Is it enough to change the office?

Presently, organisations have been concerned with workplace architecture and have made many changes in recent years to their office spaces, aiming to create a more creative and healthy work environment.

Each redesign of the workspace has a high burden on the organisation and so it is critical to question the real impact of these changes on workers, namely the transformation of the office into open-space, and whether there are other aspects, that are not considered by top management and that can have more impact than space architecture.

It seems to be fashionable and trendy for organisations to transform workplaces, however, do any of these changes pay off?

Let’s focus on the open-space case. This work structure was created to encourage workers to relate, to facilitate teamwork and communication. However, some studies show that this new work dynamic may not bring so many benefits as expected. Open workspaces make it difficult for some workers to concentrate, both for acoustic and privacy reasons.

Workers were found to be more satisfied with more private workplaces where they could concentrate better. In addition, there seems to be discomfort associated with open offices because of the uncertainty of who will be seeing or hearing them, particularly for work meetings.

On the other hand, without divisions, interruptions can be more frequent, making it more difficult to start and complete a task without being interrupted.

Still, contrary to what was expected, it was realised that the transition to open-space does not necessarily promote open interaction.

Continuing in the same logic of privacy for comfort and productivity, it was found that workers create other strategies to maintain their privacy.

An example of this is the choice of a different means of communication. Instead of communicating in front of the rest of the workers, they tend to replace face-to-face communication with email or instant messaging.

However, the trend has been to reduce the space per person and break down as many physical barriers among workers as possible.

Workers also value the existence of a window to the street close to their workplace, however, this sometimes is not reflected in their workspace lighting conditions.

Air quality is another predictor of satisfaction, and the efficiency of workspace ventilation and the control of sources of pollutants are important.

Although not mentioned as one of the main characteristics, temperature is also important to enhance worker comfort.

One possibility of compromise may be the creation of areas by teams, with the possibility of meetings in private or more isolated workplaces within the office.

To promote the relationship between workers it is important to create areas so that they can decompress and relate without bothering those who are working. In some offices, there are already areas with couches and distraction utilities such as television or some games.

In addition, these suggestions can contribute to solving another problem quite common in companies: sedentarism. Excessive sitting time, especially for a long time without breaks, damages greatly worker’s health. Thus, if the office has differentiated areas and stimulates interaction with colleagues it can also help with making people move and walk around the workspace.

In addition, educational and behavioural strategies should also be applied to combat this problem in order to increase the effectiveness of these environmental strategies. It is possible to stimulate unconsciously to avoid being seated for many hours and also making the worker aware of this problem. Some digital tools send direct messages and suggestions to the employee to nudge the right behaviour considering fatigue and sedentarism management (e.g., Performetrics).

As a possible mitigator of sedentariness, there is then the design of the office by encouraging moving to communicate with colleagues or for breaks. In addition, training can be provided for workers to be aware of sedentarism risks, and to prevent them.

On the other hand, some organisations provide space or provide professionals to go to the office and do some workouts with people. These exercises, in addition to promoting employee movement, protect certain areas in the body that are more sensitive to musculoskeletal injuries that are so common in several different work settings.

And so, do you consider that space is what most predicts employee well-being and performance?

Research suggests that the characteristics of the work itself play this role.

Workplaces considered psychologically healthy stand out for their resources at the level of the individual, the group, the team leader and the organisation.

It’s actually these resources that have more weight when promoting the wellbeing of the individual and their performance.

Individual resources are inherent to the employee, i.e. they are personal characteristics or behaviours that enable the employee to cope with demands and ensure good performance. Although they are individual, they can be enhanced and worked on through training or feedback given by management allowing the worker to improve.

Resources at the group level can be social support and relationships with co-workers, more specifically, social support. This can be enhanced through team building activities and informal gatherings or events.

Leaders, due to their hierarchical and power position, influence greatly the well-being and performance of their team. Social interactions with employees and the way decisions are made, feedback and support are given, play a crucial role. Therefore, organisations should also excel in the training of their leaders, and in accompanying them closely in this new role.

Finally, resources at the organisational level are those that are inherent in the way work is designed and organised by management.

In conclusion, the health and performance of workers depend on several factors and workspace is not the one with the most impact, but only with an organisational assessment and talking directly to people can the most impactful factors be detected in each specific team or department.

Therefore, before investing in a radical change in the design of the office, it is important to realize whether there will be effective improvement and impact of this change or whether it could harm even more since people were not involved or consulted in this change.

References

Bernstein, E. S., & Turban, S. (2018). The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1753), 20170239.

Chu, A. H. Y., Ng, S. H., Tan, C. S., Win, A. M., Koh, D., & Müller‐Riemenschneider, F. (2016). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of workplace intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time in white‐collar workers. Obesity Reviews, 17(5), 467–481.

Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M. B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., & Isaksson, K. (2017). Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 31(2), 101–120.

Leder, S., Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S., & Charles, K. E. (2016). Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: A new analysis. Building research & information, 44(1), 34–50.

This article was firstly published at https://boundmakers.wordpress.com