The office architecture: A contextual experience with influences at the individual and group level

The office architecture: A contextual experience with influences at the individual and group level

21

Christina Bodin Danielsson The School of Architecture, The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

21.1

Introduction

The architectural experience is contextual, where at every instant is more than the eye can see, more than the ear can hear, a setting or a view waiting to be explored as architectural theorist Lynch described it (1960, p. 1). Architecture is expressed through the shape, color, and structure used in the design and experienced in relation to its surroundings, by the sequences of events leading up to it, the memory of past experiences. The experience is a two-way process between the observer, i.e., user, and the physical environment consisting of two dimensions: (a) an emotional and physiological perception, through our senses, combined with (b) an intellectual perception, a cognitive process based on knowledge and experiences. The experience of office architecture, similar to other architectural experiences, is holistic. It is created by the combined effect of the physical characteristics of the environment, where some are architectural (Al Horr et al., 2016, p. 384). The architectural elements of an office encompasses the building layout and exterior landscaping, but also the interior environment. The latter includes plan layout, building material and detailing, placement of windows, rooms, corridors, open areas, but also furniture and equipment. How these elements are designed and configured determines the office architecture, which in turn provides the ambient conditions of the space in terms of sound, light, temperature, airflow, and air quality. All of this makes up the office environment, whose physical context is set by the office architecture, consisting of the two main dimensions: esthetic and functional together with a third symbolic dimension (Bodin Danielsson, 2015). The esthetic dimension of the physical environment concerns the nature and the appreciation of beauty in this, where esthetics is philosophically defined as subjective and sensori-emotional values (Zangwill, 2002). The role of esthetics in architecture and environmental design, and the evaluation of this is debated (e.g., Lang, 1994; Nasar, 1994). In organizational research, the esthetic experiences of organizations are recognized by the use of office design in corporate branding (Dean, Ottensmeyer, & Ramirez, 1997; Strati, 1992). The importance of the esthetic experience from an organizational perspective finds support in some Context. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814495-4.00021-0 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

432

Context

empirical research. For example, there are indications that beautiful and ugly spaces affect people differently over time (Maslow & Mintz, 1972), and that positive experiences of the offices architecture positively affect employees’ attitude to the workplace and organization (Bodin Danielsson, 2015). The esthetic and functional dimensions are independent of each other, although associated with each other. Esthetic dimensions of the office environment should not be disassociated from organizational goals (Strati, 1992), since these are often expressed in the esthetic dimensions of the office environment. Vilnai-Yavetz, Rafaeli, and Schneider Yaacov (2005) exemplify the relationship between the two dimensions by describing how a black leather chair may be esthetic in a manager’s office, but not in a flower shop, while it is equally functional in both environments. The functional dimension, sometimes referred to as the instrumentality of physical environments (Vilnai-Yavetz et al., 2005), concerns the usability of an environment, i.e., how well it supports the tasks and the goals of the work at the workplace. Thus, it is in human factor engineering described as instrumentality (e.g., Garling & Golledge, 1989) and can as such either support or hinder desired activities in the setting. Due to the organizational context of the office, the third dimension—the symbolic dimension—is of specific interest. This has accordingly gained the most interest from management researchers (e.g., Gagliardi, 1992; Rafaeli & Pratt, 2005). They often focus on emotions (e.g., Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004), and subjective interpretations of the office environment rather than objective attributes of this, which influences employees’ task performance (Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982). The symbolic dimension of office architecture works in tandem with the other two dimension, in affecting the users in various ways (Kupritz, 2016), e.g., interpersonal, group, and organizational communication needs in the workplace (Kupritz & Hillsman, 2011). The symbolic dimension of office architecture can either support or impede our ability to use different sensory cues through its physical properties; cues fundamental to convey and interpret messages in social interaction. Thus, office architecture can, from a communication perspective, be considered an enabler of social interaction (Vla˘duțescu, 2014). Regarding communication, the symbolic dimension of architecture is well recognized in the corporate world (Gagliardi, 1992). Today office design is often used as a strategic management tool in corporate branding, in both the external and internal branding, so-called employee branding (Bodin Danielsson, Wulff, & Westerlund, 2013). Employee branding can be defined as the process in which the brand image is driven by the messages employees receive, and that enables them to make sense of themselves (Miles & Glynn, 2004). Thus, the influence of office architecture on employees and in turn organizations comes down to its impact on the ability to communicate at the workplace (Kupritz, 2016). Nevertheless, office architecture appears to influence other aspects of relevance here, e.g., employee satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008; Otterbring, Pareigis, W€astlund, Makrygiannis, & A., 2018). In Bodin Danielsson and Bodin (2008), it was found that there were significant differences in health and job satisfaction among employees in different office types. The best health was reported by employees working in flex- and cell-offices and the worst

The office architecture: A contextual experience

433

health in traditional open plan offices, which to some extent appeared to correlate with their job satisfaction. Regarding how the office environment influences employee well-being—both in terms of health and environmental satisfaction, the two concepts that are tightly associated with each other, are central “locus of control” and “personal control.” Their central position for employee well-being in this regard shows in the importance that employees expressing for personal control over their own physical work situation, e.g., by their ability to adopt and change their work environment in accordance with their needs whenever possible. Likewise as increased personal control over one’s own physical workspace situation leads to higher group cohesiveness and job satisfaction among office employees (Lee & Brand, 2005).

21.1.1 Personal control The concept “locus of control” refers to the degree to which a person believes to have control over the outcomes of events in life (Rotter, 1966). In a work environment context, such as an office, the associated concept of “personal control” is more relevant due to its association with the experience of stress. There are different types of personal control: (a) behavioral (direct action on the environment), (b) cognitive (the interpretation of events), and (c) decisional (having a choice among alternative courses of action) (Averill, 1973). Personal control is a key factor to understand the contextual influence of the office that operates at both an individual and an inter-personal/group level. Both levels can either increase or reduce stress, and thereby influence well-being and comfort of employees.

