Towards An Environmental Psychology

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h ysical environment on j o b performance: towards a t h e o r e t i c a l model o f workspace s t r e s s

Jacqueline C. Vischer*, School of Industrial Design, Facult de lamnagement, University of Montreal, Montral, Qubec, Canada
*Correspondence to: Jacqueline C. Vischer, School of Industrial Design, Facult de lamnagement, University of Montreal, C.P. 6128 succursale Centreville, Montral, Qubec H3C 3J7, Canada. Tel: 514-3436684; Fax: 514-343-5694. E-mail: jacqueline.vischer@umontreal.ca
StressandHealth
Stress and Health 23: 175184 (2007) Published online 8 February 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1134 Received 31 March 2006; Accepted 10 October 2006
Summary Studies of stress in the work environment pay little attention to features of the physical environment in which work is performed. Yet evidence is accumulating that the physical environment of work affects both job performance and job satisfaction. Contemporary research on stress in the work environment typically focuses on psychosocial factors that affect job performance, strain and employee health, and does not address the growing body of work on the environmental psychology of workspace. This paper reviews theory and research bearing on stress in the workplace and explores how current theory might be applied to the relationship between worker behaviour and physical features of the work environment. The paper proposes a theoretical model of the workerworkspace relationship in which stress and comfort play a critical part, and suggests a methodological approach on which to base future empirical studies. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Words environmental psychology; occupational health; stress; comfort; workspace; office design ment where work is performed. This paper asserts that another important influence on work performance results from physical features of the work environment. Evidence is accumulating that the physical environment in which people work affects both job performance and job satisfaction (Brill, Margulis, & Konar, 1985; ClementsCroome, 2000; Davis, 1984; Dolden & Ward, 1986; Newsham, Veitch, Charles, Clinton,
Marquardt, Bradley, Shaw, & Readon, 2004; Vischer, 1989, 1996). The tasks workers perform in modern office buildings are increasingly complex and depend on sophisticated technology; Introduction Studies of stress in the work environment tend to focus on psychosocial influences in the environand companies whose occupancy costs are increasing generally seek to reduce them without adversely affecting the workers. Such workspace decisions aspire to create an investment in employees quality of life, the argument being made that measurable productivity increases will result. In addition, researchers are increasingly finding links between employee health and aspects of the physical environment at work such as indoor air quality, ergonomic furniture and lighting (Dilani, 2004; Milton, Glencross, & Walters, 2000; Veitch & Newsham, 2000). Contemporary literature on stress in the work environment typically focuses on psychosocial factors that affect job performance, strain and employee health. Some theoretical models of stress at work have included the physical environment as a factor (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). But in many cases, studies referring to physical environment factors tend to refer to the physical parameters of the tasks being performed rather than to features of the physical space in which work is done. As research on job strain and other aspects of stress at work tends not to address the growing body of work on the environmental psychology of workspace, the purpose of this paper is to create a link between these two fields of endeavour. In light of the growing importance of the environmental design of workspace in terms of financial investments as well as employee health and well-being, this paper reviews theory and research bearing on stress in the workplace. It then draws on research in environmental psychology to explore how current thinking might be applied to the relationship between worker behaviour and physical features of the work environment. The paper proposes a theoretical model of the workerworkspace relationship in which stress and comfort play a critical part, and outlines a methodological approach on which to base future empirical studies. Overview of environmental stress research The term environmental stress often denotes adverse environmental effects in the natural world, such as damage to certain types of plant. The term work environment is used in stress research to incorporate psychosocial dimensions such as employeeemployer relations, motivation and advancement, job demands and social support. In this paper, therefore, the more specific term workspace stress will be used to refer to the effects of the physical environment of work. Established theories and current thinking in the
field of stress at work provide some promising themes that can help define workspace stress. Cooper and Dewe (2004) in their description of how the concept of stress has evolved, point out that it was originally an engineering term referring to the area or part of a structure affected by the load or demand placed on it by other parts. It has since broadened into a field of applied psychology. In this context, the term stress applies both to the effects of fatigue on performance, namely in the context of manmachine systems, and to mental hygiene, or the diagnosis and treatment of mental problems at work (p. 11). Selye (1956) described the three stages of alarm, resistance and exhaustion as the human body deals with adverse environmental circumstances. These can equally well be applied to extreme physical environmental conditions. Mason (1972) identified likely causes of stress in a variety of job and other situations. His studies conclude that three main situational stressors are that the situation is novel, the situation is unpredictable, from the individuals point of view, and the individual has the feeling that he/she has no control over the situation. These stressors can be transposed to an analysis of the physical work environment, where it is not uncommon for workers to feel little or no control over, or understanding of, the workspace provided to them. Studies of stress at work developed as techniques became available to measure levels of stress hormones such as adrenalin and noradrenalin (Theorell, 1986). From this and related research, decision latitude and psychological control emerged as two determining dimensions of job strain that could be applied to various job types. At a later stage, the third critical dimension of social support was added. Known as the demand-control or job-strain model, this model has dominated much of the research on work-related stress, the measurement of which has led to widespread use of the job strain scale (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). This framework can usefully be applied to analysis of the physical environment in which people work, both in terms of the environmental demands placed on users and the control, or lack of it, they have over their space (Vischer, 2005). Other models currently guiding theory and empirical work on stress can also be considered
J. C. Vischer
Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175184 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/smi 176
relevant to workspace stress. Cooper and Dewe (2004 p. 95) identify the interactional model of stress, employing the traditional stimulus response paradigm that has enabled researchers to generate data on multiple causes of stress at work. This is distinct from the transactional model, in which stress is defined in terms of the
interactive processes that relate an individual to his environment. Lazarus & Cohen (1977) introduced the concept of daily hassles as a category of likely causes of stress that need to be distinguished from major life events because they are closer to the persons daily experience (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). In daily hassles, stress is generated by stable, repetitive or chronic conditions that annoy on a regular basis. The concept of stress-causing hassles has proved useful to the study of the physical environment on peoples behaviour (Lazarus & Cohen, 1977). Lazarus and his co-workers developed a hassles scale, which, after testing, seemed to confirm the importance of daily hassles in creating stress (Lazarus, 1984). His research emphasizes appraisal, or the effects of the perception of the subject, in mediating between environmental events and the experience of stress: for Lazarus, appraisal links person and environment, including physical environment. Coping, the processes by which humans respond to stress, is related to appraisal in the transactional model (Lazarus, 1981). Studies of coping mechanisms have become part of the study of stress at work (Dewe & Guest, 1990; Latack, 1986; Schwartz & Stone, 1993). The distinction that Folkman and Lazarus (1985) draw between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies might be applied to coping with environmental adversities, that is, workspace stress. Problem-focused strategies are analogous to biomechanical responses such as coping with problems of glare from lights or seating that does not support backs, and emotion-focused strategies are analogous to psychosocial responses such as inferring status from office size, opportunities for workspace personalization, and defining home territory. The assertion that a characteristic of coping behaviour is that it changes over the course of the event confirms that no single behaviour or psychosocial outcome can be identified as coping with adverse, uncomfortable or stressful workspace features. Rather, the presence of any behaviour form that can be construed as coping with workspace suggests the presence of workspace stress. Almost all theoretical models of stress at work refer to a mismatch or misfit between the demands of the situation and the resources of the individual. The focus on misfit, what it means, how it shows itself and how to measure it, is fundamental to work stress research and focuses on the transactional nature of the personenvironment relationship and the processes that underlie it. The value of the cybernetic model advanced by Cooper and Dewe (2004, p. 97) is its focus on personenvironment interaction as a system, in which individuals constantly modify their environment while, at the same time, adjusting and adapting their behaviour to fit the environment they occupy. Prevailing theoretical models of
stress at work emphasize the need for a good fit between a persons abilities, skills and degree of controlor decision latitudeand the work environments demands, complexity, expectations and challenges. A poor fit in either direction (too many skills, not enough demands, or too many demands and insufficient control) generates stress (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kaplan, 1983; Lawton, 1980). The relevance of the concept of fit in environmental psychology is discussed below. The environmental psychology of workspace Researchers in environmental psychology have developed a rich literature on ways of measuring how the physical environment meets peoples (users) needs, in which many varieties and examples of misfit are recorded. The definition of misfit is one in which the environment places inappropriate or excessive demands on users, in spite of their adaptation and adjustment behaviours (coping). The concept of environmental fit is well integrated into the environmental psychology literature (Alexander, 1970; Herring, Szigeti, & Vischer, 1977; Preiser, 1983; Zeisel, 2005). So what are the elements in the physical workspace that can be identified as affecting fit or misfit between person and environment at work? One area of research that has begun to answer this question is ergonomics. Initially developed for military and manufacturing processes, ergonomics researchers now apply their assessment tools to office furniture and equipment to protect workers from long-term muscular or nerve injury due to poor bodily positioning or muscle use. Stress, from the ergonomics stand-
A theoretical model of workspace stress

