The Influence of Personal Control

and Environmental Distraction

in Open-Plan Offices on Creative
Outcome
Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani, PhD | Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, PhD |
Saudah Sofian, PhD

T
oday, organizations, by their very nature, are In this study, the researchers devel-
designed to process order and routine; they oped and tested a new model of how
individual perception about the work
must continuously develop new products or environment in open-plan offices (in
services that are successful in the market to ensure terms of personal control and envi-
their survival. In fact, innovation and creative out- ronmental distraction) affect creative
outcome through environmental sat-
come are essential for organizational growth and eco- isfaction and social interaction. The
nomic development. The success of a new product partial least squares of structural equa-
depends on many factors including organizational tion model (PLS-SEM) was used to ana-
lyze data. The respondents were 238
strategy, organizational characteristics (such as the employees working as programmers
firm’s organizational climate), the characteristics of and designers in creative mobile indus-
new products, and the process of product develop- tries that are supported by or clustered
in creative multimedia companies in a
ment and product marketing (Dul & Ceylan, 2014; multimedia super corridor in Malaysia.
Landry, 2012; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2014; Ward, The findings showed that personal con-
2004). Moreover, the environment of the workplace trol over the work environment has a
significant effect on individuals’ satisfac-
that stimulates employees’ creative thinking and tion with the work environment, social
creative outcome is normally believed to be help- interaction, and creative outcome. The
ful for the creation of innovative products (Haner, results also indicated that environmen-
tal distraction has no significant effect
2005; Martens, 2011; Montag, Maertz, & Baer, 2012; on creative outcome. Managers, space
Paramitha & Indarti, 2014). designers, and architects can use the
Thus, today, the most important function of the knowledge of this study to give build-
ing users as much control as they need
workplace is to be more supportive due to dynamic to positively affect their work behavior
organizational changes and the rapid growth of and outcome.
technology. All factors within a workspace (such as
innovative communication systems, technological
improvements, e-marketing developments, virtual reality, and alterna-
tive or optional work models) play an important role (Carmeli, Meitar,
& Weisberg, 2006; Oksanen & Ståhle, 2013). To ensure that the work
environment supports these new working styles, flexible workplaces
are often suggested (Becker, 2002; Pejtersen, Allermann, Kristensen, &

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 3 0 ( 1 ) P P. 5 – 2 8
© 2017 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21239
 Poulsen, 2006; Veitch, Charles, Farley, & Newsham, 2007). Therefore,
the concept of open-plan offices was described as providing at least a
basic solution to many of these notable and current challenges. Open
workspaces are often recommended because they offer interpersonal
access and open communication compared with completely enclosed
private offices (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Hua, 2007; Kim & de
Dear, 2013). Furthermore, open-plan offices are also designed to encour-
age creativity, teamwork, and communication; therefore, the majority of
creative multimedia companies are intended to be based on the open-
plan layout (Arnerlöv & Bengtsson, 2007; Brennan et al., 2002; De Been
& Beijer, 2014; Hua, 2007).
However, despite its advantages, and being one of the most popular
forms of office design, the open-plan office does have its shortcomings.
Compared to private offices, the open-plan office offers a low level of per-
sonal control over the physical work environment, along with presenting
more environmental distractions. Previous studies suggested that per-
sonal control over the workstation is directly related to group efficiency,
teamwork, and collaboration (Hua, 2007; Hua, Loftness, Heerwagen, &
Powell, 2011; Lee & Brand, 2005; Lee & Brand, 2010; Samani, Rasid, &
Sofian, 2015a). It also contributes to environmental satisfaction, comfort,
and other perceptions that are linked to an individual’s health and stress
(Dul & Ceylan, 2010; Huang, Robertson, & Chang, 2004; Lee & Brand,
2005; Lee & Brand, 2010). In fact, the degree to which an individual
believes that it is possible to directly affect his or her personal environ-
ment has a significant effect on perceptions of that environment and
reactions to it (Knight & Haslam, 2010; Lee & Brand, 2005; Luck, 2003).
In open-plan office design, changeable ambient conditions, such
as lighting and room temperature, are fixed to a certain level without
much opportunity to modify and manage them. Moreover, many techni-
cal systems, such as the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, are
designed for use in private rooms. Most of the
Most of the existing buildings
existing buildings are frequently built to provide
are frequently built to provide
for private offices rather than for open-plan lay-
for private offices rather than for
outs (Rasila & Rothe, 2012). Therefore, having
open-plan layouts.
control over the workspace in open-plan office
arrangements to enhance creative outcome, teamwork, and communica-
tion has proven to be challenging for creative employees. Previous stud-
ies emphasized the importance of office workers’ ability to control their
work environment and to focus on their work without any distractions
from their workspace (Banbury & Berry, 2005; Jahncke, 2012; Roelof-
sen, 2008; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2015b). Personal control over the
workspace can reduce the negative effect of distractions from the work
environment (Huang et al., 2004; Lee & Brand, 2010). However, little
attention has been given to the individual’s perception regarding the
work environment (in terms of personal control over the work environ-
ment and environmental distraction) to affect employees’ work-related
behavior and creative outcome.

6 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

 Personal Social
Control Interaction

Satisfaction Creative
with Work Outcome
Environment

Environmental
Distraction

FIGURE 1. THE MODEL OF THIS STUDY

Therefore, the focus of this study was to investigate the relationship

between personal control over the physical work environment and envi-
ronmental distraction on satisfaction with the work environment, social
interaction, and creative outcome. Figure 1 presents the model of this
study. Considering the nature of the study, the unit of analysis was indi-
viduals (programmers in creative industries) from creative multimedia
industries involved in mobile marketing tools, applications, online games,
and platforms. The choice was based on the fact that the root of creative
industries is found mostly in individual creativity, skills, and talent.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The ambient conditions and physical aspects in office environments
(such as noise, lighting, existence of windows, room temperature, etc.)
affect the employees’ work-related behaviors and
outcomes, as well as satisfaction with the work The ambient conditions and
environment, job satisfaction, performance, and physical aspects in office
creativity (Baron, 2013; Collett & Furnham, 2013; environments affect the
Lee & Guerin, 2009; Oldham, Kulik, & Stepina, employees’ work-related
1991; Roelofsen, 2002; Veitch, 2011; Vischer, behaviors and outcomes, as well
2007b). In general, workers’ productivity, safety, as satisfaction with the work
well-being, and satisfaction at work will be influ- environment, job satisfaction,
enced by how well they fit into their physical performance, and creativity.
work setting (Hwang & Kim, 2013). As suggested
by the environmental comfort theory (Vischer, 2007a), employees require
environmental support for performing their activities within a workplace.
Comfort refers to this stage of environmental support. In fact, as indi-
cated by Vischer (2007a), in the environmental comfort theory, “comfort
links the psychological aspects of workers’ environmental satisfaction
with concrete outcome measures such as improved task performance
and with organizational productivity” (p. 23). Therefore, in a situation
where individuals can personalize and control the ambient conditions in
their workspace, they feel more satisfied, which may positively affect their
creative outcome, as well.