21.2

The spatial context of the office at an individual level

The influence of the office environment on the individual depends greatly on how much personal control the individual has in relation to the workplace, which depends on psychosocial, organizational factors, and physical factors of the work environment. The office environment enables personal control in various ways, where the proximate office environment is the most important for the employee’s satisfaction and wellbeing. Being the “home base,” from which many employees operate, it is also where most of the individual’s work is carried out when in the office. This is, however, something that depends on the individual employee’s work assignment and job rank. People that are involved in projects tend to also to engage more in teamwork, often in meeting rooms or other collaborative environments. People at higher job ranks also tend to have more meetings and are thus less at the workstation. The workplace plays an important part in many people’s daily lives, thus the office environment engages people as many emotions are tied to this (e.g., Rafaeli & VilnaiYavetz, 2004). In the office debate, open plan offices versus cell-offices is regularly discussed, which often goes back to the concept of personal control. In research, the general opinion is that employees generally prefer individual cell-offices, when they have a choice (e.g., Hedge, 1982; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Sundstrom et al., 1982). Open

434

Context

plan layouts have negative effects on personal control reflected in loss of privacy and increased acoustic and visual disturbance due to proximity to others (de Croon, Sluiter, Kuijer, & Frings-Dresen, 2005; Hedge, 1982; Kim & de Dear, 2013), but also a perceived decrease of performance (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002). However, employee attitude to sharing workspace with others depends on work assignments and needs related to this. There are indications that creative tasks are more easily carried out in a volumetric and open space, while tasks that require concentration are preferably carried out in smaller environments (e.g., Alker, Malanca, O’Brien, & Pottage, 2014). The latter is because noise disturbance negatively affects cognitive demanding assignments, e.g., calculation or writing ( Jahncke, Hygge, Halin, Green, & Dimberg, 2011; Keus van de Poll, Ljung, Odelius, & S€orqvist, 2014). However, lack of privacy appears to be less problematic in the activity-based flex-offices with nonpersonal workstations. Flex-office is an office type defined by employees and it does not have personal workstations, but good access to different work environments used on an “as-needed basis” depending on work activity. It is often used for when <70% of the workforce having desk workstations, and hereby increase workspace efficiency (e.g., Bodin Danielsson, Bodin, Wulff, & Theorell, 2015). Why privacy was considered less problematic among employees in flex-offices could probably be explained by the fact that a flex-office is defined by architectural features such as good access to a supportive work environment, but also a functional feature such as independent work (Bodin Danielsson et al., 2015). Together this shows that the office experience is contextual and why it is not useful to debate cell-office versus open plan office. Instead, we need to recognize that office employees’ environmental satisfaction and well-being depend on the spatial context, combined with the functional features (including organization of work and digital use). To understand what role the different dimensions in the workplace design play, we need to look closer at the matter. Thus, this book chapter presents three separate studies that, from various perspectives, investigate employee satisfaction with designrelated factors in different office designs. One of the studies was conducted by myself and a colleague therefore I have more detailed knowledge about this study and it is described more thoroughly than the other studies.

21.2.1 Three empirical studies: Environmental satisfaction from an individual perspective When interested in the importance of the context and what role it plays in the influence of the office design, it is useful to start where it all begins—at the individual level. Hence, the following section presents three different empirical studies, which investigate environmental satisfaction from the employee perspective. All studies are quantitative, but with different sample sizes and approaches to the subject of employee environmental satisfaction. The first study, conducted by a colleague and myself, investigates employee environmental satisfaction with design-related factors in seven different office types (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009). The second study investigates what role

The office architecture: A contextual experience

435

ownership of a workstation has for employee satisfaction with design-related factors at their office (Kim, Candido, Thomas, & de Dear, 2016). The third study investigates differences in environmental satisfaction and perception of productivity between employees in smaller office spaces (cell- and shared-room offices) and in more open workspaces and activity-based office types (combi- and flex-offices) (De Been & Beijer, 2014). For details on office types, see Table 21.1.

Table 21.1 Defining features of office types in contemporary office designa Architectural features

Functional features

1. Cell-office (individual office room) –

The plan layout is characterized by corridors, either a single or double corridor system

–

Most equipment is in the employee’s own room

–

Individual room has access to a window

–

Work is concentrated and independent

2. Shared room office: (2–3 people share room). An office type sometimes a consequence of lack of workspace –

Workstations freely arranged in the room

–

Team-based work or people with similar work assignment work in shared room

–

For privacy reasons sometimes screens or other divisional elements between workstations

–

Most equipment outside of room, team based shared room tend to have own

–

No individual window, shares with roommate(s) Traditional open-plan offices: Groups of employees sharing a common workspace in different configurations Found in the following three subcategories: 3. Small open plan office: (4–9 people share workspace) 4. Medium-sized open plan office (10–24 people share workspace) 5. Large open plan office (>24 people share workspace) –

Shared workspaces within the office

–

Flexible for organizational changes

–

Plan layout is open, based on an open flow of workspaces instead of corridor systems

–

Routine based work

–

Workstations freely arranged in the room or in rows in a larger workspace

–

Low level of interaction between employees

–

Often no amenities at workstation Continued

436

Context

Table 21.1 Continued Activity based and flexible office types: 6. Flex-office (no personal workstation, different work environments within office) –

Plan layout is open, based on an open flow of workspaces instead of corridor systems

–

Flexible for organizational changes

–

Rooms/environments for individual work and telephone calls

–

Good information communication technology (ICT) is a necessity as the common computer system is accessible from all workstations within the office

–

Different types of environments for meetings

–

Dimensioned for <70% of the workforce

–

The choice of workstation is free, has the option to work outside of office as well

–

Mainly independent work, sometimes project based

7. Combi-office: (team work and sharing of workspace and common facilities) –

No strict spatial definition of office type, personal workstations which either are in individual rooms or open plan layout

–

>20% of the work in the office not at the personal workstation

–

Back up spaces for work activities not suitable to carry out at the personal workstation

–

Sharing of common amenities in common spaces

–

Extra focus on rooms for group activities such as: project rooms (to be booked for longer periods), team rooms and meeting rooms

–

Work is both independent as well as interactive team work with colleagues in

–

The team move around in the office on an “as-needed basis” to take advantage of the wide range of common facilities

a

For further details and illustrations of office types see Bodin Danielsson (2008) and Bodin Danielsson and Bodin (2009). Source: Bodin Danielsson, C., Bodin, L., Wulff, C., & Theorell, T. (2015). The relation between office type and workplace conflict: a gender and noise perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 161–171. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.004; Bodin Danielsson, C., Chungkham, H. S., Wulff, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics, 57(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.871064.