point, is frequently discussed in terms of the relationship between levels of performance and concepts such as arousal, signal detection theory and different environmental demands (Cooper & Dewe, 2004, p. 65). The ergonomic approach studies tools and equipment as well as workspace features as extensions of the human body. Those ergonomic features most frequently studied in workspace include lighting and daylighting, noise and noise control, and office furniture and spatial layouts in offices. These are summarized below. Lighting research has tended to distinguish between the effects on building occupants of artificial, interior lighting and of natural light or daylighting from windows. Daylighting research has linked increased comfort and productivity with window size and proximity, as well as with view out, control over blinds and shielding from glare (Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, & Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, van der Voost, &
Van Dortmost, 2004). More significantly, research on daylight and views from hospital rooms has been shown to affect medication requirements and recovery rates (Ulrich, 1991; Verderber & Reuman, 1988). In their overview of the effects of different kinds of artificial lighting on task performance and occupant satisfaction, Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer, and Hunter (2003) concluded that current office lighting standards are preferred by most people carrying out typical office tasks in a simulated office environment, where workers used controls to exercise their lighting choices. The study results made a distinction between visual comfortlighting needed to perform well on office tasksand satisfaction, or lighting judged to be aesthetic. Current studies of noise in offices have adapted techniques for measuring noise levels in industrial environments. Workers in open plan workspace tend to judge noise to be a primary source of discomfort and reduced productivity (Hedge, 1986; Oldham, 1988; Stokols & Scharf, 1990; Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982). Acoustic comfort studies have focused on correlating physical measures, such as signal-to-noise ratios at different densities, background noise levels and intensities, and speech intelligibility under differing physical conditions, with occupant judgements of distraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo, & Martellota, 2001; Chu & Warnock, 2002; Mital, McGlothlin, & Faard, 1992). Efforts to control office noise through more absorbent surfaces, sound-masking systems and behavioural controls have been undermined by increasing office densities and collaborative work in modern workspace. Perhaps the largest number of environmental psychology studies of workspace has focused on floor configuration and furniture layouts in the open plan office. Research indicates that these environmental factors have the greatest influence on worker satisfaction and performance (Brill, Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Hatch, 1987; Sullivan, 1990; Vischer, 1989). Studies have tended to focus on the height and density of workstation partitions, the amount and accessibility of file and work storage, and furniture dimensions such as work surfaces as being these elements of furniture and spatial layout which have the most effect not only on the satisfaction of individual workers but on the performance of teams. One study indicated that the additional investment in ergonomic tables and chairs for workers yielded a 5-month payback in terms of increased productivity (Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidence that office workers are uncomfortable in open plan configurations and prefer private enclosed workspace (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David, & Tiegs, 2001; Ornstein, 1999). In addition, aspects of psychological comfort such as territoriality and privacy are strongly affected by spatial layout: office size and
location is linked with status; partitioning influences acoustic as well as visual privacy; amount of office storage is linked with territoriality and status (Fischer, Tarquinio, & Vischer, 2004; McCusker, 2002; Vischer, 2005; Vischer, McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo, & Castonguay-Vien, 2003; Wells, 2000). In their overview of stress related to the physical work environment, McCoy and Evans (2005) go beyond ergonomics to characterize as stressful those situations where elements of the physical environment interfere with the attainment of work objectives. Stressors in the work environment affect employee performance adversely when they are high intensity or prolonged; they slow down the individuals ability to process and understand the number and predictability of signals, which increase with task complexity. Potential stressors (i.e. elements that interfere with task performance, motivation and social relationships) include spatial organisation, architectonic details, ambient conditions and resources, and view or visual access from the workspace. As environmental stressors, [these] can influence physiological processes, produce
J. C. Vischer
negative affect, limit motivation and performance, and impede social interaction (p. 222). Spatial organization issues include the openness of the layout: that is, the proportion of open workstations to private, enclosed offices, the height of partitions and the distance between open workstations, as well as access to needed resources, such as technology and equipment, meeting rooms and washrooms. Closely related to spatial organization are ambient conditions such as sound, visual openness and light, as well as ventilation and thermal comfort. Architectonic details, which include colours and decoration, signage, artwork and design details, convey meaning and can have symbolic significance that affects people emotionally. For example, some work environments encourage personalization and individual decoration; some have key landmark elements that facilitate territorial definition for individuals or groups; some carry symbolic status, such as proximity to windows (positive) or to washrooms (negative). Architectonic details are likely to affect emotionfocused coping behaviour in situations of workspace stress. A mismatch between the demands placed on workers and the control they have over the physical environment in which they meet those demands is by definition stress-generating. McCoy and Evans (2005) emphasize the temporal dimension: an environmental element that is temporarily annoying cannot be identified as a
stressor in the same way as that same annoying elements effect over time, when it becomes a daily hassle. The sustained impact of adverse environmental elements may also cause a delayed reaction, affecting performance after the stressor has been removed. Environmental psychology research into the work environment has until recently focused on measuring user satisfactionboth job satisfaction and environmental satisfaction. Based on stimulusresponse logic, this approach posits user satisfaction as a measurable behavioural response to features of the physical environment. However, little in this approach controls for the personal and experiential influences and prejudices that affect peoples assessment of the quality of their workspace. The global and inexact concept of satisfaction does not address the complexities of the transactional nature of the personenvironment relationship. More recent work on environmental comfort elaborates on the notion of fit between user and workspace, providing a sounder theoretical basis for workspace stress research. Comfort and stress The idea of human comfort has traditionally been applied in architectural history research to studying the functional aspects of the dwellings and buildings of older and remote cultures. Comfort as a basis for setting environmental standards in public buildings has developed out of recognizing that people need to be more than simply healthy and safe in the buildings they occupy. Once health and safety are assured, users need environmental support for the activities they are there to perform, that is, environmental comfort (Vischer, 1989). The concept of environmental comfort links the psychological aspects of workers environmental likes and dislikes with concrete outcome measures such as improved task performance, as well as with organizational productivity through workspace support for work-related tasks. Evidence suggests that environmental comfort comprises at least three hierarchically related categories: physical, functional and psychological (Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort includes basic human needs such as safety, hygiene and accessibility without which a building is uninhabitable. These needs are met through applying current building codes and standards to architectural design and construction decision making. Functional comfort is defined in terms of ergonomic support for users performance of work-related tasks and activities. Appropriate lighting for screen-based work, ergonomic furniture for computer users, and enclosed rooms available for meetings and collaborative work, for example, help ensure functional comfort. Psychological comfort results from feelings of belonging, ownership and control over workspace. The environmental comfort model postulates that, although
weakness in one category can be compensated for by strength in another, optimal environmental support for work performance is most likely to occur when workspace quality is assured at all three comfort levels. Figure 1 illustrates the environmental comfort model. The diagram shows that while physical comfort is at the threshold of acceptable workspace, psychological comfort is affected by the degree of environmental choice or empowerment users feel they have through decision-making

processes. The third category, functional comfort, needs to be measured in order to determine which environmental elements support, or fail to support, work. Functionally uncomfortable workspace draws energy out of the worker that would otherwise be directed to performing work. Depending on the tasks they are performing, workers are more or less affected by environmental factors such as lighting, furniture layout and ergonomics, noise level and temperature. An adverse or problematic workspace (poor fit) drains effort and energy out of the user: she cannot see well in poor lighting conditions, she has to get up and walk around to relieve back or neck pain, she has to wait to have a meeting because there is no space in her cubicle and no available conference room. On the other hand, a supportive, positive and effective work environment (good fit) allows and even encourages occupants to apply all their energy and attention to performing work. The difference between a supportive and an unsupportive workspace is thus the degree to which occupants can conserve their attention and energy for their tasks, as opposed to expending it to cope with adverse environmental conditions. The energy drawn out of users in adverse environmental conditions can therefore be hypothesized as coping mechanisms or behaviour; evidence that such mechanisms are present in employees behavioural repertoire at work indicates a stressful (uncomfortable because unsupportive) workspace. The environmental comfort model posits uncomfortable workspacewhere there is a misfit between what people need to perform their tasks and resources the physical environment providesas a definition of workspace stress or strain. That is, sustained misfit situations generate stress, both of the daily hassle variety as well as on a more critical level, such as in cases of sick building syndrome, where pollutants in the indoor air cause illness and absenteeism. Depending on the type of space and the work being performed, every office environment is situated somewhere along the stress-to-support continuum, with none being either all good or all bad,
but most varying with type of user and type of tasks. Where the personworkspace interaction falls on the continuum also depends on time of day, time of year, availability and accessibility of office technology, and corporate values and culture. According to the environmental comfort model, psychological comfort links psychosocial aspects with the environmental design and management of workspace through the concepts of territoriality, privacy and control (Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986; Vischer et al., 2003; Wells, 2000). A sense of territory is associated with feelings of belonging and ownership. Privacy is best understood as the need to exercise control over ones accessibility to others (Altman, 1975; Kupritz, 2000; Steele, 1986). Environmental control can be said to affect workers on at least two levels: mechanical or instrumental control, and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Instrumental control exists where chairs and work surfaces can be raised and lowered, work tables on wheels can be moved around, lights are switchable, and there is an office door to open and close. Evidence indicates a positive psychological impact from this type of control in certain circumstances (Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault, & Duval, 2004; Tu & Loftness, 1998). Empowerment as a form of environmental control increases opportunities for employees to participate and be heard in workspace decision making and means they are better informed. This alleviates the three stress-causing conditions identified by Mason (1972) by reducing novelty and unpredictability as well providing a sense of control through opportunities to have a say in design decisions. McCoy and Evans (2005, p. 237) characterize uncontrollability over workspace as a demotivator leading to learned helplessness. Several studies demonstrate that psychosocial control by means of user participation in the design process has a positive effect on peoples response to and feelings about their workspace (Dewulf & Van Meel, 2003; Veitch & Newsham, 2000; Vischer, 2004).
J. C. Vischer
habitability threshhold
physical comfort psychological comfort functional comfort occupant satisfaction and well-being discomfort
value calculated through measurement value added through process value based on necessity
Figure 1. The Habitability pyramid. Note: From Vischer (2005).
Towards a theory of workspace stress Several of the concepts described in this paper can be applied to a framework for the study of workspace stress. First among these is goodness of fit.
The concept of fit can be expanded beyond the primarily architectural framework posited by Alexander (1966), which is somewhat static in its emphasis on environmental design, to a broader definition of fit between user abilities and motives over time, and degree of environmental complexity (Lawton, 1980). Broadening this definition and applying it to workspace takes us in several fruitful directions. The environmental comfort model states that a workspace either supports the tasks and activities that are being performed there (comfort condition), or it fails to support them and in fact slows them down (uncomfortable condition and cause of stress). Studies of users work behaviour, through observation and questioning, provide rich data on the degree to which workspaces are supportive (good fit) or unsupportive (bad fit, or mismatch). Applying this framework, the energy a user expends to overcome mismatched or unsupportive spatial elements is expressed as coping behaviour and can be measured as such. Another potential direction for workspace stress research builds on the demand-control model of job stress. As Figure 2 shows, the two axes of decision latitude and psychological demands that are applied to different job types can be modified to apply to types of workspace such that workspace categories can be identified in terms of more or less strain on users. This approach reduces the strict separation of behavioural measures from environmental features by fusing them into the more interactive notion of workspace as space accommodating specific tasks. Decision latitude translates into the degree of control users have over their workspace through participation in decisions; and psychological demands translate into the demandingness or energy required to perform tasks in a given workspace. Moreover, the demand-control model identifies social support as a third key factor influencing job stress and coping, and as indicated by McCoy and Evans (2005), physical elements and workspace design have an important role in determining social relationships and networks that develop at work. Stephenson (1998) has amply demonstrated the importance of informal social networks to facilitate the flow of information in organizations, and efforts have been made in some organizations to design workspace that facilitates informal social network formation. In summary, the key building blocks for a theoretical model of workspace stress build on wellestablished themes in both stress research and environmental psychology. These include the notion of fit or match between user and environment, the concept of control and managing novelty and unpredictability, the measurement of daily hassles and energy-consuming impediments to the smooth performance of tasks, as well as the importance of social support, territoriality and environmental control.
Directions for future research To validate and build on these theoretical links, workspace stress needs to be measured. Tools exist to measure functional comfort (Vischer, 1989), daily hassles (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), coping and appraisal (Lazarus, 1981), as well as the multidimensional concept of control in relation to environmental novelty and predictability (Lupien et al., 2006). The concept of environmental comfort is derived in part from the notion of fit between user and environment and serves as a basis for the following hypotheses. Every workspace can be defined as providing more or less support to people performing specific tasks and activities that have specific environmental requirements. The more support