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 7

 Moreover, personal control over the work environment is neces-
sary to enhance social interaction and well-being (Brennan et al., 2002;
Huang et al., 2004; Kim & de Dear, 2013). Open-plan offices are designed
to enhance communication and social interaction, which is required
for creative outcome. In fact, a more positive social climate enhances
the level of creativity at work (i.e., creative outcome) (Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Miller, 2005; Tsai, Horng, Liu, & Hu,
2015). However, in these types of offices, some employees cannot handle
uncontrollable working conditions, such as lack of privacy for confiden-
tial conversations (Oommen, Knowles, & Zhao, 2008), and they require
more personal control over their territory or workspace. As suggested
by the environmental comfort theory, psychological comfort links psy-
chosocial features with environmental design and workplace manage-
ment through the concepts of territoriality, privacy, and control (Vischer,
2007a). In fact, the main element of psychological comfort is the sense
of territory in terms of both individual (e.g., office and workstation) and
group territory (e.g., team and group), which has an effect on the qual-
ity of their conversations. As indicated, people express their territory
in terms of personalization and appropriation of space, which includes
marking territory and building boundaries of social and environmental
control (Fischer, Tarquinio, & Vischer, 2004; Lee, Lee, Jeon, Zhang, &
Kang, 2015).
Additionally, part of creating a healthy work environment is to
develop a supportive workplace that values a variety of employees. At
work, employees’ behaviors and outcomes, as well as creativity and satis-
faction, are affected by the workplace. Well-being plays a significant role
in creating a healthy and successful environment. The broaden-and-build
theory (Fredrickson, 2001) described the meaning of a subset of positive
emotions, including joy, love, happiness, and well-being. The theory sup-
ports the idea that a positive or happy person will have a better ability
to be creative rather than an unhappy or negative person (Fredrickson,
2001). Because feelings and emotions have a significant effect on indi-
vidual creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Fredrickson &
Branigan, 2005), satisfaction with the work environment may also play a
positive role in enhancing individual creativity. Table 1 provides a sum-
mary of previous studies along with the present study ’s hypothesis and
focusing area.

Sampling
The minimum sample size in models with formative measurement
model (modes B and C) should be equal to 10 times the largest number
of formative indicators used to measure a single construct in the struc-
tural model (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Hair, Hult, Ringle, &
Sarstedt, 2014). This idea was adopted by the often-cited 10-times rule
(Barclay et al., 1995). This guiding principle in effect says that the minimum

8 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND THE PRESENT STUDY’S HYPOTHESIS
WHAT WAS DONE BY PREVIOUS STUDIES? THE CURRENT STUDY’S HYPOTHESES
Previous studies indicated that personal control over the work environment enhances employees’ H1: Personal control over the work environment
satisfaction, and it benefits the organization by creating positive workplace behaviors (Guo & Meggers, 2015; is positively linked to satisfaction with the work
Igbeneghu & Popoola, 2011; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Lee & Brand, 2005; Schweiker & Wagner, 2016). However environment.
other studies argue that too much personal control over the workplace may lead to a decrease in the H2: Personal control over the work environment is
overall performance and productivity of individuals (Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011; Lee & Brand, 2005; Veitch & positively associated with creative outcome.
Gifford, 1996). In addition to inconsistent results from previous studies, very little attention has been paid to H3: Satisfaction with the work environment positively
creative outcome as an individual performance. Moreover, the mediating effect of satisfaction with the work mediates the relationship between personal control

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017

environment in relation to personal control over the work environment and creative outcome has not been and creative outcome.
discovered in any of the prior studies.
Previous studies and theories in the field of creativity suggested creativity as a part of social process H4: Personal control over the work environment
(Amabile et al., 1996; Miller, 2005; Tsai et al., 2015). As indicated by prior studies, open-plan work settings is positively linked to social interaction among
are designed to improve communication among co-workers by increasing adjacency (Brennan et al., 2002; individuals.
Kim & de Dear, 2013; Lee & Brand, 2005; Lee & Guerin, 2009; Navai & Veitch, 2003). In fact, open and easy H5: Social interaction among individuals has a positive
communication is the first and the most important factor that makes open offices valuable; in addition, a effect on individual creative outcome.
more positive social climate enhances creative outcome. Therefore, it is important to discover whether there H6: Social interaction positively mediates the
is any relationship between personal control over the work environment and social interaction to influence relationship between personal control over the work
creative outcome. environment and creative outcome.
Previous studies showed inconsistent results referring to the effect of environmental distraction on H7: Environmental distraction is negatively associated
employees’ performance. Some studies indicated that distraction may have no or little influence on workers’ with satisfaction with the work environment.
perceived performance, whereas other studies suggested distraction as a negative feature of a workspace H8: Environmental distraction is negatively associated
that has a negative effect on satisfaction (both job and environment) and performance (both productivity with creative outcome.
and creativity) (Lee et al., 2015; Lee & Brand, 2005; Miller, 2005; O’Neill, 2008; Stokols, Clitheroe, & Zmuidzinas, H9: Satisfaction with the work environment

DOI: 10.1002/piq
2002). In addition to inconsistent results, very little research has explored the role of environmental significantly mediates the relationship between
distraction in relation with satisfaction with work environment and creative outcome. environmental distraction and creative outcome.
Past research has studied individual and group satisfaction with work environment and well-being in H10: Satisfaction with the work environment has a
relationship with personal control and distraction from the workspace and the effect of that on job significant and positive effect on creative outcome at
satisfaction and performance (De Been & Beijer, 2014; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003; Lee & Brand, 2005; work.
Olson, 2015; Shipton, West, Parkes, Dawson, & Patterson, 2006; Veitch et al., 2007). Prior studies also
examined the effect of mood (both positive and negative) and well-being on individual and group creativity
(Amabile et al., 2005; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), but little attention has focused on examining the effect
of satisfaction with work environment on creative outcome.