Study 1: Satisfaction with design-related factors in different office environments In this study, we investigated differences in environmental satisfaction among employees and if this can be ascribed to the specific office type, and why we adjusted for important background factors. The analytic sample consisted of 469 office

The office architecture: A contextual experience

437

employees (men ¼ 51%, women ¼ 49%) (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009). Only part of the study about environmental satisfaction with design-related factors will be presented here. This study used the convenience-sampling method, where several offices were examined and only those that were considered to fit one of the seven identified office types in contemporary office design were asked to participate in the study. In all, 26 offices participated and were active in the following businesses: media/IT, technical professions, and personal and economic guidance. Respondents’ participation was voluntary with a response rate of 72.5%. In the sample, 34% were managers in various ranks and 60% were regular employees. The mean age was 41 years (range: 21–64 years). In contemporary office design, seven office types are identified. Studying the differences in satisfaction with their physical office environment in different office types, our study included these office types: (1) cell-office, i.e., single office room; (2) shared-room office (2–3 people share a room), traditional open plan offices; (3) small open plan office (4–9 people share a workspace); (4) medium-sized open plan office (10–24 people share a workspace); (5) large open plan office (25 and more people share a workspace), activity-based and more flexible office types; (6) flex-office (no personal workstation, different work environments within office); (7) combioffice (personal workstation, team work, different work environments within the office). For definition of the seven office types see Table 21.1 (for further details on defining features see Bodin Danielsson, 2008; Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009; Bodin Danielsson et al., 2015). The satisfaction with the following three domains of design-related factors was studied: (1) Workstation design, the immediate work environment of the employee. This includes space for work material/storage, ability to personalize workstation/s, workstation’s support of work activity, and comfort/ergonomics of the workstation. (2) Workspace design, the proximate workspace/s where the individuals work. The focus was on how good the physical work environment of the workspace was, and if it contributed to job satisfaction, and supported affinity etc. (3) Office design, the office as a whole. The focus was on how well the office design reinforced interaction, had pleasant spaces for breaks and lunch areas, and was a good physical work environment in general.

The statistical analysis included univariate as well as multivariate regression analyses for dichotomous outcomes, and the Poisson regression model for summary scales. In the univariate analyses, office type was the explanatory variable. In the multivariate analyses, the office type was the main explanatory variable, but with control for the background factors of age, gender, job rank, and line of business (Bodin Danielsson, 2010; Danielsson, 2005). The univariate analysis showed the effect of office type on employee satisfaction in the three domains of design-related factors, in other words employee environmental satisfaction with these specific domains of their physical office environment. The univariate analysis also showed how the proportions of complaints/dissatisfaction were distributed between employees in different office types. Results of this analysis

438

Context

showed the highest proportion of complaints about the domain workspace design, with on average about 40% dissatisfaction with this, followed by office design with 32% dissatisfaction. Employee complaints on workstation design were less, with one exception—the ability to personalize workstations, i.e., decorate the workstation. With regard to possibility of personalization of workstations, about 56% were dissatisfied. As we look at individual office types, the analysis showed significant differences in satisfaction with design-related factors between employees in different office types. Office type had significant impact for all outcomes, with the exception for the workstation design item about general comfort (ergonomics). Results showed that cell-office employees were generally more satisfied with the two domains (workstation design and workspace design) than employees in other office types. Cell-office employees were significantly less satisfied than employees in other office types with the exception of one item of workspace space design—the workspace’s support of affinity. About 63% of the cell-office employees reported discontent with this aspect of their office design. Most dissatisfaction with both workstation and workspace design was reported in medium-sized open-plan offices (10–24 people/room). The high dissatisfaction in this office type compared to large open plan office types (>24 people/room) might come as a surprise at first, but the result is in line with other research that has found the medium-sized open plan offices in many ways to be worse for employees than large open plan office, >24 people/room people. For example, I have found that employees in medium-sized open plan offices run a higher risk of reporting both ill-health and more stress symptoms than employees in large open plan offices (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008, 2010). Also, with regard to noise disturbance, larger workspaces appear to be better. Research has found indications that it is more preferable to be exposed to more voices instead of fewer voices from both an acoustic satisfaction and workload perspective (Keus van de Poll et al., 2015). The hypothesis for this is that multiple voices mask noise disturbance better as the negative effect of background voices is removed with a large enough number of voices, possibly because of the cues to segmentation (such as abrupt changes in pitch and amplitude). Our study showed in the univariate analysis of satisfaction with design-related factors in individual office types that employees in the activity-based flex-offices, i.e., the office type with nonpersonal workstations, were most satisfied with the domain of office design. Most dissatisfaction was in medium-sized open plan offices. In the multivariate analyses, we controlled for age, gender, job rank, and line of business. Results showed that these, in no significant way, alter the results from the univariate analysis. To provide a good overview of the results, see Table 21.2 below, which is a synthesis of two different types of analyses we performed of employee satisfaction with design-related factors. The synthesis is based on: (1) the highest and lowest proportion of complaints or less satisfaction with design-related factors, and (2) the multivariate analysis of satisfaction with these factors. Satisfaction with workstation design—measured with (a) sufficiency of space for work material, (b) possibility for personalization, (c) supporting work, and (d) general comfort, ergonomics. The synthesis of the two analyses shows for this domain that cell-office employees were the most satisfied—they were significantly more satisfied

Table 21.2 Distribution of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with designated factors in different office typesa Items (self-reported complaints about or less satisfied with)

Design-related factors Workstation design Suffic. space for work material Possibility for personalization Supporting work General comfort, ergonomics Workspace design General physical work environment Contribution to job satisfaction Supporting affinity Office design Reinforcing interaction Spaces for breaks Lunch areas General physical work environment

Medium-sized open plan office (n 5 75)

Large open plan office (n 5 75)

Flexoffice (n 5 81)



●

●

●



●

Cell-office (n 5 131)

Shared-room office (n 5 26)

 

Small open plan office (n 5 56)

●

●

●



●

●



●



●



 

●



●  

Combioffice (n 5 43)

 ●

● ●

 ●

Total sample n ¼ 469 employees. , Highest relative degree of satisfaction. ●, Highest relative degree of dissatisfaction. a The synthesis is based on: (a) the highest and lowest proportion of complaints about or less satisfaction with design-relate factors (see Table 1 in Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009) and (b) the multivariate analysis (see Table 2 in Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009). Source: Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2009). Differences in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), (Autumn, 2009) 2241–2257. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030872.

440

Context

with all variables used to measure satisfaction. However, for satisfaction with the general comfort of the workstation, employees in small open plan offices were equally satisfied as cell-office employees. Employees in all other office types were less satisfied; most dissatisfaction was in the medium-sized open plan office and the flexoffice employees were the most dissatisfied. Satisfaction with workspace design—measured with (a) general physical work environment, (b) its contribution to job satisfaction, and (c) its support of affinity. In this domain, we find a less dichotomized situation than for workstation satisfaction between different office types with most satisfaction in cell-offices—for general physical work environment and workspace design contributing to job satisfaction. Celloffice stands out negatively against the other office types in one case—for workspace design’s support of affinity at the office. Most satisfied with this are employees in small open plan offices and in flex-offices. Satisfaction with office design—measured with (a) reinforcing interaction, (b) spaces for breaks, (c) lunch areas, and (d) general physical work environment. For the domain satisfaction with office design overall, we find again a more dichotomized situation although in this case two categories of office types have more satisfied employees. In the category of small or individual office rooms, i.e., cell-offices (1 person/room) and shared-room office (2–3 people/room), they are significantly more satisfied with both lunch areas and general physical work environment. While employees in flex-offices are significantly more satisfied than others with office design’s reinforcement of interaction and spaces for breaks. Most dissatisfaction was found among employees in medium-sized open plan offices. In the study, we carried out additional multivariate analysis as well, using the Poisson regression model, to assume the relative risks (RR) for dissatisfaction with the three domains of design related-factors in the different office types. This Poisson regression analysis found a significant overall effect of office type for complaints on design-related factors. It showed that the relative risk (RR) for complaint was significantly higher in all office types in comparison to cell-offices, with the higher risks in all traditional open plan offices (small, medium-sized, and large open plan offices) (for details on relative risks and average numbers of complaints in separate office types, see Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009). In summary, our study showed, based on various analyses presented in the synthesis of Table 21.2, a clear distinction in environmental satisfaction between employees in various office types for the three domains of design-related factors.