Decision latitude (control over workspace) Psychological demandingness of workspace

PARTICIPATION
ENERGY IN ENERGY OUT
active passive low-strain high-strain

NO PARTICIPATION
Figure 2. Demand-Control Model of workspace stress. Note: From Vischer (2005), after Karasek and Theorell (1990).
people receive for the task, the more comfortable the space and the better fit between space and user. Spaces providing less support, that is, those that are inappropriate to some degree for the tasks being performed, are appraised as uncomfortable by users, requiring them to perform coping activities to solve environmental problems, and are therefore stressful. The degree to which coping with workspace occupies the time and attention of users represents, for employers, loss of time and attention from the performance of work. Sense of control is an important mediating variable, in that perceived environmental control can reduce strain even when workspace discomfort results in coping behaviour. Furthermore, instrumental environmental controls effectively reduce stress by providing physical ways of solving environmental problems or discomfort, providing workers know how to activate them. Environmental empowerment, on the other hand, increases psychological comfort and reduces stress by increasing decision latitude. Without some degree of environmental empowerment (control),
the novelty and unpredictability of workspace changes in todays modern corporate world are likely to increase discomfort and therefore stress. Balancing environmental demands with the skills and abilities of users to act on their environment is a way of defining optimal workspace for creativity and flow (Czikszentmihalyi, 2003). The concepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) and of environmental competence (Lawton, 1980; Sternberg, 2001) are both useful in this context, in that they recognize that some challenge is necessary to ensure active engagement. A workspace cannot be designed to be a one-time, final and permanent ergonomic support for all office tasks, but rather needs to be adaptable and negotiable to be most supportive to users (Joiner & Ellis, 1985). Users need decision latitude as well as the skills and opportunities to engage with and adjust their environment successfully, over time and with changing task requirements, in order to optimize comfort and manage workspace stress successfully. The environmental comfort model implies a multi-pronged approach to measurement and testing. Measures need to be developed to evaluate the demands or demandingness of a given workspace (in terms of both task requirements and spatial features), to assess workers decision latitude or experience of control, as well as to determine the amount of stress (discomfort) or of support (comfort) judged to be present. The wellestablished functional comfort scale may be useful in establishing the demandingness of workspace, as users judgements of functional comfort pertain to the combined assessment of the requirements of the tasks and the suitability of the spaces in which the tasks are being carried out (Vischer & Fischer, 2005). The presence of workspace stress can be inferred from number and frequency of coping behaviours. The functions of coping are First, to change the situation for the better . . . , either by changing ones own offending action . . . or by changing the damaging or threatening environment; and second, to manage the subjective and somatic components of stress-related emotions themselves (Lazarus, 1981, p. 197). Lazarus (1981) posits four coping modes, of which information search and direct action are likely to be relevant to workspace stress assessment. By defining workspace coping as behaviour (actions, thoughts, feelings) that solve a workspace problem, but that in doing so, claim workers time and attention from their work, many of the behaviours that Lazarus and his colleagues have integrated into measurement scales can be used as a basis for measuring space-related coping. The more coping behaviour is recorded in a given space, the more workspace stress can be inferred. Applying measurement results to the comfort model enables us to rate specific workspaces on a scale where comfort (supportive) is at one end
and lack of comfort (stressful) is at the other, thus indicating the degree of worker effort and energy required. This could be developed into a tool to help organizations understand not only what kinds of changes to make to improve workspace, but also to see the return on investment from increased worker efficacy. Thus, by combining elements of work stress research with the environmental psychology of workspace, it is evident that a new area of study is opening up, namely the study of stress attributable to the design of workspace. As we find out more about how, when and why the buildings where people work affect their health and morale, so we will be able to help companies make more humane and cost-effective decisions about workspace.
2008 University of Sydney. All rights reserved. www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asr Architectural Science Review Volume 51.2, pp 97-108
Invited Review Paper
Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are affected by Environments for Work
Jacqueline C. Vischer
Research Group on Environments for Work, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Montreal, C.P. 6128 Succursale Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada Corresponding author: Tel: (1-514) 343 6684; Fax: (1-514) 343 5694; Email: jacqueline.vischer@umontreal.ca Received 31 March 2008; accepted 29 April 2008
Abstract: Inquiry into how people experience environmental conditions at work is a growing area of study. Until the 1980s, there was insufficient research on workspaces and on office environments in particular to warrant review. Since that time, the range and number of studies of workspace have burgeoned. This paper will identify and review the main themes and findings of this area of research with the objective of defining basic parameters and prevailing theories of the environmental psychology of workspace. These will generate questions and directions for future research
Keywords: Ambient environmental conditions, Ergonomics, Functional comfort, Furniture, Health and safety, Office buildings, Office layouts, Productivity, Satisfaction, Territoriality, User participation, Workspace
changed, and advances in computers and tele-communications mean that people no longer need to be fixed in space and time to work together. Barriers between work and personal life are breaking down as people seek career opportunities rather than jobs, work at all hours, make a social life at work, and sleep and eat at work if necessary. What may now be called workspace1 is diversifying, mobile work and non-territorial workspace is increasing, and companies are applying quality as well as cost criteria to workspace design (Becker & Kelley, 2004; Preiser & Vischer, 2005). As part of these changes, conceptualization of the environments for work is shifting from the notion of workspace as a backdrop that is, passive setting for work, to the concept of workspace as an active support to and tool for getting work done (Newsham, 1997). One of the results of this shift is the growing interest in how building occupants behave as a function of workspace features. As the research reviewed in this paper suggests, evidence is mounting that employees may waste time and energy trying to cope in poorly designed workspace and that employers are increasingly concerned that their employees invest their energy in work and relationships rather than in coping with adverse or uncomfortable workspace conditions. In reviewing some of the knowledge accrued to date on how workers interact with and are affected by environmental
1 I have always tried to avoid using office or offices in titling any of my work, books or articles. I find the word limits the notion of the diversity of work spaces and only inspires yawns. People think of boxes with windows or partitions. Office is in my view a dated concept. I use workspace because the domain of study includes all types of space in which people do work. While much of the research has in fact been done in office buildings, the broader concept of workspace includes places to meet, to use technology, public spaces where work occurs, amenities to support work, and so on, as well as office-type workspace in places like hospitals, universities and numerous other contexts.
Introduction
Evidence from commercial leasing agents, office furniture manufacturers the design professions and building contractors indicates that some new knowledge is finding its way into the real estate industry as commercial building owners and tenants demand better quality workspaces for their employees. Until recently, the design of office buildings adhered to a 19th Century model of work (Duffy, 1997). Workers who are asked to perform rather than to think, who are brought together in space and time so that they can be supervised, so that they have access to necessary tools, and so that there is a clear barrier between work and their other activities, occupy standardized and often uniform workspace. Formerly in the form of factories, contemporary workspace is more likely to be in the form of offices, and reducing occupancy costs is a key driver of design decision-making (Vischer, 2007a). With the changes in the 21st Century world of work, few of these conditions are still valid. Tools for work have radically
98 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008
Table 1: Proposed Typology of Research on the Environmental Psychology of Workspace. features, this paper groups findings from workspace research according to, first, the aspect of workspace studied, and second, to the type of outcome measure or research result identified. Thus, the environmental aspects of workspace include ambient environmental conditions (noise, lighting, air quality, thermal comfort), furniture layout and ergonomics (workstations, offices and shared amenities), and process issues, such as user participation in design, and meeting business and organizational objectives. Behavioral or outcome measures common in work environment research include employee satisfaction, employees feelings about their work environment as expressed in the sense of territory, ownership and belonging, and employee productivity. Most work environment studies can be organized into the typology identified in Table 1.
Linking the satisfaction and productivity categories is the notion of comfort, specifically functional comfort. A threeway definition of the concept of comfort has been applied to numerous field studies of office buildings; it posits that people need to be more than simply healthy and safe in the buildings they occupy, they need environmental support for the activities they are there to perform (Vischer, 1996). This notion of functional comfort goes beyond the more traditional concept of comfort based on measurements of users responses to varying environmental conditions. The latter may focus, for example, on temperature and relative humidity for thermal comfort, air speed and freshness for ventilation comfort, and brightness, contrast conditions and luminance for lighting comfort (Cheng & Ng, 2006; Odemis, Yener & Camgoz, 2004; Ozturk, 2003; Rowe, 2004). The results of many comfort studies, using feedback from occupants as well as sensitive environmental measuring devices, form the basis for environmental standards in public buildings. The concept of functional comfort, however, links the psychological aspects of workers environmental likes and dislikes with concrete outcome measures such as improved task performance and team effectiveness.
Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 99
How workspace is designed and occupied affects not only how people feel, but also their work performance, their commitment to their employer, and the creation of new knowledge (human capital) in the organization. These are the cornerstones of the domain known as the environmental psychology of workspace (Vischer, 2008). Moreover, measures of user perceptions of environmental conditions can be used to diagnose building performance and the effectiveness of building systems (Vischer & Fischer, 2005). The focus of this paper, then, is on the behaviour of building occupants, behaviour in this context being a broad term covering not only peoples actions and responses but also attitudes, feelings, expectations, values and beliefs. In this context, it is useful to think of the user-environment relation as dynamic and interactive: that is to say, that part of the users environmental experience includes the consequences of any user behaviour that may occur. The user is not a passive receptacle experiencing the built environment statically, as input; the users experience of the environment is itself transformed by the activities she is performing in that environment: the relationship might better be characterised as transactional (Moore, 1980; Vischer, 2008). This paper will review research results clustered into three broad categories of user satisfaction and functional comfort, territoriality or sense of belonging, and productivity, and will indicate how these results have practical applications to design, construction and management of buildings in which people work.
Satisfaction and Functional Comfort