9
 sample size needed should be 10 times the maximum number of arrow-
heads pointing to a latent variable anywhere in the PLS path model (Hair
et al., 2014). Consequently, the minimum sample size needed in this
research was 90 cases (9 × 10 = 90). Furthermore, as suggested by Kline
(2011), “A ‘typical’ sample size in studies where SEM is used is about
‘200 cases’ ” (p. 12). In fact, as Kline (2011) mentioned, analyzing small
samples in structural equation modeling (SEM) is problematic, and one
of the problems can be the low statistical power.
In this study the sample-size determination is based on several rules
including the structural equation modeling (SEM) assessment for deter-
mining the sample size (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006;
Kline, 2011) and the sample size table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970). In
fact, according to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009), for the majority
of studies in the field of management and business, researchers are pleased
to estimate the population’s characteristics to be within plus or minus 3%
to 5% of its true values. The sample size is calculated based on the Krejcie
and Morgan (1970) formulas for confidence level of 95%. Previous studies
that applied SEM also used the same method to estimate the sample size
(Issa & Mahmood, 2016; Kindy, Shah, & Jusoh, 2016).
The present study focused on creative multimedia companies that
are creating mobile applications such as mobile content delivery sys-
tems, mobile marketing tools, mobile web portals, mobile games, online
and mobile network games, and so on. From the 287 creative multime-
dia companies supported by MSC, 37 companies are in mobile indus-
tries and applications that were registered from 2002 through 2014. The
respondents consisted of programmers and designers involved in creat-
ing and designing mobile games, online games, and mobile platforms and
applications. The number of employees was different in each company,
but the average number of employees for each company was something
between six to 80 programmers and designers (working in creative parts
of the industry). The total number of employees from these 37 compa-
nies was about 600 office employees in the creative section. Thus, based
on the total population for the present study, by referring to the Krejcie
and Morgan (1970) sample-size table, the sample size for the study was
234 employees from mobile industries and application development sup-
ported by MSC Malaysia, clustered in creative multimedia industries.

Method of Data Collection and Sampling

Considering the nature of this study, the unit of analysis was employ-
ees working in creative multimedia industries in the field of mobile applica-
tions development and mobile marketing tools. The survey questionnaire
samples were distributed manually and directly either to respondents
or to the HR departments of organizations. The survey questionnaire
was developed in English, and it was not necessary to translate it. For
this research, judgment sampling technique was used. In this study,

10 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

the researcher contacted companies by telephone and email to ask for
their participation. Fifteen companies in the creative multimedia field in
Malaysia that were willing to participate were selected. The main selec-
tion criterion was that the selected participants must use and work in
open-plan offices. Therefore, survey questionnaire responses came from
248 employees in 15 companies. Excluded were seven cases that showed
some internal non-responses or were incomplete for most sections (more
than 15%), along with three who were working in private rooms. There
was an effective sample of 238 to proceed with the survey questionnaire
analysis process, which represented 81% of the total number of survey
questionnaires distributed.
To avoid sampling bias based on Weiss and Heide (1993), the first
75% of companies returning the survey questionnaires are considered
as early responders, while the last 25% of companies are defined as late
responders and representatives of companies that did not answer the sur-
vey questionnaires. In the extrapolation method, non-response bias was
estimated by a comparison of sample and population means statistics of
early respondents (n = 180) and late respondents (n = 58) data to check for
any significant differences. Using an independent samples t-test (t < 0.05),
early and late respondents to the survey questionnaires were compared
on a number of key characteristics such as personal control, environmen-
tal distraction, satisfaction with the work environment, social interaction,
and creative outcome. The Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was
also not significant with sig. or p > 0.05, and the t-value was statistically
not significant with t < 0.05 (Table 2).
Survey items that were used in this study had been effectively mea-
sured in previous studies with a high level of reliability and validity. How-
ever, some modifications were made on certain items to make them more
appropriate for the context of this study. The personal control and envi-
ronmental distraction items were measured using adopted items from Lee
and Brand (2010). Satisfaction with work environment was measured using
adopted items from Carlopio (1996); social interaction was measured using

TABLE 2 T-TEST OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EARLY RESPONDERS’ AND LATE

RESPONDERS’ DATA
EARLY LATE
DEMOGRAPHICS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
AND VARIABLES MEANS MEANS F-STATISTIC T-VALUES SIG (A = 0.5)
Personal control 28.419 30.103 6.346 −1.485 .139
Environmental 19.316 19.458 .161 −156 .876
distraction
Satisfaction with work 40.596 41.657 1.643 −806 .421
environment
Social interaction 25.570 26.386 2.592 −1.135 .257
Creative outcome 19.239 19.596 4.801 −460 .646

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 11

 adapted items from Sundstrom, Herbert, and Brown (1982); and creative
outcome was measured using adapted items from Amabile et al. (1996).
The development of the original 32-item questionnaire from which the 29
items listed in Appendix A were derived involved several stages.
As mentioned in previous studies, to increase measurement sensi-
tivity, a seven-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral,
7 = strongly agree) was developed and used for this study (Dul, Ceylan,
& Jaspers, 2011; Lee, 2006). Therefore, for four variables of the study
(personal control, environmental distraction, satisfaction with the work
environment, and social interaction), the seven-point Likert scale was
used. Moreover, to avoid extreme response bias, the researcher used the
five-point Likert scale for creative outcome items. Extreme response style
refers to the tendency to recommend the most extreme answer category
regardless of the item’s content (Dodd-McCue & Tartaglia, 2010). Previ-
ous studies in the same field also used a mixture of different Likert scales
in their studies (Choi, 2004; Lee & Brand, 2010). For example, Lee and
Brand (2010) in their study measured distraction and control on a seven-
point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), and perceived
performance, which included quality, quantity, and creativity aspects, on
a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = always).
In addition, all of these items had been used in prior studies and have
good validity and reliability. In this study, for ensuring the acceptability
of the instrument and measuring the latent constructs, content valid-
ity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were tested. This study
determined the content validity through (a) conducting a comprehensive
and systematic database in literature review, (b) reviewing of items with
experts (pre-test), (c) conducting a pilot test, and (d) purifying the items
using coefficient alphas and factors. Convergent validity and discriminant
validity are two subtypes of validity that are tested to assess the construct
validity (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009).
Upon achieving the content validity, the reliability of the measure-
ment has to be identified. Four professors and academics were respon-
sible for testing the suitability of the questionnaires in actual field
conditions. After the pre-test section was completed and the question-
naire was accepted as a valid instrument, a pilot study was carried out to
ensure that the survey questions were suitable and easy to be understood
by respondents. In this study, a pilot study with the size of n = 30 samples
was conducted to measure the reliability of the instrument through the
internal-consistency method. The technique to test the reliability of the
adapted scales was the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Sekaran, 2006).
Table 4 shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for all variables of the study.
To increase measurement sensitivity, a seven-point Likert scale (e.g.,
1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, and 7 = strongly agree) was developed
and used for this study. Therefore, for four variables of the study (per-
sonal control, environmental distraction, satisfaction with the work envi-
ronment, and social interaction), the seven-point Likert scale was used.
Moreover, to avoid extreme response bias, the researcher used the five-

12 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

point Likert scale for creative items. Extreme response style refers to the
tendency to recommend the most extreme answer category regardless
of the item’s content (Dodd-McCue & Tartaglia, 2010). Extreme response
style refers to the tendency to recommend the most extreme answer
category regardless of the item’s content (Dodd-McCue & Tartaglia, 2010).
Previous studies in the same field also used a mixture of various Likert
scales in their studies (Choi, 2004; Lee & Brand, 2010).

