Campus Ecologist

Volume 12, Number 4, 1994

Use of Nonverbal Cues of the Physical Environment in Campus Consultation

by James H. Banning

Nearly all the conceptual models of organizational consultation include the process of assessment or appraisal. This process is used to gather information to assist in the diagnostic efforts as well as the selection of possible intervention strategies. Dougherty (1990) lists the standard methods for gathering organizational information: documents and records, questionnaires and surveys, interviews, and observations. An adjunct to these more traditional information gathering methods is to use the physical environment (buildings, signs, and symbols) to assist in the consulting processes of assessment and feedback to the consultee.

Winston Churchill was reported to have made the statement that we shape our buildings and then they shape us. This relationship between buildings and behavior has also been captured by environmental psychologists (Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Greene, 1990, Porteus, 1977). They suggest this influence can be conceptualized by three positions. First, architectural determinism suggests that there is a rather direct and causal link between buildings and behavior. A second position, environmental or architectural possibilism views the building as offering opportunities and setting limits for behavior. The relationship is noted by context rather than by determinism. Finally, architectural or environmental probabilism assumes that certain behaviors have probabilistic links to the built environment.

While all three positions offer insight into the relationship between buildings and organizational behavior, to assume the position of architectural determinism suggests that the organization's buildings have a direct and causal link to the organization's behavior. This position, however, does not do justice to the complexities of organizational behavior. It fails to capture the transnational relationship between buildings and behaviors, that is, it fails to sort out the complex social and psychological factors associated with built spaces (Porteus, 1977).

To view the relationship between buildings and organization behavior in terms of possibilities and probabilities not only appears more realistic, it also captures our intuitive notion that the built environment can make a difference in organizations. In other words, places are not just spaces, but they are socio-physical entities (Wachs, 1987) that lead to increased understanding of organizations (Steele, 1973). What, then, are the conceptual tools that can lead to greater understanding of organizations and campus environments through the examination of the physical environment.

Behavioral Traces: A Conceptual Tool for Understanding the Organization

It is important to note that buildings and organizations have important direct functional relationships. For example, is there enough space to carry out the functions of the organization? The physical environment not only affords certain activities and constrains others in a functional sense (Wohlwill, & Heft, 1989), but these functional arrangements of affordances and constraints also communicate non-verbal messages (Weinstein & David, 1987). How can we increase our understanding of organizations by attending to the non-verbal messages of the organization's physical environment (Rapoport, 1982)? One of the more useful strategies is to view the organization's physical environment from a behavioral traces perspective (Zeisel, 1981) including the symbolic messages accompanying the behavioral trace (Rapoport, 1982; Steele, 1973).

As organizational activities interact with physical spaces the behavior leaves "traces" (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987). These behavioral traces can be interpreted as non-verbal messages that increase the understanding of campus behavior (Banning, 1988). As Bechtel and Zeisel state: "Few give a thought ... to the fact that the fossils of tomorrow are the garbage dumps of today" (1987, p.32). Zeisel (1988) presents a number of ways "to read" traces that can be useful in gaining a fuller understanding of organizational environments. Zeisel's methods are: (1) by-products of use, (2) adaptation of use, (3) displays of self, and (4) public messages.

By-Products of Use

By-products are produced by people interacting with the environment. These byproducts of behavior can be further defined by the concepts of erosion, leftovers, and missing traces. (Bechtel and Zeisel, 1987) . A simple example of erosion on campus is the worn paths that students make as they find the shortest distance between campus buildings. Worn carpet in front of the campus welcome center is another example of erosion that has greater negative impact on institutional image.

Leftovers are traces represented by objects not consumed in the behavior. Trash and litter are the most common examples. Leftovers can also become associated with particular campus groups. For example, on one campus a "sitting" wall is used as a lunch place by primarily "Greek" students. The resulting trash "leftovers" of pop cans and fast food sacks produces a major negative image problem for the fraternity and sorority system.

Bechtel and Zeisel (1987) use the concept of missing traces to indicate a lack of use in areas where erosion and leftovers are expected but do not show up. Many campus spaces have been designed in such a manner that they are never used by people on campus. The documentation of this lack of use or "missing traces" is often helpful in gaining support for a redesign of the space to better serve the needs of the campus. For example, one campus found a lounge area in their student center was "missing" behavioral traces. Further observation indicated that the entry to the lounge was hidden and uninviting. As a result of some minor redesign, use of the lounge increased and the behavioral traces of erosion and left-overs began to appear.

Adaptation for Use

Zeisel (1981) uses the concept of adaptation for use to encompass situations in the environment where a change has been made because the first design did not serve its original intention. The physical environment is changed to better accommodate campus behavior. These adaptations or accommodations are classified by Zeisel (1981) as props, separations and connections.

Campus adaptation for use would include renovations, expansions, and other changes or improvements. Often the attempt by students to "adapt" a space for an unintended purpose is the first cue that a redesign effort may be needed. Props are things that are added or removed a setting. For example, chairs (props) are often moved around in a building by students to better accommodate their seating patterns. By following the adding, moving and removing of props from a setting, insights can be gained regarding inhabitant behavior.

Separations are those changes in which the inhabitants of the physical space separate spaces formerly together to achieve some behavioral outcomes. The creativity displayed by students in developing separations in the traditional residence hall room to achieve privacy and a sense of territory is a clear example. Important campus needs are often expressed through the development of separations.

Connections are physical adaptations that connect settings allowing for different behaviors. On one campus a "make-shift" sidewalk appeared in order to connect the rear parking lot to the main entrance to a new student center. The need for this connection was due to the failure of the original design to place a rear entrance to the building. Physical connections can also produce symbolic connections. A campus bridge was built to link two parts of a campus that had been separated by an irrigation ditch. The bridge, however took on symbolic meaning when it was constructed in part from the bricks of"old main," that burned down during a Vietnam era protest. The bridge was dedicated to "connect" the differing points of view toward the war.

Displays of Self

Zeisel (1981) uses the concept of"display of self' to illustrate how the physical environment can be used to convey messages about individual and group ownership. Three categories represent this concept: (a) Personalization or the use of the physical environment to express uniqueness and individuality. Murals denoting different floors within a residence hall is an example.(b) Identification or the use the physical environment to enable others to identify them. For example, on one campus there is a small "oil derrick" atop the petroleum engineering building; (c) Group membership or the use the physical environment to display membership in formal groups and organizations. The Greek letters on fraternity and sorority houses is a clear example. The "letter" display can also send non-verbal messages about organizational values. Fraternity houses that display banners regarding an upcoming kegger send a clear message regarding the use and abuse of alcohol.

Public Messages

The last category for Zeisel is public messages. Included in this concept are traces that range from official signs, unofficial signs and symbols, and graffiti. Official signs are erected by officials of the environment or organization. Often, however, these signs contain nonintended messages. For example, a welcome sign to visitors that also includes a warning that they may be searched while on campus is less than welcoming. A series of signs directing visitors to a non-existing visitor's center is also less than welcoming. Unofficial signs and symbols are those that appear in the environment, but without formal sanctioning. On a campus these usually take the form offhand written" signs which often give directions to a particular building or office. When these signs began to appear in number (redundancy) it is usually an indication that the physical environment is not giving sufficient wayfinding cues. The redundant illegitimate signs are symptoms of a poorly designed environment. Illegitmate signs or messages often take the form of graffiti.. Most observers of the campus environment are quite familiar with campus graffiti. It can signal creativity, local issues, or give insight into prevailing attitudes on such complex issues as tolerance for diversity. In addition, the failure to remove illegitimate and offensive graffiti also sends messsges regarding the institution's values.

Summary

The concept of behavioral traces can be a useful tool for understanding organizations. The environment is a medium of communication (Zeisel, 1975). Understanding this communication can assist in the campus consultation appraisal and assessment process.

References:

Banning, J. (1988). Behavioral traces: A concept for campus ecologist. The Campus Ecologist, 7(2), 1-2.

Bechtel, R. & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The world under a glass. In R. Bechtel, R. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.). Introduction: Environmental Design Research, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Bell, P., Fisher, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Dougherty, A.M. (1990). Consultation: Practice and perspectives. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Porteus, J. (1977). Environment and behavior. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Rapoport. A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A non-verbal communications approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications

Steele, F.I. (1973). Physical settings and organizational development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Wachs, T. (1987). Developmental perspectives on designing for development. In C. Weinstein & T. David (Eds.), Spaces for children, (pp. 291-307). New York: Plenum Press.

Weinstein, C. & David, T. (1987). Spaces for children. New York: Plenum Press

Wohlwill, J. and Heft, H. (1989). The physical environment and the development of the child. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental psychology, Vol. 1, (pp. 175-204). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Zeisel, J. (1975). Sociology and architectural design. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

A Template for Physical/Behavioral Traces

This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.