How satisfied or not users are with the space they are occupying is a notion that has guided environmental evaluation since its earliest efforts (Craik, 1966; Friedman, Zimring & Zube, 1978; Little, 1968). It refers to the processes whereby users know and judge their physical environment. The basic premises state that the processes of environmental knowing and
assessing are linked not only to observable physical features, but also to the attitudes individuals have towards a particular space. Evaluation research, such as post-occupancy evaluation, seeks to determine the extent to which certain environmental characteristics affect users satisfaction or dissatisfaction; they have been carried out in office environments since the 1980s (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Ornstein, 1999; Stokols, 1978; Wineman, 1986). The earliest post-occupancy evaluations of offices used extensive survey questionnaires of building users to identify what what occupants like and dislike about their work environment, on the assumption that measuring users self-rated satisfaction with individual features helps to understand the effects of the built environment on users. Studies of occupant satisfaction imply that this concept is a de facto measure of building quality: users feel positive (satisfied) about good quality built space, whereas if they are dissatisfied the place is not performing or has somehow failed. Studies of users satisfaction levels in offices have generated extensive knowledge of workers preferences but relatively little additional understanding of building performance. Most postoccupancy evaluations question occupants on their perceptions and judgments of workspaces in terms of the perceived qualities of the place. Evaluation in this sense includes two essential elements: the functional characteristics of the space that lend themselves to measurement, and are considered factors influencing the performance of workers; and the qualities of a place that cause users to consider it satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Thus, surveys of occupant satisfaction in specific buildings indicate which features are preferred and which are disliked by occupants (Walden, 2005; Windsor, 2005). One of the most consistent findings from user surveys is that office workers are dissatisfied with the open plan office, whether this is due to noise levels, distractions, lack of privacy or the sameness of cubicles (Churchman, Stokols, Scharf, Nishimoto & Wright, 1990; Hedge, 1986; Oldham, 1988; Sommer & Steiner, 1988; Sundstrom, Herbert & Brown, 1982). However, the prevalence of this finding has not prevented employers from favouring the open plan - in part because it is cheaper to construct and more flexible to reconfigure than a conventional private or cellular office layout, and in part because workstations occupy less square feet than private offices. A more useful question to ask is to what degree are workers supported in the performance of their tasks in open workstations in other words, to what degree is their ability to work affected? Studies show that, on the positive side, open workstations facilitate communication and enable workers to exchange information rapidly and informally. On the negative
side, the open environment can generate distractions that prevent workers from concentrating on their tasks. A large number of work environment studies have tested users satisfaction in reference to specific workspace features (Becker, 1981; Brennan, Chugh & Kline, 2002; Hedge, 1991; Humphries, 2005; Veitch, Charles, Newsham, Marquardt & Geerts, 2004). These studies show that peoples preferences are affected by, among other things, indirect lighting, mechanical ventilation rates, access to natural light, new furniture, and aspects of the acoustic environment, as well as some degree of participation in decision-making. According to this approach, environmental satisfaction is implicitly a measure not only of workspace effectiveness or success, but also of job satisfaction, in spite of the lack of proven connections between them. As a result, occupant satisfaction has become the main yardstick by which workspace features are evaluated, with many studies falsely assuming a direct link between users level of job or workspace satisfaction and their effectiveness or productivity (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Some studies have gone beyond the simple if-then logic of how satisfaction is affected by physical features to developing an approach to environmental evaluation that is more responsive to the concept of place as an interactive system composed of both physical and social elements. This model posits space as a resource in terms of its inherent potential to make any social system function (Moos, 1973; Perin, 1970; Thiel, 1997). In applying this approach to work environment evaluation, researchers have examined links between workspace design and the organization of work, and attempted to demonstrate ways in which space can be considered an organizational resource (Fischer, 1983; Fischer & Vischer, 1998; Kampschroer & Heerwagen, 2005; Seiler, 1984). The concept of functional comfort links users environmental assessments of their environment to the requirements of the tasks they are performing; this goes beyond general findings on what people like and dislike, and towards assessing building performance (Vischer, 1989, 1996, 1999). It was developed
to respond to the limitations of measuring user satisfaction by applying feedback from users to the performance of building systems. While building users physical comfort refers to meeting the basic human needs, such as safety, hygiene and accessibility, without which a building is uninhabitable, functional comfort is defined as environmental support for users performance of work-related tasks and activities. Appropriate lighting for screen-based work, ergonomic furniture for computer users, and enclosed rooms available for meetings and collaborative work, for example, help ensure users functional comfort at work. The difference between a supportive and an unsupportive workspace is the degree to which occupants can conserve their attention and energy for their tasks, as opposed to expending it to cope with adverse environmental conditions. For example, certain variables such as lighting, ventilation and noise can, under certain conditions, generate stress, which, in turn, has
a negative effect on productivity (Evans & Cohen, 1987). This is further discussed, below. The obverse of this argument holds that an environment conducive to the performance of work improves performance and morale (Dewulf & Van Meel, 2003). The functional comfort approach makes human judgements the focus of study, thereby avoiding the temporal and calibration limitations of instrument-based data collection. However, researchers may take measurements of building systems performance as a follow-up procedure to help understand the meaning behind the feedback yielded by users on their perceptions of building conditions. Traditionally human comfort measurements have been linked to individual building systems (lighting, ventilation, temperature) in order to enable standards of comfort and health to be established, and thus to guide the design of buildings. Functional comfort is defined by the degree to which workers can perform their tasks in the place they occupy; it is derived from notions of comfort as defined by environmental standards, with the added precision that users experience of comfort varies with the requirements of the tasks they have to perform. Therefore, one of the outcome measures of diagnostic evaluation of functional comfort is whether people can perform tasks easily, with difficulty, or not at all in the workspace occupied. The diagnostic approach was designed to learn more about how people work and how space affects work performance, as well as to understand the impact of changing office technologies on the performance of work and on spaceuse. Data on users functional comfort provide a diagnostic yardstick for designers, planners and managers; systematic and reliable feedback from occupants takes the form of a simple, accurate profile of user comfort in a given work environment. This approach yields a more precise definition of how workers are affected by their space than users satisfaction ratings. Balancing environmental demands with the skills and abilities of users to act on their environment is a way of defining optimal workspace for creativity and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). The concepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) and of environmental competence (Lawton, 1980; Sternberg, 2001) are both useful in this context, in that they recognize that some environmental challenge is necessary to ensure active engagement. A workspace cannot be designed to be a one-time, final, and permanent ergonomic support for all office tasks, but rather needs to be adaptable and negotiable to be most supportive to users. Users need the skills and opportunities to engage with and adjust their environment successfully, over time and with changing task requirements, in order to optimize comfort and manage workspace stress successfully (Vischer, 2007b).
Territoriality and Belonging

Several studies identify a sense of belonging (appropriation), along with loyalty or commitment to the organization and
a sense of territory, as outcome measures of environmental studies because a sense of belonging or ownership is a better measure of environmental quality or success than either satisfaction or effective task performance (Fischer, 1983; Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986). Unlike user satisfaction, sense of belonging is linked to employee commitment to and retention in the organization results that have a direct effect on company operations and costs. Territoriality at work goes beyond the physical attributes of spaces occupied by individual workers (Davis & Altman, 1976). The sense of ownership, or occupying territory, is affected by how team and shared workspace is defined, as well as characteristics of individual workspace. It is also affected by participation in design decisions and feeling empowered in regards to environmental decision-making. Users experience of territoriality, control and appropriation combine as psychological comfort: one of three types of environmental comfort according to which the users experience of workspace can be organized (Vischer, 1996; Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort refers to basic human needs such as safety, hygiene and accessibility, which must be assured usually through applying existing building codes and standards - so that users find their environment habitable. Functional comfort, as mentioned previously, refers to the degree to which their environment supports users tasks. At a more abstract level but equally important to users at work is psychological comfort, including feelings of belonging, ownership and control over the workspace (see Figure 1). Psychological comfort links psychosocial aspects of the worker with the environmental design and management of workspace through territoriality, privacy and environmental control (Vischer, McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo & CastonguayVien, 2003). The primary component of psychological comfort is sense of territory, both individual territory (office, workstation, micro-workspace) and group territory (team, group, midrange workspace). Human territory at work has psychological value that is represented both by space for ones work and by ones place in the organization. Underlying these is a human behavioral schema that expresses itself in terms of the personalization and appropriation of space: marking territory and constructing boundaries of social and environmental control (Fischer, 1989; Sundstrom, Town, Brown, Forman & McGee, 1982). Territorial ownership affects employees interaction with the environmental milieu (Steele, 1986). Workspace personalization and space appropriation behaviors have become more noticeable in offices where denser and more open office configurations have been installed (Wells & Thelen, 2002). The introduction and use of new technology and better virtual communications tools have also affected workers perceptions of and attitude towards their physical environment
and workspace (Cascio, 2000; Lai, Levas, Chou, Pinhanez &