Results
SEM was used to examine the hypothesized model depicted in Figure 1.
In this study the measurement model consisted of 32 measured items and
five latent variables using a multi-item scale. All measured items were
allowed to load on only one latent variable each, so the terms of error were
not allowed to relate to any other item in the model.
The final results of convergent validity after all eliminations are shown
in Table 3. As indicated, a factor loading greater than 0.70 is acceptable,

TABLE 3 OUTER LOADING

OUTER LOADING
CONTROL CREATIVE OUTCOME DISTRACTION SOCIAL INTERACTION
Co1 0.7094
Co5 0.7612
Co6 0.7325
Co7 0.836
Cr1 0.785
Cr2 0.802
Cr3 0.7153
Cr4 0.8159
Cr5 0.7572
Cr6 0.7503
Di1 0.727
Di2 0.78
Di3 0.746
Di4 0.814
Di5 0.7435
So1 0.8004
So2 0.835
So3 0.8029
So4 0.7794
So5 0.7594

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 13

 TABLE 4 CRONBACH’S ALPHA OF THE VARIABLES IN THE PILOT
TEST AND ACTUAL SURVEY
PILOT STUDY (N = 30) ACTUAL SURVEY (N = 238)
NUMBER CRONBACH’S NUMBER CRONBACH’S
CONSTRUCTS OF ITEMS ALPHA OF ITEMS ALPHA
Personal control 7 0.889 7 0.796
Environmental 5 0.823 5 0.810
distraction
Satisfaction with 9 0.891 9 0.814
work environment
Social interaction 5 0.914 5 0.833
Creative outcome 6 0.896 6 0.857

whereas outer loadings between 0.40 and 0.70 should be considered for
elimination; however, elimination makes sense only if it leads to enhance-
ment of the composite reliability or AVE. As indicated, the desired level
of convergent validity for AVE is 0.50. In this regard, three indicators of
personal control (Co 2, Co 3, and Co 4) were eliminated from the analy-
sis. So, the 29 items were retained in the conceptual model for further
analysis.
To evaluate the discriminant validity, a matrix that included the
matrix’s main diagonal of the AVE coefficient of each construct was
needed, along with the values of the upper and lower main diagonal,
including the correlation coefficient between each construct and the
other constructs. This matrix is shown in Table 5.
Table 5 reports the descriptive statistics, standard deviations, scale
reliabilities (CR), and correlations for the reflective variables that are used
in this study. The results show significant correlations between the depen-
dent and the independent variables and limited collinearity among the
independent variables.
The result of all indicators’ tolerance in the formative model (satisfac-
tion with work environment) of the study were higher than 0.2 and their

TABLE 5 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES (CR), AND CORRELATIONS

FOR REFLECTIVE INDICATORS
DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
(FORNELL-LARCKER)
VARIABLES MEAN SD AVE CR 1 2 3 4
Personal control 4.11 7.448 0.579 0.846 0.761
Creative outcome 3.22 5.010 0.595 0.898 0.353 0.772
Environmental 3.85 5.850 0.582 0.874 −0.204 −0.291 0.763
distraction

Social interaction 5.18 4.449 0.633 0.896 0.397 0.496 −0.283 0.796

14 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

 TABLE 6 THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE OF OUTER WEIGHT IN FORMATIVE
INDICATORS
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
OUTER
WEIGHT T STATISTICS LOW UP P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE
Sa2 ->satisfaction 0.096 1.044 −0.060 0.251 0.297
*
Sa3 ->satisfaction 0.172 1.723 0.003 0.341 0.085
*
Sa4 ->satisfaction 0.330 3.124 0.152 0.507 0.002
Sa5 ->satisfaction 0.075 0. 821 −0.078 0.228 0.411
*
Sa6 ->satisfaction 0.214 2.430 0.065 0.362 0.015
Sa7 ->satisfaction 0.245 3.051 −0.109 0.381 0.003
*
Sa8 ->satisfaction 0.203 2.681 0.074 0.331 0.007
Sa9 ->satisfaction 0.086 0.985 −0.612 0.233 0.325

*Is significant.

VIF values were lower than 5. This indicated that the indicators of the for-
mative measurement latent variable were appropriately constructed (Hair
et al., 2014). Table 6 shows the significance and relevance of outer weight
in formative indicators.
Others were not significant but were retained because their outer
loadings were significant (i.e., > 0.50) (outer loadings of mentioned items
are Sa2 = 0.51, Sa5 = 0.55, Sa7 = 0.76 and Sa9 = 0.65). The critical t-values
for significant levels of 1% were 2.57 (a = 0.01) and 1.65 for significant
levels of 10% (a = 0.10) (Hair et al., 2014).
The formal for measuring the confidence interval for a probability
of 10% error in this study was as follows: outer weight of formative item
–1.69 (probability of error) * bootstrap standard error for lower bound
and formative item + 1.69 (probability of error) and * bootstrap standard
error for upper bound (Hair et al., 2014). Overall, in this study, all criteria
for validating formative constructs were considered. Therefore, accord-
ing to the results, it can be concluded that in this study, the outer model
presented acceptable levels of validity and reliability after some indicators
were eliminated from latent variables (from reflective and formative con-
structs) (see Figure 2).
Table 7 shows the result of R-square and path coefficients. The coef-
ficient of determination (the value of R2) is one of the most commonly
adopted methods to measure the inner model. In fact, R2 evaluates the vari-
ation of the dependent variables (endogenous) that were explained by the
independent ones (exogenous). By following Roldán and Sánchez-Franco
(2012), and if considering R2 to be at least 0.10, the result would be sufficient
and acceptable. As suggested by Cohen (1988), the R2 value of 0.26 is consid-
ered to be considerable and large, 0.13 as moderate, and 0.02 as weak.
The f-square values are the effect size used for SEM-PLS. According
to Cohen (1988), f2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered small,

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 15

 FIGURE 2. THE FINAL MODEL AFTER VALIDATION

TABLE 7 R SQUARES AND PATH COEFFICIENT

PATH COEFFICIENTS
CREATIVE
R2 SATISFACTION SOCIAL INTERACTION OUTCOME
Personal control 0.242 0.397 0.134
Environmental distraction −0.541 0.022
Satisfaction 0.405 0.371
Social Interaction 0.157 0.236
Creative outcome 0.358

medium-sized, and large, respectively. As shown in Table 8, the value of

effect size f2 for personal control, satisfaction, and social interaction to
creative outcome were 0.023, 0.099, and 0.054, respectively. This result
demonstrated that environmental distraction had a value of zero, which
means it had no effect on creative outcome.

