PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

How office workers cope with distraction
by sounds in the open plan office

Sven STEPS 1; Rianne APPEL-MEULENBROEK1; Theo ARENTZE1, Remy WENMAEKERS 2
1

Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
2

Level Acoustics & Vibration, The Netherlands

ABSTRACTThe open plan office is a complex sound environment existing of speech, office equipment sounds, sounds
from building services and other background sounds. Each type of sound can have a different influence on
the performance or well-being of the office workers. Much research reports which sound sources areperceived to be most disruptive or annoying. To some extent, acoustic measures such as sound absorption
and screens can be used to reduce the intelligibility of speech or the sound level of noise sources. Nevertheless,office workers need to deal with the acoustic environment they work in. In this research it is investigatedwhich coping strategies are used by office workers for different sounds and how these strategies are perceived
to be effective for improving productivity. Questionnaires were distributed among workers in three different
companies that have problems with sound. Results show that ‘discussing the noise problem with colleagues’
is perceived as the most effective strategy when intelligible speech is the problem. Less effective, but more
often applied, are so-called avoidance strategies such as ‘put work off’ and ‘interrupt work’, which is striking.
Ear plugs are only perceived to be effective when speech is unintelligible or other sounds are disturbing.
Keywords: Open Plan Office, Coping

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, there has been a fundamental shift in the structure of the economy, from amanufacturing based to a more service and knowledge based economy (1,2). Therefore it is becoming
increasingly important to establish an office environment that improves the performances of its
occupants. In line with this development, we see that health and wellbeing of employees is becoming
more and more important (e.g. introduction WELL Building Standard and Fitwel). Corporates arerecognizing that employees and staff are not an expense, but can be valued as a capital resource. And
that is not strange, as in general staff costs including salaries and benefits, typically account for about
90% of the business operating costs (3). As office employees spend a large proportion of their time atwork, it should be self-evident that the physical office environment influences their health and wellbeing (4; 5; 6).
Over the past years, the physical workplace evolved frequently. To date, the open-plan office is acommon used office type. There are a lot of economic benefits of an open space, such as: shortening
walking distance between desks and promoting communication, information flows, working
relationships and fresh and modern architecture. However, with the introduction of the open-planconcept, health and comfort issues, such as improper lighting, bad ventilation (7), lack of privacy (8,9) and increased workplace noise (9,10) became present.
A supporting workplace environment is said to have the ability to encourage employees with theirproductivity and task performances. Therefore, the physical office environment is increasingly
becoming important for especially knowledge companies. The quality of this physical environment isbased on several ambient attributes of the office environment, such as light, air quality, temperatureand noise (11, 12). Acoustics are one of the most important ambient attributes of the modern officedesign, as sound or noise is something that cannot be avoided in an office. However, compared to the1svenivarsteps@gmail.com, h.a.j.a.appel@tue.nl, T.A.Arentze@tue.nl

2

2383

other ambient factors, there is less known about acoustics. To date, it is known that speech andconversations are one of the most annoying sources in the office environment. Research that has been
done focus on the effect of this noise source on task performance, such as proofreading (13, 14, 15)or text typing (16, 17). However, the existing researches seldom focus on the perceived effects.
So sound is something that cannot be avoided in an office environment. Therefore it is important
to know how someone perceives noise, as the distinction between sound and noise is very subjective,
since noise is a subjective judgement. This is particular to each individual, place and task. To reduce
the negative effects of noise, individuals can cope with noise by various types of coping strategies.
However, beside some research from (18) about several coping strategies in private office rooms andopen-plan offices, not much evidence exists in the field of personal coping strategies. The lack of
information about the perceived effect of noise and how people cope with noise, results in thefollowing research objective:
The aim of this research is to provide insights in the effects of different sources of noise in officeenvironments on perceived productivity and how different types of employees cope with it. In addition
this research aims to provide insights in the effects of coping behavior on the perceived productivity.
To achieve this research objective, the main research question is:
What is the effect of different types of noise on perceived productivity and coping behavior in the
open-plan office environment and which coping strategies are perceived as most effective?