Viveros, 2002). Territory is not simply made up of the walls and doors that enclose space; territoriality at work is also affected by sense of privacy, social status and perception of control. Studies have found that people moving out of private enclosed offices into open workstations judge their environment more negatively, citing lack of privacy, acoustic conditions, and confidentiality problems (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Rishi, Sinha & Dubey, 2000). These reasons are given irrespective of whether or not their work is confidential, and whether or not they need to be alone to perform tasks effectively. Complaints about lack of privacy abound in before-and-after studies of workspace change, independent of physical features of the workspace such as furniture configuration and partition height (Wineman, 1986). On the other hand, data collected from professionals in open workstations who were not faced with an imminent or recent move indicated that the demands of the job are more important than individual privacy (Kupritz, 1998). The need for privacy seems to be only indirectly related to workspace design and to depend on psychological factors, such as concerns about status and control. Environmental control and users perception of control affects workers on at least two levels: mechanical or instrumental control, and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Experimental efforts to increase users control over environmental conditions provide evidence of beneficial effects on workers, including one experimental design that found a clear association between participation in design decisions and degree of workplace satisfaction following a move to a new facility (Niemala, Rautio, Hannula & Reijula, 2002). Environmental control can be mechanical, such as chairs and worktables that are raised and lowered, shelving and tables on wheels to be moved around, switchable lights, and a door to open and close. Evidence indicates a positive psychological impact from this type of control in situations where employees are informed and even trained to make use of the controls available (Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault & Duval, 2004; Tu & Loftness, 1998). Another form of environmental control is empowerment: increased opportunities for employees to participate in workspace decision-making. Access to such opportunities increases users perceptions of having some control over their environment and is a constructive response to the need for psychological comfort. This helps people cope with environmental demands and encourages workers to find new ways of solving environmental problems, so that they also increase their learning and knowledge about their building and workspace. Empowerment as a form of environmental control increases opportunities for employees
to both participate in and be listened to in workspace decisionmaking, and means they are better informed. Lack of control over workspace has been described as demotivating and leading to learned helplessness (McCoy & Evans, 2005). Several studies demonstrate that psychosocial control by means of user participation in the design process has a positive effect on peoples response to and feelings about their workspace (Lee & Brand, 2005; Veitch & Newsham, 2000). Environmental empowerment is directly linked to psychological comfort. People who are informed about workspace-related decisions, and who participate in decisions about their own space, are more likely to feel territorial about their workspace and to have feelings of belonging and ownership (Vischer, 2005). Thus notions of appropriation and belonging are psychosocial aspects expressed through territoriality at work. A sense of territory is associated with feelings of belonging and ownership, and privacy is best understood as the need to exercise control over ones accessibility to others (Altman, 1975). Finally, some studies have demonstrated a connection between users psychological traits and their reactions to the built environment at work. In focusing on cognitive processes, this research orientation links up with a well-established paradigm of social psychology, namely Lewins field theory (1951). It addresses the effects of users individual differences and how workers evaluation of their workspace affects their perception of themselves at work (Somat, Tarquinio & Dufresne, 1999). Not only do employees cognitive and affective processes affect their perception and evaluation of their work environment, but their perception and assessment of their workspace also affect their view of themselves as workers and of their professional effectiveness (Fischer, Tarquinio & Vischer, 2004). A study comparing open with enclosed office users showed that Figure 1: Environmental comfort model of workspace quality.
Occupant satisfaction and well-being Psychological comfort Functional comfort Physical comfort Discomfort
Habitability threshold
extraverts respond more positively to more possibilities for communication, and therefore do better in open office settings than workers with more introvert personalities (McCusker, 2002).
Productivity and the Performance of Work

Many studies have sought to make direct links between the environmental design of workspace and worker performance or organizational productivity.2 The concept of workplace performance has come to mean workspace whose explicit objective is to support the performance of work: a performing workplace is designed to optimise worker productivity (Clements-Croome, 2006). The concept of worker productivity tends to be applied to a whole range of desired behavioural outcomes in the context of work. A recent review of studies of the effects of environment on productivity concluded that confusion about what productivity means has made it difficult
to identify how environmental conditions affect worker performance (CABE, 2004). Many studies use respondents own self-reports of improved or reduced productivity as the dependent variable, and studies measuring real or quantifiable output per worker or team are few and far between (Oseland, 1999). There are at least three types of productivity that are influenced by environmental design, each of them in different ways.3 These three categories are individual, group, and organisational productivity: each category denotes a variation in scale of environmental influence (Vischer, 2006). Individual productivity is typically evaluated at the scale of the individual workspace (desk and office) and on how the microenvironment influences individual task performance, that is to say, how fast and accurately a worker carries out his tasks at work. Individual task performance is affected by environmental conditions such as lighting and visual conditions, variations in temperature and humidity, furniture ergonomics, and, to some degree, acoustics. Positive individual productivity outcomes mean improved speed and accuracy of the tasks performed, whereas negative outcomes might include a higher error rate, slower time for task completion, or adverse health effects on workers, such as sore eyes, fatigue or upper respiratory problems. The productivity of workgroups sharing workspace, such as a teamwork environment, is typically evaluated in terms of the quality and quantity of group processes. Teamwork is affected by the mid-range environment, that of the work-group or team, and it is measured in tangible terms such as time to market of a new product, or in terms of more qualitative outcomes, such as number of good new ideas or good (i.e. successful) recommendations coming out of effective business processes. Group process is affected by workgroup size and the relative proximity of team members (Leaman & Bordass, 1998). Other environmental determinants of workgroup effectiveness include the positioning of work areas and shared space, as well as access to shared tools and equipment (Heerwagen, Kampschroer, Powell & Loftness, 2004). A third level of productivity corresponds to the company or organizations entire workspace or accommodation the macroenvironment. There are many approaches to assessing the degree to which workspace helps (or fails to help) a company meet its business objectives and/or increase its competitive advantage. Organisational effectiveness is affected by locational advantages and ease of access, balancing consolidation under one roof (centralisation) with dispersion of different groups in different facilities over manageable distances, and by building amenities such as fast elevators, convenient bathrooms, adequate parking, and attractive eating areas (Vischer, 2006). Studies have shown that both worker performance and organisational success is
compromised when the physical environment interferes with actions taken towards achievement [of objectives] (McCoy & Evans, 2005). Tools exist to measure environmental impacts on productivity in each of the three categories. Individual productivity is the most often measured, using various tools for ergonomic analysis as well as a wide variety of questionnaire surveys that focus on the effects on building users of ambient conditions as lighting, noise levels, furniture comfort, temperature, and indoor air quality. Team effectiveness studies tend to be more dependent on anecdotal data, although indirect measures such as analysis of social networks, gaming, and comparing outcomes among comparable workgroups in different environments, have also yielded valuable results (Horgen, Joroff, Porter & Schon, 1999; Stephenson, 1998). A recent review of four of the most popular methods for evaluating organisational effectiveness concluded that none is entirely satisfactory, as this is an elusive concept to define and measure (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen & Roos, 1999). However, some researchers have been successful adapting the Balanced Scorecard to measure environmental effects on organisational effectiveness (Kampschroer & Heerwagen, 2005). The BOSTI-Westinghouse study was an important advance, which attempted to link environmental features not just with levels of satisfaction, but also directly with functional support to individual workers (Brill, Margulis & Konar, 1985). This longitudinal study examined employee behaviour before and after an office move and attempted to measure the costs of worker productivity lost through poorly-designed or dysfunctional workspace; it used employee self-reports of productivity to measure the impact of features like open office design on task performance. The results showed, among other things, that employees, especially managers, working in open plan workstations felt they were more productive in enclosed
2 The editor has suggested that these relations might best be conceptualised as a model of workplace environmental design factors (eg, ambient environmental conditions, furniture and office layouts) as independent variables, with productivity as the ultimate dependent outcome variable and satisfaction, territoriality and belonging, as mediating variables. This is an interesting line of inquiry that deserves further consideration. 3 There are numerous studies of how age, gender, SES and job-rank affect workers attitudes, performance and effectiveness in the work environment, but very few use the term environment to refer to the physical setting. Consequently, most of this research is published in the industrial and occupational psychology literature and is not included in this review. However, it would make an interesting addition to our research to study this literature and develop some hypotheses of how these function as moderating variables in the user-space relationship at work. See, for example, the review by Gifford (2007) and the role of moderating variables in a different architectural setting.
