Tag Archive for Flanks

Competitive Head-To-Head Position

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

When people face-off against one another, they tend to sit head-on across the table.

When people face-off against one another, they tend to sit head-on across the table.

Legal television dramas popularize this head-to-head seating position. Here each party faces directly across from the other person usually with their allies to their left and right solidifying their flanks. Another words for this position is the “closed” seating arrangement because it isolates people with the use of the desk. In the “open” arrangement a desk is pushed up against a wall and presents no barrier to visitors since they can access every part of a person when meeting with them. Closed positions convey formality, distance and authority, defensiveness and even divisiveness whereas open orientations convey interest and comfort.

Even when competition isn’t directly encouraged, research finds that the closed position still becomes an issue because the table provides a clear boundary between each party. Despite this, studies show that it is a very common way to sit in for casual conversations and at restaurants. The reason expressed is because it easily permits the exchange of information, affords good eye contact by filling the other persons view, and turns each person into the centre of attention. Thus, while it can be a constructive casual position amongst friends and family, it doesn’t serve well with new associates or where there is a desire to break down existing boundaries.

Interestingly when larger groups meet in the competitive arrangement with many people facing one another across a rectangular table, it is most often the person to the front of the speaker directly across the table that talks next, and rarely the person to their side. This has been termed the “Steinzor effect” and was named after the researcher Dr. Bernard Steinzor in 1950 who first discovered the occurrence. The head-to-head position creates discourse and necessitates the person at their face to respond, moreso than any other at the table. This only adds to the negative data that stem from head-to-head orientations and why we should avoid it when we wish to accomplish something other than fight.

Research conducted in the mid 1970’s by psychologist Richard Zweigenhaft of Guildord College in North Carolina found that faculty that used their office desks as a barrier by placing it in between them and their students were rated less positively in general and where rated especially poorly as it related to student interaction. The study found that faculty that did this were also older and had a greater academic rank. Thus, it was likely their subconscious tendency was to protect and maintain their rank between themselves and their students. Therefore, when meeting with new clients or where competition is likely but undesirable, avoid sitting in the head-to-head position if possible and remove whatever barriers separate you and whomever it is you wish to build a relationship with. However, if the desire is to reprimand an employee or anyone else and the goal to set clear boundaries, the table-in-between-position can emphasis division, thereby enhancing the message further. It will be up to you to decide exactly what orientation will suite you best and this will be wholly dependant on the goal you wish to attain while meeting.

Early Research Into Seating Arrangements

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

In a business setting people sitting kitty-corner (D and F) tend to talk 6 times as often as those sitting opposite (B and C). Those sitting next to each other (C and E) talk about half as often as kitty-corner but still 3 times as often as sitting on opposite sides of the table. The head position or leader position, tends to be spoken to the least.

In a business setting people sitting kitty-corner (D and F) tend to talk 6 times as often as those sitting opposite (B and C). Those sitting next to each other (C and E) talk about half as often as kitty-corner but still 3 times as often as sitting on opposite sides of the table. The head position or leader position, tends to be spoken to the least.

One of the

Boardrooms present an interesting power effect. In this case "A" is the head of the table because he benefits by seeing who might be entering through the door. "B" is also head of the table, but might be taken by surprise as the door is at his back. Power trickles down from the head of the table to "C" and "D" (flaking the head), "E" and "F" (flanking the flanks), and finally "G" and "H" who share the lowest rank..

Boardrooms present an interesting power effect. In this case “A” is the head of the table because he benefits by seeing who might be entering through the door. “B” is also head of the table, but might be taken by surprise as the door is at his back. Power trickles down from the head of the table to “C” and “D” (flaking the head), “E” and “F” (flanking the flanks), and finally “G” and “H” who share the lowest rank..

earliest research studies was done by American psychologist Robert Sommer of the University of California in the 1950’s. He examined the effects of extensive renovations done to an old age home. The ward received new colourful paint, new lighting was installed, new chairs brought in and several small rooms were converted into one large day room. The furniture was also re-arranged to make conversations more likely amongst the patients by creating more face-to-face encounters. This rearrangement was based on what he observed daily in the hallways just outside the ward. Here, every morning the chairs were placed into straight rows, shoulder to shoulder, against the wall to make mopping easier. But if you entered sometime later in the day, you’d find them re-arranged into groups. It was the patient’s family members who moved the chairs to speak with the patients, rather than what the patient actually preferred themselves. From this observation and the fact that any changes in the ward were met with resistance it was obvious that the patients would resist the ward remodel. In fact, it was common knowledge around the home that every piece of furniture and chair “had its place.” A lot of which had been there, regardless of any logical or functional reason. The conclusions drawn from the study were less than positive likely because the study involved mentally handicapped patients. In fact, it was concluded that modification of furniture arrangements was not enough in and of itself to adequately increasing social interactions. However, drawing on his initial observations from the hallway, where regular visitors rearranged furniture, Dr. Sommer felt he was onto something important.

His future studies examined visitors interacting in a hospital cafeteria, students in classrooms, children in public, and a myriad of other social situations. He found that when conversing over a rectangular table, patterns began to emerge as a function of the shape and proximity speakers had to one another. In all arrangements it is the nature of the meeting which dictated the spatial “ecology”, he concluded. He learned that eye contact and distance are the two fundamental concepts governing how we sit, which in turn affects our ability to exchange information, speak effectively, or even draw lines of division. The next few paragraphs covers the ecology of round, and rectangular seating arrangements with respect to reasons for meeting, be it a casual meeting with friends, cooperative sharing of information, independent working or leadership purposes.