Study 2: Ownership of workstation influence on satisfaction with design-related factors This Australian study investigated the impact of having a personal workstation, i.e. fixed desk, versus not having a personal workstation for employees’ environmental satisfaction with their offices (Kim et al., 2016). It was based on a dataset collected through a short online survey (6–7 min) provided by BOSSA (Building Occupant Survey System Australia). Participants worked in 20 Australian office buildings. The survey covered information about workspace and sociodemographics of the respondent

The office architecture: A contextual experience

441

and if the employee had a fixed or nonfixed workstation. Building information was also collected (e.g., size, floor plans, heating, ventilating systems, design features, etc.). The building information is not presented here as this is outside the focus of the book chapter. Participating offices were in various businesses, e.g., building and construction, education, engineering, financial services, manufacturing, professional services, public administration etc. The total sample of the survey was of 3974 employees and the response rate was 45%. Some responses were excluded due to missing and/or incorrect information. Thus, in the final analytic sample, there were 3967 people, of which sociodemographic information from 3794 people was used. Participants had either workstations (56%) or nonfixed, i.e., nonpersonal, workstations (44%). The sample had an almost equal gender distribution, with a majority of participants in the middle-age (31–50 years) and in the following types of work: administrative, technical, professional, managerial, and other. With the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) survey, employee’ satisfaction with various aspects of the physical work environment was assessed (including spatial comfort, air quality/thermal comfort, noise and visual distraction, and general comfort influencing productivity, health etc.) (for details, see, Kim et al., 2016). Focusing on environmental satisfaction, only the results about following design-related factors are presented below: (1) Spatial comfort, questions asked included immediate spatial factors and spatial factors outside the personal work zone such as space for breaks and interaction, ability to personalize workstation/s, comfort of furnishings, space for storage, amount of workspace (in normal work area). (2) Visual comfort, questions asked included lighting situation at normal work area, including both the architectural design of the office and how this supports or inhibits daylight, as well as lighting equipment. Thus, visual comfort measured lighting comfort and access to daylight. (3) General comfort, questions asked included various dimensions important for employees’ general comfort and productivity. Here only results on the satisfaction with architectural design-related factors are presented.

Different statistical analyses were performed, if adjustment for background factors was performed, it is not evident. The analysis of employee satisfaction with the design-related factors in the two employee groups is presented as mean rating scores on a bipolar scale (e.g., dissatisfied-satisfied, disagree-agree etc.) distributed between employees in flex-office and nonflex-office (see Fig. 21.1 from article by Kim et al., 2016). Results showed that the flex-office group outscored the nonflex office group (i.e., with fixed desks) with higher satisfaction on all but two design-related factors—“amount of workspace” and “storage space.” The differences between the groups were statistically significant on all items, with most differences in satisfaction for “space for breaks,” followed by “space to collaborate.” In terms of amount of workspace available, both groups were equally satisfied. Satisfaction was less in flex-offices than in nonflex offices (see Fig. 21.1), with the exception of personal

442

Context

Fig. 21.1 Comparison of mean rating scores (within the range of 1 ¼ the lowest to 7 ¼ the highest) for individual questionnaire items between desk-assigned (fixed desk) group and flexidesk (no-fixed desk) group (error bars: 95% confidence interval). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. Source: Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L., & de Dear, R. (2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Building and Environment.

storage space. In summary, the results showed more satisfaction with the designrelated factors among employees with nonpersonal workstations than employees with fixed-desks. Also, with regard to self-rated productivity and health, flex-office employees reported higher satisfaction. In addition to the quantitative study presented, a supplementary qualitative analysis was performed using open-ended comments in the questionnaire data from two of the buildings in the sample. This was performed to obtain more in-depth information about the research issues, and because it was not possible to control for confounding factors in comparison analysis across a number of workplaces that varied considerably in interior environments. Hundreds of comments were clustered into seven categories, as either being “positive” or “negative,” with neutral comments excluded (for details see, Kim et al., 2016). Only design- related comments are used in the following categories: (a) flexi-desking, (b) spatial comfort, and (c) visual comfort. The result of the qualitative analysis showed a lower environmental satisfaction than the quantitative data did. In fact, a majority of the comments were negative and generally concerned flex-desking and spatial comfort. The former accounted for a third of the total sum of comments, e.g., about nonavailable desks upon arrival at office. Comments about spatial comfort concerned various aspects such as personalization of workspace and design of the immediate working area (e.g., design and ergonomics of furniture, storage space etc.). The differences in employee satisfaction shown in this qualitative data are interesting, and could, according to the researchers, be due to those not happy with nonfixed workstations using the open-ended comments

The office architecture: A contextual experience

443

to complain. Regardless of the reason for this difference, the analysis of the smaller qualitative study showed a clear discontent with nonfixed workstations (for details see, Kim et al., 2016). Complaints concerned insufficient available desks on busy days (27%) and difficulties finding colleagues in the office (22%). It was clear that face-toface interactions was considered more efficient than electronic communication methods such as emails, messengers, and phones. Other complaints of nonterritorial workspace concerned time lost due to problems finding colleagues and arranging the workstation, lack of support in ergonomics and work efficiency, and insufficient storage. In summary, study two about the influence of ownership of workstation on satisfaction with design-related factors found in its quantitative study that environmental satisfaction was higher with design-related factors among employees with nonfixed desks. For example, their satisfaction was significantly higher with overall spatial comfort in comparison to employees with fixed workstations. The researchers suggest that this could be due to the fact that offices with nonterritorial workspaces, i.e., flexoffices, provide more additional work environments than offices with fixed-desks, e.g., more space for meeting or break-out areas. This would, according to the researchers, explain the overall higher environmental satisfaction in these offices. The hypothesis finds support in recent research that has found that employees who report low access to supportive facilities at their offices were also more dissatisfied with their offices (Bodin Danielsson & Theorell, 2018). Additionally, a contributing factor for the high satisfaction in flex-offices could be that the nonterritorial working arrangement provides a higher degree of opportunity to adapt to the local ambient conditions. According to the researchers, this may explain the better rating of indoor air quality and thermal conditions of the offices with nonfixed desks, despite identical ambient conditions in the other offices (Kim et al., 2016, p. 208). Nevertheless, nonterritorial workspaces were not perceived as all positive, as reflected in the supplementary qualitative data that highlighted negative effects on efficiency and on collaborations with team members. The fact that the different methods for interviews identified different problems and gave different pictures of employees’ opinion of nonfixed workstations is in itself interesting as debated in the discussion section of this chapter.