2. Literature

To be able to recognize what causes noise in the office environment and to understand the relation
between noise and productivity, it is important to dive deeper in concepts such as acoustics, sounds
and noise in the office environment. Employees indicate that noise is the second biggest cause of
distraction and dissatisfaction in the office environment, after lack of temperature control (19). The
literature distinguishes four categories of office noise, including speech and conversations, officeequipment, installations and background noise (20, Canada Safety Council, n.d.). In the case of speechand conversations, it is not the level of speech that has effect on productivity, but it is the speech
intelligibility that affects an employee’s productivity. In all other cases, it is assumed that the level ofdecibels affects the working conditions. Noise has not only a negative effect on productivity in its
broadest sense, but can also have effect on a particular task, such as text reading or typing.
Intelligible speech decreases working memory and receptive reading (21, 22), while a ringing
telephone appears to have a negative effect on cognitive performances, which indirectly affects anemployee’s productivity (23). In other terms, typical office tasks are negatively influenced by various
office noises, hence these have a negative effect on productivity.
If employees perceive that their productivity is influenced by office noise, they can adapt strategies
or skills to deal with the noisy circumstances. This is called coping behavior (25). Coping behavior
focuses on controlling the situation despite the noise or aim to neutralized the noise. Coping can beconceptualized and distinguished as approach and avoidance, which refer to respectively seeking
treatment for a stressor or ignoring and avoiding the stressor (26). People with good coping skills tend
to have better adjustment in life. People with positive coping behavior are better motivated, are able
to push through, can successfully tackle challenges, are more likely to achieve goals, have bettersleeping patters and have better physical and psychological health (25). Oseland and Hodsman (27)examined the relation between noise and coping behavior, but did not succeed to define various typesof coping behavior, like Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al. (18) did. As a result, eleven coping strategies could
be defined and described:
1. Discussed the noise problem with colleagues
2. Made an even greater effort
3. Put the work off till another time
4. Done their work more slowly than usual
5. Put on some music or earphones
6. Interrupted their work or left their desk
7. Tried to be quieter in the hope that colleagues did the same
8. Changed your work station or did the work home
9. Made a proposal to management to improve the acoustic conditions
10. Used earplugs or hearing protectors
11. Do nothing2384

Some of the strategies above are combined in this research, for example interrupted their work orleft their desk. Interrupt your work or leave your desk are two different ways of coping with noise. In
some situations, it could be that an employee would leave his or her desk, while in other situations heor she would interrupt his or her work, but would not leave his or her desk. Therefore this coping
strategy is in the conceptual model divided into interrupt your work and change your workstation or
location. To clarify the difference between some coping strategies, some strategies are described in
more detail. To illustrate, the coping strategies put work off till another time and interrupt your work
could be seen as the same coping strategy. That is why to the latter strategy has been added seek some
distraction and resume your work afterwards. This ensures that the respondents could see thedifference between the two strategies. At last it is worth mentioning that the coping strategy do nothingis added to the conceptual model. Do nothing and ‘accept’ the noise conditions is one way to handle
the noise and therefore a coping strategy that will be measured during the survey.

3. Research approach

A questionnaire was distributed in order to gather data about preferences and attitudes related tocoping strategies and effects of various noise sources. The questionnaire contained questions about
the various noise sources for which the respondent had to indicate to what extent these sources affected
the perceived productivity. It included statements about coping strategies and their effect on perceived
productivity. The questionnaire was distributed between the 3rd of September and 10th of October
2018 among three companies which had to deal with acoustic problems in their office environment.
In total 461 people received the online questionnaire. Thereof 150 people filled in the questionnaire(64 men and 86 females), which results in an acceptable response rate of 33 percent. However, thegeneralizability of the sample is questionable, because the variables gender, age and educational level
differ significantly when compared with figures of CBS (Dutch national statistics agency). The sample
represents ages varied from 22 till 66 years, with an average age of 41 years and a fairly high standard
deviation of 11 years. In general, it can be seen that the majority of the sample has a vocational
educational level with a percentage of no less than 82.0 percent. 12.0 percent is in the possession ofa Master’s degree or PhD. One of the respondents stopped education after primary school.
After data description and preparation, further analyses could be examined. The Chi-Square test
(X2-test) is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between the expected variables
and the observed variables in one or more categories. This test has been performed to examine therelation between noise sources and coping behavior. In case of small expected counts, a Fisher’s exact
test is used. Additionally, the Lift-ratio is used to analyze to what extent the choice for a specificcoping strategy differs between the various noise sources in more detail. By doing this, it can beanalyzed if a particular coping strategy is a specific coping reaction to a particular noise source.

4. Results

Table 1 provides an overview of the distribution of noise sources that affects the respondents’
perceived productivity. It needs to be mentioned that in this stadium it provides no information towhat extent a noise source is influencing the productivity, it only indicates if a particular noise source
affects the perception of productivity of the respondents. It says something about how many
respondents indicate that a particular noise source influences productivity and not to what extent. In
conclusion, 80.7 percent of the respondents indicate that intelligible speech conversations (near one’sdesk) is influencing perceived productivity. Intelligible speech from telephone conversations (74percent) is the second most common noise source that is influencing self-estimated productivity. The
two noise sources that are least often selected as having effect on productivity are installations andmusic, with respectively 18.7 percent and 16.7 percent.