Hypothesis Testing
The paths between the latent variables in the structural model appear
in Figure 2 as standardized coefficients. As shown in Table 9, the seven
paths reached statistical significance. Based on the results of the study,
the direct effects and relationships for all constructs except one of them
reached acceptable levels. The result shows that the relationship between
environmental distraction and creative outcome with path coefficient of
0.022 and confidence interval between −0.091 and 0.135 was not sup-
ported in the hypothesis significance, because the t-value is 0.324, which
is smaller than 1.65 (for significant levels of 10% [a = 0.10]). Therefore,
this relationship is not supported.

16 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

 TABLE 8 EFFECT SIZE F2
PERSONAL CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
CONTROL OUTCOME DISTRACTION SATISFACTION INTERACTION
Personal control 0.023 0.095 0.187
Environmental 0.000 0.470
distraction
Satisfaction 0.099
Social interaction 0.054

In this study, the entity variables for satisfaction with the work environ-
ment and social interaction were hypothesized to mediate the relationship
between personal control and creative outcome. Moreover, satisfaction
with the work environment was hypothesized to mediate the relationship
between environment distraction and creative outcome. Although the rela-
tionship between environment distraction and creative outcome was not
significant, mediation exists as distraction influences satisfaction and sat-
isfaction influences creative outcome. Because a mediated causal model
includes the hypothesis that predictor variable (X) causes or affects media-
tor (M) and the hypothesis that variable mediator (M) causes or affects
outcome variables (Y), it does not make sense to consider mediator analysis
in a condition where one or both of these hypotheses would be nonsense
(Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher, & Crandall, 2012). This condition was met
for all three mediation relationships. To assess the mediating hypotheses,
bootstrapping techniques (with 5,000 resamples) and PLS algorithm were
used on the full model to obtain path coefficients and their significant level
(Wong, 2013). As suggested by Hair et al. (2014), the path coefficient for
indirect effects or mediators was estimated by the following formula:
Path coefficient for indirect effects
Furthermore, because satisfaction with the work environment and social
interaction both share the same IV and DV (parallel mediation), the follow-
ing formula was used to calculate the t-value for each hypothesized effect:

As illustrated in Table 10, the bootstrapping analysis showed that the indi-
rect effect β1 = (0.242*0.371) = 0.089 was significant with t-value of 2.368 and
confidence interval between 0.027 and 0.152. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the mediation effect of satisfaction with the work environment was sta-
tistically significant in relation to personal control and creative outcome. The
indirect effect β2 = (0.397*0.236) = 0.093 was significant with t-value 2.447.
This result provided support for the mediation effect of social interaction in
the relationship between personal control and creative outcome.
Moreover, the bootstrapping analysis showed that the mediation effect of
satisfaction with the work environment was also supported and statistically
significant in relation to environmental distraction and creative outcome.

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 17

18
TABLE 9 DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS

DOI: 10.1002/piq
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SUGGESTED PATH
HYPOTHESES RELATIONSHIPS COEFFICIENTS T-VALUE LOW UP P-VALUE SUPPORT
H1-Personal Control ->Satisfaction with work + 0.242 4.381 0.149 0.334 0.000 Yes
environment
H2-Personal Control ->Creative outcome + 0.134 2.295 0.035 0.232 0.000 Yes
H4-Personal Control ->Social interaction + 0.397 7.902 0.312 0.481 0.000 Yes
H5-Social interaction ->Creative outcome + 0.236 3.361 0.117 0.354 0.001 Yes
H6-Environmental Distraction ->Satisfaction with _ −0.541 8.798 −0.644 −0.437 0.000 Yes
work environment
H8-Environmental Distraction ->Creative outcome _ 0.022 0.324 −0.091 0.135 0.005 No
H10-Satisfaction with work environment + 0.371 4.680 0.237 0.503 0.000 Yes
->Creative outcome

The ->symbolizes that the arrows represent relationships.

Performance Improvement Quarterly

 TABLE 10 MEDIATOR ANALYSIS
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
INDIRECT
HYPOTHESES EFFECTS T-VALUE LOW UP SUPPORT
H3–Control ->Satisfaction ->Creative β1 = 0.089 2.368 0.027 0.152 Yes
Outcome
H6–Control ->Social Interaction β2 = 0.093 2.447 0.030 0.155 Yes
->Creative Outcome
H9–Distraction ->Satisfaction β3 = − 0.200 3.937 −0.284 −0.115 Yes
->Creative Outcome

The ->symbolizes that the arrows represent relationships.

Discussion and Conclusion

Open-plan offices are currently one of the most popular and growing
forms of office design in industry. There is no doubt that it is better for
organizations with creative and innovative backgrounds to use open-plan
offices because, as was mentioned by prior studies, open-plan work-
spaces enhance and promote employees’ creative and innovative outcome
(Arnerlöv & Bengtsson, 2007; Brennan et al., 2002; De Been & Beijer,
2014; Hua, 2007). Other organizations use open-plan offices to gain their
advantages. This study examines the relationship between both personal
control and environmental distraction and creative outcome through
satisfaction with work environmental and social interaction in creative
mobile industries that were clustered or supported by MSC Malaysia
from 2002 to 2014 and that applied open-plan offices. The result of this
study indicated the role of individuals’ perceptions regarding their work
environment on their behaviors and creative outcome. In today ’s work
environment, it is very important to create a supportive and healthy work
place, as well as valuing employees by offering them greater support and
positive conditions to lead to a better outcome. This fact is essential for
all organizations, particularly those that need and depend on the indi-
vidual employee’s creative thinking and talent. Based on the results of
this study personal control over the work environment has a positive and
significant effect on employees’ satisfaction with the work environment,
social interaction, and creative outcome.
The result of descriptive statistical analysis in this study showed that
more than 40% of employees stated that in their current open-plan offices
they often had new ideas and felt creative and that the open-plan office
was conducive to their creative outcome. The result of descriptive statisti-
cal analysis also showed that 69% of employees reported that they were
satisfied with the general atmosphere of the workplace. Therefore, based
on these outcomes it is possible to conclude that within a workplace
individual ability, creativity, and work-related behavior, which consist of
satisfaction (with the environment), are influenced by environmental and
individual perceptions regarding them.

