Nesting, hot desking and psychological ownership of shared spaces
In 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released a video listing eight predictions for the world in 2030. The first prediction was “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy”. This prompted criticism from individuals and groups branding WEF’s vision as dystopian. In 2022, WEF Managing Director Adrian Monck addressed the mounting backlash to this video, associating it with the COVID-19 pandemic, antisemitism, mistrust of “The Great Reset” and the far-right. He argues that rather than being their vision for the future, it was little more than a topic introduced by Danish MP Ida Auken to spark debate. As of publishing, the English language version of this video is not available on WEF’s YouTube channel, however the Spanish and Mandarin language versions are.
The sociology of hot desking
If one casts aside the real or perceived politics of this issue, an opportunity arises to consider a potential human cause of the backlash. In 2011, Alison Hirst of the University of Bedfordshire published her research on the unintended consequences of hot desking in workplaces — drawing on the discipline of urban sociology. It is well established that many organisations have deployed one form or another of hot desking in order to maximise the efficiency of physical spaces, particularly with the rise of hybrid working arrangements. What is less understood Is the impact on workers’ sense of ownership of their spaces, and an apparent bifurcation of workers into groups of nesters (those who informally reclaim ownership of space by personalising it) and vagrants (those who continue to be relegated to interchangeable desks from day to day, becoming emotionally disadvantaged “through the periodic tension arising from the competition for space”).
Customising shared assets
Another product expected to experience an increased prevalence of shared ownership in coming years is autonomous vehicles. In 2019, Jihye Lee, et al. found that psychological ownership (possessive feelings toward material and immaterial objects) affected the intention to use autonomous vehicles among their study participants, and suggested personalisation in order to facilitate this (such as catering to individual tastes in music, movies and indoor environment control). This is supported by consumer research literature, which claims that “consumers experience psychological ownership when they customize goods and/or services they acquire”.
Psychological ownership of shared real estate
Psychological ownership presents both a challenge and opportunity for business models facilitating shared use of real estate. The challenge is that aesthetically, buildings can be difficult to customise without expended time, money and labour — unrealistic for an asset changing hands on a regular basis. On the other hand, an opportunity exists where providers are able to deploy adaptive technology to facilitate higher levels of customisation and psychological ownership in an otherwise static environment. Particularly in cases where use is recurrent (like shared ownership models). Smart home technologies can offer solutions in this area (such as pattern recognition and individual profiles for climate control; digital displays and interfaces; smart appliance settings; window positions; natural and artificial light settings; third party application integrations; and building access).
To read more about psychological ownership, check out Luke’s piece on Adam Neumann’s new venture, Flow, as well as our white paper A piece of the action — innovations in fractional ownership and use of space.