2385

Table 1 Overview of distribution noise sources
Noise source

N

Sample121

80,7 %

60

40,0 %

44

29,3 %

Intelligible speech from telephone conversations

111

74,0 %

Unintelligible background conversations

72

48,0 %

Telephones ringing

89

59, 3%

Printers/ fax/ shredder/ coffee machine

44

29,3 %

Installations

Ventilation or air-conditioning system

28

18,7 %

Background noiseMusic (radio or piped-in)

25

16,7 %

People passing-by, entering or leaving the office

54

36,0 %

Noise from outside the office building

34

22,7 %

Sound of a particular colleague

65

43,3 %

Speech andIntelligible speech conversations (near one’s

conversations

desk)Intelligible speech conversations in adjacent
roomsIntelligible speech conversations at common
facilities (e.g. coffee rooms or coffee machine)

Office equipment

As employees start coping with office noise, it seems that they most often choose for the avoidance
coping strategy make even a greater effort (49.8 percent of respondents indicate to use this coping
strategy), followed by the approach coping strategy discuss noise problem with your colleagues (43.6
percent of respondents indicate to use this coping strategy). Also in total, the avoidance coping
strategies are more often chosen in comparison with the approach coping strategies. Surprisingly,
despite that the respondents choose more often for the avoidance strategies, the approach strategies
are perceived to be more effective in to boost perceived productivity. So they know that approach is
better than avoidance, but do not as often choose such a strategy. The approach coping strategy discuss
the noise problem with your colleagues is perceived to be the most effective coping strategy to boost
perceived productivity, followed by continue work at home. The least effective coping strategy is the
avoidance strategy try to be more quiet in the hope that your colleagues do the same. It is worth
mentioning that the coping strategies change your desk or location and continue work at home cannot
be used by every respondent because they have an allocated work location or do not have thepossibility to work at home. Analyses that are performed including only the respondents that are
actually able to use these two coping strategies, continue work at home is perceived to be the mosteffective coping strategy followed by change your desk or location.
The Lift-ratio is used to analyze to what extent a noise sources triggers a specific coping strategy.
The results of the Lift-ratio show interesting findings, see table 2. The results in table 2 show that
there are specific coping strategies in relation with the noise sources, see green column. This meansthat when it is known which coping strategies are present in an office environment, this can be anindication is for the noise sources that are present and have influence on the perceived productivityof the employees. If it is know which noise sources are present, one can act on this. For example, if
employees tend to interrupt their work, this is an indication that there is too much intelligible speechthat affects the perceived productivity of the employees.

2386

Table 2. Overview of specific coping reactions*
Noise source

Specific coping strategy

Least chosen strategies

Intelligible speech (near one’s- Interrupt work

- Do nothingdesk)(seek distraction)- Try to be more quiet

Intelligible speech at common- Proposal to management- Put work off (change to aless demanding task)

facilities- Try to be more quiet
Intelligible speech telephone- Put work off (change to aconversations

less demanding task)- Try to be more quiet- Interrupt work
(seek distraction)
Unintelligible background- Use earplugs or ear- Interrupt work (seekconversations

protectors

distraction)

People passing by, entering or- Do nothingleaving
Sounds of particular colleague- Try to be more quiet- Interrupt work (seekdistraction)*the outcomes of specific coping strategies are only related to offices

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The intention of this research was to reduce the research gap of existing scientific knowledge,
including the perceived effects of noise, coping behavior in relation to noise and the effects of coping
behavior on perceived productivity.
In conclusion, this research examined the effects of office noise on perceived productivity andcoping behavior. Based on the analysis and the results, it can be concluded that a distinction can bemade between the noise sources and their effect on perceived productivity. Speech and conversations
are most often indicated as affecting the perceived productivity, including intelligible speech near
one’s desk and from telephone conversations. Employees choose different coping strategies to respondto these noise sources. The effect of these coping strategies on perceived productivity differs per
strategy, but in general it can be stated that discuss the noise problem with your colleagues andcontinue work at home are perceived to be the most effective strategies. In addition, it appears that a
number of noise sources trigger a specific coping reaction. When employees are exposed to a noise
source which affect their perceived productivity, they cope with a specific coping reaction.
This research contributes to the knowledge in the research field of ambient factors in the officeenvironment. Many studies focus on light, temperature or air quality, while less is known aboutacoustics and noise in the office environment. Additionally, a lot of these studies focus on individualtask performance, while the existing studies seldom focus on the perceived effects. Concerning the
coping behaviors, there were studies that examined coping behavior, but just a few conducted a
research on the effect of coping behavior on noise. Hence, not much is known about the effect of
coping strategies on perceived productivity.
Recommendations for further research were based on several limitations of this research. This
research is conducted in perspective of individual focused work, desk based in offices. Additionally,
the coping strategies are also analyzed in perspective of individual focused work. The stimuli that
affect perceived productivity depend on the type of work an individual performs. Future studies could
focus on the perception of noise sources and how employees cope with these noise sources during
different working activities. Also, personal characteristics of the employees should be included, to2387

