will cause no more than a ripple in EUR’s total budget: about one-third of a percentage point. Incidentally, this saving is nullified completely by the daily staff transition and coordination costs1. Why take such big risks for such a small saving?
Academic research
Plenty of academic research has been conducted into the effect of shared workspaces. A recent Canadian article integrated the findings of 23 studies. The conclusion of these findings: the fixed workspace system scores better across the board than the shared workspace system. This applies to indicators such as social relations (interaction, communication), cognitive performance (concentration, flow), job satisfaction (commitment, involvement) and health and well-being (stress, mental health). Scholars who use fixed workspaces also have less of a tendency to leave, less cognitive stress and lower absenteeism. A large Swedish university introduced a system of shared workspaces. The findings regarding the post-transition situation: (i) a reduced sense of community; (ii) more working from home; (iii) less perceived support from colleagues and supervisors; (iv) lower job satisfaction; and (v) a greater tendency to look for other work. On no aspect of the physical or psychosocial work environment was the score better after the transition than before.
The quote in the headline of the article in EM of 24 October, ’More efficient, but a little impersonal’, completely misses the mark and is a dangerous underestimation of the negative consequences of shared workspaces. These are not at all efficient (especially in the long run) and the psychosocial collateral damage to scholars is severe, with all the consequences for their deployment and productivity that it entails. An indication of this is provided by the findings for Econometrics: “Many staff members in the Econometrics department are unhappy with the flexible workspaces. Nearly half now work from home more often, and they feel less productive. This result emerged from the evaluation of a flexible working pilot programme.”
A vibrant academic community is characterised by intensive interaction among its members. This is the heart of academic life. Such interactions contribute significantly to the productivity of academic research, not only quantitatively (researchers become more efficient by taking cues from colleagues), but also qualitatively (questions become sharper and analyses deeper). The better papers that result will be accepted by higher-ranking academic journals, which then leads to greater success in applying for funding from organisations such as the Dutch Research Council (NWO). The ultimate result: more euros going to EUR.
Scholars need a quiet workspace where they can concentrate without stress and the university should provide such a place. Saying ‘Why don’t you work from home then’ (where, incidentally, there is by no means always a suitable workspace) is neither here nor there. For many scholars, their workspace at the university is part of their identity. This is where their books are (still important, even in the digital age) and this is the environment in which they receive students and other visitors. Not having your own workspace brings a sense of alienation. As a consequence, the university will become a less attractive place to work. Outstanding scholars will leave for institutions that offer better workspace facilities, whether at home or abroad, and it will become more difficult to attract top quality. The ensuing dent to its reputation will also attract fewer students to EUR.
Negative effects not visible until later
This delayed outcome conceals the full scope of what is happening. The saving on accommodation costs will affect the budget immediately, while the negative effects on productivity, especially on the quality of output, will not become visible until later. Administrators may be tempted simply to cash in on the saving. When the negative effects become apparent, they will have already moved on. We trust that our Executive Board has a vision for the long term.
Excellent scholars form the core competence of a university. Cutting back on their workspace facilities is literally counterproductive. Taking risks in this regard is irresponsible. We all have an interest in ensuring that EUR remains a top university.
Berend Wierenga is professor-emeritus of Marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM). He was formerly chair of the marketing department, dean of the RSM, scientific director of the Erasmus Research Institute of Management and board member of the NWO science area Social Sciences (MaGW).
- A longer version of this article explains these calculations. It also contains more information on the academic research mentioned. The long version can be requested from the author ([email protected]). ↩︎
Berend Wierenga for the Executive Board! Let academics be governed by true academics.
When will CvB and management start to listen? It is a puzzle to me how academics can continuously ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence against open/flex/shared office space while they are making far-reaching decisions (effectively and literally putting the new housing policy into concrete in the Tinbergen building).