- Email: [email protected]
Work Environments
Work Environments
a0005
Rotraut Walden University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction Using Buildings for Increasing Productivity A Historical Perspective on Working Environments Some Recent Studies on Office Environments General Models Describing Environment–Behavior Relations in the Workplace 6. Future Developments Further Reading
GLOSSARY Hawthorne effect Effect where if workers notice that they are being observed and that conditions in the workplace change because of them, efficiency increases independently of actual improvements. personalization The opportunity to make personal changes in the environment through decorations (e.g., photographs, artwork) and in the form of functionality. postoccupancy evaluation (POE) Evaluation that investigates to what extent a constructed environment provides for current users’ needs and demands made by experts. productivity A synonym for output, efficiency, motivation, individual performance, organizational effectiveness, production, profitability, cost-effectiveness, competitiveness, and / or quality of work of a company or an individual. sick building syndrome Syndrome where the users of a building become ill as a result of faulty construction and /or through the use of hazardous materials. user-needs analysis An assessment of the needs, desires, and preferences of future users of a building; it is usually employed during the early phase of the construction
Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, VOLUME 3
program so that potential recommendations can still be incorporated for the improvement of the future building. Yerkes–Dodson Law of 1908 States that the link between arousal and performance results in an inverse U-shaped curve; performance is better during medium arousal than during low or high arousal.
Performance and well-being are the most common criteria for the improvement of work environments. A glance at history shows the focal points of psychological research over the ages, including advancements in evaluatory methods for improving the working environment. This article presents and discusses some classic studies in this field. Of current interest are building performance evaluation and facility management. The article presents psychological frameworks and models summarizing the current knowledge about environment–behavior relationships in workplaces, envisaging possible amendments to them. Because of the growing importance of information technology, customer service, and globalization, the article concludes by dealing with the foreseeable development of offices and the consequences of internationalization.
1. INTRODUCTION
s0005
The aim of environmental psychology of workplaces and organizational psychology is to improve workers’ performance and well-being. Performance refers to individual,
699
#2004
Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
700
Work Environments
team, or organizational efficiency. Well-being complements the question of satisfaction and is a more holistic approach of recent research that includes health. Satisfaction is generated when, among other things, a worker or an employee can achieve goals and satisfy needs in the workplace. It is an individual’s general affective and cognitive evaluation of the job and the physical environment that can support or contrast these goals and needs. The effects of increased performance at reduced costs are of particular interest to companies. It is also important for a business to have creative and innovative individuals who work to meet the constant demands made on the company and who are willing to commit themselves to the company. For users, there is a pivotal interest in the continuity of the organization so as to ensure the stability of their own jobs. Consequently, they concern themselves with the company’s performance and make individual contributions to this success. If one considers the proportion of time spent at work over a lifetime, there are compelling reasons for increasing well-being during this period. In the long run, well-being in the workplace is, like salary, an important incentive for employees.
s0010
2. USING BUILDINGS FOR INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY After a review of many different studies, Gifford concluded in 2002 that the majority of companies still do not take into account the fact that even a minimal investment in the workplace can result in an improvement of 10 to 50% in productivity. Companies see their employees as their biggest potential growth factor, but at the same time, employees create the highest costs. A reduction in construction costs usually results in deteriorating working conditions. The strategy for how an investment in new construction or renovation can be implemented is directly connected to the psychological factors of the work environment itself. Therefore, a major question explored in this article is the following: How can performance and well-being in workplace buildings be measured and improved?
s0015
3. A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WORKING ENVIRONMENTS Writing about work environments in 2001, Bell and colleagues differentiated among factories, large firms, and offices. This historical retrospective leans closely
toward Becker’s 1991 article. During the early 1900s, Frederick Taylor assumed that incentives in terms of salary, production techniques, and the work environment should enhance workers’ productivity. In fact, it had more to do with the assembly line in the factory. Industrial growth was explosive. Social processes, wellbeing, and satisfaction—the points of view of the employees—were hardly considered. Scientific management led to routine, standardized jobs and to studies about heating and lighting. Avoiding Taylorism by using human factors, and an increase in automation of factories to increase efficiency and individual performance between 1910 and 1940, was followed by an emphasis on task performance and human relations between 1940 and 1950. Many results that had been considered valid until that point were questioned in the light of the famous experiments conducted by Elton Mayo and colleagues between 1927 and 1939 at the Western Electric Company plant in Hawthorne, Illinois (near Chicago and Cicero), on the effects of physical work environment on workers’ performance. As Roethlisberger and Dickson reported in 1939, work performance increased in both experimental and control groups, although lighting was improved only for the former. In follow-up observations, researchers established that performance improved again despite the fact that illumination had been reduced by 70%. When they replaced a set of lights with bulbs of the same wattage, the employees were even more satisfied. These results gave rise to the following interpretation: If employees notice that the conditions of their immediate environment change because they are being observed, performance increases independently of any actual improvements. This reaction was named the Hawthorne effect. As a result, the naive determinism that dictated that simply improving environmental conditions has a direct effect on desired behavior was questioned. Instead, the role played by the employees’ own perceptions, beliefs, preferences, experiences, and personalities was considered more carefully. Studies on group dynamics, communication, and conflict then followed between 1950 and 1960. These studies were motivated by the need for a decrease in interpersonal conflicts and the development of democratic and cooperative group processes at work. This was often provoked by the preoccupation with World War II. In 1967, Robert Sommer developed a ‘‘small group ecology.’’ Arguments for building planning and equipping furnishings, as well as for seating arrangements, formed the origins of environmental psychology. Architects and planners were viewed as managers of human resources.
Work Environments
Subsequently, between 1960 and 1970, a dominant theme was the focus on nonpaying users. Participation of users in the planning of work environments was also encouraged. This should result in a building layout that better mirrors the needs, values, and preferences of its users. Communication, comfort at work, and satisfaction emerged as central concerns in numerous studies carried out between 1970 and 1980. Studies on office landscape revealed that employees rejected office layouts designed for the ease of communication within the company. There were often complaints about noise and lack of privacy. Workplace research increasingly busied itself with office space, and this corresponded with the increasing value of customer service. For example, in 1984, Brill and colleagues reported the results of an extensive 5-year investigation of 70 firms conducted from the Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation (BOSTI). The study addressed three basic questions. First, does the overall design of the office have a fundamental influence on employees’ productivity and their daily quality of life at work? Second, which specific office characteristics breed these sorts of influences, and in what ways does this happen? Third, how great is the value of these influences in financial terms? Between 1977 and 1983, 6000 people were interviewed over two time periods: before and approximately 8 to 12 months after a generally positive remodeling of their workplace. A wide set of ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective’’ criteria were used for assessing productivity and office characteristics. After the first investigation, BOSTI recommended targeted changes whose success would be measured after 5 years in terms of monetary value. The results of the BOSTI study suggested that the changes that the firms aimed to make contributed to an increase in efficiency of 15 to 17% in the annual salary of three career groups over the 5-year period: managers, professional or technical workers, and clerical workers. In doing this, investments and the costs of the workplace were calculated. With regard to work satisfaction, relocation frequency and noise had the highest monetary value. Approximately 25 to 30% of the changes favoring job satisfaction by way of targeted investments contributed to an increase in productivity. Aspects of job satisfaction were more important to clerical workers than to managers and professional/technical workers. Personal storage space for office materials and coats was deemed to be very important by clerical workers. The remaining 70 to 75% of the monetary value was determined by enclosure and layout in job performance.
701
During the 1980s, Preiser and colleagues introduced the concepts of postoccupancy evaluation (POE) and performance profiles as methods of evaluation for these studies. Today, there are several methods of data collection, such as program development, user needs analysis (UNA), postconstruction evaluation, and POE, that adhere to the comments made by users and experts alike. The POE investigates to what extent a built environment is set into use in accordance with users’ needs and the demands made by experts. Therefore, feedback for planners and building owners on the effects of the built environment should be identified, as should the prerequisites for the construction of a better environment. The POE assesses environments according to what extent they encourage their designated function, or at least do not disturb it, and to what extent these environments correspond to the needs, interests, and desires of the users. In comparison with the assessments made by competing architectural firms, the users’ view plays a special role. A broad range of techniques may be used for collecting data, including interviews, questionnaires, checklists, collections of critical events, targeted time-budget studies in the form of log-book entries, objective data taken from thermometers and hygrometers, and counts made from the analysis of physical traces, photographs, and video recordings. Diversity of methods and the consultation of people in central groups with different visions are a means of choice. The results of the POE are short, medium, and long term. The POE contains feedback from users about problems with the building and proposed solutions. Also, lessons about how to improve the design cycle of a building can be implemented, and planning and design criteria for specific types of buildings can be developed. The immediate goals of these evaluations are to improve building performance with regard to health, security, functionality, and psychological satisfaction. Furthermore, they aim to save costs on maintenance with regard to the whole life spans of buildings. Finally, benchmarks, concepts, and guidelines can be developed for future projects. During the 1990s, various concepts were also introduced, including facility management, building delivery, and life cycle management. These concepts are also related to the principle of improving building performance and adopting different evaluation methods to combine architects’ and users’ perspectives on how the improved performance of buildings is perceived. According to a 1997 chapter by Preiser and Schramm, all phases and evaluation methods can be integrated into the building performance evaluation.
702 s0020
Work Environments
4. SOME RECENT STUDIES ON OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS Currently, more than 50% of people in the United States work in offices. However, throughout history, offices have changed significantly—from the cubicles of the Ufficis in Florence, Italy, around 1559 (from which the term ‘‘office’’ was derived), to offices alongside corridors, to open-plan offices using ‘‘landscape offices.’’ Group offices have once again become smaller, whereas socalled ‘‘combi-offices’’ are a collection of individual offices grouped around a service and communication core area used by all. The nonterritorial office is equipped with workstations that are not dedicated to any one individual employee but rather are used by lots of different people who share space at different times. This makes sense if employees often have long periods of work outside the office, as in the insurance industry. Hotelling is one form of nonterritorial office for those who do not require a dedicated, personally assigned office. Like a hotel reservation, available offices and appropriate equipment can be reserved. This kind of office lacks opportunities for personalization. It hinders familiarity between colleagues because office neighbors are always changing. In 1997, Schneider and Gentz observed that ‘‘intelligent offices’’ have a floor space of more than 5000 square meters and that their users are various businesses with complex and innovative types of work. These offices are equipped with personal computers, modern conference technology, and access to the Internet, all of which are connected to the individual workstations. The central computers regulate the building, regulate in-house technology, and support facility management. This also provides round-the-clock support for employees, thereby increasing productivity. ‘‘Intelligence’’ is related to the building in its urban context, the total energy needs, and the real estate market. As for the users, intelligence controls changes through the duration of use, avoiding the sick building syndrome. In 1995, Becker and Steele reported on their study of a new building, compatible with new demands made on a company, that was planned in the state of Michigan. Steelcase is the world’s largest manufacturer of contract office furniture. To remain competitive, employees must continually develop new and innovative products. Steelcase’s Corporate Development Center (CDC) achieved success through user participation of 450 employees when planning and designing new workplaces (completed in 1989). Top management decided on the site location, building forms, general design
concepts, and flow of communication. User focus groups governed the design of individual workstations, shared commons areas, and dedicated project rooms. In so doing, work patterns and environmental requirements were incorporated. The total workplace concept of the CDC includes the idea of integrating decisions such as human resources, information technology, design, construction, building operations, and management. It should be developed as a concept for the entire process in buildings. Informal communication should stimulate creativity. Therefore, teamwork and face-to-face interaction should be encouraged. Different settings were created for different activities. Spatial mobility during the course of daily activities was expected to increase the probability that people would talk about their work informally. Movement through a building should be used to encourage personal contact; therefore, construction did not adhere to the idea of making people go the shortest way while at work. A second study conducted by the BOSTI was reported in 2001 by Brill and colleagues. Whereas the earlier BOSTI study lacked a specific theoretical model, rudiments of it can be found in this second one. At the very least, in this study a large number of aspects were named and their effects were described. It is hoped, particularly because the results are not yet final, that interconnected conclusions can also be examined. One of the study’s authors, Sue Weidemann, observed the following in a personal communication in November 2003: ‘‘The BOSTI study reported the final results of the analyses which were based on only the direct predictors of the outcomes. If both direct and indirect predictors were considered, it would be seen that the work environment has an even greater impact than that reported.’’ During the 15 years between the two BOSTI studies, some long-term and stable business trends have emerged. These trends are called ‘‘new officing.’’ The goal of new offices is to use workplaces, technologies, and work processes as an integrated system of enablers to work smarter at every work location. New officing means a radical redesign of workplaces, work from anywhere, and hotelling. The second BOSTI study examined the effects of new officing through a 6-year investigation involving 13,000 people in 40 business units that was undertaken between 1994 and 2000. Various kinds of evaluative information concerning the effects of the qualities of work settings on employees’ work were collected together with ratings of job performance, team performance, and job satisfaction as well as information on employees’ learning.
Work Environments
The results suggest that workplaces can most strongly affect job satisfaction, then team performance, and then individual performance. Included among the environmental features with a strong effect on satisfaction and performance are settings supporting distraction-free work, settings for solo work, settings supporting interactions with coworkers, and settings supporting meetings and undistracted group work. To promote these, enclosure is particularly important. Communication is also seen as an important component in satisfaction and performance, and the spatial organization of team workspace can enhance face-to-face communication. The proximity of workstations and shared service supplies can foster informal interaction. Altogether, these results would advocate the use of combi-offices for various purposes. Results also suggest that a carefully designed workplace supporting employees’ and teams’ activities is an investment that pays off in business terms as well as in positive changes in corporate culture.
s0025
5. GENERAL MODELS DESCRIBING ENVIRONMENT–BEHAVIOR RELATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE Most of the studies described so far lack a general framework or a model that would shed light on the interaction between the physical working environment and the employees’ characteristics, behavior, and experiences. In 1986, Eric and Mary Sundstrom developed a framework of the physical environment of offices and factories. In a 1987 chapter, Eric Sundstrom also reported empirical evidence supporting this framework. The analytic framework developed by the Sundstroms treats people and their work environments as interdependent elements of a system and sees environmental relationships as being time dependent. It differentiates among three levels of analysis: individuals, interpersonal relationships, and organizations. At each level of analysis, dynamic processes and different outcomes are involved. The physical work environment may influence various psychological processes such as adaptation, arousal, overload, stress, fatigue, and attitudes. Outcomes for the individual workers can be satisfaction and performance. Changes involve coping as an active attempt to alter any unsatisfactory environment or its effects and other forms of adaptation. Outcomes for interpersonal relationships include adequacy of communication, group formation, and cohesion. An outcome for organizations can be effectiveness. First, the individual worker
703
must deal with ambient conditions such as illumination, color, temperature, air, noise, and music. In addition, the individual’s environment includes aspects of the building, its furnishings, its equipment, the individual workstations, and the supporting areas. Second, design aspects such as room layout, building layout, enclosure, and gathering places may influence interpersonal relationships and communication. The regulation of immediacy, choices in communication, and privacy is a key process in these interactions. The office’s physical environment, serving a symbolic, self-presentation, or status expression function, can affect job satisfaction. Third, in an organization, people are collected to act in concert toward common goals. In so doing, each person has a specific role in the hierarchy of the company. The facets of physical environment of the organization related to separation and differentiation of work units play a role in this domain. Key processes include congruence of organizational structure and physical environment. In 2002, Gifford described a model that also tried to cover environmental psychological processes in the workplace in their entirety (Fig. 1). Based on this model, six categories relevant for describing environment–behavior relations at work can be identified. A first category comprises employees’ characteristics, including personality, intelligence, cognitive styles, self-concept, emotions, motivation, satisfaction, creativity, skills, experience, training, and job level. A second category groups the characteristics of the physical environment affecting workers’ behavior. The physical environment can be broken down with regard to fixed or shifting, quality of materials, noise, temperature, light, scent, the haptic environment, density of people per space, privacy, territoriality, wayfinding, status, and personalization in displays of self or team. Five fundamental aspects can be filtered out from this: sound (e.g., noise, music), temperature (e.g., heat, cold), air (e.g., pollution, freshness, scent), light and color (e.g., sunlight, incandescent, fluorescent, windows, views), and space (e.g., amount of it, arrangement of work stations). Additions include equipment (e.g., furniture, tools, technology) and displays of self by the users (e.g., improvements in functionality, aesthetic appearance). (According to Walden in 2004, work environments can be assessed using six criteria: functional, aesthetic, social, ecological, organizational, and financial. These criteria are developed by applying the basic central themes of architectural trends, such as ‘‘form follows function,’’ to environmental psychology. This means that functional aspects regarding, e.g., layout, wayfinding, and quality of materials, can save time and energy.
Worker Characteristics For example: • Experience, training • Job level • Personality • Ability • Motivation
Worker–Environment
Psychological Processes
Interaction
For example:
For example: Physical Work Setting For example:
Criteria to judge workplaces Functional Aesthetic–design Social–physical Ecological Organizational Economical
f0005
• Fixed or shifting • Quality of materials • Noise, temperature, light, density, privacy Territoriality Wayfinding Sound, air, views Resources Displays of self or team Technological, geopolitical, and social changes
• Congruence • Meaning Skill-to-taskmatching
• • • • •
Arousal Adaptation affect Overload Affect Personal control Learned helplessness
Outcomes For example: • • • • •
Stress Health Performance Satisfaction Interpersonal relations Burnout, violence, rage Mobbing Organizational effectiveness
Work Policies For example: • Rules • Incentives • Management style Participation Globalization
FIGURE 1 A model for workplace environmental psychology. Items designated with empty boxes (&) were added by the author after completion of the literature review. Adapted from Gifford (2002) with the permission of Robert Gifford.
Work Environments
Aesthetic design results in feelings of beauty or newness. Social–physical aspects can result in conflicts that arise from simultaneous use of one setting by multiple parties or in opportunities through communication. Ecological aspects mean that the consequences of a building’s existence must be taken into account—from breaking ground, to recycling, to health concerns. Organizational aspects comprise the space–time breakdown of resources, provision of information, materials and storage facilities for logistics, and sharing methods for task cycling. Financial aspects cater to the possibility of the entire organization’s purchases and sales as well as its production run.) A third category refers to work policies. A fourth aspect is worker–environment interaction in terms of the ‘‘fit’’ between individuals’ characteristics and the environment (e.g., skill-to-task matching, the ergonomic fit between humans and machines) as well as the meaning attributed to (and the image of) the working environment. It is important to check whether or not the physical environment and the typical behavioral patterns shown by the user groups (e.g., employees, visitors) match up. The extent to which a fit between a task (especially its level of difficulty) and the abilities of the person involved will be facilitated by the environment should also be considered. Typical examples illustrating the importance of an ergonomic fit between individuals’ abilities and perceptions and the use of machines or controllers can be found in control installations for atomic power plants, for space travels, and in the cockpits of airplanes. A fifth category involves specific individual psychological processes such as arousal, adaptation, overload, personal control (or, oppositely, learned helplessness), and affect. According to the Yerkes–Dodson Law of 1908, performance is better during medium arousal. Higher arousal blocks concentration, and at low arousal a person sleeps. Adaptation occurs when arousal subsides over time due to a process of adjustment. This can also result in a marginal degree of arousal, so that performance is then reduced. Overload arises if too many stimuli emerge over a long period of time, especially when an organism is weakened. (According to Walden, the desire for personal control may result in an appropriation of the environment, that is, in self-regulation of ambient environments and improvements in functionality and aesthetic appearance. Control and user involvement relate to noise, thermal comfort, crowding, space planning, furniture layout, environmental change, and the like. Destructive effects
705
include vandalism and neglect. The latter can be consequences of learned helplessness.) A sixth category is outcome, defined as the significant changes made to people and to environments through the processes just described. Included among these are stress, health, performance, satisfaction, and interpersonal relations. Morale changes (positive or negative) in the body or the mind are linked to stress and health. (Burnout, violence, and rage can also result from stress. Mobbing is facilitated through loss of privacy.) Performance affects productivity itself but also affects indicators such as resignation rate, time spent on work, and attendance. Feelings relate to satisfaction, evaluation, attitude, emotion, and perception. Interpersonal interaction, work climate, territoriality, privacy, and status are related to social behaviors regarding the way in which space is occupied (i.e., appropriation). The layouts of space, telephones, videoconferencing facilities, and /or e-mail involve components of working conditions and, as such, serve for the transfer of work-related communication. Status demarcation underlines social roles within the hierarchy of a company through objects in the environment. Privacy is optimal at the point between isolation and too many people per room (i.e., crowding). Territoriality marks the possession of space by a single person cut off from others. Other authors, such as Becker in 1991, have mentioned the improvement of control, communication, environmental change processes, performance, and international influences as the central psychological challenges facing workplaces. Control, communication and performance were already present in the previously described model by Gifford. Environmental change processes, such as office relocation and residential mobility, require adjustment and adaptation. International influences demand increased understanding of the significance of individual organizations and adaptation to labor in other countries. In 2002, McCoy referred to the multifaceted individual aspects of work environments and emphasized recent empirical findings on the relationship between the physical environment and the health, safety, and behavior of occupants. In addition, she considered aspects related to office development during the past two decades or so. According to her review, more than 50% of working people in the United States work in offices. McCoy mentioned the importance of architectonic details such as decorative styles, personalization, treatment of boundaries, signs, colors, and artwork that encourage a sense of identity and purpose among the individuals in an office. Personalization
706
Work Environments
includes photographs of family members, hobbies, and /or vacations. These displays of self or team can express the personal commitment to the job and can balance between work and personal activities. The importance of a view for satisfaction and psychological restoration is also emphasized. Access to the necessary resources, the building’s furniture and equipment, facilities, and people are part of a system that enables the handling of information for innovations and ordinary office work. Supporting the accessibility of resources can save time for the users and can save money for the organization.
s0030
6. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The future developments of workplaces include, on the one hand, the creation of superlative office spaces in the highest buildings in the world such as the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), a high-rise in earthquake-hit Taipei (Taiwan), and the planning of the Bionic Tower in Shanghai (China). On the other hand, there is an increasing concern for organizational ecology with an emphasis on sustainability. Offices in large complexes are often leased, and conference offices, especially for worldwide teleconferences among members of the same company, are being built at an increasing rate. Linked to this will be hotels with office equipment. Residential offices will have access to neighborhood work centers with telecommuting offices or satellite offices in which large numbers of people can rent well-equipped workstations in their local area or close to other places of activities. Telecommuting includes the virtual office, the home office, and satellite offices. Virtual offices can happen anywhere, including at the client’s work site. In these offices, the use of a portable computer and a mobile phone is all that is needed. Trade and factories offer people the chance to work at home. This should help to alleviate the disadvantages of poor public transportation and commuter traffic. The studies described in this article used multiple methods of investigation to fully understand the complex relationships involved in human behavior and the changing environments of workplaces. In the future, models describing environment–behavior relations at work should be expanded to include the variables that reflect the fast-paced changing conditions of workplaces. More research is needed to understand the value of those physical places and their relationship to their occupants. Even with increasing preconditions
for complete freedom of a connection between work and location, there will still be physical workplaces.
See Also the Following Articles Environmental Design and Planning, Public Participation in n Environmental Stress n Job Stress n Person–Environment Fit n Privacy n Territoriality
Further Reading Becker, F. (1991). Workplace planning, design, and management. In E. H. Zube, & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 3, pp. 115–151). New York: Plenum. Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape. San Francisco: Jossey– Bass. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial–physical environment to ‘‘sustainable development.’’ In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28–54). New York: John Wiley. Brill, M., Margulis, S., & Konar, E., for Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation. (1984). Using office design to increase productivity (Vols. 1–2). Buffalo, NY: Workplace Design and Productivity. Brill, M., Weidemann, S., Allard, L., Olson, J., & Keable, E. B., for Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International. Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.). (2000). Creating the productive workplace. London: E & FN SPON. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books. McCoy, J. M. (2002). Work environments: The changing workplace. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 443–460). New York: John Wiley. McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. (2004). The physical environment. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W. F. E., & Schramm, U. (1997). Building performance evaluation. In D. Watson, M. J. Crosbie, & J. H. Callendar (Eds.), Time saver standards (7th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Work Environments Sundstrom, E. (1987). Work environments: Offices and factories. In I. Altman, & D. Stokols (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 733–782). New York: John Wiley. Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
707
Walden, R. (2004). Assessing the performance of ‘‘offices of the future.’’ In W. F. E. Preiser, & J. C. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing building performance: Methods and case studies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth–Heinemann. Wineman, J. D. (1986). Behavioral issues in office design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
a0005
Rotraut Walden University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction Using Buildings for Increasing Productivity A Historical Perspective on Working Environments Some Recent Studies on Office Environments General Models Describing Environment–Behavior Relations in the Workplace 6. Future Developments Further Reading
GLOSSARY Hawthorne effect Effect where if workers notice that they are being observed and that conditions in the workplace change because of them, efficiency increases independently of actual improvements. personalization The opportunity to make personal changes in the environment through decorations (e.g., photographs, artwork) and in the form of functionality. postoccupancy evaluation (POE) Evaluation that investigates to what extent a constructed environment provides for current users’ needs and demands made by experts. productivity A synonym for output, efficiency, motivation, individual performance, organizational effectiveness, production, profitability, cost-effectiveness, competitiveness, and / or quality of work of a company or an individual. sick building syndrome Syndrome where the users of a building become ill as a result of faulty construction and /or through the use of hazardous materials. user-needs analysis An assessment of the needs, desires, and preferences of future users of a building; it is usually employed during the early phase of the construction
Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, VOLUME 3
program so that potential recommendations can still be incorporated for the improvement of the future building. Yerkes–Dodson Law of 1908 States that the link between arousal and performance results in an inverse U-shaped curve; performance is better during medium arousal than during low or high arousal.