find out their relevance in explaining coping behavior. The companies that participate in this researchwere all dealing with acoustic problems in their office buildings. An additional recommendation
would be to do the same research with another focus group with less acoustic problems. Further
research could analyze for instance what the effects are of coping strategies on perceived productivity
in less noisy conditions. Furthermore, an interesting field for future research would be the effect of
coping strategies on perceived productivity per noise source. A last recommendation, is to perform
further research on the actual effects of coping strategies on productivity instead of the perceived
effects.
A full version of the research report can be found in the master thesis by the first author (28).
REFERENCES
1. Haynes, B. P. (2007). Office productivity: a theoretical framework. Sheffield, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
2. Johnson, J., Mawson, A., & Plum, K. (2014). Effectively measuring knowledge worker productivity.
Allsteel Inc. .
3. WGBC. (2016). Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Green Offices. London, UK : WGBC.
4. Kamarulzaman, N., Saleh, A., Hashim, S., Hashim, H., & Abdul-Ghani, A. (2011). An Overview of the
Influence of Physical Office Environments towards Employees. Procedia Engineering, Volume 20, 262268.
5. Conrad, P. (1988). Worksite health promotion: The social context. Social Science & Medicine, 26(5), 485489.
6. Price, R., & Hooijberg, R. (1992). Organizational exit pressures and role stress: Impact on mental health.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,, 13, 641-651.
7. Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee's productivity: case study of a bank in
Turkey. Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, Vol. 1(1), 38-49.
8. Boyce, P. (1974). Users' assessment of a landscaped office . Journal of Architectural Research, 3, 44-62.
9. Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at wrok: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction
and job performance. Acadamy of Management Journal, Vol.23 No 1, 101-117.
10. Brookes, M., & Kaplan, A. (1972). The office environment: Space planning and affective behaviour.
Human Factors, 14, 373-391.
11. Seppänen, O., & Fisk, W. (2005). Ventilation and performance in office work. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki
University of Technology.
12. Veitch, J. (2001). Psychological processes influencing lighting. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering
Society, v. 30, no.1, 124-140.
13. Jones, D., & Broadbent , D. (1979). Side-effects of interference with speech by noise. Ergonomics, 22,1073-1081.
14. Weinstein, N. (1974). Effects of noise on intellectual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,
548-554.
15. Weinstein, N. (1977). Noise and intellectual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 104-117.
16. Balazova, I., Clausen, G., Rindel, J., Poulsen, T., & Wyon, D. (2008). Open-plan office environments: A
laboratory experiment to examine the effect of office noise and temperature on human perception, comfort
and office work performance. Indoor Air, 17-22.
17. Witterseh, T., Wyon, D., & Clausen, G. (2008). The effects of moderate heat stress and open‐plan officenoise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work. Taastrup, Denmark: Danish
Technological Institute, Building Technology.
18. Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic
environments on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices - longitudinal study during relocation.
Ergonomics, 52:11, 1423-1444.
19. Leesman. (2017, 09 30). Leesman Review, Issue 25. Retrieved from Leesman Index:
http://www.leesmanindex.com/Review25.pdf
20. Pan, N., & Cheung Chan, M. (2007). Study on noise perception and distraction in office. Hong Kong:
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
21. Hongisto, V. (2005). A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work
performance. Indoor Air, 15, 458-468.
22. Venetjoki, N., Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Keskinen , E., & Hongisto, V. (2006). The effect of speech andspeech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics 49, 1068-1091.

2388

23. Mouri, K., Akiyama , K., & Ando, Y. (2001). Preliminary study onrecommended time duration of source
signals to be analyzed, in relation to its effective duration of the auto-correlation function. Journal ofSounds and Vibration, Volume 241, Issue 1, 87-95.
25. Arya, R. (2017). Understanding the Coping Behaviour of Person Suffering From Sexual Deviation andDysfunctions. International Journal of Indian Psychology, Volume 4.
26. Reid, G., Gilbert, C., & McGrath, P. (1998). The Pain Coping Questionnnaire: Preliminiary validation.
Pain, 76, 83-96.
27. Oseland, N., & Burton, A. (2012). Quantifying the impact of environmental conditions on worker
performance for inputting to a business case to justify enhanced workplace design features. ournal of
Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, Volume 1(2), 151-165.
28.Steps, S. (2019) The effect of office noise on perceived productivity and coping behavior of office workers.
Master Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.

2389