Samantha Julka: Intentional ambiguity finds the precise problem

At DORIS, business leaders often ask us broad questions such as, “Why does our workforce not want to come into the office?” or, “How can we use our space to attract and retain talent?” Some people might dismiss these questions, assuming the answers are that people like being at home in their pajamas and that, if the office space looks good, people will want to be in it. We are finding these assumptions do not hold up when we look at the data.

At DORIS, our research methodology is based in grounded theory, a fancy term referring to allowing findings to surface, rather than looking for specific answers. Speaking more technically, when conducting research using an emergent approach, we begin from a place of conscious ignorance, setting aside any assumptions or hypotheses. The ambiguity inherent in the process can be frustrating and difficult to tolerate as it sometimes feels like looking for a needle in a haystack. When we find that needle, or more academically, develop a really great insight from the data, the results are game-changing.

Let me give you an example. Traditionally, a leader might assume (hypothesize) that people do not want to return to the office five days a week because of the commute. A possible hypothesis could be that moving the office closer to where people live will result in people wanting to come to the office. Scientifically, a researcher might test that hypothesis by directly asking, “How long is your commute?” and, “How long of a commute is too long?” to collect data directly related to the assumed challenge of the commute as a barrier to return to the office.

When we, at DORIS, use emergent research to understand the challenges individuals experience at an organization, we pose much broader questions in an effort to eliminate all our natural biases. We simultaneously dig broadly and narrowly to identify root challenges. It is a uniquely human skill that will likely not be mastered by AI for a long time, if ever. (Look to a future IBJ column where I will discuss how DORIS harnesses both.) Emergent data gathering requires a great deal of patience, curiosity and empathy. It requires the human brain to function in an abductive manner, making informed logical leaps.

Back to our example. DORIS would pose the question, “What are your greatest barriers to achieving your best work?” Now, a skeptic might think that question does not even ask about returning to an office, commuting or hybrid work. And, yes, that’s exactly it!

This question allows for anything to possibly come up, and usually people bring up the most important facets and barriers to their work. We have found the commute is usually much lower of a priority over noise and distractions at the office. In one study, we found the barrier was the stress of parking—not the commute. These barriers are unique to each organization, and posing the question in this way allows for leaders to solve the right problem. So instead of moving the office, the organization might be able to create a solution at a fraction of the cost by subsidizing parking.

When we look at the emergent data, we find the challenges that matter. Finding the right challenge is the hard part but means solving the problem becomes easier. The norms of working in an office are changing before our eyes. The real winners are the leaders that plan the future of their workforce needs by allowing the data to emerge and not simply following the first hypothesis they form.•

__________

Julka is founder of Indianapolis-based DORIS Research, which uses design thinking to organize workspaces.