Tag Archive for Seating Positions

Summary – Chapter 15

Seating arrangements is one of the things we infrequently draw to conscious attention but at some level always understand its importance. In this chapter we looked at what seems on the outset to be a complicated matter, but in reality is fairly straight forward and like all body language, once it is know, common sense. We found that seating positions can indicate our reason for meeting, be it ‘affiliation’ – to build group cohesion, ‘achievement’ – to get things done, or ‘power’ – to emphasis control. We found that the meeting organizer typically dictates how meetings will transpire.

We learned that Sommer first began researching seating ecology and that patterns emerged based on the shape of the table and the proximity speakers had to one-another. We found that a casual corner position where speakers meet across the corners of a rectangular or square table preserve closeness between people, but still offers the security of a partial barrier. We found that when seated side-by-side cooperation is fostered, when facing across from one-another but not head-on, independent though is fostered, and when facing directly, competition. We found that leadership studies show us what we intuitively already know, that leaders take up the head position, that those at his or her flank receive trickle down leadership and that when seating is pre-determined, leadership is assigned to the head of the table. We found that square tables includes both competitive and cooperative seating positions, that circular tables had similar affects despite what King Arthur thought, and that strategically we can sway our “object” by taking up competitive and affiliative positions.

Next we looking at how to set up an office and found that desk placement and office artifacts are crucial and that chairs can make people uncomfortable or powerful depending on their height and location. We then looked at seating arrangements in larger auditoriums and saw that the center of lecture halls tended to be overlooked, and also how to use this to our advantage, and finally we concluded the chapter by pointing out that seating location affects participation; those in front participating most, but that it did not related to test scores.

Who In The Audience Is The Most Keen?

Research by Robert Sommer in the late 1960’s showed how attention and participation was neatly tied to seating positions. This was especially true for very large audiences where it’s possible to have an uneven distribution of connectivity with the speaker. His research examined classroom ecology and revealed that students sitting in the front rows participated much more than those in the back rows and those in the middle, the most.

Front and center had the highest rate of participation whereas the rear left and rear right the least. One can picture a reverse arrangement with the largest percentage of participators at the “mouth” of the funnel nearest the speaker and the “end” of the funnel at the back with the fewest participators. As one travels back in the seats, those at the sides progressively get left out. Those at the back edges can more easily ‘escape’ and find refuge from the speaker.

Circular Seating Positions

At a circular table each person shares power making collaboration easier.

At a circular table each person shares power making collaboration easier.

When no leader is

When a known leader is seated at a circular table, power trickles down as the relative distance increases.  In this case #1 has the most power followed by #2, #3, #4 and finally the person who sits opposite.  The person opposite finds himself in a unique situation of having to face the leader head-on!

When a known leader is seated at a circular table, power trickles down as the relative distance increases. In this case #1 has the most power followed by #2, #3, #4 and finally the person who sits opposite. The person opposite finds himself in a unique situation of having to face the leader head-on!

present, round tables can be used to create informal settings unlike rectangular tables that are used to conduct work or to reprimand employees. In offices, round tables are usually a place to relax and converse or to drink coffee. Smart offices will use these areas to build alliances with potential clients, especially timid ones, break down barriers, and create rapport. Round tables can reduce pressure and build trust. Round tables also offers neat divisions or ‘pie shapes’ where each person receives the same amount of space or “territory” that collect into a common center. Square tables on the other hand, have territories that lack clear boundaries which can present their own power struggle.

King Arthur attempted to equalize authority and status amongst his knights with the “round table.” He felt that without creating a head of table, his peers would see themselves as more equal preventing quarrels. Previous to the round table, a medieval king usually sat at one end of the table, with the court jester facing him at the other end. The knights were seated at the two sides with the most important among them seated closer to the king. What King Arthur failed to realize with his round table, however, was the trickle down effect where those sitting to his immediate left and right held the next level of power due to their proximity to him. As one was more removed from the King, their level of status diminished likewise until finally reaching the furthest party. Unfortunate for this person, he faced the King directly putting him in a competitive arrangement! Ironically, and counter to his initial assumption, the round table can still present difficulties in creating positive outcomes especially where a definitive leader is present.