Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Ofce layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in

LEED-certied buildings
Young S. Lee*
School of Planning, Design, & Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study investigated differences in worker satisfaction and perceived job performance regarding
Received 31 October 2009 privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality issues in personal workspaces between ve ofce types in
Received in revised form LEED-certied buildings. It nds that people in high cubicles showed signicantly lower satisfaction and
5 January 2010
job performance in relation to visual privacy and interaction with co-workers than both enclosed private
Accepted 7 January 2010
and enclosed shared ofce types. They also showed signicantly lower satisfaction with noise level and
sound privacy and lower job performance perceived by acoustic quality than enclosed private, enclosed
Keywords:
shared, and bullpen types. The bullpen type, open-plan ofce without partitions, presented signicantly
Ofce type
Privacy higher satisfaction with noise level and higher performance perceived by acoustic quality than both high
Interaction and low cubicles. Considering the bullpen type also showed higher satisfaction with sound privacy than
Acoustics the high cubicle type, high partitions dont seem to contribute to creating workspaces where people can
LEED have a secure conversation. The bullpen type didnt show any difference from the enclosed shared type in
all privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality questions, indicating it may be a good option for a small
ofce space instead of the enclosed shared type.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background
Since its rst release in 2000, the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) has become a standardized green
building certication system as well as a framework for the green
design, construction and operation in the U.S. Over the years, LEED
has shown a trajectory growth and earned a national and interna-
tional recognition as a green building rating system. The voluntary
LEED system has now become mandatory for public as well as
private building projects over certain sizes in some states in the U.S.
[1] while LEED projects have been developed in over 90 different
countries in the world [2].
Due to continuous efforts from built environment professionals
and government leadership to change conventional building
practice to sustainable building practice, LEED has transformed the
U.S. building industry [3]. The early stage of governmental building
projects oriented LEED application has changed to commercial
projects oriented because of an awareness in the value of green
buildings by building owners and corporations. A rapidly growing
number of building owners and corporations have recently been
* Tel.: 1 517 432 3242; fax: 1 517 432 8108.
E-mail address: leeyou35@msu.edu
seeking LEED certication as part of efforts to make their real estate
green [4].
Among those commercial projects that seek a LEED certication,
the largest segment is ofces [5]. The main reason of interest in
LEED regarding ofce spaces from businesses is the possible
benets of sustainable work environment on employees. Research
has shown ofce environment has signicant effects on employee
satisfaction [68] and performance [9,10].
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is one of the ve LEED criteria
including sustainable site, energy & atmosphere, water efciency,
materials & resources, and indoor environmental quality. The indoor
environment of LEED buildings is meant to offer comfortable and
productive places [11], which can contribute to organizational
nancial performance. However, research shows that workspaces of
LEED-certied buildings are neither always satisfying nor enhancing
employee performance, compared to conventional buildings [12,13].
Lee and Kims study [12] showed employees environmental satis-
faction and perceived job performance were lower in ofce layout
quality regarding visual privacy and interaction with co-workers as
well as acoustic quality including noise level and sound privacy in
LEED-certied buildings than non-LEED-certied buildings.
Considering cubicles with high partitions over 5 were the dominant
ofce type in their study, ofce type might be an important factor
affecting worker satisfaction and job performance regarding privacy,
interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certied buildings. Thus, it

