The Environmental Crisis in the Office: Why Aren't Managers Managing the Office Environment?

For more information on these incidents, and on others like them, see Cannon M. , ‘Give Them Air’, Canadian Business, April 1987, p. 58.

The degree of health risk associated with modern office buildings depends on the degree of mismanagement of the office environment. In some buildings the health risk can be very high, with office occupants exposed to levels of pollution and noise much greater than safe levels. The greatest risk to health occurs in buildings suffering from Tight Building Syndrome. For a good description of the causes and effects of TBS see ‘Architect, heal thyself’, The Economist, 13 May 1989, pp. 89–90.

Building Use Studies Limited has conducted extensive research into the relationship between office management and organizational effectiveness. In a recent study of building-related symptoms in office workers they found that 34 per cent described their offices as uncomfortably dry, hot or stuffy; over half reported physical symptoms such as lethargy, headaches, or eye, nose or throat irritation; and 25 per cent felt that working conditions reduced their productivity by over 20 per cent. Overall, the researcher's findings indicate a clear connection between environmental quality and productivity. For more information on their research see Wilson S. , ‘Making Offices Work’, Management Today (UK), October 1987.

This statement was made by Dennis Malayko, Health and Safety Representative with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees represents about 40,000 civil servants in Alberta, Canada.

For some of the varied perspectives on privacy see Hatch M. , ‘Physical Barriers, Task Characteristics, and Interaction Activity in Research and Development Firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, 1987; M. Zalesney and R. Farace, ‘Traditional Versus Open Offices: A Comparison of Sociotechnical, Social Relations and Symbolic Meaning Perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1987.

The question of how an open-plan office design affects employees is certainly not settled. For an example of the negative consequences see Oldham Greg , and Brass Daniel , ‘Employee Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A Naturally Occurring Quasi-Experiment’, Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1979. For a more positive example of the open plan office see S. Sopko, ‘Open Place Offices: An Investment in People’, Office, December 1988.

For a good example of how improved lighting can improve productivity see Freidin H. , ‘The Cost Benefits of Industrial Lighting’, Production Engineering, August 1986. For a further discussion of the role of lighting in human productivity see J. Wineman, ‘Office Design and Evaluation’, Environment and Behavior, May 1982.

The air quality discussion has centred primarily on the extent of the problem, not on the need for change. For more information on the extent of the problem and possible strategies for change see Woods J. , ‘Office Pollutants: They Can be Controlled’, Office, March 1985; P. McLaughlin, ‘Casebook No. 42: Clearing the Air’, Canadian Business, July 1989; J. Bruening, ‘Seeking a Cure for Sick Building Syndrome’, Occupational Hazards, May 1989.

For a more detailed consideration of the role of acoustics in the modern office see Rourke R. , ‘Less Noise Means More Productivity’, Administrative Management, November 1985 and J. Foegan, ‘Quiet, Please!’, Advanced Management Journal, Winter 1987.

For a more complete discussion of space allocation from an architect's viewpoint see T. Walton, Architecture and the Corporation, New York: Macmillan. For an alternative view see Stone P. , and Luchetti R. , ‘Your Office is Where You Are’, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1985.

For an excellent introduction to office ergonomics see chapter 6 of Planning the Electronic Office by Elaine Cohen, and Aaron Cohen, 1983, McGraw-Hill, New York.