Study 3: Environmental satisfaction and perceived productivity in different office categories This Dutch study investigated employee environmental satisfaction and perceived productivity in offices with different workspace sizes with regard to: (a) productivity support, privacy, and concentration, (b) communication, and (c) architecture and plan layout. Two office categories were compared: smaller workspaces (including individual or shared-room offices) and activity-based office designs (including combi- and flex-offices). The sample (n ¼ 11,799) consisted of employees, with a response rate of 48% on this online questionnaire. The participants came from 26 different organizations in both the private and public sector. With a sample with a majority of male employees (m ¼ 62%, f ¼ 39%), this was also the case in all office categories. A majority of the

444

Context

participants were middle-aged (31–50 years old) and had high educational level (35% with undergraduate education, 32% with postgraduate education) (for further details see study by De Been & Beijer, 2014). With regard to work activity, more participants had mainly communication-oriented compared to concentration-oriented work (38% and 22% respectively). Participants with concentration-oriented jobs worked mainly in flex-offices (40%) and in offices with smaller workspaces (35%), i.e., most people with concentration-intensive jobs worked in flex offices. The study used a WODI Light questionnaire (29 items) with a five- or ten-point Likert response scale to assess satisfaction with work environment with regard to employee satisfaction with the environment, focused on four domains: (1) productivity support, privacy, and concentration, i.e., ability to concentrate on work when needed; (2) communication; (3) architecture and plan layout; and (4) facilities. Likert response scales were used to assess support and satisfaction with work environment (range: 1–5), and rate negative and positive evaluations of this (range: 1–10). In the statistical analysis of the four domains, a linear regression analysis was performed with a different dependent variable. Office type was used as the main predictor variable in statistical analysis and was added in block two by creating two dummy variables with the individual and shared-room office as a reference category. The following variables were used as covariates: (a) satisfaction with organization; and (b) work content; estimated work activity of (c) concentrated and (d) communication work, and traditional background factors such as (e) gender; (f ) age; and (e) educational level. Results of analysis presented in Table 21.3 showed for the first domain—productivity support, privacy, and concentration—significantly higher satisfaction among employees in the office category with smaller workspaces than in the activity-based office types (employees in combi- and flex-offices). Although the office types were significant predictors for satisfaction, it explained only slightly the variance in the model. Employee satisfaction with organization and gender were instead significant predictors for their satisfaction with this domain. Results showed for the second domain—communication—higher satisfaction among employees in the activitybased office type (combi-office) compared to the other (flex-office) and in the offices with smaller workspaces. The explained variance for the results was low and did not change with office type added as a predictor. However, two covariates did this: gender and educational level. For the third domain in focus—architecture and plan layout— the results showed that employees in offices with smaller workspaces were significantly less satisfied than those in the two activity-based office types (combi- and flex-offices). With office type as predictor in the analysis, the explained variance increases slightly. Some covariates had a similar effect on employee satisfaction with architecture and plan layout. Only educational level was a predictor for satisfaction with this domain. For the fourth and final domain in focus—facilities—employees in combi-offices were significantly more positive than those in offices with smaller workspaces (individual and shared-room offices). Employees in the other activitybased office type, flex-office, were significantly more negative toward the facilities than those in smaller workspaces. Office type had a significant effect on satisfaction with the facilities, but did not add much to the explained variance of the model, while all the covariates were significant predictors for satisfaction.

Block 1

Block 2

Organization Work Gender Age Educational level % time spent on concentrated working % time spent on communication R2 Organization Work Gender Age Educational level % time spent on concentrated working % time spent on communication Combi office Flex office R2

Productivity support, privacy and concentration (β)

Communication (β)

Architecture and lay out (β)

Indoor climate (β)

Facilities (β)

0.36** 0.09** -0.01 -0.03** 0.05** 0.06**

0.24** 0.07** -0.03** -0.03 0.06** 0.04**

0.32** 0.07** -0.03** 0.01 0.08** 0.09**

0.24** 0.08** -0.14 -0.01 0.10** 0.02

0.34** 0.06** 0.02 -0.02 0.02 0.04**

0.03

0.06**

0.07**

-0.01

-0.02

0.17 0.36** 0.08** -0.01 -0.03** 0.05** 0.10**

0.09 0.24** 0.07** -0.03** -0.03 0.06** 0.04**

0.14 0.32** 0.08** -0.02 0.01 0.09** 0.07**

0.11 0.24** 0.07** -0.14** -0.01 0.09** 0.03

0.13 0.33** 0.06** 0.02 -0.02 0.02 0.04**

0.07**

0.06**

0.04**

0.01

-0.01

-0.08** -0.19** 0.21

0.04** -0.01 0.09

0.10** 0.13** 0.15

-0.03 -0.06** 0.11

0.06** -0.06** 0.14

The office architecture: A contextual experience

Table 21.3 Results of the hierarchical regression analysis

Reprinted with permission from Emerald Group Publishing. Source: De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2), 142–157.

445

446

Context

In summary, this study showed differences in employees’ environmental satisfaction, but also on perceived productivity support. However, the explained variance for office type was low. Instead, the covariates explained a fair amount of variances in the environmental satisfaction and the perceived productivity support. Nevertheless, employees in smaller workspaces were more satisfied than in combi- and flex-offices with productivity support, privacy, and concentration. The greater degree of enclosure in these offices possibly explains this, as it is a factor considered important to employee satisfaction (Brill, Weidemann, Alard, Olson, & Keable, 2001; Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980). Results also showed that the flex-office had a negative impact on satisfaction with productivity support, which indicates that the ability to choose a workstation does not compensate for the indicated negative effects of openness in the office environment. The possibility to personalize the workspaces in combi-offices may explain the high satisfaction in the other activity-based office type, combi-office, according to the researchers. Worth noting is that satisfaction with communication and social interaction was higher in both combi- and flex-offices than in smaller workspaces. It was highest in combi-offices, contrary to other research that has found satisfaction with these aspects to be highest in flex-offices (Banbury & Berry, 2005; Van der Voordt, 2004). In this study, the researchers argue that frequent communication may not always be preferred. They also suggest that the personal workstations of the combi-office may be positive for relationships between colleagues as the employee will get to know colleagues both in proximity and in sight of their own workstation. The high rates for communication and team collaboration in combi-offices is probably a result of various factors e.g., it is easier to find and communicate with colleagues with the assigned workstations in combi-offices. Thus, knowledge of where to find individual employees as well as team members is identified as crucial for contact and interaction at the workplace (Penn, Desyllas, & Vaughan, 1999). Additionally, the original combi-offices are by definition focused on teamwork, thus a high degree of communication is in accordance with this (see Table 21.1 in Study 1).