offices. Subsequent studies have attempted to measure the economic value of workers productivity increases that are considered to result from environmental improvements, such that the return on investment of an environmental intervention
can be calculated (Brill & Weideman, 2001; Sullivan, 1990). At about the same time, an overview of studies measuring the impact of furniture and layout changes on teams working on assembly line-like paper processing tasks in different organizations indicated extraordinary increases in process speed and results (Springer, 1986). These findings are reminiscent of the changes in task performance found in the 1940s in the famous Hawthorne studies of lighting in factories, suggesting that any environmental change improves team performance regardless of its actual effect (Adair, 1984). More judiciously, several studies conclude that workspace design can be supportive (have positive effects on work) or non-supportive (have negative effects on work) as well as affecting organizational performance (Davenport & Bruce, 2002; Ilozor, Love, & Treloar, 2002; Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Stallworth & Kleiner, 1996). The domain of organizational ecology is a framework for analyzing organizations according to different aspects of their structure and function, including features of the workspace they occupy (Steele, 1973). The systems framework of organizational ecology strengthens the notion that the space it occupies is an integral part of how an organization functions. Later work has built on this concept, producing such ideas as workscape to indicate an inclusive approach to both the use and the planning and design of the work environment (Becker & Steele, 1994). An increasing number of ergonomically oriented studies have looked at specific environmental conditions, such as ventilation and indoor air quality, lighting and daylighting, acoustics and noise control, as well as furniture placement and comfort. In these studies, environmental effects on task performance, rates of absenteeism and self-reported productivity are measured rather than users satisfaction ratings. Lighting research, for example, has tended to distinguish between the effects on building occupants of artificial, interior lighting and of natural light or daylighting from windows. Daylighting research has linked increased comfort and self-reported productivity with window size and proximity, as well as with view out, control over blinds and shielding from glare (Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas, Beale & Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, Van der Voost & Van Dortmont, 2005). More significantly, research on daylight and views from hospital rooms has been shown to affect medication requirements and recovery rates (Verderber & Reuman, 1988; Ulrich, 1991). In their recent overview of the effects of different kinds of artificial lighting on task performance and occupant satisfaction in a simulated office environment where workers used controls to exercise their lighting choices, (Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer & Hunter, 2003) concluded that current office lighting standards are preferred by most people carrying out typical individual office tasks, Boyce et al. The study results made a distinction between visual comfort lighting needed to perform well on office tasks and satisfaction, or lighting judged to be aesthetic. Current studies of noise in offices have adapted techniques for measuring noise levels in industrial environments. Workers in open plan workspace tend to judge noise to be a primary source of discomfort and reduced productivity (Stokols &
Scharf, 1990; Mital, McGlothlin, Faard, 1992). Acoustic comfort studies have focussed on correlating physical measures, such as signal-to-noise ratios at different densities, background noise levels and intensities, and speech intelligibility under differing physical conditions, with occupant judgements of distraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo & Martellota, 2001; Chu & Warnock, 2002). Efforts to control office noise through more absorbent surfaces, sound-masking systems and behavioural controls have been weakened by increasing office densities and collaborative work in modern workspace. Studies focussing on floor layouts and furniture suggest these factors influence teamwork effectiveness as well as individual task performance (Vischer, 2006). Studies focus on the height and density of workstation partitions, the amount and accessibility of file and work storage, and furniture dimensions such as work-surfaces. These elements of furniture and spatial layout have a powerful effect not only on the satisfaction of individual workers but also on the performance of teams. One study indicated that the additional investment in ergonomic tables and chairs for workers, as well as ergonomic training, yielded a 5-month payback in terms of increased individual productivity (Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidence that office workers are uncomfortable in open plan configurations and prefer private enclosed workspace, which may work better for individual tasks but are less successful for teamwork (Hatch, 1987; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David & Tiegs, 2001; Ornstein, Andrade, Coelho & Leite, 2005). Evidence is mounting that the design of their workspace does make workers more or less effective. However, finding out more about how this relationship works should not lead to social engineering solutions, where employers or building owners apply a recipe for environmental design with a view to guaranteeing maximum performance from their workers. It is preferable for employers and decision-makers to use research evidence to consider environmental design decisions as investments in the work force. Workspace can and should be a tool for performing work, much as investing in computer technology ensures better tools for employees.
Discussion
While much of the research on which norms and standards for user health and comfort at work are based has been carried out in laboratory settings, the most frequent approach to studying how workspace affects users is questioning the latter directly. This may take the form of experimental designs in controlled laboratory settings, where an environmental condition is varied and subjects provide ratings, as well as in quasi-experimental settings, such as controlled field situations where building users assessments are compared before and after some environmental change. More commonly, survey research is applied in uncontrolled field situations, either in the form of eliciting satisfaction ratings as in a conventional post-occupancy evaluation, or using a standardised survey questionnaire in order to compare the same data from subjects across a number of buildings. A variety of field-tested tools and techniques to study workspace behaviour has been developed in this latter category.
The structure and form of the way users are approached and the data they are required to yield needs to be precise and standardised to link user feedback with building performance. The results yielded by this approach provide a rich and diverse basis for understanding the user experience (Gann & Whyte, 2003; Leaman & Bordass, 2001; Vischer, 1989, 2005; Zagreus, Huizenga, Arens & Lehrer, 2004). Data yielded by assessment tools, whether in the context of post-occupancy evaluation, design and environmental quality indicators, or building-inuse assessment, can be analysed both for what they tell us about building use as well as about building performance. These field tools are a natural outgrowth of early studies on the sociology of work, of which a few included the physical setting for work. Of these, the most important, and still salient today, is Herzbergs analysis of factors that influence worker motivation. His research established that several key elements of the work environment influence worker motivation, and they can be negative, positive or neutral (Herzberg, 1966). Among these elements is the physical environment, which can be either a neutral or a negative influence on worker motivation. This implies that if it is supportive of the performance of work, it is not noticed. The threshold effect means that those work conditions that affect motivation can be measured in terms of their propensity to move from a neutral, no effect category into negative effect; there is no positive effect category. Building on this theoretical base, and in line with the results of functional comfort studies, researcher attention is being increasingly paid to the concept of workspace stress. Functional comfort links psychosocial aspects, including worker motivation, with workspace elements and thereby with organisational productivity by measuring environmental support for task performance. The notion of support incorporates not just receiving support from, but also being able to act on the environment to achieve a desired, supportive result. The inverse is also true: where workers have to struggle to perform their tasks because the built environment is problematic, their situation can be characterised as stressful. In situations where workers do not feel supported, and indeed have to make an extra effort to deal with environmental barriers or problems in order to get their work done, they may lose motivation and experience stress. The definition of workspace stress is the degree to which users have to compensate and expend their own energy performing activities in adverse environmental conditions (Vischer, 2007b). All built environments for work can be placed somewhere on the continuum ranging from completely functionally comfortable to completely dysfunctional and stressful, using feedback from users at a given point in time. In their overview of stress related to the physical work environment, McCoy and Evans (2005) go beyond ergonomics Figure: 2: Dimensions of functionally comfortable workspace design.
to characterise as stressful those situations where elements of the physical environment interfere with the attainment of work objectives. Stressors in the work environment affect employee performance adversely when they are high intensity
or prolonged; they slow down the individuals ability to process and understand the number and predictability of signals, which increase with task complexity. Potential stressors (i.e. elements that interfere with task performance, motivation and social relationships) include spatial organisation, architectonic details, ambient conditions and resources, and view or visual access from the workspace. As environmental stressors, [these] can influence physiological processes, produce negative affect, limit motivation and performance, and impede social interaction. These physical stressors in the workplace affect workers sense of control and effectiveness. Physical environmental stressors also affect social relationships, as the negative effects of stressor exposure reduce cooperative behaviors, such as social support, altruistic behaviors, and teamwork (Evans & Cohen, 1987). Thus in addition to satisfaction, comfort and belonging, the environmental psychology of workspace also includes well established concepts such as worker motivation and how it is influenced by the physical setting, and, more recently, the notion that some measurable amount of stress at work can be attributed to the design of the physical environment. A comprehensive environmental comfort model of workspace quality that incorporates these and other factors is shown in Figure 3. More research is needed to link these concepts together and provide a solid theoretical framework for advancing knowledge through future research.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

