A mess at the workplace. Review of an idea from the book "Chaos" by Tim Harford

A clear desk can be useful, but it is a poor substitute for understanding how someone works. One person may need space to spread out sketches, while another concentrates better with only a notebook in view. Tim Harford’s Messy examines the possible value of disorder, improvisation and flexibility. Its discussion of workplaces raises a question that is more interesting than whether tidiness is good: who gets to decide how a working space is used?

The book challenges the assumption that a uniform appearance necessarily produces better results. That does not make cleanliness, accessibility or sensible shared rules unimportant. It encourages a distinction between arrangements that help people do their jobs and arrangements imposed mainly because they look reassuring to someone inspecting the room.

What the office experiments explored

Research by Craig Knight and Alex Haslam, described by the University of Exeter in 2010, compared different office conditions. Participants worked in a bare, functional space, an enriched space containing plants and pictures, a space they could arrange themselves, or a space where their choices were subsequently changed by someone else. These conditions examined more than the amount of decoration.

The results supported the value of giving people some control over their surroundings. The university reported benefits for participants’ experience and performance when they could personalise the workspace. It is tempting to turn such findings into a guaranteed productivity percentage for every office renovation. That would go further than the research allows. The tasks, participants and experimental conditions matter when interpreting the results.

A more useful question for a manager is whether employees have any meaningful influence over the place where they spend their working day. Asking for preferences and then overriding them without explanation can undermine the purpose of consultation. Participation should have a clear scope, including an honest account of the constraints.

Control can matter more than decorative style

Imagine a fictional editorial team preparing a complicated publication. Some colleagues want a large shared board displaying the production schedule. Others need quiet space to compare drafts. A manager could impose matching minimalist desks, or begin by asking which arrangements support the work. The second approach may reveal needs that a photograph of an attractive office would miss.

The team might agree on a shared schedule board, accessible storage and a few areas where materials can remain spread out during an active project. These choices do not require everyone to become untidy. They make room for different activities while keeping shared responsibilities clear. The relevant measure is whether people can work effectively together, not whether every desk looks identical.

Building 20 as a historical example

MIT’s accounts of Building 20 describe a temporary wartime structure that became home to many research and teaching activities over subsequent decades. Former occupants remembered its informality and the freedom to adapt space. Its history offers a striking example of people finding value in a building that did not fit an idealised picture of a prestigious research environment.

That story should not become proof that poor facilities cause great discoveries. Researchers, resources, collaboration and wider institutional conditions also matter. Nor should colourful retellings attach every MIT achievement to the same building. MIT’s Game Lab places the development of Spacewar! in Building 26, for example. Careful details make the historical lesson more credible rather than less inspiring.

Agree on boundaries that serve the work

Flexibility works best when its limits are understandable. Shared walkways must remain usable, essential documents need to be findable and confidential material requires appropriate handling. Explain the purpose of a rule before deciding how much uniformity it needs. A requirement for accessible storage is different from a preference that no personal object should ever be visible.

Try a small, reversible change before redesigning an entire office. Let a team adjust one shared area for a defined period, then discuss the results. Did coordination improve? Were materials easier to find? Did the arrangement create problems for someone else? Include colleagues whose preferences differ from the most vocal participants.

Harford’s argument is valuable because it unsettles an easy judgement: that visible order is reliable evidence of good organisation. Sometimes it is; sometimes it conceals unnecessary restrictions. A workplace can be clean, safe and well coordinated while allowing people to shape their surroundings. The aim is a setting that supports the work and the people doing it, with enough flexibility to change when their needs change.

Online Solutions Group BV, led by owner Sergej Dergatsjev, has maintained CompanyGids for ten years and continues to develop the business directory. Find online and mail-order retailers and advertising, communication and marketing consultancies on CompanyGids for business contacts. Explore digital services from OSG: contentmarketing.