21.3

Discussion and conclusion of the three studies

These three studies focused on employees’ satisfaction with design-related factors of the office environment and they indicate partly various results, but also have partly different dimensions in focus. They do, however, when combined, indicate that personal control is a key factor to succeed with this and that different factors can enable this by different means. The first study showed that employees most satisfied with the design-related factors worked in cell-offices, i.e., individual offices. This office type enables the most personal control by allowing the individual to easily manifest this physically in the workspace. By closing or opening the door to the individual room, the employee can signal when visits are ok, and hereby also excludes visual and acoustic stimuli from the office. Cell-offices also enable personalization of the workstation, which is a way to take personal control of an area. In the office, it is used both to mark one’s territory and to assign one’s identity to an area (Brown, 2009; Sundstrom, 1986;

The office architecture: A contextual experience

447

Wells, 2000). In line with this, least satisfaction was reported in the office types with the least personal control—the traditional open plan offices. This was especially the case in medium-sized open plan offices. In these office types, most work is expected to be carried out by the individual workstation, and it is hard to find visual or acoustic privacy when needed, since these office types do not offer good access to back-up rooms or supplementary work environments (see Table 21.1 in Study 1). As formerly discussed, other research indicates that the medium-sized open plan offices are less beneficial for employees. Only with regard to satisfaction with the social dimensions of the office design did cell-office report significantly less environmental satisfaction than other office employees. Study 2 investigated what role ownership of a workstation has for employee satisfaction in terms of environmental comfort (spatial, visual, and general comfort) complements the picture of what is important for employees’ environmental satisfaction. The results showed that employees in flex-offices, i.e., with nonfixed desks, were significantly more satisfied with their offices than those with personal workstations. They were more satisfied with environmental factors such as air, temperature, or lighting, but also more content with the social dimension such as interaction with colleagues and spaces for breaks in their offices. This is in line with the results of Study 1. From a personal control perspective, which is the focus here, should the results of Study 2 be explained? According to the researchers, the better outcomes in offices with nonterritorial workspace strategies could be ascribed to the employees’ ability to adapt to different work activities these offices offer. This is difficult to achieve in open plan offices with allocated workstations, as these offices have no access to alternative work environments for this purpose, as there is less workspace area for common use such as rooms for meetings, concentrated work etc. In other words, personal control is not achieved in the traditional means, such as personalization or ownership of workstations, in these offices. Instead, it is achieved by the ability of free choice of where to work, which may explain the higher satisfaction with the indoor climate reported in offices with nonfixed workstations, as employees may choose their workstation depending on different ambient conditions during the workday e.g., daylight. Despite a notably higher environmental satisfaction among employees with nonfixed workstations in Study 2, a contrasting picture was revealed in the smaller qualitative part of the study. This is interesting to discuss why the two interview methods gave such different perspective on employee environmental satisfaction. The difference could be a consequence of the open-ended questions that were mainly answered by employees with a strong need to express their opinion for various reasons. In this specific case, it appeared that the unhappy minority of employees who did not like nonpersonal workstations chose more often to answer the open-ended questions than the majority that was satisfied. Independent of this, the qualitative part of Study 2 revealed that the standardized questionnaire did not cover all aspects important to employees’ environmental satisfaction. This raises the question of how suitable the quantitative method is in measuring contextual experiences, which by nature are contextual and not general. Using standardized questionnaires has, however, many advantages, e.g., the ability to conduct larger surveys. Thus, if quantitative methods

448

Context

are used to assess contextual experiences, it may be advisable to do qualitative prestudy before, to identify issues important to the employees. The final, large Study 3 compared environmental satisfaction and perceived productivity between employees working in smaller workspaces (individual or sharedroom offices) and employees working in activity-based office types (combi- and flex-offices). Results showed that employees in offices with smaller workspaces are more satisfied with productivity support, privacy, and concentration than the other group. The researchers suggest that this could be due to the higher extent of enclosure in the office types with smaller workspaces leading to less exposure to environmental stimuli and hereby problems with noise and visual privacy. Results also showed in line with Study 1 and 2 that the employees in the two activity-based office types had higher satisfaction with the office design’s impact on communication and social interaction. To conclude, the three studies show it is not evident which office categories are best from an environmental satisfaction perspective as this constitutes various dimensions. Personal control, a key factor for human well-being and satisfaction, appears also to be able to be achieved by different means. However, a key factor central to employee satisfaction with their offices is how well these office spaces support or inhibit work, which means various things for different work assignments and job ranks.

21.4

The spatial context of the office from a group and organizational perspective

Research tells us that the contextual influence of the office environment does not only operate at an individual level. Its influence is equally strong at a group level since the opportunity for interaction is built into and directed by the physical environment (Haner, 2005, p. 293). The influence at the group level is explained by various factors. For example, it has been found that physical proximity is important for friendships to develop between colleagues (Conrath, 1973; Szilagyi & Holland, 1980) and that support in social networks decreases with distance (Mok & Wellman, 2007). This is possibly because frequent interaction on a daily basis does not normally reach further than 18 m (59 ft) from the employees’ own workstation in the office (Sailer & Penn, 2009). Communication and interaction in and outside of the office, however, does vary with job type and with engagement in projects and teamwork, but also people in higher job ranks, e.g., people in various supervisory positions having more internal and external meetings. With regard to internal meetings, research has found that about 80% of the encounters between colleagues in the office are spontaneous, often taking place in the hallways, lounge areas, or the canteen (Backhouse & Drew, 1992). Places that generate activity are, in environmental psychology, called “activity nodes” (Bechtel, 1976). Still today, in the era of social media, spontaneous, face-to-face encounters between colleagues are crucial for transition of information, creativity, and development of knowledge, in organizations that rely on this (e.g., Hua, Loftness, Heerwagen, & Powell, 2011). Research focused on knowledge workers, i.e., workers whose main capital is knowledge, and innovative organizations, have found negative effects of distance on frequency of interaction beyond one’s own work group or team