0360-1323/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.007
 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600
was necessary to examine whether different ofce types in LEED-
certied buildings attributed to different levels of employees
environmental satisfaction and performance in these indoor envi-
ronmental quality issues. Understanding how ofce layout affects
worker perception on these issues between various ofce types in
LEED-certied buildings will provide opportunities to design better
workspaces when organizations comply with LEED standards to
their work environment.
2. Literature review
Various studies have explored environmental effects on
employees in workplace-related research. This is because physical
settings in work environment are thought as a tool to achieve higher
organizational performance via changes in employee behaviors and
work efciency [14]. The majority of the studies on the physical
settings in workplaces evaluate either how the space itself functions
or how specic environmental qualities such as lighting, acoustics,
noise, etc. perform. Of those on the performance of the space itself,
studies on ofce types with different layouts have been the majority
[15]. The term ofce layout means how the arrangement and
boundaries of workspaces are laid out [16], which can determine the
type of ofces as well as performance of a space laid out in
a particular arrangement and boundary. This is one of the most
signicant factors that affect employee behaviors [17].
Ofce types with various layouts range from traditional private
ofces to open-plan ofces. Open-plan ofces also have a broad
range of various types from landscape ofce that includes parti-
tioned workstations to bullpen which has no partitions but only
rows of desks. Open-plan ofces in numerous studies have been
categorized in various ways by the number of partitions, the height
of partitions, density of space, openness, etc., depending on the
purpose of studies [18].
Most ofce layout studies focus on the environmental effects on
employees in two ways. One is by comparing the traditional
enclosed private ofce type to a type of open-plan ofces and the
other by studying only open-plan ofces. Especially important to
many scholars is the environmental satisfaction with open-plan
ofce settings [14]. Open-plan ofces were originally designed to
mainly reduce the costs of work environment and promote
communications between co-workers by eliminating physical walls
between workers [19]. Many organizations have pushed their
employees to get out of individual and private territories, and to
interact with each other for the informal ow of information by
reducing the size of individual workspaces and creating open-plan
ofces [20]. However, the success of open-plan ofces in terms of
better communication is not as obvious as proponents of open-plan
ofces explained. Moreover, research shows mixed-results between
positive and negative effects of open-plan ofces on employee
behaviors and attitudes. While an increase in communication
between co-workers in open-plan ofces has been reported in some
studies [2123], negative aspects regarding employee attitude and
perception when compared to traditional enclosed private ofces
have also been found by others [2427]. Lack of privacy was one of
the major problems reported in open-plan ofces.
In addition, increased distractions from noise negatively
affecting employee job performance in open-plan ofces were a big
problem [2830]. In the literature of open-plan ofces, noise issue
is one of the subjects extensively examined along with the privacy
issue [19]. In a study by Sundstrom et al. [31], more than a half of
ofce workers out of about 2000 in various ofces from 58 locations
across the U.S. and Canada expressed dissatisfaction with noise.
Research so far nds that visual privacy and acoustic isolation by
physical settings are correlated to psychological privacy while
easily accessible workspaces are not correlated to easy interactions
1595
between co-workers [18]. However, the majority of studies
comparing open-plan ofces to traditional ofces are done in a type
of open-plan ofces while there are various types of open-plan
ofces with different degrees of openness and accessibility in
reality [14].
This study intended to nd differences in environmental satis-
faction and perceived worker performance regarding privacy,
interaction, and acoustic quality of individual workspaces between
various ofce types in LEED-certied buildings. The study consid-
ered both horizontal as well as vertical aspects in openness and
accessibility of workspaces when categorizing the types of ofces.
As mentioned earlier, lower employee satisfaction and perceived
worker performance in these issues in LEED-certied buildings in
the previous study might have been affected by the ofce type.
Thus, it was worth a further investigation to determine the signif-
icant differences in employee environmental satisfaction and
perceived job performance regarding these issues between the
typical types of ofces found in LEED-certied buildings.
3. Method
3.1. Questionnaire and sample
The study used secondary data from the Occupant Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ) Survey conducted at the Center for the
Built Environment (CBE) at the UC, Berkeley. CBE has conducted an
on-line survey with ofce workers in LEED-certied buildings and
compiled the database of the survey since 2000. The questionnaire
was based on self-assessment. The survey was administered via on-
line. A survey notication was sent to ofce workers via email with
a link to the survey website. Once the ofce workers voluntarily
participated in the survey, the data were stored in a standardized
query language (SQL) server database.
Specic questions for the study examining the issue of privacy,
acoustic quality, and ofce layout were selected among the original
questionnaire by the author. These included satisfaction with the
level of visual privacy, satisfaction with ease of interaction with co-
workers, perceived job performance affected by ofce layout,
satisfaction with noise level, satisfaction with sound privacy, and
perceived job performance affected by acoustic quality. Visual
privacy meant visual isolation without being interrupted by
unwanted observation. Noise level implied the degree of loudness
and sound privacy, the ability to have a conversation without the
neighboring co-workers overhearing and vice versa.
The questions were measured via self-rated satisfaction and
performance levels in the original survey. For satisfaction questions,
the level of satisfaction with each item was asked and for perfor-
mance questions, the level of enhancement or interference affected
by each item was asked. Examples of questions are How satised
are you with the level of visual privacy? to measure worker satis-
faction with visual privacy, and Does the acoustic quality in your
workspace enhance or interfere with your ability to get your job
done? to measure perceived job performance affected by acoustic
quality. For satisfaction level, a Likert-type scale was used with
seven choices from very satised (3) to very dissatised (3).
For performance level, a semantic differential scale was used with
seven choices from enhances (3) to interferes (3). Table 1
shows the questions and the measurement for the level of satis-
faction and job performance.
The ofce types included a total of ve types in the original
survey: enclosed private, enclosed shared, open-plan with high
cubicles over 5, open-plan with low cubicles lower than 5, and
open-plan without partitions which is known as bullpen. In the
original survey, workers were asked what ofce type they occupy
among these ve as part of the back ground information. The ofce
1596 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600

