The influence of work group size and space sharing on the perceived productivity,overall comfort and health of occupants in commercial and academic buildings
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2021
The influence of work group size and space sharing on the perceived productivity,overall comfort and health of occupants in commercial and academic buildings
The influence of work groups (the number of occupants sharing an office) on occupant satisfaction with workplace environments was compared between commercial buildings and academic buildings. Using the Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology, a sample of 5000 surveys was collected over a 12-year period from 67 buildings around the world. In both academic and commercial buildings, solo offices (single occupant) obtained the best scores regarding productivity, overall comfort and health. Academics most disliked middle-sized open-plan offices (shared by 6 to 9 occupants), while in commercial buildings, office occupants most disliked large open-plan offices (shared by over 9 occupants). Occupants had higher productivity and perceived health in commercial buildings than those in academic buildings in all work groups. Productivity decreased as the number of occupants in the office increased in both academic and commercial buildings for all work groups except for middle-sized open-plan offices. Age had a significant influence on occupant perception in different work groups, when comparing commercial and academic buildings. Trivial differences regarding the effect of gender on occupant perception in commercial and academic buildings were also identified. The findings of this study points to the significance of office sharing in influencing high-performance working environments, especially in relation to open-plan layouts.
BairdG.Sustainable buildings in practice: what the users think.
New York:
Routledge, 2010.
2.
VeitchJACharlesKEFarleyKMNewshamGR.A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. J Environmental Psychol2007;
27: 177–189.
3.
ChandrasekarK.Workplace environment and its impact on organisational performance in public sector organisations. Int J Enterprise Comput Business Syst2011;
1: 1–19.
4.
Van DickRChristOStellmacherJWagnerUAhlswedeOGrubbaCHauptmeierMHoehfeldCMoltzenKTissingtonPA.Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. Br J Management2004;
15: 351–360.
5.
MyersonJRossP.Space to work: new office design.
London:
Laurence King Publishing, 2006.
6.
DavisMCLeachDJCleggCW.The physical environment of the office: contemporary and emerging issues. Int Rev Industrial Organization Psychol2011;
26: 193–237.
AjalaEM.The influence of workplace environment on workers’ welfare, performance and productivity. African Symposium: An online journal of the African Educational Research Network2012;
12: 141–149.
10.
BaldryCBarnesA.The open-plan academy: Space, control and the undermining of professional identity. Work, Employment Soc2012;
26: 228–245.
11.
HaynesB.Office productivity: a theoretical framework. J Corp Real Estate2007;
9: 97–110.
12.
LederSNewshamGRVeitchJAManciniSCharlesKE.Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: a new analysis. Build Res Inform2016;
44: 34–50.
13.
RoelofsenP.Performance loss in open-plan offices due to noise by speech. J Facilities Manage2008;
6: 202–211.
14.
BaldryC.Space-the final frontier. Sociology1999;
33: 535–553.
15.
KhoshbakhtMGouZXieXHeBDarkoA.Green building occupant satisfaction: evidence from the Australian higher education sector. Sustainability2018;
10: 2890.
16.
KimJde DearR.Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol2013;
36: 18–26.
17.
BanburySPBerryDC.Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics2005;
48: 25–37.
18.
JahnckeHHyggeSHalinNGreenAMDimbergK.Open-plan office noise: cognitive performance and restoration. J Environ Psychol2011;
31: 373–382.
19.
GorgievskiMJvan der VoordtTJvan HerpenSGvan AkkerenS.After the fire: new ways of working in an academic setting. Facilities2010;
28: 206–224.
20.
KaboFHwangYLevensteinMOwen-SmithJ.Shared paths to the lab: a sociospatial network analysis of collaboration. Environ Behav2015;
47: 57–84.
21.
RoperKOJunejaP.Distractions in the workplace revisited. J Facilities Manage . 2008;
6: 91–109.
22.
LeeH.Distraction and interaction in academic workspaces.
Waurn Ponds, Victoria:
Deakin University, 2009.
23.
RasheedEOKhoshbakhtMBairdG.Does the number of occupants in an office influence individual perceptions of comfort and productivity? New evidence from 5000 office workers. Buildings2019;
9: 73.
24.
BairdGRasheedEWareingS. The influence of demographic and locational factors on occupants’ perception scores for their buildings. In: 52nd International conference of the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), Melbourne, Australia, November 28 –December 1 2018.
25.
LeamanAStevensonFBordassB.Building evaluation: practice and principles. Build Res Inform2010;
38: 564–577.
26.
OselandN.Environmental factors affecting office worker performance: a review of evidence.
London:
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 1999.
27.
CohenRStandevenMBordassBLeamanA.Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process. Building Res Inform2001;
29: 85–102.
28.
BairdGOosterhoffH. Users’ perceptions of health in sustainable buildings–worldwide. In: Proceedings of CIB-W70 international conference in facilities management, Edinburgh, June 16–18 2008.
29.
BrownZBDowlatabadiHColeRJ.Feedback and adaptive behaviour in green buildings. Intell Build Int2009;
1: 296–315.
30.
GouZLauSS-YChenF.Subjective and objective evaluation of the thermal environment in a three-star green office building in China. Indoor Built Environ2012;
21: 412–422.
31.
LeamanABordassB.Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build Res Inform2001;
29: 129–143.
32.
BairdGLeamanAThompsonJ.A comparison of the performance of sustainable buildings with conventional buildings from the point of view of the users. Architect Sci Rev2012;
55: 135–144.
33.
BairdGThompsonJ. An examination of the distribution of user perception scores in a world-wide set of sustainable buildings. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual conference of the architectural science association (ANZAScA), Sydney, Australia, November 14–16 2011.
34.
FieldAMilesJFieldZ.Discovering statistics using R.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 2012.
35.
SchiavonSAltomonteS.Influence of factors unrelated to environmental quality on occupant satisfaction in LEED and non-LEED certified buildings. Build Environ2014;
77: 148–159.
36.
FergusonCJ.An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychol: Res Pract2009;
40: 532–538.
37.
BrennanAChughJKlineT.Traditional versus open office design: a longitudinal field study. Environ Behav2002;
34: 279–299.
38.
OldhamGRRotchfordNL.Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: a study of the physical environment. Admin Sci Quarter1983; 542–556.
39.
BlåkaGFilstadC.How does a newcomer construct identity? A socio‐cultural approach to workplace learning. Int J Lifelong Educ2007;
26: 59–73.
40.
GravettSPetersenN.You just try to find your own way’: the experience of newcomers to academia. Int J Lifelong Educ2007;
26: 193–207.
41.
SeddighABerntsonEDanielsonCBWesterlundH.Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. J Environ Psychology. 2014;
38: 167–174.
42.
DavisMHCapobiancoSKrausLA.Gender differences in responding to conflict in the workplace: evidence from a large sample of working adults. Sex Roles2010;
63: 500–514.
43.
VolkemaRJBergmannTJ.Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. J Social Psychol1995;
135: 5–15.
44.
CandidoCChakrabortyPTjondronegoroD.The rise of office design in high-performance, open-plan environments. Buildings2019;
9: 100.
45.
HayRSamuelFWatsonKJBradburyS.Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Build Res Inform2018;
46: 698–710.