The office architecture: A contextual experience

449

as well as frequency of interaction beyond one’s own floor (Becker, Sims, & Schoss, 2003). Consequently, isolation through office design of individual employees, teams, or departments reduces opportunities for colleagues to encounter each other, which in turn hinders vital communication for the organization (Boutellier, Ullman, Schreiber, & Naef, 2008; Davis, 1984). Also, research on innovate organizations, i.e., organizations that foster a culture of innovations, has found the close location of meeting rooms and/or meeting spaces to workstations to be important for collaboration in organizations (Hua et al., 2011). Proximity to these spaces provides employees with opportunities to carry out collaborative work and casual conversations as needed, without distracting colleagues nearby from carrying out concentrated work. Besides the described positive effects for collaboration and innovations, research has also identified that office design that supports social interactions may have other positive effects from an organizational perspective. We know from research that there is more communication in open offices (Banbury & Berry, 2005; Van der Voordt, 2004), but also that working in open plan offices may enhance the social climate at the workplace (Hedge, 1982). The positive effect of sharing a workspace with colleagues appears to operate at various occupational levels of organizations. There are indications that, at a collegiate level, plan layouts may positively affect employees’ satisfaction with other colleagues (Britner, 1992), but also for an employee-management relationship there appears to be advantages. For example, it has been found that employees’ perception of the manager’s friendliness is more positive if he/she is visible and audible in the office (Crouch & Nimran, 1989). Not surprisingly, it has also been found that in office types where employees and managers share workspaces, employees rate better relationships with their managers (Bodin Danielsson et al., 2013). One possible explanation for this could be that managers rely heavily on face-to-face, spontaneous, and unplanned meetings (Kotter, 1982), and these meetings occur easier in an office with shared workspaces. There are different types of office designs with shared workspaces, and from a communication and interaction perspective, the activity-based office types, such as combi- and flex-offices, appear to be better. Studies have found that employees in combi- and flex-offices have more face-to-face contact than those in individual or shared-room offices (Boutellier et al., 2008), and are more satisfied with communication and social interaction than the latter group of employees (De Been & Beijer, 2014). Besides the previous positive effects from a group and organizational perspective of sharing of work space, there might be other benefits. For example, spatial arrangements favoring spontaneous interaction have a positive impact on perceived productivity (Brill et al., 2001). For organizations that rely heavily on creativity and innovation, proximity between team members makes communication flow more efficiently (e.g., Allen, 1977; Becker et al., 2003). Bear in mind that distraction and disturbances are also important for perceived productivity (Haynes, 2008). For example, there are clear indications that cognitive demanding work, includes, calculating, memory capacity, or writing is influenced negatively by noise disturbance ( Jahncke et al., 2011; Keus van de Poll et al., 2014), which is a more frequent problem in open workspaces. Productivity is recognized to be hard to measure and it means different things for people’s work depending on job assignments and occupational levels. The

450

Context

difficulty to say how office design affects productivity was also clearly reflected in the three empirical studies presented herein. For example, Study 1 did not measure perception of productivity, but instead it measured employees’ perception of designrelated factors influence on support of work, affinity, and interaction where the results gave a very mixed outcome on the various outcomes. With regard to support of work itself, employees in cell-offices were most satisfied, but not about the design-related factors’ support of affinity and interaction at their offices. Instead, those in the activity-based flex-offices were most satisfied with this, which can be interpreted as different office types support various dimensions important for productivity, their internal importance for the organization’s productivity various between organizations and work sectors. Study 2 and 3 emphasize further the difficulty in assessing productivity. In Study 2 the results showed, for example, that employees working in offices with nonfixed workstations reported a higher perception of productivity. While Study 3 found that employees working in the activity-based office types (combi- and flexoffices) were significantly less satisfied with their office’s productivity support.

21.5

Concluding remarks

This book chapter has focused on office design from both the individual employee and the group and organizational perspective, and the reason for this is that the experience of the office and its influence operates simultaneously at these levels. As this review of office research shows, the influence of office design at these levels stand sometimes in opposition to one another. For example, enclosure and ability for privacy at the office is identified to be important for employees’ environmental satisfaction. At the same time, a high degree of enclosure and privacy does not support interaction and collaboration between colleagues - factors important for interaction and collaboration that in turn are positive for both employee job satisfaction and organizational success. The office experience, like all environmental experiences, to a great extent, is contextual by nature. A context that in the office is set by the architecture and the factors it influences, but also set by the organizational culture that owns and controls the office environment (Mazumdar, 1992). However, despite the contextual character of the office experience, due to the strong ties to the office architecture, some general conclusions can be drawn about offices’ environmental influences on employees. For example, we know offices with a shared, open plan office design tend to encourage interaction and communication (Banbury & Berry, 2005; Van der Voordt, 2004), but also lead to more visual and acoustic disturbances (e.g., Kim & de Dear, 2013; Kristiansen et al., 2009; Kupritz, 1998). The office experience is not only contextual, but also holistic. Like all environments, the office environment exerts a holistic influence on the individual. It has been found to influence employees’ health and wellbeing (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008; Bodin Danielsson, Chungkham, Wulff, & Westerlund, 2014; Meijer, Frings-Dresen, & Sluiter, 2009; Pejtersen, Feveile, Christensen, & Burr, 2011), and employees’ perception of the workplace and attitudes to the organization as a whole (Bodin Danielsson, 2015).

The office architecture: A contextual experience

451

Based on this, I believe there is a need of a holistic office design that recognizes the different needs related to office work that is founded in the contextual experience of the office. As such, it must handle the contrasting needs of concentration and stimulation—a balancing act between distraction and stimulation, central for office employees’ well-being and productivity. This belief is founded in the insight that people are different with diverse experiences and background, but needs also vary over time and with work activities. A supportive office design must relate to this and to the importance of the context.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Formas, the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (Young Mobility Grant 259-2011-1580).

References Al Horr, Y., Arif, M., Kaushik, A., Mazroei, A., Kaytafygiotou, M., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature. Building and Environment, 105, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001. Alker, J., Malanca, M., O’Brien, R., & Pottage, C. (2014). Health, wellbeing & productivity in offices. The next chapter for green building. World Green Building Council. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin, 80(4), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034845. Backhouse, A., & Drew, P. (1992). The design implications of social interaction in a workplace setting. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 19(5), 573–584. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48(1), 25–37. Bechtel, R. (1976). Enclosing behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Becker, F., Sims, W., & Schoss, J. (2003). Interaction, identity and collocation: what value is a corporate campus? Retrieved from Ithaca, New York. Bodin Danielsson, C. (2008). Office experiences. In H. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 605–628). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Scientific Publications, Netherlands. Bodin Danielsson, C. (2010). The office—An explorative study. Architectural design’s impact on health, job satisfaction & well-being. (Doctoral degree Doctoral thesis) Stockholm: KTH (Royal Institute of Technology). Bodin Danielsson, C. (2015). Aesthetics versus function in office architecture: employees’ perception of the workplace. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 2, 11–40. Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2008). Office-type in relation to health, well-being and job satisfaction among employees. Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 636–668. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013916507307459. Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2009). Differences in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), 2241–2257. (Autumn, 2009) http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030872. Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2010). Office design’s influence on employees’ stress levels. In: Paper presented at the ARCC/EAAE 2010 international conference on architectural

452

Context

research, June 2010, Washington DC, USA http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/docu ments/pdf/aiab087211.pdf. Bodin Danielsson, C., Bodin, L., Wulff, C., & Theorell, T. (2015). The relation between office type and workplace conflict: a gender and noise perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.004. Bodin Danielsson, C., Chungkham, H. S., Wulff, C., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics, 57(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00140139.2013.871064. Bodin Danielsson, C., & Theorell, T. (2018). Office employees’ perception of workspace contribution: a gender and office design perspective. Environment and Behavior, 1–32. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013916518759146. Bodin Danielsson, C., Wulff, C., & Westerlund, H. (2013). Is perception of leadership influenced by office environment? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(3/4), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-03-2013-0008. Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J., & Naef, R. (2008). Impact of office layout on communication in a science-driven business. R&D Management, 38(4), 372–391. Brennan, A., Chugh, J., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: a longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279–299. Brill, M., Weidemann, S., Alard, L., Olson, J., & Keable, E. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International. Britner, J. M. (1992). The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 44–52. Conrath, C. W. (1973). Communication patterns, organizational structure, and man: some relationships. Human Factors, 15(5), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872087301500503. Crouch, A., & Nimran, U. (1989). Office design and the behavior of senior managers. Human Relations, 42(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678904200203. Danielsson, C. (2005). Office environment, health & job satisfaction. An explorative study of office design’s influence. Stockholm: KTH (Royal Institute of Technology). Davis, T. (1984). The influence o physical environment in offices. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 271–283. De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and preceived productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2), 142–157. de Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119–134. Dean, J. W., Ottensmeyer, E., & Ramirez, R. (1997). An aesthetic perspective on organizations. In C. L. Cooper & S. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: Handbook for future research in organizational behavior (pp. 419–437). Chichester: John Wiley and Son. Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), (1992). Symbols and artifacts: View from the corporate landscape. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Garling, T., & Golledge, R. G. (1989). Environmental perception and cognition. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (pp. 203–236). New York: Plenum. Haner, U.-E. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organisations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 288–298.

The office architecture: A contextual experience

453

Haynes, B. P. (2008). Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 286–302. Hedge, A. (1982). The open plan office. A systematic investigation of employee reactions to their work environment. Environment and Behavior, 14(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0013916582145002. Hua, Y., Loftness, J. H., Heerwagen, J., & Powell, K. M. (2011). Relationship between workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration. Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 807–826. Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A. M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 31, 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002. Keus van de Poll, M., Ljung, R., Odelius, J., Schlittmeier, S. J., Sundin, G., & S€ orqvist, P. (2015). Unmasking the effects of masking on performance: the potential of multiple-voice masking in the office environment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4926904. Keus van de Poll, M., Ljung, R., Odelius, J., & S€orqvist, P. (2014). Disruption of writing by background speech: the role of speech transmission index. Applied Acoustics, 81(81), 15–18. Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L., & de Dear, R. (2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: the effect of non-erritorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, percieved productivity and health. Building and Environment, 103, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.buildenv.2016.04.015. Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 36, 18–26. Kotter, J. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60(2), 157–169. ˚ . M., Shibuya, H., Munch Petersen, H., Kristiansen, J., Mathiesen, L., Kofoed Nilsen, P., Hansen, A et al. (2009). Stress reactions to cognitively demanding tasks and open-plan office noise. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82, 631–641. Kupritz, V. W. (1998). Privacy in the work place: the impact of building design. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 18, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0081. Kupritz, V. W. (2016). The communicative nature of space in organizations. In G. Koc¸, M. Claes, & B. Christiansen (Eds.), Handbook of research on cultural influences in architecture (pp. 58–79). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Kupritz, V. W., & Hillsman, T. (2011). The impact of supervisory communication skills transfer. International Journal of Business Communation, 48(2), 148–185. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0021943610397269. Lang, J. (1994). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture. In J. L. Naser (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application (pp. 11–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 25(3), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.001. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. (Sixth Paperback Printing ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maslow, A. H., & Mintz, N. L. (1972). Effects of aesthetic surroundings: Initial short-term effects of three aesthetic conditions upon perceiving “energy” and “well-being” in face. In R. Gutman (Ed.), People and buildings (pp. 212–219). New York: Basic Books.

454

Context

Mazumdar, S. (1992). Sir, please do not take away my cubicle: the phenomenon of environmental deprivation. Environment and Behavior, 24(6), 691–722. Meijer, E. M., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & Sluiter, J. (2009). Effects of office innovation on office workers’ health and performance. Ergonomics, 52(9), 1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00140130902842752. Miles, S. J., & Glynn, M. (2004). A conceptualization of the employee branding process. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3(23), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J366v03n02_05. Mok, D., & Wellman, B. (2007). Did distance matter before the Internet? Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s. Social Networks, 29(3), 430–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.socnet.2007.01.009. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., W€astlund, E., Makrygiannis, A. L., & A. (2018). The relationship between office type and job satisfaction: testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 44(3), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3707. Pejtersen, J. H., Feveile, H., Christensen, K. B., & Burr, H. (2011). Sickness absence associated with shared and open-plan offices—a national cross sectional questionnaire survey. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 37(5), 376–382. https://doi.org/ 10.5271./sjweh.3167. Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1999). The space of innovation: interaction and communication in the work environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26 (2), 193–218. Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. (Eds.), (2005). Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Emotions as a connection of physical artifacts and organizations. Organization Science, 15(6), 671–686. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0092976. Sailer, K., & Penn, A. (2009). Spatiality and transpatiality in workplace environments. In: Paper presented at the 7th international space syntax symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 568–581. Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 101–117. Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R., & Brown, D. (1982). Privacy and communication in an open-plan office: a case study. Environment and Behavior, 14, 379–392. Szilagyi, A., & Holland, W. (1980). Changes in social density: relationships with functional interaction and perceptions of job characteristics, role stress, and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.28. Van der Voordt, D. J. M. (2004). Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14630010410812306. Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Schneider Yaacov, C. (2005). Instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism of office design. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 533–551.

The office architecture: A contextual experience

455

Vla˘duțescu, S. (2014). Communication environment: context/situation/framework. Journal of Sustainable Development Studies, 6(1), 193–204. Wells, M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays. The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 20, 239–255. Zangwill, N. (2002). Aesthetic judgment. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/.