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