Search results

Meetings with colleagues are an essential activity in workplace collaboration. The iterative nature of collaborative work demands spaces that team members can access quickly and easily. Creating suitable meeting spaces will become more critical if the hybrid work model continues and the workplace environment becomes the hub for face-to-face collaborative time, learning and training. Workspace and fit-out is expensive so it is crucial that the investment in meeting spaces supports employees’ collaboration activities.

This paper presents a case study of a corporate organisation undertaken in New Zealand to investigate how employees from two business units use their workspace to collaborate within their own team and across other teams in their organisation. The study uses ethnographic techniques, including participant observation and in-depth face-to-face interviews.

The findings show that the frequency and nature of small group work in collaboration was underestimated in the initial planning of the new workspace. Although participants found the design and fit-out of the formal meeting rooms supportive of collaborative work, the meeting rooms were in high demand, and it was difficult to find a room at short notice. The breakout spaces were confusing because they lacked key design attributes identified by the participants as conducive to small group work. Design shortfalls together with fit-out features perceived as supportive of collaborative work are identified.

The research reports on employees’ perceptions and experiences across two functionally diverse business units, reflecting their different needs and concerns.

The aim of this study is to explore how a practice approach can provide an understanding of board diversity practices. Drawing from Schatzki's practice theory, this study considered how board diversity is practiced from the doings and sayings of directors in Mauritius.

In this study, in-depth interviews with directors in listed companies from different industrial sectors were used to collect data.

The authors' findings indicate that a country's board diversity practices are influenced by the country's unique social, economic and cultural environment. Whilst board diversity practices may appear as the practices that are motivated by compliance, a deeper look at the results reveals that the laws governing board diversity are interpreted very subtly in a way that benefits shareholders' self-interest. A low percentage of female directors on boards and some indications of shareholder-driven practices are also found. Whilst the corporate sector acknowledges the advantages of diversity, there are some practices that they are unwilling to abandon, demonstrating the importance of the teleoaffective structures and normativity in determining what really occurs. Members of boards resolving disagreement further demonstrates the teleoaffective structure.

This research would be of interest to researchers because of the research's novel approach in studying board diversity which could be used by other researchers to experiment with a practice approach in exploring corporate governance phenomena in unique settings.

The findings are of relevance to policymakers and regulators who seek to strengthen corporate governance practices in similar settings.

This research contributes to the literature on board diversity by showing that analysing board diversity through a practice approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of practices. The authors' study confirms that practice theory has the potential to re-orient the way board diversity studies are undertaken.