Combinations of concentrated work and interactions are facilitated by office environments such as activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs). A-FOs are characterized by activity-based workspaces, an open-plan layout, and desk sharing. Although there is a growing enthusiasm for replacing cellular offices with A-FOs, the effects of such changes on office workers are still unclear. Within this three-wave longitudinal study, we investigated the changes (time lag of 1 and 8 months after the redesign) in perceived need–supply fit, distraction, interaction across teams, and workspace satisfaction during relocation from a cellular office to an A-FO. Moreover, as previous case studies indicated individual differences in the use of A-FOs, we considered participants’ perceived need–supply fit as a moderator indicating an appropriate use of A-FO supplies. We found a linear increase of perceived need–supply fit, a decrease in distraction, and a significant interaction effect where workspace satisfaction and interaction across teams increased more strongly for participants reporting a better perceived need–supply fit.
Appel-MeulenbroekR. (2010). Knowledge sharing through co-presence: Added value of facilities. Facilities, 28, 189-205. doi:10.1108/02632771011023140
2.
Appel-MeulenbroekR.GroenenP.JanssenI. (2011). An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13, 122-135. doi:10.1108/14630011111136830
3.
AshkanasyN. M.AyokoO. B.JehnK. A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1169-1184. doi:10.1002/job.1973
4.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. (2001). Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. American Economic Review, 91, 67-72. doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.67
5.
BlokM.GroenesteijnL.SchelvisR.VinkP. (2012). New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and effect business outcomes?Work, 41, 5075-5080. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-1028-2605
BrennanA.ChughJ. S.KlineT. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34, 279-299. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003001
8.
BruniaS.Hartjes-GosselinkA. (2009). Personalization in non-territorial offices: A study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11, 169-182. doi:10.1108/14630010910985922
9.
BuchananD.FitzgeraldL.KetleyD.GollopR.JonesJ. L.LamontS. S.. . . WhitbyE. (2005). No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, 189-205. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00111.x
10.
CableD. M.DeRueD. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.875
11.
CaiH.KhanS. (2010). The common first year studio in a hot-desking age: An explorative study on the studio environment and learning. Journal of Education in the Built Environment, 5, 39-64.
12.
CaplanR. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X
13.
CoradiA.HeinzenM.BoutellierR. (2015). A longitudinal study of workspace design for knowledge exploration and exploitation in the research and development process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 55-71. doi:10.1111/caim.12099
14.
DanielssonC. B.BodinL. (2008). Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environment and Behavior, 40, 636-668. doi:10.1177/0013916507307459
15.
DavisM. C.LeachD. J.CleggC. W. (2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 26, 193-237. doi:10.1002/9781119992592.ch6
16.
De BeenI.BeijerM. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12, 142-157. doi:10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011
17.
De CroonE.SluiterJ.KuijerP. P.Frings-DresenM. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48, 119-134. doi:10.1080/00140130512331319409
18.
DemeroutiE.DerksD.ten BrummelhuisL. L.BakkerA. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work-family balance, and well-being. In KorunkaC.HoonakkerP. (Eds.), The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123-142). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8
19.
EdwardsJ. R.CableD. M.WilliamsonI. O.LambertL. S.ShippA. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802
20.
ElsbachK. D.PrattM. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 181-224. doi:10.1080/078559809
21.
FayardA.-L.WeeksJ. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28, 605-634. doi:10.1177/0170840606068310
22.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L.TabataL. N. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
HirstA. (2011). Settler, vagrants and mutual indifference: Unintended consequences of hot-desking. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 767-788. doi:10.1108/09534811111175742
24.
HoendervangerJ. G.de BeenI.van YperenN. W.MobachM. P.AlbersC. J. (2016). Flexibility in use: Switching behavior and satisfaction in activity-based work environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18, 48-62. doi:10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0033
25.
HuaY.LoftnessV.HeerwagenJ. H.PowellK. M. (2011). Relationship between workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration. Environment and Behavior, 43, 807-826. doi:10.1177/0013916510364465
26.
Kaarlela-TuomaalaA.HeleniusR.KeskinenE.HongistoV. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices–longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52, 1423-1444. doi:10.1080/00140130903154579
27.
KimJ.de DearR. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007
KraemerH. C.WilsonG. T.FairburnC. G.AgrasW. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 877-883.
30.
KrautR. E.BrennanS. E.SiegelJ. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In: HindsP.KieslerS. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
KristofA. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
32.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
33.
LeeS. Y.BrandJ. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 323-333. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.001
34.
LeeS. Y.BrandJ. L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces?Ergonomics, 53, 324-335. doi:10.1080/00140130903389019
35.
MaherA.von HippelC. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 219-229. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.05.002
36.
McElroyJ. C.MorrowP. C. (2010). Employee reactions to office redesign: A naturally occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting. Human Relations, 63, 609-636. doi:10.1177/0018726709342932
37.
MeijerE. E.Frings-DresenM. H. W.SluiterJ. K. (2009). Effects of office innovation on office worker’s health and performance. Ergonomics, 52, 1027-1038. doi:10.1080/00140130902842752
38.
MillwardL. J.HaslamA. S.PostmesT. (2007). Putting employees in their place: The impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science, 18, 547-559. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0265
39.
MorrowP. C.McElroyJ. C.ScheibeK. P. (2012). Influencing organizational commitment through office redesign. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 99-111. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.004
40.
NielsenK.AbildgaardJ. S. (2013). Organizational interventions: A research-based framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work & Stress, 27, 278-297. doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.812358
41.
NielsenK.DanielsK. (2012). Enhancing team leaders’ well-being states and challenge experiences during organizational change: A randomized, controlled study. Human Relations, 65, 1207-1231. doi:10.1177/0018726711433312
42.
OhlyS.SonnentagS.NiessenC.ZapfD. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79-93. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
43.
OldhamG. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 253-258. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.253
44.
PatrickH.KneeC. R.CanevelloA.LonsbaryC. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434-457. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434
45.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
46.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
47.
RuostelaJ.LönnqvistA.PalvalinM.VuolleM.PatjasM.RaijA. (2014). New ways of working as a tool for improving the performance of a knowledge-intensive company. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13, 382-390. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.57
48.
SeddighA.BerntsonE.Bodin DanielsonC.WesterlundH. (2014). Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167-174. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009
49.
SemmerN. K.ZapfD.DunckelH. (1998). Instrument zur streßbezogenen Tätigkeitsanalyse ISTA [Instrument for Stress-related Job Analysis ISTA]. Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine Hochschulverlag.
50.
SiemsenE.RothA.OliveiraP. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241
51.
SundstromE.HerbertR. K.BrownD. W. (1982). Privacy and communication in an open plan office. Environment and Behavior, 14, 379-392. doi:10.1177/0013916582143007
52.
van der VoordtT. J. (2004). Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6, 133-148. doi:10.1108/14630010410812306
53.
van MeelJ. (2011). The origins of new ways of working. Facilities, 29, 357-367. doi:10.1108/02632771111146297
54.
WanousJ. P.ReichersA. E.HudyM. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
55.
WohlersC.HertelG. (2015, May). Choosing where to work@work: Team processes in activity-based flexible offices. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
56.
WohlersC.HertelG. (2016). Choosing where to work at work: Benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 6, 1-20. doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