Table 1 population based on the random participation in the original

Questions and measurement.
Questions
1 How satised are you with the level
of visual privacy?
2 How satised are you with ease of
interaction with co-workers?
3 Does the ofce layout enhance of
interfere with your ability to get
your job done?
4 How satised are you with the noise
level in your workspace?
5 How satised are you with the sound
privacy in your workspace
(ability to
have conversations without your
neighbors overhearing and vice versa?)
6 Does the acoustic quality in your
workspace enhance or interfere with
your ability
to get job done?
survey and an adjustment was not needed [33].
Measurement Among the total participants of 3533, there were some missing
From very satised (3) answers in each question. However, the actual numbers responses
to very dissatised (3) between the ve ofce types in each question were used without
From very satised (3) removing the participants data.
to very dissatised (3)
The limitations of the study were mainly associated with the use
From enhances (3) to
interferes (3) of secondary data. Using the secondary data created a limitation in
the research design and exible data sorting. In addition, subse-
From very satised (3) quent information necessary to further explain the results of the
to very dissatised (3) study was not available. Such information as ofce sizes, the size of
From very satised (3)
to very dissatised (3)
cubicles, geographic information about ofces, and the typical
number of occupants in each ofce location was not collected in the
original survey. Due to these limitations, the study result should be
interpreted carefully but a reasonable conclusion would be possible.
From enhances (3)
to interferes (3)
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis

The descriptive statistics showed a similar rating pattern

types were rst grouped into two types: private ofce and open-
between the ve ofce types in all questions except Question 1:
plan ofce primarily based on openness. This is also a typical
satisfaction with the level of visual privacy. In Question 1, the
classication when creating categories for ofce types based on
enclose private ofce type showed the highest mean score, followed
acoustic privacy [31]. Then, the private ofce group was further
by enclosed shared, high cubicle, low cubicle, and bullpen in this
categorized into two types: the enclosed private type for private
order. In the rest of the questions, the highest mean score was from
ofce for a person and the enclosed shared type for private ofce
the enclosed private ofce type, followed by enclosed shared,
for more than a person. The open-plan ofce type was also further
bullpen, low cubicle, and high cubicle.
categorized into three types based on the vertical height of parti-
In all ofce types except the enclosed private ofce type, the
tions: high cubicles over 5, low cubicles lower than 5, and ofces
highest mean score in each ofce type came from Question 2:
with no partitions: bullpens.
satisfaction with ease of interaction with co-workers among the six
There were totally 3533 participants from the ve ofce types in
questions. In the enclosed private ofce type, it was from satisfac-
fteen LEED-certied buildings in the CBE database by March 2007
tion with the level of visual privacy. Satisfaction with sound privacy
at the time of the study. Thus, the complied data were from
showed the lowest mean score, and acoustic quality affecting job
between March 2007 and when the CBE started conducting the
performance presented the second lowest mean score among the
survey in 2000. The fteen LEED-certied buildings were from
six questions across all ofce types. Fig. 1 shows the response
North America. There were 391 people in enclosed private ofces,
differences in six questions between the ve ofce types.
171 in enclosed shared ofces, 2139 in high cubicles, 693 in low
In Question 1: satisfaction with the level of visual privacy, the
cubicles, and 139 in bullpen ofces.
highest mean score was from the enclosed private type (1.56) fol-
lowed by enclosed shared (0.04), high cubicle (0.24), low cubicle
(0.33), and bullpen (0.50). However, it was barely satisfactory in
3.2. Analysis and limitations all four ofce types. The highest mean score in Question 2: satis-
faction with ease of interaction with co-workers was also from the
Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were enclosed private ofce type (1.38), followed by enclosed shared
employed for the analyses by the author. The author analyzed the (1.31), bullpen (1.13), low cubicle (1.03), and high cubicle (0.71).
data for the selected questions for the study from the database of Overall, the mean scores for Question 2 were highest among the six
the CBE. Descriptive statistics analyzed ofce workers responses in
privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality with frequencies and
central tendencies. ANOVA F-tests analyzed whether the different
responses between ofce workers from the ve ofce types were
statistically signicant. Post-hoc multiple comparison tests fol-
lowed to identify which specic ofce types were signicantly
different from others. The post-hoc tests were conducted using the
Bonferroni correction to adjust the signicance level for the
multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni adjustment is a method used
to reduce the chances of Type 1 error, which means it reduces
a possible error of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is actually
true. The adjusted signicance level for the post-hoc tests was
0.005, which means one can be 99.5% certain that all condence
intervals contain the true value.
The uneven numbers of responses between the ve ofce types
from the original survey were used without adjustment for the
ANOVA tests. This was because the assumption of homogeneity of
variance required for ANOVA tests was met. In addition, the
number of responses in each ofce type reected the state of the Fig. 1. Response in six questions between the ve ofce types.
 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600 1597