While considerable knowledge has accrued from studying various aspects of the environmental psychology of workspace, important gaps remain. The structure and content of this area of research have given rise to some new and important questions that are fruitful directions for future research. Before exploring these new directions, we will comment on the development of this field of knowledge to date with a view to strengthening the theoretical framework and lending greater coherence to knowledge already acquired. By comparing research studies looking at different aspects of the work environment, the lack of clarity about outcomes being measured shows that clarification is needed to guide future research. Occupant satisfaction, while offering a broad and comprehensive measure of environmental quality, is not a practical outcome measure for workspace research. While occupants self-reports provide data on their needs and preferences, such studies generate little information about what supports task completion, what adds value to the organisation, and why owners and managers should invest in workspace improvement. However, much has been learned about what
workers like and dislike in their work environment. Functional comfort, as measured through systematic feedback from users, invites occupants to provide diagnostic feedback on specific features of the work environment based on what environmental supports they need to perform their tasks. Decisions to remove, replace or change workspace features can be based on how well or not they support occupants work and thereby affect the productivity of the organisation. Structured feedback on ambient conditions can also be applied to assessing building systems, and subsequently used to diagnose building problems that are amenable to intervention and improvement. However, a clearer distinction needs to be made between measuring user perceptions and judgements, and measuring actual behavioural effects that are attributable to physical features. For example, workers perceptions of team workspace (e.g. meeting-rooms and worktables) may not be related to whether or not teamwork behaviour occurs. Productivity has also been measured largely in terms of occupants self-reports. These are subject to more subjective bias than satisfaction ratings, as respondents are being asked to make an estimate based on their own feelings. However, there are some studies where more objective productivity indicators such as reduced illness rates, increased speed and accuracy of task completion, and even rate of new ideas generation, have been used as measures of environmental effectiveness in terms of productivity outcomes. A new and little explored outcome measure concerns the effect of the work environment on the creation and transmission of knowledge in organisations (Von Krogh, Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2000). Many companies are interested in understanding how knowledge accrues in their organisations and how this process can be optimized. The concept termed ba an environment that supports and encourages knowledge creation, not only through the design of the space but also through the structure and operations of the social and cultural environment is now a focus of research. To date, human capital researchers have focused on developing a better understanding of ba. This offers a new and promising direction for analyzing how features of the work environment add value to an organisations human capital (Nenonen, 2004). Although the concept of ba is only partly definable in physical terms, it would be useful to learn more about how physical settings encourage and support it. In summary, a rich range of measures of worker productivity is available, and more diversity is needed to advance this line of inquiry. As these new directions for workspace research indicate, worker productivity in the knowledge economy is less a matter of improving speed and accuracy of routine tasks and increasingly a function of generating new ideas, being creative, working effectively in teams, and generating knowledge that adds value to the organisation. Finally, the feeling of belonging, as might be measured through territoriality and appropriation of space, needs further study owing to the important link with employee retention and reducing costly turnover in organisations. More information about how and why certain environmental features affect employees sense of belonging and support constructive appropriation behaviours will help organisations determine how and to what degree investment in environmental quality will affect both recruitment and retention of their employees. In recent years, as the real estate and construction industry
shifts its attention to sustainability and the environment, researchers have started to look at the interaction between user comfort at work and the presence or absence of environmentally sustainable features (Heerwagen, 2000; Leaman & Bordass, 2007; Vischer & Prasow, 2008). This direction for future
study has two possible lines of exploration: the effects of sustainable building features, such as natural ventilation, water recycling and passive cooling technology on occupants and their work; and the behaviour and behavioural changes needed and expected from occupants as a result of sustainable design features in office and other buildings.4 These might include turning off lights when out of the room, dropping blinds on sunny windows to reduce heat gain, and using public transportation to get to and from work. Anecdotal evidence already exists of buildings supplied with innovative sustainable design features that occupants have either not wanted or not been able to use. There is also some evidence that giving occupants a more active role and responsibility for changing their behaviour in environmentally sustainable buildings is a necessary condition for success. The environmental psychology of workspace is a rich and diverse field of study that is growing fast. As human beings in all parts of the world spend increasing amounts of time in offices in a wide variety of buildings, the effects of these environments on occupants performance, health and morale urgently needs to be understood. The knowledge yielded by research in this field will inform employers decisions as well as corporate investments in the work settings they create, and will assist and improve the building industry as designers, facilities managers, leasing agents and construction professionals acquire it. Business managers also need to understand more about how workspace affects their personnel, as companies need to become more agile and by making ongoing changes to workspace (Joroff, Porter, Feinberg & Kukla, 2003). Finally, all indications are that a better understanding of occupant comfort is a prerequisite for successful sustainability and an effective impact on global warming.
References
1
Volume 3, Issue 1, 2009
Impact of Office Design on Employees Productivity: A Case study of Banking Organizations of Abbottabad, Pakistan
Amina Hameed, Research Associate, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan, amina_7_h@yahoo.com Shehla Amjad, Professor, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan, shehla@ciit.net.pk Abstract Increased personal control and comfort needs of employees triggered the concern among organizations to provide them with an environment and office design, which fulfills the employees needs and helps to boost their productivity. The main objective of this study is to find out the relationship between office design and productivity. For this purpose, 31 bank branches of 13 banks were contacted and studied. The findings of this study show that office design is very vital in terms of increasing employees productivity. Comfortable and ergonomic office design motivates the employees and increases their performance substantially. Keywords: Productivity; Office Design; Ergonomics. 1. Introduction Most people spend fifty percent of their lives within indoor environments, which greatly influence their mental status, actions, abilities and performance (Sundstrom, 1994). Better outcomes and increased productivity is assumed to be the result of better workplace environment. Better physical environment of office will boosts the employees and ultimately improve their productivity. Various literature pertain to the study of multiple offices and office buildings indicated that the factors such as dissatisfaction, cluttered workplaces and the physical environment are playing a major role in the loss of employees productivity (Carnevale 1992, Clements-Croome 1997). Hughes (2007) surveyed 2000 employees pertain to various organizations and industries in multiple levels. The reported results of these survey showed that nine out of ten believed that a workspace quality affects the attitude of employees and increases their productivity. Employees in different organizations have different office designs. Every office has unique furniture and spatial arrangements, lighting and heating arrangements and different levels of noise. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the office design factors on employees productivity. The literature reveals that good office design has a positive affect on employees productivity and the same assumption is being tested in this study for the banking sector of Pakistan. This study will try to find out the effects of office design on employees productivity. The area chosen is the banking sector of Abbottabad District, Pakistan. The study will be based on primary data collected through a structured questionnaire (Appendix 1). 2. Significance of the Study The impact and significance of office design on employees productivity is addressed in this study. Human resource professionals in the organizations are well aware of the importance of this issue. In the context of Pakistan, this is a relatively new topic. Very few researchers addressed in the context of human resource management. Very few researches can be found in the field of Human Resource Management, this huge
gap needs to be filled by new research scholars. In Pakistan, workplace environment and its related issues are significantly neglected. It is evident that there is less importance to office design, incentives and assisting facilities and also it is not available to the employees. The situation is that they cannot even complain about them. These circumstances are affecting the performance of the employees greatly, in the form of delay in work completion, frustration, effect on personal growth etc. This study will try to find out the effects of office design in terms of furniture, noise, lighting, temperature and spatial arrangement on employees productivity.
2
3. Literature Review A widely accepted assumption is that better workplace environment produces better results. Mostly the office is designed with due importance to the nature of job and the individuals that are going to work in that office. The performance of an employee is measured actually by the output that the individiual produces and it is related to productivity. At corporate level, productivity is affected by many factors such as employees, technology and objectives of the organization. It is also dependent on the physical environment and its affect on health and employees performance. 3.1 Defining Office Design Office design is defined by BNet Business Dictionary (2008) as, the arrangement of workspace so that work can be performed in the most efficient way. Office design incorporates both ergonomics and work flow, which examine the way in which work is performed in order to optimize layout. Office design is an important factor in job satisfaction. It affects the way in which employees work, and many organizations have implemented open-plan offices to encourage teamwork. Office design is very vital in employee satisfaction, and the broad concept of office design also includes the workflow. The work is analyzed initially and it is identified that how it is accomplished and then the overall setting of the office is made according to that flow. This ensures the smooth running of work in the office without hindrances. 3.2 Defining Productivity Rolloos (1997) defined the productivity as, productivity is that which people can produce with the least effort. Productivity is also defined by Sutermeister (1976) as, output per employee hour, quality considered. Dorgan (1994) defines productivity as, the increased functional and organizational performance, including quality. Productivity is a ratio to measure how well an organization (or individual, industry, country) converts input resources (labor, materials, machines etc.) into goods and services. In this case, we are considering performance increase as when there is less absenteeism, fewer employee leaving early and less breaks; whereas in a factory setting, increase in performance can be measured by the number of units produced per employee per hour. In this study, subjective productivity measurement method is used. The measures of this method are not based on quantitative operational information. Instead, they are based on personnels subjective assessments. Wang and Gianakis (1999) have defined subjective performance measure as an indicator used to assess individuals aggregated perceptions, attitudes or assessments toward an organizations product or service. Subjective productivity data is usually collected
using survey questionnaires. Subjective data can also be descriptive or qualitative collected by interviews. (Clements-Croome and Kaluarachchi 2000) Subjective productivity data is gathered from employees, supervisors, clients, customers and suppliers. 3.3 Workplace and Productivity Over the years, many organizations have been trying new designs and techniques to construct office buildings, which can increase productivity, and attract more employees. Many authors have noted that, the physical layout of the workspace, along with efficient management processes, is playing a major role in boosting employees productivity and improving organizational performance (Uzee, 1999; Leaman and Bordass, 1993; Williams et al. 1985). An independent research firm conducted a research on US workplace environment (Gensler, 2006). In March 2006, a survey was conducted by taking a sample size of 2013. The research was related to; workplace designs, work satisfaction, and productivity. 89 percent of the respondents rated design, from important to very important. Almost 90 percent of senior officials revealed that effective workplace design is important for the increase in employees productivity. The final outcome of the survey suggested that businesses can enhance their productivity by improving their workplace designs. A rough estimation was made by executives, which showed that almost 22 percent increase can be achieved in the companys performance if their offices are well designed. But practically, many organizations still do not give much importance to workplace design. As many as 40 percent of the employees believe that their companies want to keep their costs low that is why their workplaces have bad designs; and 46 percent of employees think that the priority list of their company does not have workplace design on top. When data was summarized, almost one out of every five employees rated their workplace environment from, fair to poor. 90 percent admitted that their attitude about work is adversely affected by the quality of their workplace environment. Yet again 89 percent blamed their working environment for their job dissatisfaction (Gensler, 2006).
light and noise levels in the office. The productivity level was measured by the method of self reported measurement, which is a 9 point scale from greater than -40 and less than +40 percent (loss/gain). The scale was associated with the question: Does your office environment affect your productivity at work? (Leaman, 1995). The data collected was correlated and results said that the coefficient of correlation (r)=0.92 and the correlation exists between people who showed dissatisfaction with their indoor environment and those reporting that their productivity is affected by the office environment. The significant level p-value is 0.0034. 4. Research Methodology The purpose of the study is to find out the relationship between office design and employees productivity and the impact of office design on employees productivity. The objectives of the study include: To analyze office design of banks in Abbottabad, Pakistan. To analyze the features that employees value in the workplace. To assess whether office design is one of the factors in affecting employees productivity. To determine the impact of office design on employees productivity. To analyze the impact of office design if any on gender of employees. The Banking sector of Abbottabad, Pakistan has been chosen as the population for the study. Out of 31 bank branches, 21 bank branches in Abbottabad, Pakistan were taken as sample. A total of 105 employees from these 21 branches were taken as the sample size. The distribution of sample among banks and number of employees taken from each bank are given. Primary data was collected through a structured questionnaire. Observation was also used to collect information about the office design. The Questionnaire consisted of 24 questions; 4 questions on each variable. Out of these, 4 questions were on productivity, based on the technique of subjective productivity measurement. Subjective productivity data was gathered from the employees, supervisors, clients, customers and suppliers. A direct subjective productivity measurement is a survey question concerning an employees own productivity. For example, such a question might be, on a scale of 1-4; how your productivity changed during the last year (Black and Lynch, 1996 and Laitinen et al. 1999). Data was collected from the sample of 13 banks (105 employees). A five point Likert Scale was used to measure all the variables. The scale varies from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for most of the questions. A few questions were measured by the five point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always). The questions in the questionnaire for the subjective productivity measurement were in percentages. 5. Conceptual framework Based on the literature review, the relationship between office design and productivity can be conceptualized and depicted in Figure (1). The relationship is defined in such a way that the set of factors impact on an individual, which in turn determine the final outcome in terms of increased or decreased productivity of that individual. These factors have different impacts on different employees based on their gender.
3
3.4 Relationship between Office Design and Productivity The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID, 1999) carried out an independent study and revealed that the physical workplace design is one of the top three factors, which affect performance and job satisfaction. The study results showed that 31 percent of people were satisfied with their jobs and had pleasing workplace environments. 50 percent of people were seeking jobs and said that they would prefer a job in a company where the physical environment is good. Brill et al. (1984) ranked factors, which affect productivity according to their importance. The factors are sequenced based on the significance: Furniture, Noise, Flexibility, Comfort, Communication, Lighting, Temperature and the Air Quality. Springer Inc (1986) stated that an insurance company in a study revealed that the best ergonomic furniture improved performance by 10 to 15 percent. Leaman (1995) conducted a survey which is briefly highlighted here. Author attempted to find the relationship between indoor environment, dissatisfied employees and their productivity. The results revealed that the productivity of the work is affected because the people were unhappy with temperature, air quality,
Figure: 1. Conceptual Framework Independent Variables Dependent Variable (Office Design) 6. Research Findings Five indicators of office design such as furniture, noise, temperature, lighting and spatial arrangement are considered for study. The overall response for each factor was analyzed and the mean and standard deviation values are shown in the Table 1. Data was analyzed to identify the factor that the relatively high tendency towards decreasing productivity. Different office design factors such as furniture, noise, lighting, temperature and spatial arrangement were used to determine the extent of the loss in productivity. Table 1. Mean of factors Factors Total number of respondents Mean (SD) for Factor Furniture 105 3.70 (0.63) Noise 105 3.67 (0.62) Lighting 105 3.23 (0.77) Temperature 105 3.86 (0.44) Spatial arrangement 105 3.41 (0.63) SD= Standard deviation
Furniture Noise Lighting Temperature Spatial arrangements Productivity

5
The prime factor which affects the productivity of employees is lighting in the office. Next to the factor lighting, it is spatial arrangement. Then the importance sequence is noise, furniture and temperature. Both natural and artificial light is very essential in any office environment. It gives a sense of energy and affects the mood of the employees. Hawthorne effect is the best example of benefit of lighting in productivity. Accomplishment of daily tasks in workplaces with less or dim light is difficult for employees. Working in dim light leads to eye strain and thus causing headaches and irritability. Due to this discomfort, productivity is very much affected causing overall decrease in employees performance. According to the data collected, 26.6 percent respondents were female employees and 73.3 percent were male employees. The overall response according to the gender and the mean and productivity for male and female employees is detailed in Table 2. Table 2 Overall Responses According to Gender SD= standard deviation According to the results in Table 2, male employees are affected by the furniture in their offices (3.68); their productivity is also affected by the furniture they are using or which surrounds their workplaces (3.62). Along with this the results also show that female employees are less affected by the furniture in their work area
(3.77) and their performance also remains unaffected with uncomfortable furniture (3.23). If only the performance of both male and female employees is compared then we can see that male employees perform less than female employees due to bad furniture, which they use in their workplaces. While analyzing the means of Noise obtained from the data, it was revealed that male employees were not much affected by noise (3.84) but due to even a little noise their productivity was affected (3.62). On the other hand, the female respondents results show that there are many noise distractions in their workplace (3.21) and in their surroundings. But due to this noise productivity of female employees is not affected (3.23). Because female employees are always chatting, therefore, they can work in noisy surroundings. Comparing the productivity of male employees (3.62) and female employees (3.23) with respect to noise, productivity of male employees is more then female employees. One of the most important features in office design is light. Both natural and artificial light is needed in a proper and adequate amount to carry out normal activities of everyday office work. This factor was analyzed in my research. Results revealed that male employees show a low mean (3.26), which means that lighting is not proper in offices and when we see the productivity of male employees against this mean it is high (3.62). So, the conclusion can be made that due of improper lighting in offices male employees have difficulty in completing and concentrating on their work and their productivity (3.62) is affected. In the same way when female employees results were analyzed, and it transpired that they were affected (3.13) a little more than male employees, but their productivity (3.23) is not affected by lighting around their workplace. On comparing, only the productivity of male employees (3.62) and female employees (3.23) the result shows that lighting affects male employees more while working in offices then female employees. Factors Mean (SD) for Male employees Mean (SD) for female employees Furniture 3.68 (0.64) 3.77 (0.61) Noise 3.84 (0.46) 3.21 (0.77) Lighting 3.26 ((0.82) 3.13 (0.59) Temperature 3.84 (0.46) 3.92 (0.36) Spatial arrangement 3.49 (0.61) 3.21 (0.66) Overall mean Overall Productivity 3.62 3.62 3.45 3.23
6
Temperature affects productivity the most. Female respondents results show that the temperature conditions of their offices are good (3.92) in both summers and winters. Due to the pleasant temperature in summers and winters there is no adverse effect on their productivity (3.23). Similarly, the mean value for
male employees is (3.84), which means that temperature is not irregular in their offices. But a little irregularity in temperature affects their productivity (3.62). Another major aspect of the way in which the workplace aids productivity is in supporting work processes through the way that space is arranged. According to the results female employees are more conscious about the arrangement of space in their workplaces (3.21) but due to this their productivity is not affected (3.23), it is satisfactory. In case of male employees, they are far less affected (3.49) by the spatial arrangement than female employees but their productivity (3.62) is affected by this. The overall mean of all the factors show a low mean for female employees (3.45) and a relatively high mean for male employees (3.62). This means that female employees are more concerned about their workplace surroundings than male employees. Differences are found amongst the responses to different factors in the workplace. Male employees results show that they are more concerned about the lighting in their offices then the spatial arrangement and other factors. There is a direct relationship between office Design and productivity. This relationship between office design and productivity was determined by using the Pearsons Correlation in standard statistical software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Pearsons Correlation is a measurement of the strength of a linear or straight line relationship between two variables. The Correlation Coefficients indicate both the direction of the relationship and its magnitude (Table 3). Table 3 Correlation between Elements of Office Design and Employee Productivity The analysis of the results indicate a positive correlation between furniture and productivity (r = 0.194) and is significant at 0.05. This shows that when the furniture of the office is not comfortable and according to the needs of the employees their productivity is affected. There is a positive relationship between Noise and Productivity. The correlation coefficient (r=0.429) is significant at 0.01. The positive relationship between lighting and productivity (r = 0.720) at 0.01 shows that employees productivity highly correlates to the lighting conditions in the offices. The results of temperature reveal its significant correlation with productivity (r=0.467) at p=0.01. Spatial Arrangement is the space factor in office design; when the correlation was calculated in SPSS it gave a positive relation with productivity (r=0.380) where p=0.01. It means that the spatial arrangement has a considerable effect on the employees productivity (Table 4). Office design Elements Pearson Correlation (r) Significance (2-tailed) Furniture .194(*) .047 Noise .429(**) .000 Lighting .720(**) .000 Temperature and Air Quality .467(**) .000 Spatial arrangement .380(**) .000 r is Pearson correlation coefficient *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
7
Table 4. Regression Results of Model Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .759(a) .576 .555 .51525 R= Correlation coefficient a. Predictors: (Constant), Spatial arrangement, Noise, Furniture, Lighting, Temperature Source: Survey Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 35.717 5 7.143 26.907 .000(a) Residual 26.283 99 .265 1 Total 62.000 104 df= degree of freedom , F=regression mean square/residual mean square ,Sig=P-value a. Predictors: (Constant), Spatial arrangement, Noise, Furniture, Lighting, Temperature b. Dependent Variable: Productivity Source: Survey The coefficient of determination R. square = 0.576. This gives us the ratio of explained variation to total variation. On converting the R. square value to percentage it comes to be approximately 58 Percent. From this percentage it is concluded that 58 percent of the variability of employees productivity is accounted for by the variables in this model. The regression co-efficient for the predictor variables; furniture, noise, lighting, temperature and spatial arrangements are 0.015, -0.068, 0.739, and 0.021 and 0.162, respectively. The coefficient values show, the change in productivity with a unit change in a variable value, when all the other variables are held constant. When we analyze the coefficient value for the variable, lighting we can say that there is an increase of 0.739 in the productivity of an employee for every unit increase (betterment) in the lighting conditions of the office, keeping all the other variables constant. The Regression Equation: Employee Productivity = -0.645 + .015 F - 0.068 N+ 0.739 L + 0.021 T + 0.162 SA (Where F=furniture, N=noise, L=lighting, T=temperature and SA=spatial arrangements) 7. Discussion of the Findings Analysis of the collected data revealed that office design has a substantial impact on the employees productivity. The overall impact of different elements showed that lighting affects the productivity of most employees. The overall mean of all the factors show that female employees are more concerned about their workplace surroundings, whereas, their male counterparts are less concerned with it. The overall response, according to gender, showed differences amongst the responses for different elements in the workplace. Male respondents results show that they are more concerned about the lighting in their offices, followed by the spatial arrangement. There is a direct relationship between office design and productivity. The Relationship between Office design and Productivity was determined by using the Pearsons Correlation in SPSS. A strong correlation exists between elements of office design and productivity of office design. The regression analysis of the
data shows that the coefficient of determination R. square = 0.576, so, it can be concluded that 58 percent of the variability in employees productivity is accounted for by the variables in this model.
8
7.1 Implications for Management Based on the findings, following are the implications of the study. Lighting was found to be the major factor, which is affecting the daily and overall productivity of employees in offices. Therefore, it is recommended to have proper and adequate artificial as well as natural light to improve the office design for better performance. Most of the organizations do not give importance to office design; this study will give them ample reasons to consider office design as an important factor in increasing their employees productivity. 7.2 Limitations of the Study Following are a few limitations of the study The sample size was not diverse enough to give the image of all organizations functioning in Pakistan. The data collected was based on subjective productivity measurement; some other objective method of collecting data can also be used. Data was collected by employing the simple method of structured questionnaires; other methods could have been used for collecting data. 7.3 Direction for future Research In order to establish a greater understanding of these relationships research, which combines human resource management, workplace layout and performance management, needs to be developed. Within the indoor environment, lighting and thermal environment have the biggest influence on employees productivity. It would therefore make sense to develop, in the near future, a validated human model in which at least the thermal environment in combination with the lighting conditions can be evaluated in terms of comfort and loss of productivity. Appendix 1 Questionnaire for Research study on Impact of Office Design on Employees Productivity INSTRUCTIONS: Please READ each question carefully. ENCIRCLE the option you think best suits you. Encircle only ONE option for each question. Name :( optional) _________________________Designation:_______________ _______ Banks Name: ______________________Branchs Name: ________________ Age____ Gender___________ Furniture 1. My furniture is flexible to adjust, rearrange or reorganize my workspace. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Almost 4- Fairly enough 5- Completely flexible 2. My furniture is comfortable enough so that I can work without getting tired till 5pm. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral
4- I agree 5- I strongly agree 3. The physical conditions at work influence my productivity. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always 4. Adequate and comfortable furniture will affect my productivity positively. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree Noise 5. My work environment is quiet. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always 6. I am able to have quiet and undisturbed time alone. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always
11
7. My workspace has many noise distractions. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree 8. Noise free environment will increase my productivity. 1- 10% 2- 20% 3- 30% 4- 40% 5- 50% or more Temperature 9. To what extent your room temperature affects your normal level of productivity. 1- No effect 2- Positive effect 3- Normal effect 4- Quite good effect 5- Bad effect 10. The overall temperature of my workspace in winters is 1- Cold 2- Cool 3- Pleasant 4- Slightly warm 5- Warm 11. The overall temperature of my workspace in Summers is 1- Cold 2- Cool 3- Pleasant 4- Slightly warm 5- Warm 12. I am able to control temperature or airflow in my office. 1-I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree Lighting
13. My workspace is provided with efficient lighting so that I can work easily without strain on my eyes. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree 14. Do you have control over the lighting on your desk (i-e adjustable desk light on desk)? 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- I dont need desk light 4- Mostly 5- Completely 15. Ample amount of natural light comes into my office. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent
1- No effect 2- Decrease by 20% 3- Decrease by 30% 4- Decrease by 40% 5- Decrease by 50% or more 23. Due to overall office environment can you complete your daily tasks easily? 1- Not at all
13
2- To some extent 3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always 24. By what percentage your overall productivity would increase if the related office environment problems are solved. 1- No change 2- 10% 3- 20% 4- 30% 5- 40% or more .
12
3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always 16. Number of windows in my work area complete my fresh air and light need. 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Did not notice 4- Mostly 5- Always Spatial Arrangement 17. My office/branch is open enough to see my colleagues working. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree 18. My work area is sufficiently equipped for my typical needs (normal storage, movements, etc). 1- Not at all 2- To some extent 3- Often 4- Mostly 5- Always 19. I am satisfied with the amount of space for storage and displaying important materials. 1- Extremely dissatisfied 2- Dissatisfied 3- Neutral 4- Satisfied 5- Extremely satisfied 20. My workspace serves multi purpose functions for informal and instant meetings. 1- I strongly disagree 2- I disagree 3- Im neutral 4- I agree 5- I strongly agree Productivity 21. Favorable environmental conditions(less noise, suitable temperature etc) in the office building will increase my productivity at work 1- No effect 2- Increase by 20% 3- Increase by 30% 4- Increase by 40% 5- Increase by 50% or more 22. Unfavorable environmental conditions(noise distractions, unsuitable temperature etc) in the office building will Decrease my productivity at work

Towards An Environmental Psychology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Towards An Environmental Psychology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h ysical environment on j o b performance: towards a t h e o r e t i c a l model o f workspace s t r e s s

A theoretical model of workspace stress

A theoretical model of workspace stress

Figure 1. The Habitability pyramid. Note: From Vischer (2005).

A theoretical model of workspace stress

Decision latitude (control over workspace) Psychological demandingness of workspace

ENERGY IN ENERGY OUT

active passive low-strain high-strain

Invited Review Paper

98 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008

Satisfaction and Functional Comfort

Territoriality and Belonging

and workspace (Cascio, 2000; Lai, Levas, Chou, Pinhanez &

Productivity and the Performance of Work

Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 103

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Furniture Noise Lighting Temperature Spatial arrangements Productivity

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen