Traditional versus Open Office Design : A Longitudinal Field Study

Research in open office design has shown that it is negatively related to workers’ satisfaction with their physical environment and perceived productivity. A longitudinal study was conducted within a large private organization to investigate the effects of relocating employees from traditional offices to open offices. A measure was constructed that assessed employees’satisfaction with the physical environment, physical stress, coworker relations, perceived job performance, and the use of open office protocols. The sample consisted of 21 employees who completed the surveys at all three measurement intervals: prior to the move, 4 weeks after the move, and 6 279 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34 No. 3, May 2002 279-299 © 2002 Sage Publications at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from months after the move. Results indicated decreased employee satisfaction with all of the dependent measures following the relocation. Moreover, the employees’ dissatisfaction did not abate, even after an adjustment period. Reasons for these findings are discussed and recommendations are presented. Thepurpose of this studywas to determine the effects of relocating employees from traditional to open offices. The organization in which this study was conducted requested a longitudinal study to assess the long-term impact of office redesign on their employees’ satisfaction with the physical environment and productivity. Employees’ satisfaction with their work environment is important to organizations, as it has been shown to be directly related to employees’ job satisfaction and indirectly related to commitment and turnover intentions (Carlopio, 1996). There are many different types of office designs, ranging from traditional, private offices to open offices. Open offices also range in their design complexity from the “bull pen” in which the desks are arranged in neat rows to “landscaped”—or Bürolandschaft—offices that include “systems furniture” and panels of varying heights. In open offices, people who work together are physically located together with the geometry of the layout reflecting the pattern of the work groups. The various areas can be separated by plants, low movable screens, cabinets, shelving, or other furniture (Sanders & McCormick, 1993). Thus, within the broad category of open office, fine-grained differences can be rendered. For example, the number of partitions surrounding employees’ workspaces, spatial density (the amount of usable space per employee), openness (the overall openness of the office or the ratio of total square footage of the office to the total length of its interior walls and partitions), and architectural accessibility (the extent to which an employee’s individual workspace is accessible to the external intrusions of others) (Oldham, 1988; Oldham & Rotchford, 1983) can all vary. For example, Marans and Yan (1989) divided their national sample of offices into six different design categories based on the number of walls and partitions surrounding the employees’ workspace. For purposes of this study, offices were classified into one of the following five categories: (a) private closed, (b) private shared, (c) individual open, (d) shared open, or (e) bull pen. Open offices were designed in the 1950s and reached their height of popularity in the early 1970s, when many companies converted to these types of designs. Original claims by the designers of open offices were that they created flexible space, allowing layout to be more sensitive to changes in organizational size and structure. Workstations can be easily reconfigured at minimal cost to meet changing needs. It was also believed that the absence of internal physical barriers would facilitate communication between 280 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2002 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from individuals, groups, and even whole departments, which consequently, would improve morale and productivity. In addition, there was an estimated 20% savings in costs associated with creating and maintaining this type of office space (Hedge, 1982). Although many claims have been made regarding improvements in communication and productivity with open office designs, research findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting positive outcomes such as increased communication among coworkers (Allen & Gerstberger, 1973; Hundert & Greenfield, 1969; Ives & Ferdinands, 1974; Zahn, 1991) and supervisors (Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980), higher judgments of aesthetic value (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Riland, 1970), and more group sociability (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972), whereas other studies have reported negative findings such as decreased performance (Becker, Gield, Gaylin, & Sayer, 1983; Oldham & Brass, 1979), lower judgments of functional efficiency (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972), lower levels of psychological privacy (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Hedge, 1982; Sundstrom, Town, Brown, Forman, & McGee, 1982; Sundstrom et al., 1980), environmental dissatisfaction (Marans & Yan, 1989; Oldham & Brass, 1979; Spreckelmeyer, 1993), fewer friendship opportunities (Oldham & Brass, 1979), supervisor feedback (Oldham & Brass, 1979), privacy (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Hundert & Greenfield, 1969), increased noise (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Sundstrom, et al., 1980), increased disturbances and distractions (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Hedge, 1982; Hundert & Greenfield, 1969; Ives & Ferdinands, 1974; Mercer, 1979; Nemecek & Grandjean, 1973; Oldham & Brass, 1979; Sundstrom, et al., 1980), and increased feelings of crowding (Sundstrom, et al., 1980). In a study by Zalesny and Farace (1987), employees relocated from traditional to open offices. Managers reported that their new work areas were less adequate than before the office change, that they had less privacy, and that they were less satisfied with the physical environment. Given these reported increases in disturbances and distractions, one would expect productivity to be negatively affected, especially in light of the findings from the Steelcase (Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., 1978) study in which 41% of a sample of office workers indicated that the most important office characteristic in getting their work done well was the ability to concentrate without noise or other distractions. However, these respondents rated the level of noise and other distractions in their work environments as the third worst characteristic of their workplace. In a follow-up study 2 years later, more than half of another sample of office workers reported that quiet was important to completing their work, yet only 48% reported that they actually experienced quiet offices. Recent statistics suggest that disturbances from office noise has reached epidemic proportions, with 54% of a sample of more than 2,000 U.S. and Canadian office workers in various office plans from 58 different sites Brennan et al. / OFFICE DESIGN 281 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from reporting that they are bothered often by one or more sources of noise, such as telephones, people talking, ventilation systems, piped-in music, and office equipment (Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994). Furthermore, reported disturbances from combined sources of noise were found to be negatively related to environmental satisfaction and job satisfaction. Contrary to expectations, however, Sundstrom et al. (1994) found no relationship between disturbances and self or supervisor ratings of performance. Many companies continue to adopt open office designs primarily because of the reduced costs in construction and maintenance. However, another reason why open plan offices are so popular is the belief that they facilitate greater communication, which in turn, facilitates greater productivity (Boje, 1971; Pile, 1978). This belief is based on the social facilitation hypothesis, which states that performance of routine tasks will improve in nonprivate areas (Geen & Gange, 1977). The theory suggests that employees who find their jobs boring may find that contact with other people provides a source of stimulation. However, Sundstrom (1978) found that social contact can exceed an optimum level, causing a worker to feel crowded, especially in areas with minimal privacy. As a result of crowding, discomfort may occur, which then causes decreased job performance. Research findings have shown a high correlation between architectural privacy (the visual and acoustic isolation supplied by an environment) and psychological privacy (a sense of control over access to oneself or one’s group), even among people with the least complex jobs (Sundstrom et al., 1980). Furthermore, no relationship has been found between architectural accessibility and social contact among coworkers. These findings directly contradict the claims of open office designers regarding increases in communication. Moreover, whereas one of the proposed advantages of the open office design was increased communication, they have actually been found to prohibit confidential conversations (Sundstrom, 1986). In short, empirical findings suggest that employees prefer privacy over accessibility because of the increases in noise and distractions experienced in nonprivate workspaces (Sundstrom et al., 1980). McCarrey, Peterson, Edwards, and Von Kulmiz (1974) suggested that the findings of lower satisfaction in open offices are due to employees’perceived lack of control over input to and from the environment. This occurs through lack of auditory privacy, lack of personal privacy, and lack of confidentiality of communications. This is supported by the concept of overload (Cohen, 1978), which posits that workers prefer quiet workplaces where neighboring coworkers are relatively few and far apart because exposure to sources of overload can then be controlled. Empirical research on open offices has supported the theory of overload, finding that employees tend to prefer lower 282 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2002 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from levels of spatial density in their work areas and a greater number of partitions (Oldham, 1988; Oldham & Rotchford, 1983). Not all research findings have shown that open offices cause employees to suffer from their working conditions. Even among those who do report complaints, they often are not directed at the same problems, and different individuals do not report suffering with the same severity (Wineman, 1986). Overall, however, research shows that employees experience increases in physiological and psychological stress after moving from conventional offices to open offices (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Wineman, 1986). In addition, higher levels of satisfaction have been found among those in conventional private offices compared with those in open plan offices (Sundstrom et al., 1980). The majority of complaints associated with open offices appear to focus on the immediate increase in distractions and disturbances (Hedge, 1982). It may be that at first, the increase in noise negatively affects worker productivity. However, there may be a habituation process to these disturbances and distractions, which would cause productivity to return to original levels following an adjustment period. Many of the findings in this field are confounded with the element of change, as the studies cited investigated employees’reactions to the immediate changes in office design. Often, researchers examine employee reactions following organizational moves from conventional private offices to open plan offices without any follow-up measures. An example of the potential problem this can pose is illustrated in a study by Sundstrom et al. (1980) in which employees who had worked in their offices for at least 6 months reported no relationship between their office design and amount of social contact with their coworkers. The authors noted that these findings are inconsistent with previous research and speculated that moving into an open office may create increased interaction only for a short period, after which people revert back to their earlier habits and develop ways of regulating their social contact. Similarly, it is possible that many of the complaints associated with open offices are simply due to the stress associated with the changes. Perhaps once employees have had time to adapt to their new environment, negative attitudes lessen or disappear altogether. To date, only one study by Stokols, Churchman, Scharf, and Wright (1990) has investigated office workers’reactions to environmental changes in their offices over time. The researchers assessed employees’ change desirability, exploratory style, job satisfaction, and perceptions of the quality of the social environment and the overall quality of work activities either prior to or following office renovation or relocation. The participants experienced either (a) no relocation or renovation, (b) on-site renovation only, (c) shortBrennan et al. / OFFICE DESIGN 283 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from distance relocation to a building across the street, or (d) long-distance relocation to a building 10 miles away. Contrary to expectations, the level of environmental change was not found to be related to employees’ perceptions of the disruption of the move or renovation. Positive correlations were found between the degree of environmental change and positive feelings about the physical environment. Those employees who welcomed the change prior to the move or renovation subsequently rated the quality of the social environment at work more positively than those who were initially less optimistic about the change. However, the authors did not report any changes in the workers’ satisfaction with the physical environment over time, and they did not assess office design or how changes in office design were related to employees’ satisfaction with the physical environment. This study used a longitudinal research design consisting of three measurement periods to assess employees’satisfaction with the physical environment and their perceived job performance after relocating from traditional to open offices as well as to determine if these measures changed over time. Data were collected prior to the relocation, shortly following the move, and 6 months after the move. Employees were surveyed using the following four outcome variables: (a) satisfaction with the physical environment, (b) perceptions of the physical stress of the office environment, (c) satisfaction with team member relations, and (d) perceived job performance. Satisfaction with the physical environment measured the employees’ satisfaction with their office environment with regard to issues such as whether the employees feel they have adequate work and storage space and whether the personnel traffic corridors are well defined for traffic flow. Employees’ satisfaction with their workspace or overall environmental satisfaction have been frequently studied in the literature (e.g., Brill, Margulis, Konar, & Bosti, 1984; Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Marans & Yan, 1989; Sundstrom et al., 1982; Sundstrom, 1986) and have been found to be related to job satisfaction and performance (Sundstrom et al., 1980; Wineman, 1986). Perceived physical stressors assessed employees’ satisfaction with the physical comfort of the environment, such as whether the lighting, temperature, and ventilation systems are adequate and whether the noise from telephones and coworkers talking is bothersome. Perceptions of spatial characteristics, ambient conditions, and psychosocial characteristics of the office (i.e., lighting, temperature, environmental control, privacy) have been found to be related to environmental satisfaction (Marans & Yan, 1989; Spreckelmeyer, 1993) and job satisfaction (Carlopio, 1996; Sundstrom et al., 1994) and indirectly related to organizational commitment and turnover (Carlopio, 1996). 284 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2002 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from Team member relations referred to the extent to which employees feel they are “part of a team” and their level of satisfaction with the relationships between themselves and other team members or team leaders. Some researchers (e.g., Boje, 1971; Pile, 1978) have posited that open offices facilitate social interaction, which subsequently increases productivity. Last, perceived job performance assessed employees’ satisfaction with their productivity levels and whether the office environment affects their ability to work. Questions addressed whether the employees feel they are able to complete their assigned tasks and meet deadlines, whether they have adequate access to necessary resources, whether they are able to stay focused and “on task,” and whether the office design facilitates privacy and confidentiality. This study investigated whether the aforementioned variables were related to the relocation from traditional to open offices both initially and over an extended period of time. It was expected that employees’levels of satisfaction with the physical environment, physical stress, and performance would decrease initially and that their satisfaction with team member relations would increase immediately after the move to the open offices. However, it was also expected that the employees would adjust to their new environment and that their reported levels of satisfaction with the physical environment, physical stress, team member relations, and perceived job performance would all return to their base rates (prior to the move) after the employees had worked in their offices for 6 months. The use of office protocols was also measured to determine whether any guidelines had been established to assist employees in adapting to an open office design and to determine the extent to which these protocols were followed. The protocols were measured on the second and third time intervals only, as they were designed to assess the practices followed in the open offices design. Examples of protocols included respecting the privacy of others and telephone conversation noise. Research suggests that the use of open office protocols may help reduce the number of distractions that frequently arise from the behavior of colleagues (Hedge, 1982). The implications of this study include both employees’ reactions to the initial change and the long-term reactions to the new office design. Through the use of a longitudinal research design, the effects due to change may be disentangled from the effects of variations in office design. This investigation also assessed if reported levels of productivity varied following the relocation and if they returned to initial levels following a period of adjustment. Brennan et al. / OFFICE DESIGN 285 at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 26, 2013 eab.sagepub.com Downloaded from