questions across the ofce types except the enclosed private type. (2.06). The highest mean difference was from the bullpen type.
However, the mean score in the enclosed private ofces was still People in the enclosed private ofces were signicantly more
higher than the other ofce types. People across the ofce types satised with the level of visual privacy in their personal work-
seemed to be overall satised with easy interaction with their co- spaces than any other ofce types. However, there were no differ-
workers. The mean score for Question 3: job performance affected ences between people in the enclosed shared, high and low
by ofce layout was highest in the enclosed private type (1.36), cubicles, and bullpen ofce types.
followed by enclosed shared (0.54), bullpen (0.35), low cubicle In Question 2: satisfaction with ease of interaction with co-
(0.06), and high cubicle (0.07). The mean scores in both high and workers, there were signicant mean differences between the
low cubicles were close to zero, indicating that there was almost no enclosed private ofces and high (0.65) cubicles, enclosed shared
enhancement with job performance perceived from ofce layout. ofces and high cubicles (0.55), and high cubicles and low cubicles
In Question 4: satisfaction with noise level, the highest mean was (0.29). People in the enclosed private ofces were signicantly
from the enclosed private ofce type (1.00), followed by enclosed more satised with the ease of interaction with co-workers than
shared (0.41), bullpen (0.22), low cubicle (0.40), and high cubicle people in high cubicles. People in three ofce types including the
(0.63). The mean scores in both high and low cubicles were below enclosed private, enclosed shared, and low cubicle types were
zero, indicating that the majority of ofce workers in cubicles were signicantly more satised with easy interaction than people in the
dissatised with the noise level. The mean scores in Question 5: high cubicles. No difference was found between people in the high
satisfaction with sound privacy were the lowest among the six cubicles and bullpens. There was no difference between people in
questions across the ofce types. Especially, all four ofce types the enclosed private, enclosed shared, low cubicle, and bullpen
except the enclosed private type (0.62) had mean scores below zero: ofce types, either.
enclosed shared (0.56), high cubicle (1.01), low cubicle (0.81), The results of Question 3: job performance affected by ofce
and bullpen (0.16). Workers in these ofce types seemed quite layout showed signicant mean differences between the enclosed
dissatised with sound privacy. Question 6: job performance private type and the other ofce types: enclosed shared (0.90),
affected by acoustic quality had the second lowest mean scores high cubicle (1.46), low cubicle (1.35), and bullpen (1.09).
among the six questions across the ofce types. All four ofce types There was also a signicant mean difference between the enclosed
except the enclosed private type (0.70) presented mean scores shared type and high cubicle type (0.56). People in the enclosed
below zero: enclosed shared (0.10), high cubicle (1.01), low private ofces perceived that ofce layout signicantly further
cubicle (0.81), and bullpen (0.16), indicating people in these four enhanced their job performance than people in the other ofce
ofce types didnt perceive that acoustic quality contributed to types. People in high cubicles perceived that their job performance
enhancing their job performance. Table 2 presents mean scores and was signicantly further interfered due to ofce layout than people
standard deviations in each question between the ve ofce types. in both enclosed private and shared ofces. But there was no
difference between the high cubicle, low cubicle, and bullpen types.
In Question 4: satisfaction with noise level, there were signi-
4.2. ANOVA analysis cant mean differences between the enclosed private type and the
high cubicle (1.62), low cubicle (1.35), and bullpen (0.77) types.
ANOVA F-tests revealed statistically signicant ndings in There were also signicant mean differences between the enclosed
privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality between the ve ofce shared ofce type and both high (1.08) and low (0.81) cubicle
types. All p-values for six questions was 0.000, indicating that the types, the high cubicle type and bullpen (0.85) type, and the low
results were statistically signicant. Table 3 presents the ANOVA cubicle type and bullpen type (0.58). People in the enclosed
table for the six questions. private ofces were signicantly more satised with the noise level
Post-Hoc multiple comparison tests at 99.5 condence intervals than people in all three open-plan ofce types. No difference was
showed which specic ofce types were signicantly different from observed between the enclosed private and enclosed shared ofces.
the others. Question 1: satisfaction with the level of visual privacy People in both enclosed shared ofces and bullpen ofces were
showed that there were signicant mean differences between the signicantly more satised with the noise level than people in both
enclosed private type and all other ofce types: enclosed shared high and low cubicles. Overall, people in all three ofce types
(1.53), high cubicle (1.75), low cubicle (1.83), and bullpen including enclosed private, enclosed shared, and bullpen were
signicantly more satised with the noise level than people in both
high cubicles and low cubicles. There was no difference between the
Table 2
Mean scores & standard deviations between ve ofce types. enclosed shared type and bullpen type.
Question 5: satisfaction with sound privacy showed that there
Measures Enclosed Enclosed High Low Bullpen
were signicant mean differences between the enclosed private
private shared cubicle cubicle
type and the other types: enclosed shared (1.16), high cubicle
1 Level of visual Mean 1.52 0.01 0.23 0.31 0.54
privacy Std. dev 1.68 2.10 1.85 1.94 1.78
(2.00), low cubicle (1.82), and bullpen (1.39). The highest mean
difference came from the high cubicle type (2.00). There were also
2 Ease of interaction Mean 1.36 1.26 0.71 1.00 1.10
signicant mean differences between the enclosed shared ofce
with co-workers Std. dev 1.64 1.58 1.60 1.59 1.69
type and high cubicle type (0.84), and the high cubicle type and
3 Ofce layout quality Mean 1.40 0.50 0.06 0.05 0.31 bullpen type (0.61). People in the enclosed private ofces were
enhancing job Std. dev 1.51 1.85 1.72 1.85 1.83
performance
signicantly more satised with sound privacy in their personal
workspaces than people in the other ofce types. People in three
4 Noise level Mean 0.99 0.45 0.63 0.36 0.22
ofce types: enclosed private, enclosed shared, and bullpen were
Std. dev 1.76 1.71 1.74 1.83 1.88
also signicantly more satised than people in the high cubicle type.
5 Sound privacy Mean 0.63 0.53 1.37 1.19 0.76 However, there was no difference between the low cubicle type and
Std. dev 1.89 1.83 1.55 1.70 1.85
high cubicle type. No difference was found between the low cubicle,
6 Acoustic quality Mean 0.68 0.10 1.03 0.83 0.16 enclosed shared, and bullpen types, either.
enhancing job Std. dev 1.74 1.73 1.51 1.61 1.72 In Question 6: job performance affected by acoustic quality,
performance
there were signicant mean differences between the enclosed
1598 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600

Table 3
ANOVA table for six questions.

Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean squares F P

1 Satisfaction with level of visual privacy Regression 1047.7123 4 261.9281 75.6030 0.0000
Residual 12,084.2395 3488 3.4645
Total 13,131.9518 3492

2 Satisfaction with ease of interaction with co-workers Regression 186.7571 4 46.6893 18.1271 0.0000
Residual 8978.7399 3486 2.5757
Total 9165.4970 3490

3 Job performance enhanced by ofce layout Regression 696.9536 4 174.2384 57.7432 0.0000
Residual 10,515.8798 3485 3.0175
Total 11,212.8334 3489

4 Satisfaction with noise level Regression 995.8955 4 248.9739 79.9598 0.0000

Residual 10,720.5954 3443 3.1137
Total 11,716.4909 3447

5 Satisfaction with sound privacy Regression 847.3254 4 211.8314 72.2563 0.0000

Residual 3550.2457 1211 2.9317
Total 4397.5711 1215
6 Job performance enhanced by acoustic quality Regression 1018.7341 4 254.6835 102.7004 0.0000
Residual 8434.0364 3401 2.4799
Total 9452.7705 3405

private type and the other ofce types: enclosed shared (0.78),
high cubicle (1.71), low cubicle (1.51), and bullpen (0.84).
There were also signicant mean differences between the enclosed
shared ofce type and both high (0.93) and low (0.73) cubicle
types, the high cubicle type and bullpen type (0.87), and the low
cubicle type and bullpen type (0.67). People in the enclosed
private ofces indicated that the acoustic quality in their personal
workspaces signicantly further enhanced their job performance
than people in the other ofce types. In addition, people in three
ofce types including enclosed private, enclosed shared, and bull-
pen types also perceived further enhanced performance than
people in both high and low cubicle types. There was no difference
between the enclosed shared type and bullpen type, and high
cubicle type and low cubicle type. Table 4 presents the results of
post-hoc tests.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Overall, the study showed there were differences in employee
satisfaction and perceived job performance levels regarding privacy,
interaction, and acoustic quality between ofce types in the LEED-
certied buildings. Some results were consistent across the ques-
tions between ofce types, while the others were uniquely
happening in particular ofce types. An interesting nding in the
study is that the high cubicle type showed signicantly lower
satisfaction and perceived job performance than the other ofce
types in many questions. Regarding visual privacy and interaction
with co-workers, people in the high cubicles consistently showed
signicantly lower satisfaction as well as lower job performance
perceived by ofce layout than both types of the enclosed ofces. In
the acoustic quality questions, people in the high cubicles also
persistently presented signicantly lower satisfaction and lower job
performance perceived in all questions than the other ofce types
except the low cubicles.
In the comparison between the three open-plan ofces, there
was not a critical difference between them regarding visual privacy
and interaction in the study. The only difference found was that
people in the low cubicles were signicantly more satised with
easy interaction with co-workers than people in the high cubicles.
However, in acoustic quality questions differences between the
three open-plan ofces became more apparent. People in the
bullpen type were signicantly more satised with acoustic quality
as well as experienced more enhancement with job performance
by acoustic quality than people in both high and low cubicles most
times. There was no difference between low cubicles and high
cubicles regarding acoustic quality at all. It seems that having
partitions doesnt seem to contribute to better acoustic solutions
whether the height is low or high.
This may attribute to lack of non-verbal cues that allow co-
workers to see ones body language in cubicles [34]. Unlike bullpens
where workers can judge whether neighboring co-workers are in
a situation for a conversation or not, cubicles dont allow this. In
addition, unwanted overhearing of neighboring co-workers
conversations without being invited in cubicles may make them
perceive less privacy [34]. If cubicle ofce type is necessary,
designers should accommodate workers with acoustic solutions
such as a careful workstation layout that helps minimize the direct
proximity of sound from co-workers [35] and team-oriented small
open workspaces that are enclosed and separated from the main
circulation to services areas [32]. Also, noise problems should be
approached from social and behavioral issues in workplace to
address appropriate work etiquettes and how to read non-verbal
cues in addition to engineering aspects such as noise cancellation
technologies. Occupant psychology is another factor to consider for
organizations to effectively implement a particular type of work
environment for the nature of their work if worker preference or
dissatisfaction is based on their misunderstanding on the necessity
of the particular ofce layout for the type of their work. Open-plan
layouts tend to offer workers less individual control over their work
environment. However occupants become more tolerant about
reasonable shortcomings and their willingness to compromise
tends to increase if they understand better the design intent [36].
The bullpen ofce type may further increase worker satisfaction
and job performance in relation to acoustic quality than both high
and low cubicles among the three open-plan ofce types in LEED-
certied buildings according to the study. The bullpens, open-plan
ofces without any partitions, may be as good as enclosed shared
ofces when it comes to privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality.
There was no difference between the bullpen type and the enclosed
shared type in LEED-certied buildings in all six questions in the
study. Organizations may consider the bullpen type of workspace if
the small space is a crucial issue.
This study provides valuable information on the issues of ofce
layout regarding privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in ve
ofce types with various degrees of openness and accessibility in
LEED-certied buildings. Organizations and businesses can
 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600 1599

Table 4
Post-hoc tests between ofce types.

(I) Exp (J) Exp MD (IJ) 99% Condence t Signicant

Lower bound Upper bound

1 Satisfaction with level of visual privacy Enclosed private Enclosed shared 1.53 0.95 2.11 8.670 Yes
High cubicle 1.75 1.40 2.10 16.600 Yes
Low cubicle 1.83 1.43 2.23 15.175 Yes
Bullpen 2.06 1.45 2.67 11.046 Yes
Enclosed shared High cubicle 0.22 0.27 0.71 1.479 No
Low cubicle 0.30 0.23 0.83 1.877 No
Bullpen 0.53 0.17 1.23 2.477 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.08 0.19 0.35 0.979 No
Bullpen 0.31 0.23 0.85 1.890 No
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.23 0.34 0.80 1.320 No

2 Satisfaction with ease of interaction Enclosed private Enclosed shared 0.10 0.39 0.59 0.671 No
with co-workers High cubicle 0.65 0.35 0.95 7.159 Yes
Low cubicle 0.36 0.02 0.70 3.464 Yes
Bullpen 0.26 0.27 0.79 1.613 No
Enclosed shared High cubicle 0.55 0.13 0.97 4.300 Yes
Low cubicle 0.26 0.19 0.71 1.891 No
Bullpen 0.16 0.45 0.77 0.867 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.29 0.52 0.06 4.115 Yes
Bullpen 0.39 0.86 0.08 2.748 No
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.10 0.60 0.40 0.664 No

3 Job performance affected by Enclosed private Enclosed shared 0.90 0.37 1.43 5.571 Yes
ofce layout High cubicle 1.46 1.14 1.78 14.857 Yes
Low cubicle 1.35 0.98 1.72 11.997 Yes
Bullpen 1.09 0.52 1.66 6.248 Yes
Enclosed shared High cubicle 0.56 0.10 1.02 4.034 Yes
Low cubicle 0.45 0.04 0.94 3.015 No
Bullpen 0.19 0.47 0.85 0.949 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.11 0.36 0.14 1.441 No
Bullpen 0.37 0.88 0.14 2.408 No
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.26 0.80 0.28 1.594 No

4 Satisfaction with noise level Enclosed private Enclosed shared 0.54 0.01 1.09 3.239 No
High cubicle 1.62 1.30 1.94 16.554 Yes
Low cubicle 1.35 0.98 1.72 11.989 Yes
Bullpen 0.77 0.19 1.35 4.375 Yes
Enclosed shared High cubicle 1.08 0.60 1.56 7.418 Yes
Low cubicle 0.81 0.30 1.32 5.196 Yes
Bullpen 0.23 0.45 0.91 1.114 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.27 0.53 0.01 3.462 Yes
Bullpen 0.85 1.36 0.34 5.443 Yes
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.58 1.13 0.03 3.498 Yes

5 Satisfaction with sound privacy Enclosed private Enclosed shared 1.16 0.58 1.74 6.632 Yes
High cubicle 2.00 1.61 2.39 16.891 Yes
Low cubicle 1.82 0.69 2.95 5.303 Yes
Bullpen 1.39 0.80 1.98 7.715 Yes
Enclosed shared High cubicle 0.84 0.31 1.37 5.187 Yes
Low cubicle 0.66 0.53 1.85 1.831 No
Bullpen 0.23 0.47 0.93 1.088 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.18 1.29 0.93 0.534 No
Bullpen 0.61 1.16 0.06 3.639 Yes
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.43 1.63 0.77 1.184 No

6 Job performance affected by Enclosed private Enclosed shared 0.78 0.29 1.27 5.204 Yes
acoustic quality High cubicle 1.71 1.41 2.01 19.049 Yes
Low cubicle 1.51 1.17 1.85 14.671 Yes
Bullpen 0.84 0.32 1.36 5.273 Yes
Enclosed shared High cubicle 0.93 0.50 1.36 7.178 Yes
Low cubicle 0.73 0.27 1.19 5.252 Yes
Bullpen 0.06 0.55 0.67 0.325 No
High cubicle Low cubicle 0.20 0.43 0.03 2.854 No
Bullpen 0.87 1.33 0.41 6.199 Yes
Low cubicle Bullpen 0.67 1.16 0.18 4.494 Yes

determine which ofce type may be an appropriate option for their
purposes and goals based on the ndings in this study when they
have to give priority to either privacy, interaction, or acoustic
quality. Green buildings take into account the total quality of indoor
environment to contribute to improved quality of life and occupant
performance in the workplace [35]. Designers need to pay attention
to how ofce layout may affect worker satisfaction and job
performance in relation to privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality
when complying with LEED standards since these issues are not
addressed in the LEED IEQ category but are important elements in
work environment contributing organizational nancial success. It
may also be worth taking into account the complex interplays
between various factors inuencing on these issues such as
between organizational culture, purpose of organization, nature of
1600 Y.S. Lee / Building and Environment 45 (2010) 15941600
particular work, seniority at work, worker psychology, and ofce
layout. To further pin down these complex relationships affecting
privacy and acoustic quality in addition to ofce layout, future
studies need to look at whether workers attitude and expectation
about their work environment are different from the nature of their
work or organizational needs; how the need of easy interaction is
different between oor staff and senior members of staff; and how
worker psychology affect upon ofce layouts based on their
expectation and previous experience regardless of necessary
layouts to t the organizational purposes.
References
[1] Lee YS, Guerin DA. Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satis-
faction and performance in LEED-certied buildings. Indoor & Built Environ-
ment 2009;18(4):293300.
[2] USGBC. Green building by the numbers, <http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.
aspx?DocumentID3340>; 2009.
[3] Smith A. Building momentum: national trends and prospects for high-
performance green buildings. A paper prepared for the US. Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C: U.S. Green Building
Council, 2003.
[4] USGBC. About USGBC, <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPage
ID124>; 2009.
[5] USGBC. Introduction to LEED. Washington, D.C: U.S. Green Building Council;
2006.
[6] Block L, Stokes G. Performance and satisfaction in private versus nonprivate
work settings. Environment and Behavior 1989;21(3):27797.
[7] Oldham GR. Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on
employee reactions: a quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology
1988;73(2):2538.
[8] Sundstrom E, Burt RE, Kamp D. Privacy at work: architectural correlates of job
satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal
1980;23:10117.
[9] Sundstrom E, Herbert RK, Brown DW. Privacy and communication in an open-
plan ofce: a case study. Environment and Behavior 1982;14(3):37992.
[10] Wineman JD. Behavioral issues in ofce design. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold; 1986.
[11] Portman A, Clevenger C, France C. Using LEED-NC in Colorado tips, resources, and
examples, http://www.cde.state.co.us/artemis/gov11/gov112l512006internet.pdf;
2005.
[12] Lee YS, Kim SK. Indoor environmental quality in LEED-certied buildings in
the U.S. Journal of Asian Architecture & Building Engineering 2008;7(2):
293300.
[13] Turner C. LEED building performance in the Cascadia region: a post occupancy
evaluation report, http://www.cascadiagbc.org/resources/POE_REPORT_2006.
pdf; 2006.
[14] Danielsson CB, Bodin L. Ofce type in relation to health, well-being, and job
satisfaction among employees. Environment and Behavior 2008;40(5):
63668.
[15] Kim J, Kim S, Yang I, Kim K. A design support system for effective planning of the
integrated workplace performance. Building and Environment 2007;43(7):
1286300.
[16] Oldham GR, Cummings A, Zhou J. The spatial conguration of organizations:
a review of literature and some new research directions. In: Ferris GR, editor.
Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 13. Greenwich:
JAI Press; 1995. p. 137.
[17] Maher A, Hippel C. Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan
ofces. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2005;25(2):21929.
[18] Brennan A, Chugh JS, Kline T. Traditional versus open ofce design: a longi-
tudinal eld study. Environment and Behavior 2002;34(3):27999.
[19] Pejtersen J, Allermann L, Kristensen TS, Poulsen OM. Indoor climate, psycho-
social work environment and symptoms in open-plan ofces. Indoor Air
2006;16:392401.
[20] Rashid M, Kampschroer K, Wineman J, Zimring C. Spatial layout and face-to-
face interaction in ofces: a study of the mechanisms of spatial effects on face-
to-face interaction. Environment & Planning B 2006;33(6):82544.
[21] Allen TJ, Gerstberger PG. A eld experiment to improve communication in
a product engineering department: the non-territorial ofce. Human Factors
1973;15:48798.
[22] Ives RS, Ferdinands R. Working in a landscaped ofce. Personal Practice
Bulletin 1974;30:12641.
[23] Zahn LG. Face to face communication in an ofce setting: the effects of
position, proximity and exposure. Communication Research 1991;18:73754.
[24] Hedge A. The open-plan ofce: a systematic investigation of employee reac-
tions to their work environment. Environment and Behavior 1982;14(5):
51942.
[25] Marans RW, Yan X. Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open
and enclosed ofces. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
1989;6:11831.
[26] Spreckelmeyer KF. Ofce relocation and environmental change: a case study.
Environment and Behavior 1993;25(2):181204.
[27] Sundstrom E, Town JP, Brown DW, Forman A, McGee C. Physical enclosure,
type of ofce, and privacy in the ofce. Environmental and Behavior
1982;14(5):54359.
[28] Banbury SP, Berry DC. Ofce noise and employee concentration: identifying
causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics 2005;48(1):
2537.
[29] Loewen LJ, Suedfeld P. Cognitive and arousal effects of masking ofce noise.
Environment and Behavior 1992;24(3):38195.
[30] Veitch JA. Ofce noise and illumination effects on reading comprehension.
Journal o f Environmental Psychology 1990;10(3):20917.
[31] Sundstrom E, Town JP, Rice RW, Osborn DP, Brill M. Ofce noise, satisfaction
and performance. Environment and Behavior 1994;26(2):195222.
[32] Brill M, Weidemann S, Alard L, Olson J, Keable E. Disproving widespread myths
about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International; 2001.
[33] Howell DC. Statistical methods for psychology. 5th ed. Pacic Grove: Duxbury
Press; 2006.
[34] Becker F. Ofces at work. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2004. p. 21.
[35] New York City Department of Design and Construction. High performance
building guidelines, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ddc/html/design/sustainable_
home.shtml; 1999.
[36] Leaman A, Bordass B. Are users more tolerant of green buildings? Building
Research & Information 2007;35(6):66273.