Performance and well-being are the most common criteria for the improvement of work environments. A glance at history shows the focal points of psychological research over the ages, including advancements in evaluatory methods for improving the working environment. This article presents and discusses some classic studies in this field. Of current interest are building performance evaluation and facility management. The article presents psychological frameworks and models summarizing the current knowledge about environment–behavior relationships in workplaces, envisaging possible amendments to them. Because of the growing importance of information technology, customer service, and globalization, the article concludes by dealing with the foreseeable development of offices and the consequences of internationalization.
1. INTRODUCTION
s0005
The aim of environmental psychology of workplaces and organizational psychology is to improve workers’ performance and well-being. Performance refers to individual,
699
#2004
Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
700
Work Environments
team, or organizational efficiency. Well-being complements the question of satisfaction and is a more holistic approach of recent research that includes health. Satisfaction is generated when, among other things, a worker or an employee can achieve goals and satisfy needs in the workplace. It is an individual’s general affective and cognitive evaluation of the job and the physical environment that can support or contrast these goals and needs. The effects of increased performance at reduced costs are of particular interest to companies. It is also important for a business to have creative and innovative individuals who work to meet the constant demands made on the company and who are willing to commit themselves to the company. For users, there is a pivotal interest in the continuity of the organization so as to ensure the stability of their own jobs. Consequently, they concern themselves with the company’s performance and make individual contributions to this success. If one considers the proportion of time spent at work over a lifetime, there are compelling reasons for increasing well-being during this period. In the long run, well-being in the workplace is, like salary, an important incentive for employees.
s0010
2. USING BUILDINGS FOR INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY After a review of many different studies, Gifford concluded in 2002 that the majority of companies still do not take into account the fact that even a minimal investment in the workplace can result in an improvement of 10 to 50% in productivity. Companies see their employees as their biggest potential growth factor, but at the same time, employees create the highest costs. A reduction in construction costs usually results in deteriorating working conditions. The strategy for how an investment in new construction or renovation can be implemented is directly connected to the psychological factors of the work environment itself. Therefore, a major question explored in this article is the following: How can performance and well-being in workplace buildings be measured and improved?
s0015
3. A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WORKING ENVIRONMENTS Writing about work environments in 2001, Bell and colleagues differentiated among factories, large firms, and offices. This historical retrospective leans closely
toward Becker’s 1991 article. During the early 1900s, Frederick Taylor assumed that incentives in terms of salary, production techniques, and the work environment should enhance workers’ productivity. In fact, it had more to do with the assembly line in the factory. Industrial growth was explosive. Social processes, wellbeing, and satisfaction—the points of view of the employees—were hardly considered. Scientific management led to routine, standardized jobs and to studies about heating and lighting. Avoiding Taylorism by using human factors, and an increase in automation of factories to increase efficiency and individual performance between 1910 and 1940, was followed by an emphasis on task performance and human relations between 1940 and 1950. Many results that had been considered valid until that point were questioned in the light of the famous experiments conducted by Elton Mayo and colleagues between 1927 and 1939 at the Western Electric Company plant in Hawthorne, Illinois (near Chicago and Cicero), on the effects of physical work environment on workers’ performance. As Roethlisberger and Dickson reported in 1939, work performance increased in both experimental and control groups, although lighting was improved only for the former. In follow-up observations, researchers established that performance improved again despite the fact that illumination had been reduced by 70%. When they replaced a set of lights with bulbs of the same wattage, the employees were even more satisfied. These results gave rise to the following interpretation: If employees notice that the conditions of their immediate environment change because they are being observed, performance increases independently of any actual improvements. This reaction was named the Hawthorne effect. As a result, the naive determinism that dictated that simply improving environmental conditions has a direct effect on desired behavior was questioned. Instead, the role played by the employees’ own perceptions, beliefs, preferences, experiences, and personalities was considered more carefully. Studies on group dynamics, communication, and conflict then followed between 1950 and 1960. These studies were motivated by the need for a decrease in interpersonal conflicts and the development of democratic and cooperative group processes at work. This was often provoked by the preoccupation with World War II. In 1967, Robert Sommer developed a ‘‘small group ecology.’’ Arguments for building planning and equipping furnishings, as well as for seating arrangements, formed the origins of environmental psychology. Architects and planners were viewed as managers of human resources.
Work Environments
Subsequently, between 1960 and 1970, a dominant theme was the focus on nonpaying users. Participation of users in the planning of work environments was also encouraged. This should result in a building layout that better mirrors the needs, values, and preferences of its users. Communication, comfort at work, and satisfaction emerged as central concerns in numerous studies carried out between 1970 and 1980. Studies on office landscape revealed that employees rejected office layouts designed for the ease of communication within the company. There were often complaints about noise and lack of privacy. Workplace research increasingly busied itself with office space, and this corresponded with the increasing value of customer service. For example, in 1984, Brill and colleagues reported the results of an extensive 5-year investigation of 70 firms conducted from the Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation (BOSTI). The study addressed three basic questions. First, does the overall design of the office have a fundamental influence on employees’ productivity and their daily quality of life at work? Second, which specific office characteristics breed these sorts of influences, and in what ways does this happen? Third, how great is the value of these influences in financial terms? Between 1977 and 1983, 6000 people were interviewed over two time periods: before and approximately 8 to 12 months after a generally positive remodeling of their workplace. A wide set of ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective’’ criteria were used for assessing productivity and office characteristics. After the first investigation, BOSTI recommended targeted changes whose success would be measured after 5 years in terms of monetary value. The results of the BOSTI study suggested that the changes that the firms aimed to make contributed to an increase in efficiency of 15 to 17% in the annual salary of three career groups over the 5-year period: managers, professional or technical workers, and clerical workers. In doing this, investments and the costs of the workplace were calculated. With regard to work satisfaction, relocation frequency and noise had the highest monetary value. Approximately 25 to 30% of the changes favoring job satisfaction by way of targeted investments contributed to an increase in productivity. Aspects of job satisfaction were more important to clerical workers than to managers and professional/technical workers. Personal storage space for office materials and coats was deemed to be very important by clerical workers. The remaining 70 to 75% of the monetary value was determined by enclosure and layout in job performance.
701
During the 1980s, Preiser and colleagues introduced the concepts of postoccupancy evaluation (POE) and performance profiles as methods of evaluation for these studies. Today, there are several methods of data collection, such as program development, user needs analysis (UNA), postconstruction evaluation, and POE, that adhere to the comments made by users and experts alike. The POE investigates to what extent a built environment is set into use in accordance with users’ needs and the demands made by experts. Therefore, feedback for planners and building owners on the effects of the built environment should be identified, as should the prerequisites for the construction of a better environment. The POE assesses environments according to what extent they encourage their designated function, or at least do not disturb it, and to what extent these environments correspond to the needs, interests, and desires of the users. In comparison with the assessments made by competing architectural firms, the users’ view plays a special role. A broad range of techniques may be used for collecting data, including interviews, questionnaires, checklists, collections of critical events, targeted time-budget studies in the form of log-book entries, objective data taken from thermometers and hygrometers, and counts made from the analysis of physical traces, photographs, and video recordings. Diversity of methods and the consultation of people in central groups with different visions are a means of choice. The results of the POE are short, medium, and long term. The POE contains feedback from users about problems with the building and proposed solutions. Also, lessons about how to improve the design cycle of a building can be implemented, and planning and design criteria for specific types of buildings can be developed. The immediate goals of these evaluations are to improve building performance with regard to health, security, functionality, and psychological satisfaction. Furthermore, they aim to save costs on maintenance with regard to the whole life spans of buildings. Finally, benchmarks, concepts, and guidelines can be developed for future projects. During the 1990s, various concepts were also introduced, including facility management, building delivery, and life cycle management. These concepts are also related to the principle of improving building performance and adopting different evaluation methods to combine architects’ and users’ perspectives on how the improved performance of buildings is perceived. According to a 1997 chapter by Preiser and Schramm, all phases and evaluation methods can be integrated into the building performance evaluation.
702 s0020
Work Environments
4. SOME RECENT STUDIES ON OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS Currently, more than 50% of people in the United States work in offices. However, throughout history, offices have changed significantly—from the cubicles of the Ufficis in Florence, Italy, around 1559 (from which the term ‘‘office’’ was derived), to offices alongside corridors, to open-plan offices using ‘‘landscape offices.’’ Group offices have once again become smaller, whereas socalled ‘‘combi-offices’’ are a collection of individual offices grouped around a service and communication core area used by all. The nonterritorial office is equipped with workstations that are not dedicated to any one individual employee but rather are used by lots of different people who share space at different times. This makes sense if employees often have long periods of work outside the office, as in the insurance industry. Hotelling is one form of nonterritorial office for those who do not require a dedicated, personally assigned office. Like a hotel reservation, available offices and appropriate equipment can be reserved. This kind of office lacks opportunities for personalization. It hinders familiarity between colleagues because office neighbors are always changing. In 1997, Schneider and Gentz observed that ‘‘intelligent offices’’ have a floor space of more than 5000 square meters and that their users are various businesses with complex and innovative types of work. These offices are equipped with personal computers, modern conference technology, and access to the Internet, all of which are connected to the individual workstations. The central computers regulate the building, regulate in-house technology, and support facility management. This also provides round-the-clock support for employees, thereby increasing productivity. ‘‘Intelligence’’ is related to the building in its urban context, the total energy needs, and the real estate market. As for the users, intelligence controls changes through the duration of use, avoiding the sick building syndrome. In 1995, Becker and Steele reported on their study of a new building, compatible with new demands made on a company, that was planned in the state of Michigan. Steelcase is the world’s largest manufacturer of contract office furniture. To remain competitive, employees must continually develop new and innovative products. Steelcase’s Corporate Development Center (CDC) achieved success through user participation of 450 employees when planning and designing new workplaces (completed in 1989). Top management decided on the site location, building forms, general design
concepts, and flow of communication. User focus groups governed the design of individual workstations, shared commons areas, and dedicated project rooms. In so doing, work patterns and environmental requirements were incorporated. The total workplace concept of the CDC includes the idea of integrating decisions such as human resources, information technology, design, construction, building operations, and management. It should be developed as a concept for the entire process in buildings. Informal communication should stimulate creativity. Therefore, teamwork and face-to-face interaction should be encouraged. Different settings were created for different activities. Spatial mobility during the course of daily activities was expected to increase the probability that people would talk about their work informally. Movement through a building should be used to encourage personal contact; therefore, construction did not adhere to the idea of making people go the shortest way while at work. A second study conducted by the BOSTI was reported in 2001 by Brill and colleagues. Whereas the earlier BOSTI study lacked a specific theoretical model, rudiments of it can be found in this second one. At the very least, in this study a large number of aspects were named and their effects were described. It is hoped, particularly because the results are not yet final, that interconnected conclusions can also be examined. One of the study’s authors, Sue Weidemann, observed the following in a personal communication in November 2003: ‘‘The BOSTI study reported the final results of the analyses which were based on only the direct predictors of the outcomes. If both direct and indirect predictors were considered, it would be seen that the work environment has an even greater impact than that reported.’’ During the 15 years between the two BOSTI studies, some long-term and stable business trends have emerged. These trends are called ‘‘new officing.’’ The goal of new offices is to use workplaces, technologies, and work processes as an integrated system of enablers to work smarter at every work location. New officing means a radical redesign of workplaces, work from anywhere, and hotelling. The second BOSTI study examined the effects of new officing through a 6-year investigation involving 13,000 people in 40 business units that was undertaken between 1994 and 2000. Various kinds of evaluative information concerning the effects of the qualities of work settings on employees’ work were collected together with ratings of job performance, team performance, and job satisfaction as well as information on employees’ learning.
Work Environments
The results suggest that workplaces can most strongly affect job satisfaction, then team performance, and then individual performance. Included among the environmental features with a strong effect on satisfaction and performance are settings supporting distraction-free work, settings for solo work, settings supporting interactions with coworkers, and settings supporting meetings and undistracted group work. To promote these, enclosure is particularly important. Communication is also seen as an important component in satisfaction and performance, and the spatial organization of team workspace can enhance face-to-face communication. The proximity of workstations and shared service supplies can foster informal interaction. Altogether, these results would advocate the use of combi-offices for various purposes. Results also suggest that a carefully designed workplace supporting employees’ and teams’ activities is an investment that pays off in business terms as well as in positive changes in corporate culture.
s0025
5. GENERAL MODELS DESCRIBING ENVIRONMENT–BEHAVIOR RELATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE Most of the studies described so far lack a general framework or a model that would shed light on the interaction between the physical working environment and the employees’ characteristics, behavior, and experiences. In 1986, Eric and Mary Sundstrom developed a framework of the physical environment of offices and factories. In a 1987 chapter, Eric Sundstrom also reported empirical evidence supporting this framework. The analytic framework developed by the Sundstroms treats people and their work environments as interdependent elements of a system and sees environmental relationships as being time dependent. It differentiates among three levels of analysis: individuals, interpersonal relationships, and organizations. At each level of analysis, dynamic processes and different outcomes are involved. The physical work environment may influence various psychological processes such as adaptation, arousal, overload, stress, fatigue, and attitudes. Outcomes for the individual workers can be satisfaction and performance. Changes involve coping as an active attempt to alter any unsatisfactory environment or its effects and other forms of adaptation. Outcomes for interpersonal relationships include adequacy of communication, group formation, and cohesion. An outcome for organizations can be effectiveness. First, the individual worker
703
must deal with ambient conditions such as illumination, color, temperature, air, noise, and music. In addition, the individual’s environment includes aspects of the building, its furnishings, its equipment, the individual workstations, and the supporting areas. Second, design aspects such as room layout, building layout, enclosure, and gathering places may influence interpersonal relationships and communication. The regulation of immediacy, choices in communication, and privacy is a key process in these interactions. The office’s physical environment, serving a symbolic, self-presentation, or status expression function, can affect job satisfaction. Third, in an organization, people are collected to act in concert toward common goals. In so doing, each person has a specific role in the hierarchy of the company. The facets of physical environment of the organization related to separation and differentiation of work units play a role in this domain. Key processes include congruence of organizational structure and physical environment. In 2002, Gifford described a model that also tried to cover environmental psychological processes in the workplace in their entirety (Fig. 1). Based on this model, six categories relevant for describing environment–behavior relations at work can be identified. A first category comprises employees’ characteristics, including personality, intelligence, cognitive styles, self-concept, emotions, motivation, satisfaction, creativity, skills, experience, training, and job level. A second category groups the characteristics of the physical environment affecting workers’ behavior. The physical environment can be broken down with regard to fixed or shifting, quality of materials, noise, temperature, light, scent, the haptic environment, density of people per space, privacy, territoriality, wayfinding, status, and personalization in displays of self or team. Five fundamental aspects can be filtered out from this: sound (e.g., noise, music), temperature (e.g., heat, cold), air (e.g., pollution, freshness, scent), light and color (e.g., sunlight, incandescent, fluorescent, windows, views), and space (e.g., amount of it, arrangement of work stations). Additions include equipment (e.g., furniture, tools, technology) and displays of self by the users (e.g., improvements in functionality, aesthetic appearance). (According to Walden in 2004, work environments can be assessed using six criteria: functional, aesthetic, social, ecological, organizational, and financial. These criteria are developed by applying the basic central themes of architectural trends, such as ‘‘form follows function,’’ to environmental psychology. This means that functional aspects regarding, e.g., layout, wayfinding, and quality of materials, can save time and energy.
Worker Characteristics For example: • Experience, training • Job level • Personality • Ability • Motivation
Worker–Environment
Psychological Processes
Interaction
For example:
For example: Physical Work Setting For example:
Criteria to judge workplaces Functional Aesthetic–design Social–physical Ecological Organizational Economical
f0005
• Fixed or shifting • Quality of materials • Noise, temperature, light, density, privacy Territoriality Wayfinding Sound, air, views Resources Displays of self or team Technological, geopolitical, and social changes
• Congruence • Meaning Skill-to-taskmatching
• • • • •
Arousal Adaptation affect Overload Affect Personal control Learned helplessness
Outcomes For example: • • • • •
Stress Health Performance Satisfaction Interpersonal relations Burnout, violence, rage Mobbing Organizational effectiveness
Work Policies For example: • Rules • Incentives • Management style Participation Globalization
FIGURE 1 A model for workplace environmental psychology. Items designated with empty boxes (&) were added by the author after completion of the literature review. Adapted from Gifford (2002) with the permission of Robert Gifford.
Work Environments
Aesthetic design results in feelings of beauty or newness. Social–physical aspects can result in conflicts that arise from simultaneous use of one setting by multiple parties or in opportunities through communication. Ecological aspects mean that the consequences of a building’s existence must be taken into account—from breaking ground, to recycling, to health concerns. Organizational aspects comprise the space–time breakdown of resources, provision of information, materials and storage facilities for logistics, and sharing methods for task cycling. Financial aspects cater to the possibility of the entire organization’s purchases and sales as well as its production run.) A third category refers to work policies. A fourth aspect is worker–environment interaction in terms of the ‘‘fit’’ between individuals’ characteristics and the environment (e.g., skill-to-task matching, the ergonomic fit between humans and machines) as well as the meaning attributed to (and the image of) the working environment. It is important to check whether or not the physical environment and the typical behavioral patterns shown by the user groups (e.g., employees, visitors) match up. The extent to which a fit between a task (especially its level of difficulty) and the abilities of the person involved will be facilitated by the environment should also be considered. Typical examples illustrating the importance of an ergonomic fit between individuals’ abilities and perceptions and the use of machines or controllers can be found in control installations for atomic power plants, for space travels, and in the cockpits of airplanes. A fifth category involves specific individual psychological processes such as arousal, adaptation, overload, personal control (or, oppositely, learned helplessness), and affect. According to the Yerkes–Dodson Law of 1908, performance is better during medium arousal. Higher arousal blocks concentration, and at low arousal a person sleeps. Adaptation occurs when arousal subsides over time due to a process of adjustment. This can also result in a marginal degree of arousal, so that performance is then reduced. Overload arises if too many stimuli emerge over a long period of time, especially when an organism is weakened. (According to Walden, the desire for personal control may result in an appropriation of the environment, that is, in self-regulation of ambient environments and improvements in functionality and aesthetic appearance. Control and user involvement relate to noise, thermal comfort, crowding, space planning, furniture layout, environmental change, and the like. Destructive effects
705
include vandalism and neglect. The latter can be consequences of learned helplessness.) A sixth category is outcome, defined as the significant changes made to people and to environments through the processes just described. Included among these are stress, health, performance, satisfaction, and interpersonal relations. Morale changes (positive or negative) in the body or the mind are linked to stress and health. (Burnout, violence, and rage can also result from stress. Mobbing is facilitated through loss of privacy.) Performance affects productivity itself but also affects indicators such as resignation rate, time spent on work, and attendance. Feelings relate to satisfaction, evaluation, attitude, emotion, and perception. Interpersonal interaction, work climate, territoriality, privacy, and status are related to social behaviors regarding the way in which space is occupied (i.e., appropriation). The layouts of space, telephones, videoconferencing facilities, and /or e-mail involve components of working conditions and, as such, serve for the transfer of work-related communication. Status demarcation underlines social roles within the hierarchy of a company through objects in the environment. Privacy is optimal at the point between isolation and too many people per room (i.e., crowding). Territoriality marks the possession of space by a single person cut off from others. Other authors, such as Becker in 1991, have mentioned the improvement of control, communication, environmental change processes, performance, and international influences as the central psychological challenges facing workplaces. Control, communication and performance were already present in the previously described model by Gifford. Environmental change processes, such as office relocation and residential mobility, require adjustment and adaptation. International influences demand increased understanding of the significance of individual organizations and adaptation to labor in other countries. In 2002, McCoy referred to the multifaceted individual aspects of work environments and emphasized recent empirical findings on the relationship between the physical environment and the health, safety, and behavior of occupants. In addition, she considered aspects related to office development during the past two decades or so. According to her review, more than 50% of working people in the United States work in offices. McCoy mentioned the importance of architectonic details such as decorative styles, personalization, treatment of boundaries, signs, colors, and artwork that encourage a sense of identity and purpose among the individuals in an office. Personalization
706
Work Environments
includes photographs of family members, hobbies, and /or vacations. These displays of self or team can express the personal commitment to the job and can balance between work and personal activities. The importance of a view for satisfaction and psychological restoration is also emphasized. Access to the necessary resources, the building’s furniture and equipment, facilities, and people are part of a system that enables the handling of information for innovations and ordinary office work. Supporting the accessibility of resources can save time for the users and can save money for the organization.
s0030
6. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS The future developments of workplaces include, on the one hand, the creation of superlative office spaces in the highest buildings in the world such as the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), a high-rise in earthquake-hit Taipei (Taiwan), and the planning of the Bionic Tower in Shanghai (China). On the other hand, there is an increasing concern for organizational ecology with an emphasis on sustainability. Offices in large complexes are often leased, and conference offices, especially for worldwide teleconferences among members of the same company, are being built at an increasing rate. Linked to this will be hotels with office equipment. Residential offices will have access to neighborhood work centers with telecommuting offices or satellite offices in which large numbers of people can rent well-equipped workstations in their local area or close to other places of activities. Telecommuting includes the virtual office, the home office, and satellite offices. Virtual offices can happen anywhere, including at the client’s work site. In these offices, the use of a portable computer and a mobile phone is all that is needed. Trade and factories offer people the chance to work at home. This should help to alleviate the disadvantages of poor public transportation and commuter traffic. The studies described in this article used multiple methods of investigation to fully understand the complex relationships involved in human behavior and the changing environments of workplaces. In the future, models describing environment–behavior relations at work should be expanded to include the variables that reflect the fast-paced changing conditions of workplaces. More research is needed to understand the value of those physical places and their relationship to their occupants. Even with increasing preconditions
for complete freedom of a connection between work and location, there will still be physical workplaces.
See Also the Following Articles Environmental Design and Planning, Public Participation in n Environmental Stress n Job Stress n Person–Environment Fit n Privacy n Territoriality
Further Reading Becker, F. (1991). Workplace planning, design, and management. In E. H. Zube, & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 3, pp. 115–151). New York: Plenum. Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape. San Francisco: Jossey– Bass. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial–physical environment to ‘‘sustainable development.’’ In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28–54). New York: John Wiley. Brill, M., Margulis, S., & Konar, E., for Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation. (1984). Using office design to increase productivity (Vols. 1–2). Buffalo, NY: Workplace Design and Productivity. Brill, M., Weidemann, S., Allard, L., Olson, J., & Keable, E. B., for Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International. Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.). (2000). Creating the productive workplace. London: E & FN SPON. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books. McCoy, J. M. (2002). Work environments: The changing workplace. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 443–460). New York: John Wiley. McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. (2004). The physical environment. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W. F. E., & Schramm, U. (1997). Building performance evaluation. In D. Watson, M. J. Crosbie, & J. H. Callendar (Eds.), Time saver standards (7th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Work Environments Sundstrom, E. (1987). Work environments: Offices and factories. In I. Altman, & D. Stokols (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 733–782). New York: John Wiley. Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
707
Walden, R. (2004). Assessing the performance of ‘‘offices of the future.’’ In W. F. E. Preiser, & J. C. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing building performance: Methods and case studies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth–Heinemann. Wineman, J. D. (1986). Behavioral issues in office design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.