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 19

 Measuring personal control is facilitated in conditions in which it is lim-
ited or absent. When people do not have personal control, they can measure
the level of distraction and need for control and can then answer questions
about the degree of their satisfaction with their conditions. Personal con-
trol over the work environment directly contributes to employees’ health,
effectiveness, and satisfaction with the work environment and performance
and indirectly affects these outcomes through mediating a user’s percep-
tions such as distractions, privacy, stress, and communication (Huang et al.,
2004; Lee & Brand, 2005; Lee & Brand, 2010; Miles & Perrewé, 2011). When
employees feel that they have control over the amount and timing of their
social contact and communication with others, they are more willing to
communicate and share ideas and therefore can be more creative. That per-
ception also has a positive effect on an individual’s outcome (both produc-
tivity and creativity). The results of this study also confirmed the findings of
previous studies (Huang et al., 2004; Lee & Brand, 2005; Miles & Perrewé,
2011; Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault, & Duval, 2004; O’Neill, 2010; Thomas,
Kellyl, & Lillant, 2006; Veitch & Newsham, 2000).
Moreover, the result of this study suggests that environmental dis-
traction is unlikely to have an effect on employees’ creative outcome,
which may also be attributed to the creative mobile industry culture, in
that employees are mostly focused on their computers and usually use
headphones, which allows them to concentrate more and ignore envi-
ronmental distraction. However, when individuals have personal control
over their workspace, this positively affects their satisfaction, social inter-
action, and creative outcome.
Hence, the result of this study overall indicated that in Malaysia the
response to open-plan offices from creative mobile industries is positive.
Despite the fact that open-plan offices offer limited privacy and ability
to control environmental features, employees focus more on the posi-
tive advantages of this type of office design, as they encourage open and
easy communication and promote creativity. Therefore, it is possible to
conclude that employees in creative mobile industries in Malaysia enjoy
working within open-plan offices. Furthermore, the result of this study
indicated that creative mobile industries in Malaysia that are supported
by MSC and that apply and use open-plan offices believe that this type of
office design helps them to enhance their creative outcome.
Similarly, the findings of the study have some implications for the
possible approach to environmental and psychological research for orga-
nizational designers and firm managers of creative industries that use
open-plan offices to enhance and support their employees’ creative out-
come. In fact, the origin of creative industries lies mainly in individual
creativity, skills, and talent. However, people’s creativity is dependent not
only on their characteristics and personality but also on their work envi-
ronment (both social and physical) and their feelings, moods, and well-
being, which support and promote creativity. Therefore, paying greater
attention to the physical and social work environment based on employ-
ees’ perceptions and expectations is essential for organizational manag-

20 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

ers and space designers. Furthermore, the government can also take a
supportive and significant role in enhancing the organization’s creative
and innovative outcome by paying more attention to the design of the
work environment to see whether it can support and meet employees’
needs. In fact, a supportive workplace can enhance individuals’ satisfac-
tion with their work environment and their job, and it can improve their
outcome in overall tasks both in creativity and productivity, which can
help the economy and market of the country as a whole.
The findings of the study showed that employees’ perception of their
work environment, their ability to control their ambient conditions in
the workplace, and the amount of distraction arising from the environ-
ment can have both positive and negative effects, which will directly
and indirectly affect their satisfaction with the work environment, social
interaction, and creative outcome. Having personal control over the
physical work environment in open-plan offices appears to be impor-
tant, particularly for controlling the lighting and room temperature. In
fact, employees are more concerned about having control over these
two environmental features (lighting and room temperature), which may
enhance the level of satisfaction with the work environment and overall
creative outcome. The result of descriptive statistical analysis of this
study showed that more than 50% of employees reported that they do
not have control over room temperature, and about 63% of employees
reported that they do not have control over the lighting in their open-
plan workspaces, which can negatively affect their satisfaction with work
environment.
However, despite the fact that many distractions may occur in open-
plan offices as well as there being a lack of personal control over many
environmental features and lack of privacy, many employees in creative
mobile industries in Malaysia were satisfied with their work environ-
ment. They were satisfied with their level of privacy, even though it
seems limited. Based on the results of this study, satisfaction with work
environment and social interaction has a positive and significant effect
on creative outcome. Indeed, working in conditions that enhance their
well-being and environmental satisfaction can motivate employees to
work better and promote their overall creative outcome; therefore, it is
essential for managers to consider this fact. The overall work environ-
ment should be designed to motivate people to behave and perform
more effectively. It can be understood as a motivational domain with
particular stimulus characteristics that enables and permits some behav-
ioral changes among its residents. The government should pay greater
attention to open-plan offices and provide some standards for them
based on employees’ needs and requirements for safety, satisfaction, and
overall outcome.
Moreover, many organizations are currently adopting open-plan
designs and appear to be unwilling to assign space for actual meetings or
coffee areas. In combination with the office culture, the process of con-
versations at these places, particularly conversations of a social nature,

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 21

 were considered as off-task activities. However, in creative industries,
this type of communication and social interaction can and may enhance
the level of creative outcome among individuals. In addition, having this
type of communication and interaction may also reduce psychological
stress and enhance employee satisfaction with the work environment.
Therefore, managers and space designers should consider that in design-
ing workplaces and should provide coffee areas and meeting rooms for
employees in case they need to communicate with one another in groups
or one-to-one.
Finally, the findings of this study indicated that today, in the build-
ing design and process, a great deal of attention should be dedicated to
identifying and understanding environmental problems to find a way
to decrease their frequency. It is possible to further improve creative
outcome by employing different groups of building features, particu-
larly those features and attributes that affect motivation, social func-
tioning and interactions, emotional understanding and experience,
and attitudes toward work. Interior designers and managers should
consider that this kind of design should be established through actual
changes in the process of perceived personal control. Moreover, these
findings also make a contribution for managers of an organization
so that they might enhance their organizations’ creative outcome by
paying more attention to their employees’ expectation regarding their
workspace.

Limitation of the Study and Recommendation

for Future Researches
Despite this study ’s contributions to theory and practice, it has some
limitations that require further discussion.
First, this study aimed to gain a deeper knowledge of the relation-
ships between individuals’ perception regarding their work environment
(in terms of personal control and environmental distraction) and cre-
ative outcome through social interaction and satisfaction with the work
environment in open-plan office designs. In this regard, it is important
for future studies to consider additional factors (e.g., individual charac-
teristics or culture) that could also play an important role in improving
creative outcome.
Second, the sample of this study was limited to creative mobile indus-
tries, which are supported by or clustered in the multimedia super cor-
ridor in Malaysia. The reason for this focus was that one of the main
purposes of MSC Malaysia is to turn the creative multimedia industry
into one of the main sources of development for Malaysia. Therefore,
future studies can and may focus on other creative companies in different
fields.
Third, this study used a survey method for data collection that
demonstrated some limitations to the findings. When using a survey

22 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

technique, it is impossible to check the real understanding of the issues
requested by a questionnaire from the respondents. Furthermore, dif-
ferent respondents may respond to the questions based on their self-
evaluation and may assign different values to different points of the scale
used in the survey (Kumar, 2010). Future studies can also apply other
methods of data collection to support the result of the questionnaires
(e.g., interviews).
Finally, this study used a cross-sectional analysis, and data was col-
lected once during the research period, so inferences about causality
should be made with care; use of a longitudinal method would appear
more desirable to take into account the patterns over a longer period.
Particularly, in measuring individual satisfaction from the work environ-
ment and creative outcome, the impact might require comparison with
employees in different working conditions.

References
Amabile, T., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., & Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403.
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Arnerlöv, K., & Bengtsson, C. (2007). Open-plan offices: The importance of the ambient
conditions´ characteristics for employee satisfaction. Bachelor thesis, Umeå
University.
Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying
causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48(1), 25–37.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach
to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.
Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Baron, R.A. (2013). How environmental variables influence behaviour at work. In P.
Collett & A. Furnham (Eds.), Social psychology at work (Psychology Revivals): Essays
in Honour of Michael Argyle (p. 176). London, UK: Routledge.
Becker, F. (2002). Improving organizational performance by exploiting workplace
flexibility. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(2), 154–162.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A
longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279–299.
Carlopio, J.R. (1996). Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(3), 330.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior
at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75–90.
Choi, J.N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The
mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16(2–3),
187–199.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Collett, P., & Furnham, A. (Eds.). (2013). Social psychology at work (Psychology Revivals):
Essays in Honour of Michael Argyl. London, UK: Routledge.
Davis, M.C., Leach, D.J., & Clegg, C.W. (2011). The physical environment of the office:
Contemporary and rmerging issues. In Gerard P. Hodgkinson & J.K. Ford (Eds.),
Organizational & Industrial Psychology: International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Vol. 26, p. 412).

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 23

 De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The Influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived
productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2), 142–157.
Dodd-McCue, D., & Tartaglia, A. (2010). Self-report response bias: Learning how to live
with its diagnosis in chaplaincy research. Chaplaincy Today, 26(1), 2–8.
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2010). Work environments for employee creativity. Ergonomics,
54(1), 12–20.
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a
firm’s product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
31(6), 1254–1267.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the
physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
Fischer, G-N., Tarquinio, C., & Vischer, J.C. (2004). Effects of the self-schema on perception
of space at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 131–140.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Fredrickson, B.L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
Guo, H., & Meggers, F. (2015). Impact of control availability on perceived comfort. Energy
Procedia, 78, 1671–1677.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th Ed., Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Haner, U. E. (2005). Spaces for creativity and innovation in two established organizations.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 288–298.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Keyes, C.L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its
relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C.L. Keyes &
J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (Vol. 2, pp. 205–224).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling
in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (AIM), 20, 277–320.
Hua, Y. (2007). Designing open-plan workplaces for collaboration: An exploration of
the impact of workplace spatial settings on space perception and collaboration
effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Hua, Y., Loftness, V., Heerwagen, J.H., & Powell, K.M. (2011). Relationship between
workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration.
Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 807–826.
Huang, Y.H., Robertson, M.M., & Chang, K.I. (2004). The role of environmental control
on environmental satisfaction, communication, and psychological stress effects of
office ergonomics training. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 617–637.
Hwang, T., & Kim, J.T. (2013). Assessment of indoor environmental quality in open-plan
offices. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(1), 139–156.
Igbeneghu, B.I., & Popoola, S.O. (2011). Influence of locus of control and job satisfaction
on organizational commitment: A study of medical records personnel in university
teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
libphilprac/575/
Issa, H.E.A., & Mahmood, R. (2016). Emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership: The moderating effect of organizational culture. The International
Journal of Business & Management, 4(4), 212–221.
Jahncke, H. (2012). Cognitive performance and restoration in open-plan office noise. Doctor
of Philosophy, University of Gävle, Luleå, Sweden.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-
off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.
Kindy, A.M.Z.A., Shah, I.M., & Jusoh, A. (2016). Consideration and methodological
approaches in studying transformational leadership Impact on work performance
behaviors. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(1), 889–907.

24 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). London,
UK: The Guilford Press.
Knight, C., & Haslam, S.A. (2010). Your place or mine? Organizational identification and
comfort as mediators of relationships between the managerial control of workspace and
employees’ satisfaction and well-being. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 717–735.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Kumar, R. (2010). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
Landry, D.R. (2012). Encouraging creativity in the workplace through the physical
environment: Focusing of the office workstation. Master of Science dissertation,
University of Nebraska—Lincoln.
Lee, P.J., Lee, B.K., Jeon, J.Y., Zhang, M., & Kang, J. (2015). Impact of noise on self-rated
job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: A structural equation modelling
approach. Ergonomics, 1–13.
Lee, Y.S. (2006). Expectations of employees toward the workplace and environmental
satisfaction. Facilities, 24(9/10), 343–353.
Lee, Y.S., & Brand, J.L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of
the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 323–333.
Lee, Y.S., & Brand, J.L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease
distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53(3), 324–335.
Lee, Y.S, & Guerin, D.A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant
satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor and Built
Environment, 18(4), 293–300.
Little, T.D., Card, N.A., Bovaird, J.A., Preacher, K.J., & Crandall, C.S. (2012). Structural
equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In T.D.
Little, J.A. Bovaird & N.A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal
studies (Vol. 1, p. 392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Luck, G. (2003). The Relationship of an innovative thinking style, locus of control and
perceived control on job satisfaction and workspace preferences among knowledge
workers. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, California School of Professional
Psychology. Los Angeles, CA, ProQuest Information and Learning Co.
Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: Instrumental and symbolic support for creativity.
Facilities, 29(1/2), 63–79.
Miles, A.K., & Perrewé, P.L. (2011). The relationship between person–environment fit,
control, and strain: The role of ergonomic work design and training. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 729–772.
Miller, A.M. (2005). Fun in the workplace: Toward an environment-behavior framework
relating office design, employee creativity, and job satisfaction. Master of Interior
Design dissertation, University of Florida.
Montag, T., Maertz, C.P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity
criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.
Navai, M., & Veitch, J.A. (2003). Acoustic satisfaction in open-plan offices: Review and
recommendations. National Research Council Canada: Institute for Research in
Construction.
Newsham, G., Veitch, J., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C. (2004). Effect of dimming control on
office worker satisfaction and performance. National Research Council Canada:
Institute for Research in Construction.
O’Neill, M. (2008). Open plan and enclosed private offices. Retrieved from www.knoll.com/
media/878/738/OpenClosed_Offices_wp.pdf
O’Neill, M.J. (2010). A model of environmental control and effective work. Facilities,
28(3/4), 118–136.
Oksanen, K., & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation:
Investigating the attributes of innovative space. Journal of Knowledge Management,
17(6), 815–827.

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 25

 Oldham, G.R., Kulik, C.T., & Stepina, L.P. (1991). Physical environments and employee
reactions: Effects of stimulus-screening skills and job complexity. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(4), 929–938.
Olson, B.V. (2015). Does workplace matter? Perceived satisfaction with physical
workspace as a driver of worker performance. International Journal of Facility
Management, 6(1).
Oommen, V.G., Knowles, M., & Zhao, I. (2008). Should health service managers embrace
open plan work environments? A review. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management,
3(2), 37–43.
Paramitha, A., & Indarti, N. (2014). Impact of the environment support on creativity:
Assessing the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 115, 102–114.
Pejtersen, J., Allermann, L., Kristensen, T., & Poulsen, O. (2006). Indoor climate,
psychosocial work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices. Indoor Air
16(5), 392–401.
Rasila, H., & Rothe, P. (2012). A problem is a problem is a benefit? Generation Y
perceptions of open-plan offices. Property Management, 30(4), 362–375.
Roelofsen, P. (2002). The impact of office environments on employee performance: The
design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement. Journal of
Facilities Management, 1(3), 247–264.
Roelofsen, P. (2008). Performance loss in open-plan offices due to noise by speech.
Journal of Facilities Management, 6(3), 202–211.
Roldán, J.L., & Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for using partial least squares. In M. Mora (Ed.), Research methodologies,
innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information
systems (Vol. 193). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Samani, S.A., Rasid, S.Z., & Sofian, S. (2014). A workplace to support creativity. Industrial
Engineeering & Management Systems, 13(4), 414–420.
Samani, S.A., Rasid, S.Z., & Sofian, S. (2015a). Individual control over the physical work
environment to affect creativity. Industrial Engineeering & Management Systems,
14(1), 94–103.
Samani, S.A., Rasid, S.Z., & Sofian, S. (2015b). Perceived level of personal control over the
work environment and employee satisfaction and work performance. Performance
Improvement, 54(9), 28–35.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students,
5th edition. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Schweiker, M., & Wagner, A. (2016). The effect of occupancy on perceived control, neutral
temperature, and behavioral patterns. Energy and Buildings, 117(1), 246–259.
Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed). Wiley
India Pvt. Limited.
Shipton, H.J., West, M.A., Parkes, C.L., Dawson, J.F., & Patterson, M.G. (2006). When
promoting positive feelings pays: Aggregate job satisfaction, work design features,
and innovation in manufacturing organizations. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 15(4), 404–430.
Stokols, D., Clitheroe, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (2002). Qualities of work environments that
promote perceived support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 137–
147.
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R.K., & Brown, D.W. (1982). Privacy and communication in an
open-plan office: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 14(3), 379–392.
Thomas., W.H.N., Kellyl, L.S., & Lillant, E. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057–1087.
Tsai, C.Y., Horng, J.S., Liu, C.H., & Hu, D.C. (2015). Work environment and atmosphere: The
role of organizational support in the creativity performance of tourism and hospitality
organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 26–35.
Veitch, J.A. (2011). Workplace design contributions to mental health and well-being.
Healthcare Papers, 11, 38–46.

26 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M., & Newsham, G.R. (2007). A model of satisfaction
with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27(3), 177–189.
Veitch, J.A., & Gifford, R. (1996). Choice, perceived control, and performance decrements
in the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 269–276.
Veitch, J.A., & Newsham, G.R. (2000). Exercised control, lighting choices, and energy use:
An office simulation experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 219–237.
Vischer, J.C. (2007a). The concept of environmental comfort in workplace performance.
Ambiente Construido, Porto Alegre, 7(1), 21–34.
Vischer, J.C. (2007b). The effects of the physical environment on job performance:
Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health, 23(3), 175–184.
Ward, T.B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19(2), 173–188.
Weiss, A.M., & Heide, J.B. (1993). The nature of organizational search in high technology
markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 220–233.
Wong, K.K-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.

SANAZ AHMADPOOR SAMANI

Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani, PhD, received her doctorate in

management from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Her research
interests are in management, human resources, creativity, and innovation.
She has authored more than 10 articles and research papers in journals
and at conferences. She may reached at sanaz.ahmadpoor@gmail.com

SITI ZALEHA ABDUL RASID

Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, PhD, received her doctorate in accounting.

She is an associate professor at International Business School of
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Her research interests are in
management accounting, enterprise risk management, and corporate
governance. She has authored or coauthored more than 70 articles and
research papers in journals, conference proceedings, and technical
reports. She may reached at szaleha@ibs.utm.my

SAUDAH SOFIAN

Saudah Sofian, PhD, received her doctorate in accounting. She is

an associate professor in the Department of Management and Human
Resource of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Her research
interests are in management accounting, intellectual capital, and
corporate governance. She has authored or coauthored more than 70
articles and research papers in journals, conference proceedings, and
technical reports. She may reached at saudah@utm.my

Volume 30, Number 1 / 2017 DOI: 10.1002/piq 27

 APPENDIX A
Personal Control Strongly disagree ←→ Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am able to personalize my workspace regarding my needs.
I am able to control the temperature in my office.
I am able to control the lighting level in my workstation.
I can adjust, rearrange, and reorganize my furniture as needed.
I am able to control the amount and timing of contact with other people including
co-workers or clients.
I can hold small, impromptu meetings in my office or work area as needed.
Environmental Distraction Strongly disagree ←→ Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I find it difficult to concentrate on my work.
I experience auditory distractions in my work area.
I don’t have adequate privacy in my primary, individual work area.
I experience visual distractions in my work area.
My work environment is too noisy.
Satisfaction with Work Environment
How satisfied are you with… Very dissatisfied ←→ Very satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The amount of lighting in your workspace?
The visual comfort of the lighting (e.g., glare, reflections, contrast)?
The temperature in your workspace?
The amount of space available for individual work and storage?
The level of visual privacy?
The level of sound privacy?
Ease of interaction with co-workers?
The general atmosphere in your work area?
Social Interaction Strongly disagree ←→ Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In my work environment I can communicate effectively with others.
In my work environment it is easy to contact those with whom I deal regularly.
My office area enhances required communication.
I have easy access to those who provide clerical support for me.
I have easy access to the group that I deal with frequently.
Creative Outcome Never ←→ Always
1 2 3 4 5
A great deal of creativity is called for in my daily work.
In my work environment I often suggest new ways of performing work tasks.
In my work environment I often have new and innovative ideas.
I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas.
Overall, my current work environment is conducive to my own creativity.

28 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly