The physical environment of office work: Future open plan offices

Abstract

Different configurations of the physical environment of office work are rapidly changing the way office workers behave and perform at work. In particular, organisations today are progressively accommodating their employees in open plan offices (OPOs). In this article, we focus on the OPO and discuss its future and implications for research and practice. Specifically, we build on recent advances in the field to propose that new OPO configurations will require new forms of work behaviour involving new processes and practices, and new research approaches. In addition, we discuss possible areas of work that OPO environments of the future might affect; for example, work design, interpersonal processes, noise and distractions, human resource management (HRM) practices and leadership. Along these lines, we suggest future research directions and make recommendations to navigate the intersection of organisational behaviour (OB) and OPO research and practice.

JEL Classification: M19

Keywords

Employee interactions future of work open plan office

I. Introduction

Over recent decades, organisational scholars have renewed their interest in the study of the physical environment of work (see Ashkanasy et al., 2014; Ayoko et al., 2014; Ayoko and Härtel, 2003; Elsbach, 2003; Elsbach and Pratt, 2007; Jung and Lee, 2015; Vischer, 2008; Wall et al., 2017; Zhong and House, 2012). The growing interest in the work environment and its effects suggest that scholars might need to rethink their approach to work, work processes and work outcomes; and especially new ways to do research. This reflects the fact that organisations are investing considerable financial resources into reshaping the physical work environment. Google, for example, spent over US$1 billion on their new headquarters (Goldhill, 2013); and the physical environment is the second largest investment for many business organisations (McCoy, 2005). In this article, we first briefly review the phenomenon of the physical work environment (i.e. the buildings, furnishings, equipment, lighting, air quality and the arrangements of these objects; cf. Ashkanasy et al., 2014) to see what is known about it. We then consider various aspects of how the physical environment of office work might affect the future of work.

Since the beginning of Taylorism (Taylor, 1911), organisational researchers have pursued means to analyse and to optimise work in order to find the best way workers could do the job, ultimately with a view to increasing employee efficiency and productivity. The ‘Taylorism Era’ aligned itself with the 19th century model of work (Duffy, 1999), where employees were, in effect, not required to think, but were brought together in a given location and at specific time to be supervised (Vischer, 2008) in line with their employer’s economic objectives.

An unspoken backdrop to Taylorism, however, has always been the physical context of employees’ work. Indeed, this backdrop was core to the Hawthorne Studies (Mayo, 1933). Specifically, the Hawthorne group investigated the relationship between employees’ performance and illumination levels (which Mayo, 1933 notes constitutes a central feature of the work environment). While these findings suggest that the relationship between employees and their supervisors is more critical to employee productivity than the work environment (specifically illumination), evidence from a reanalysis of the Hawthorne data suggest that this may not in fact be so. In this regard, Franke and Kaul (1978) concluded that the physical environment of work and its requirements might even be important enough to provide an alternative explanation for the workers’ performance in the Hawthorne experiment (irrespective of relationship climate).

In this article, we focus specifically on the contemporary environment of office work, especially the open plan office (OPO), which is an office configuration characterised by openness, flexibility and few interior boundaries; and where there are no walls or partitions between employees (Bodin Danielsson and Bodin, 2009; Oldham and Rotchford, 1983). Our aim is therefore to explore how the physical environment of work might impact future work and work processes.

We are aware that researchers who studied the physical environment of work in the past have tended to focus on aspects of paradoxes and tensions inherent in this concept. For example, Monaghan and Ayoko (2019) depict a situation where the physical work environment elicits both frustration and collaboration. Similarly, while employees’ personalization of their workspace increases their ability to affirm distinctive identities and personalities (Elsbach, 2003), using hobby souvenirs might also lead to their being perceived negatively by others (cf. Elsbach, 2003, 2004, Elsbach and Pratt, 2007).

In this article, however, we depart from studying the tensions and paradoxes of the physical environment of work to examine how the physical environment of office work (and especially OPO configurations) might affect workers in the future. In particular, we shed light on five specific topics of relevance to OPOs of the future: (1) work design, (2) interpersonal processes, (3) noise and distractions, (4) human resource (HR) practices, and (5) leading and managing employees in OPO settings.

2. What we know about physical environment of office work: an organisational behaviour perspective

It is now 14 years since Johns (2006) first called for scholars of organisational behaviour (OB) to place more emphasis on the context of work. Johns (2006) argued that organisational context is a critical factor in OB research because it interacts with personal (e.g. need for privacy) and group (e.g. need for collective space) variables to affect outcomes at multiple organisational levels. His work built upon Becker’s (2004) notion that the physical environment of work encompasses connections with workspaces, work patterns and organisational culture, especially through the lens of affordances. Johns (2018) developed this idea further, and so did Maaninen-Olsson and Müllern (2009) and Monaghan and Ayoko (2019). In response to this imperative, a growing cohort of scholars (e.g. Ashkanasy et al., 2014; Ayoko and Ashkanasy, 2019; Ayoko and Härtel, 2003; Elsbach and Stigliani, 2020; Kabo, 2016; Kim and de Dear, 2013; Ward and Parker, 2020) are now beginning to look more closely at the physical environment of work from an OB perspective.

Along similar lines, Zhong and House (2012) argue that the physical environment of work (including illumination, temperature, odour, etc.), directly alters social perceptions and behaviours through the human body’s sensory systems. Zhong and House go on to suggest that the physical context of work also influences organisational processes such as group dynamics and ethical decision-making. There are also suggestions that work environments (especially OPO configurations) have potential to shape or to constrain employees’ attitudes, emotions, behaviours, productivity and well-being (Ashkanasy et al., 2014; Ayoko and Ashkanasy, 2019; Ayoko et al., 2014). Recent empirical research by Ayoko and her colleagues (Ayoko and Härtel, 2003; Monaghan and Ayoko, 2019; see also Bodin Danielsson and Bodin, 2009; Engelen et al., 2019; Kim and de Dear, 2013) supports this proposition.

The traditional ‘cellular’ office design (i.e. one person per room) has metamorphosed into OPO configurations of various shapes and sizes (for a review, see Bodin Danielsson and Bodin, 2009), where employees share common workspaces characterised by openness and transparency (cf. Oldham and Rotchford, 1983). Employers usually justify OPOs (which allow flexibility insofar as there are no barriers and walls between employees’ workspaces) on the ground of cost savings (Pejtersen et al., 2006; Vischer, 2007). Nevertheless, Bodin Danielsson et al. (2015) point out that there are hidden costs to OPO layouts, such as potential for conflict and increased risks of absenteeism (see also Bodin Danielsson et al., 2015; Pejtersen et al., 2011). It is therefore not immediately clear if these cost savings are commensurate with the claims that OPOs lead to increased employee productivity and satisfaction.

In fact, research into OPOs provides mixed evidence concerning their impact on employees’ performance, satisfaction and well-being. One body of literature in particular (see Charles and Veitch, 2002; Dean et al., 1975; Fried et al., 2001; Oldham and Fried, 1987) seems to demonstrate that increased levels of spatial density (i.e. as in OPOs) produce a sense of crowding and are associated with low satisfaction levels, low task performance, increased social withdrawal and higher turnover intentions. Other research (Kim and de Dear, 2013; Sundstrom et al., 1994) appears to show that OPO settings tend to be plagued by challenges such as lack of privacy, noise, distractions and territorial disputes (see also Monaghan and Ayoko, 2019). Other studies however seem to demonstrate that OPOs can also be beneficial in that they promote communication, collaboration, cooperation and cost efficiency (Chigot, 2003; Vischer, 2005), and encourage employee relationship-building (Khazanchi et al., 2018). Such benefits provide the justification for the proliferation of OPOs in contemporary organisations.

Altogether, the OPO appears to be a ‘double-edged sword’ promoting and yet inhibiting employee interactions, productivity, well-being (Ashkanasy et al., 2014) and collaboration (Irving et al., 2019). More recently, Monaghan and Ayoko (2019) found that OPOs can trigger frustration and yet enable collaboration. The mixed findings to date thus portray the OPO as an enigma for researchers and practitioners alike (see Kim and de Dear, 2013, 2020). It seems therefore that managers need to learn how to trade off the benefits and detriments of OPOs (Elsbach and Pratt, 2007); so that finding a new way of managing and organising in OPO settings will be critical for managers of employees in OPO in the future.

In fact, and irrespective of the inconsistent research findings on OPO efficacy, contemporary organisations continue to accommodate their employees in a range of different OPO configurations. These include activity-based workspaces (ABW – where employees choose their workstation according to the work activity carried out at any one time; Keeling et al., 2015 see also Engelen et al., 2019) and agile workspaces (AW – that is, constantly transforming, adjusting and responding to organisational learning, see Joroff et al., 2003; Keeling et al., 2015). For example, Telstra¹ recently moved their employees into an ABW workspace in their Brisbane office. Similarly, at a cost of over AUD$7 billion dollars, KPMG Australia moved their Sydney-based employees to an OPO site (Evans, 2015) that combines ABW and AW principles (i.e. to break down physical barriers between partners and promote cooperation and collaboration across divisions). By providing such a radical change to their physical office configurations, KPMG believes that their AW – powered by technology and flexibility – will transform the way their employees work. In fact, OPOs also seem well on the way to becoming Australian banks’ (e.g. ANZ Bank, Westpac in Australia) preferred workspace configuration (Motlagh et al., 2018).

Practitioners are also increasingly using co-working spaces to make workspaces available to workers, especially in small ventures and start-up companies. Co-working embraces the notion that a diverse group of people (who do not necessarily work for the same company or on the same project) work alongside each other, sharing workspaces and resources in return for a monthly or weekly fee (DeGuzman and Tang, 2011). Companies like UMA, Gofore, Fishbuners, Tank Lab and City Lab are examples of companies already providing co-working spaces for communities of like-minded individuals – who are expected to collaborate and to transform work and the economy (Krauskopf, 2018).

This trend appears to foreshadow how OPOs of the future are expected to be more flexible, fluid and mobile. OB researchers and practitioners therefore need to understand how the changes in the physical context of work might affect work itself, work processes and outcomes. For example, we can expect that employees working in OPOs of the future should themselves be more agile, mobile and more technologically well informed. This is because these new configurations of OPOs will require new ways of working, organising, managing and leading. In view of this, we ask, What does the future hold for OPOs? Our goal in this article therefore is to spur conversations on the future of OPOs and to help identify what researchers and practitioners might need to do to prepare for the future in this area.

3. The OPO: what the future holds

Offermann and Gowing (1990) noted 20 years ago that the nature of work (including workspaces) is continually changing, bringing both disruptions and opportunities for organisations. This change has continued to accelerate in the years since these authors made this observation. In this section, we discuss the future of the OPO and its implications for work in the coming decades. Especially, we build on recent advances in this area to ask questions that OB researchers and practitioners will need to address as they transition into the future of work. As we previously argued, these new OPO configurations will require new forms of work, work processes and work practices.

Specifically, we ask five questions. (1) What is the connection between future OPOs and work design? (2) How will the OPO of the future affect interpersonal processes of collaboration, conflict and knowledge-sharing in teams? (3) What is the impact of noise, lack of privacy, distractions and surveillances in OPOs of the future? (4) How do HR practitioners monitor and measure employees’ performance in an OPO setting where work is flexible, mobile and ultimately fluid? (5) How might organisational managers lead and manage employees accommodated in OPOs of the future.

3.1. Work design

It seems axiomatic that the new trend towards OPOs calls for a new approach to work design. Work design is important for a range of individual, group and organisational outcomes (Martin and Wall, 1987; Morgeson and Campion, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2017; Parker and Wall, 1998). Moreover, while the dominant theoretical model in the field continues to lie within the original Hackman and Oldham (1976) model, work design is today more meaningfully related to a host of attitudinal, behavioural, cognitive, well-being and organisational outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2008; Oldham and Hackman, 2010). Researchers (e.g. Parker et al., 2001; Morgeson and Campion, 2003) argue moreover that scholars have yet to articulate how the broader organisational context (such as the environment of office work) might affect work design. Yet, we know that contextual variables do affect work roles (and the work designs they imply), including physical configurations of office settings (cf. Dierdorff and Morgeson, 2007). Similarly, context is likely to influence the relationships between work design features and organisational outcomes (e.g. performance, job satisfaction, interactions) partly because contexts reinforce or reward different individual needs and behaviours (Johns, 2006, 2018; Morgeson et al., 2010).

In discussing the connection between work design and context, Morgeson et al. (2010) focus on occupational and organisational context (e.g. organisational culture, climate). Similarly, the result of a recent survey by practitioners (Shook and Knickrehm, 2019) demonstrates that 46% of executives think that traditional job descriptions are obsolete, suggesting that organisations need new work designs. We build on this research by looking at the connection not just between work design, occupational and organisational context of climate and culture, but also between work design and the physical environment of work (e.g. OPOs of the future). We argue in particular that OB scholars need to conduct empirical research to provide evidence about the different forms of work that could be performed productively and efficiently in the OPOs of the future.

When Hackman and Oldham published their work in the 1970s (e.g. Hackman and Oldham, 1976), the basic idea of design work systems at the time was to employ standardised operations and to simplify work so that people could be as interchangeable as machine parts (Oldham and Hackman, 2010). Over the decades since then, however, as agile and ABW workspaces have become more prevalent, work in the digital age has become ever more complex and fluid (Colbert et al., 2016). Indeed, empowered by technological innovations, much office work can now be performed outside the office precinct.

Moreover, with the advancement in OPO design and technology, and progress made in the area of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), we are fast moving beyond work simplification to what we will call ‘work complication’. For example, robots already have the capability to work in service and entertainment roles, as well as assistive technology, rehabilitation, surgery and therapy (Asprino et al., 2019; Winkle et al., 2019). AI-equipped robots are partly autonomous and carry out their missions in the immediate shared environment and frequently interact with humans. For example, a robot may be sent to fetch or deliver desired goods (Severinson-Eklundh et al., 2003).

AI takes us a step further than robotics and machine learning. This is because AI technology is detached from the need for physical embodiment and has the ability to interact with humans in their daily routines at work and to produce optimised solutions faster and with increased accuracy. Indeed, pathologists are today using AI to identify accurately 99.5% of cancerous biopsies (Shook and Knickrehm, 2019). Given such advances, and as Fleming (2019) notes, employees are becoming anxious that robots equipped with powerful AI might even replace office workers altogether. This means that there may be a pressing need for natural and intuitive communication between humans and AI-equipped robots (Severinson-Eklundh et al., 2003).

Severinson-Eklundh et al. (2003) conclude that, regardless of the main task of robotics or the number of people using it, the overall social context is most likely to influence its use and that designing interactions for robots and humans need greater awareness of the shared environment. These developments raise questions for future work design and OPOs. For example, what types of work, how much of our work and what aspects of our work in future will be performed by robots? What aspects of our work can robots and AI handle? In what industry will the impact of the robotics be felt most? What new jobs will arise from the interface between AI and their interactions with human? What jobs will need to be reconfigured (cf. Accenture, 2018)? What forms and frequency of social collaborations can we expect? What role will robotics and AIs play in human resource management (HRM) data analytics?

Moreover, while the majority (54%) of employers in the Accenture (2018) survey acknowledged that achieving the right human-machine collaboration model is critical to realising their goals, few companies have worked out how to unlock the value that lies in the intersection between humans and machines. These survey data suggest further that 63% believe that intelligent technologies will drive job growth in their companies in the next 3 years. Given this evidence, it seems appropriate to ask how developments in robotics, AI and work design will interact to shape the OPO of the future. We argue that this impetus requires new research in OB and, in particular, new lenses to look at work performance/management, isolation, job variety, task identity, job autonomy, problem solving, job specialisation and job complexity.

In addition, and given the increasing uptake of OPO by contemporary organisations, we argue that the high levels of work flexibility, fluidity and teleworking permitted by the current design of OPO will intensify in the future. In this respect, Golden (2009) found in a survey of 240 professional employees that teleworkers’ prevalence in a work unit links negatively with co-worker satisfaction and that this relationship depends upon the amount of time co-workers telework, the extent of face-to-face interactions and job autonomy. Moreover, in the absence of physical proximity (Edenius and Yakhlef, 2007) and chance encounters (i.e. that promote collaboration, bonding and trust; see Kabo, 2016), teleworking may be challenging not only for the teleworkers themselves but also for their non-teleworking colleagues.

One of these challenges in particular is likely to be managers and employees’ feedback behaviours. We argue here that the flexibility and fluidity of work and working will affect how feedback (feedback directed at clear information about the effectiveness of task performance, cf. Hackman and Oldham, 1976) is given and sought at work on the job. In sum, providing feedback for an employee working from anywhere at any time (e.g. in AW and ABW configurations) or for teleworkers (Golden, 2009) is likely to be challenging.

Given the foregoing, we propose that employees will most likely need to seek face-to-face and virtual feedback proactively. Casio (2000) suggests in this regard that managers need to shift focus from time to a focus on results. In this instance, more empirical studies are needed to unpack the process by which employee receive and managers give feedback (in both face-to-face and virtual environments) regarding its relationship with work design and productivity.

This will also have implications for general employee proactivity (see Kim et al., 2015). In this case, longitudinal and process research would seem to be needed in the area to connect OPO environments with active feedback seeking behaviours, taking charge behaviours and, in general, employee voice and proactive behaviours (Bolino et al., 2010). For example, how do employee feedback seeking and job crafting (i.e. cognitive and behavioural changes in the task and social boundaries at work; see Niessen et al., 2016) influence employee proactive behaviours in an OPO settings?

Furthermore, because of on-going changes to OPO configurations as well as the nature of work and employee mobility, we can expect significant repercussions for employee well-being and productivity (cf. Ashkanasy et al., 2014). In addition, we reason that work design issues (e.g. rest time, work security, workload, and work schedule; as well as the resources that are linked with higher employee performance; see Jung and Lee, 2015) will likely be more pertinent as we move into the future. In particular, research into the connection between OPO configurations and rest time, work and work security would seem to be especially warranted.

We are also aware that the design of work in the Taylorism era allows a distinction between office work and other non-work activities. This distinction is useful for understanding the nature of the drivers of employee well-being. We contend however that, in OPOs of the future, the line between work and non-work activities may become blurred. We have previously argued that the openness and transparency of OPO implies that employees are not able to withdraw from work. The situation is likely to be exacerbated, however, when employees working in a particular OPO become subject to monitoring by surveillance cameras (as already occurs in some OPO sites, see Anonymous, 2020). Such surveillance, in turn, can compromise employees’ privacy and negatively relate to employee creative behaviours and trust, while also increasing sabotage and resistance (see Ball, 2010). Stanton (2000), for example, found that work design factors mediate the impact of surveillance on employees. We argue therefore that, while surveillances might be beneficial in some regards, for example, by minimising vandalism and counterproductive behaviours at work, it may also affect employee well-being negatively. In this case, research appears to be required to examine the impact of surveillances on employee well-being in OPO settings.

Moreover, there is a possibility that employees working in OPOs might perceive their workload as higher because everyone is watching and so they cannot take meaningful rest time at work. Also, given employees can hear and see other colleagues at work, they gain an idea of how others actually perform. As such, group-comparison processes may be equally as important today if not more important than they were 80 years ago in the Western Electric factories when Mayo (1933) studied them. While working in OPOs may be of value for individual learning at work, it can also trigger increased competition among employees and a reduction in job security as the employees begin to feel that their colleagues may take over their roles. Thus, research seems in order to investigate the relationship between OPO configurations, work design and employees’ perception of workload, rest time, work security and performance. Clearly, we need to find the answers to these questions if organisations continue the trend of accommodating employees in OPOs. Otherwise, what might be gained through cost reductions (i.e. by placing employees in OPO settings) may be lost through employees’ perceptions of excessive workload, work insecurity and poor rest time (resulting in increased stress and decreased well-being).

3.2. Interpersonal processes in teams

Another oft-cited reason for accommodating employees in OPOs is to promote employee collaboration (Bernstein and Turban, 2018) and teamwork (Boutellier et al., 2008). Collaboration is a system of behaviours that includes both interactive and individual behaviours (Hua et al., 2011). We know that the design of a work environment may affect interactions and collaborations between workers (Parkin et al., 2011). At the same time, however, existing research on the impact of OPOs on ease of interaction and collaboration is inconsistent. While some findings suggest that OPOs facilitate interactions (Kim and de Dear, 2013; Toker and Gray, 2008) and collaboration (Becker and Sims, 2001), other studies suggest that this connection may not be so simple. For example, Kim and de Dear found that, although occupants of an OPO report that their office layout improves their interaction with co-workers, they also report that it degrades acoustical quality, sound and visual privacy; in the end, they felt that the detriments generally outweighed the benefits. Similarly, in a recent study, Irving and her colleagues (2019) found that employees in an OPO setting actually avoided collaboration and that collaboration was not always serendipitous but rather intentional.

Irrespective of the mixed findings in this area, contemporary organisations are increasingly using OPOs as a platform for pursuing interdisciplinary collaborations to push the frontiers of innovation and creativity especially in knowledge intensive work (see Davis et al., 2019) and design thinking (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2020). The challenge here, however, is to design AWs that stimulate and support both dynamic interactions and concentrated work (Hua et al., 2011).

While the need for the workspaces to enable collaboration and individual work has been acknowledged in literature (e.g. Becker, 2004; Becker and Sims, 2001), the lack of privacy and increased level of noise suggest that employees still struggle with the current configurations of OPOs. This challenge is likely to persist into the future. In this regard, present-day collaborative platforms (e.g. Slack software, Zoom) may be helpful. In effect, these platforms represent emergent social collaboration technology that combines the features of multiple enterprise social media (including network platforms and instant messaging). As such, they enable both adaptable and centralised team communication practices (Anders, 2016). The designers of these platforms intended them to assist organisations to centralise team communication and information from external services. Given the flexibility and open integration of these platforms, OPO designers anticipate that they could help to make internal communication visible, searchable and available for social collaboration across organisational boundaries (Anders, 2016).

Moreover, given that such technological platforms are proliferating, research tracking the effectiveness of these platforms as well as how they affect collaboration and teamwork will be essential as we move into the future of OPOs. This represents an opportunity for OB researchers to track the process by which these technological platforms actually promote collaboration. Findings from such research agenda could shed more light into how we can make the interface between, work design, teleworking, virtual and OPO working more effective and efficient.

Furthermore, and as Gardner and Mortensen (2015) argue, the global and virtual nature of social networks, teams and collaborative partnerships creates new challenges for information sharing, social collaboration and attention allocation. There are also suggestions that information symmetry across team members is important not only for collaboration and productivity among virtual teams and remote workers but also for developing social cohesion, building individual relationships as well as minimising and managing conflicts (Chiu and Staples, 2013; Gardner and Mortensen, 2015; Gratton and Erickson, 2007). Empirical studies to identify the virtual communication and collaboration styles of teams working in and away from OPO and also tracking the processes of building network, sharing information and ideas is therefore needed as we move further into the future.

In addition, Zoller and Boutellier (2013) suggest that managers can take advantage of different aspects of OPO settings (e.g. movable desks, bench layouts, room dividers) to facilitate collaboration at different stages of project development. For example, an employee might use a regular office desk in the early stage innovation discovery, perhaps with a room divider to ensure privacy; later, s/he might use a shared bench to join an interdisciplinary team. Employees can then make use of bench space for later development of the project in combination with technology platforms for expert exchange across organisational boundaries (see Zoller and Boutellier, 2013).

In sum, multi-disciplinary offices appear to give employees the opportunity to choose between OPO desk areas, meeting rooms and quiet rooms, especially where meeting rooms may be critical for the transfer of confidential information. In this regard, OPOs empower employees to recognise the methodologies, skills, competencies and workloads of the many co-workers who share the same space (Zoller and Boutellier, 2013) and also to enable the transfer of tacit knowledge while uncovering relevant processes. In this instance, we need more studies to examine the communication patterns in face-to-face team collaboration in such innovative and flexible settings as the OPOs. An important aspect of future studies in this area is that they will need to examine not only the use of technological platforms, but to find out what aspects of an OPO work best for collaboration (and with what intensity).

3.3. Noise, distractions and conflict in OPO settings

Ayoko and Härtel (2003) argue that employee are especially concerned about the level of distractions and lack of privacy in OPO settings (see also Ashkanasy et al., 2014). Privacy involves a sense of being on display (O’Neil, 1994) and includes an opportunity to have a control over social contacts and access to information, seclusion, withdrawal and avoidance of interactions (Justa and Gola, 1977; Rashid and Zimring, 2008). In this respect, OPO layouts may reduce the employees’ sense of privacy (a psychological need) and might therefore negatively affect employees’ task performance and well-being.

In addition, Ayoko and Härtel (2003) found that privacy invasion is a conflict trigger (see also Bodin Danielsson et al., 2015). In this regard, Ayoko and Härtel found that employees’ different interpretations of the use and invasion of space, rooted in differences in culture and different work orientations, may provoke conflict in teams. Conflict, in turn, may erode a team’s task-work mental model (i.e. shared understanding of equipment) as well as the teamwork mental model (shared understanding of team norms, interaction patterns and each other’s skills attitudes and strength; see Ayoko and Chua, 2014; Mathieu et al., 2000) that could be crucial for increased performance (Mathieu et al., 2000). In this regard, more research would seem to be needed to understand how conflict may arise in OPO settings, especially conflict generated by issues of (lack of) privacy, noise and distractions (see also Ayoko et al., 2014).

3.4. HRM practices

OPOs appear to be most attractive to large organisations (e.g. KPMG, Telstra), especially for promoting job flexibility. In this case, employees working in OPO settings may be more likely to embrace mobility and flexibility given the challenges of OPO such as noise, distractions and lack of privacy. In addition, organisations that adopt OPOs or other agile workspaces do so on the assumption that technology is the key driver of work patterns. This is because technological platforms are a critical vehicle for workers to do their tasks in any part of the organisational space, within their team environment, on the road, on the plane, in cafés or from their homes. This flexibility and dynamism can be a critical asset in attracting and retaining valuable employees (Earle, 2003). Nevertheless, future researchers need to explore the intersection between these technologies and OPOs and whether or not the current assumptions (e.g. that agile working requires fewer desks because employees now work remotely) stack up.

In addition, there is evidence that organisations that understand how to use the physical environment of office work to achieve corporate objectives appear to be thriving. In this regard, Earle (2003) reports a study by the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) showing that providing a better work environment can also be a tool for attraction and retention of workers. Earle noted that this study also found that the physical workplace ranked in the top three when examining the factors that contribute to workers’ satisfaction. In the same study, 51% of the participants reported that the physical workplace would influence their decision to leave a job.

One of the major findings of Earle’s (2003) research is that the configurations more negatively affect older generations. He argues that Baby Boomers generally prefer stable, calm, quiet environments, while Gen-Xers and Millennials seek not only to work in hectic, chaotic but even anarchic places. Also, given that the Baby Boomers have most likely worked hard for a private office (a status marker) – now no longer available in their new OPO – the older generation may be uncertain about whether or not to embrace or to disengage from their work. This is both an HR and OB issue. There is a possibility that managers may need to provide some form of reward to signify higher status for the older generation at work when OPOs displace their private offices.

3.5. Leading and managing in the OPO of the future

The challenges of working in OPO (lack of privacy, noise, distractions, lack of opportunity to withdraw and conflict) are significant and varied. These challenges are likely to become more prevalent in the future, as organisations continue to switch to OPOs. The major question is how organisational leaders could manage the challenges of OPOs and even what kind of leadership will be more suitable for leading in the OPO environment. Clearly, managing staff and collaborative teams in OPOs will be different from managing employees working in the traditional cell-type offices. Franke and Kaul (1978) propose that the physical environment was as important for Western Electric employees’ performance as the human relations in the Hawthorne study. Also, in a recent study of a public organisation, and consistent with the Hawthorne findings, Jung and Lee (2015) found (in addition to participative management, relation with peers and relation with management) that physical factors are critical determinants of employee performance.

These findings also have implications for how the move to OPOs shapes the future of work. We propose that, while organisations are spending millions to set up modern OPOs and their enabling technology platforms, more research is needed to understand the form of leadership required for effective management of employee dynamics and interactions in the new environment of office work. We argue here that, while this may be an issue of ‘old wine in new bottle’, given that the physical context of work is changing (i.e. new high-tech offices), the old problem of leadership could persist into the future. In this respect, OB researchers will need to explore how suitable the existing leadership styles (e.g. transformational leadership, servant, authentic and spiritual leadership) are in managing employees in OPOs.

In addition, in view of the increased levels of noise, distractions and (lack of) privacy in OPOs, employees may experience anxiety and vulnerability (see Manchha and Ayoko, 2018). Anxiety may have consequences for employee mental health. This aspect of the employee experience in OPO settings has received limited attention in literature. Some organisations (e.g. Zappos, see Warrick et al., 2016) are incorporating spiritual workshops and lessons into their trainings programmes to minimise anxiety and problems associated with well-being. In addition, it is arguable that spiritual leadership may become relevant in leading and managing OPO of the future. Fry (2003) defines spiritual leadership values, attitudes and behaviours that are needed to motivate oneself and others for survival and application of techniques that enhance self-governance (see also Fairholm, 1996; Low and Ayoko, 2018). In this respect, spiritual leadership may be an important key to enable employees to thrive in OPOs, and to minimise anxiety in very dynamic OPO environments, where employees may easily lose control of work. In this case, more studies would appear to be needed to investigate the link between OPOs, employee anxiety and leadership.

Finally, Crane (2000) argues that managers and employees alike are becoming more aware of their organisations’ environmental impact. This is because environmental responsibility motivated by legislative and voluntary initiatives will continue to add to existing pressure for improved performance of workspaces and buildings (McGregor, 2000). Certainly, Mulville et al. (2016) show that employees’ workplace behaviour is crucial for employee productivity, health and well-being in OPOs. In this respect, we argue that leadership may be a key driver of change in managing OPO as it relates to how employees’ actions impact their immediate physical environments (e.g. office waste, amount of energy used in the office, green behaviours and social well-being of others in the organisation).

4. Discussion

OPO settings represent an emergent way of working (i.e. harnessing the intersection of people, the physical environment, technology and virtual environment; Engelen et al., 2019). Our aim in the current article is to build on recent advances and to propose that new OPO configurations will require new forms of work design, work behaviour, work interpersonal processes, work (including HRM) practices and leadership. In this section, we discuss the frameworks and methodological perspectives that may be required to study the questions we raise. While we are aware that there are many and varied approaches to study OB phenomena in OPO settings (see Ayoko et al., 2014), in terms of the connection between OPOs and future work designs, we agree with Ward and Parker (2020) that the physical environment must be considered part of work design (see Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). As such, ‘considering work design in isolation from physical factors such as workspaces might be nonsensical’ (Ward and Parker, 2020: 149). Yet, and as we discussed previously, the quality and quantity of research connecting workspaces to work outcomes are lacking.

It seems clear therefore that opportunities exist for more research in this area. In this regard, and given the negative aspects of OPO, we suspect that the OPO of the future must be aligned with the task at hand in a given workspace. Future research could adopt a socio-technical approach to work and workspace design so there is an intricate alignment in between these elements. Davis et al. (2014) suggest that a social technical system approach might be useful in conceptualising research in this area. This is because such an approach focuses on the optimization of the technical (e.g. tools) and social aspects (e.g. interpersonal interactions) of work.

With respect to work design, technology and the robotics, DeCanio (2016) argues that robots and AI can both complement and substitute work activities and that an increase in robotic labour can have either a positive or a negative effect on wages. We suggest that a study to examine the impact of robots and AI on human work in the OPO might first employ qualitative methods to find out the reactions of employees in OPO to having robots and AI technology collocated in the same office with them. Researchers in the future may also consider taking case study and/or observational approaches to look at companies already involved in managing the connection between computers, robots and humans (in terms of work design and work processes and productivity).

Considering quantitative research designs, researchers can employ and adapt the Work Design Questionnaire (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006) to capture the interface between work design, OPO, technology and the robotics of the future. Researchers can also conduct longitudinal observational studies to investigate the process of collaboration in OPO settings, and especially to study how proximity and chance encounters might promote collaboration. In addition, experience sampling methods (ESMs; Fisher and To, 2012) represent a novel approach that may be used to study employees’ momentary and real-time experience in OPOs. Related to ESM is the diary method. By employing a daily diary design (over 10 days), scholars for example can examine the relationships between employees’ daily emotions, attitude, and daily creative tasks and or behaviours (see Bissing-Olson et al., 2013).

Concerning collaboration, we are aware that interactions are fundamental to collaboration and effective performance in OPOs. Nevertheless, little is known about how to capture and to measure interactions in OPOs (see Ayoko et al., 2014). In this regard, sociometric badges (i.e. utilising technology that enables automatic measurement of collective patterns of behaviour over time and across physical boundaries while capturing accurate fine-scale speech patterns and body movements among a group of individuals; Ayoko et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012) might also be used to capture patterns of interactions in OPO environments. Along this line, Carnival Corporation uses AI to help crewmembers personalise engagement with its cruise-ship guests. Passengers wear Wi-Fi enabled medallions holding information garnered by machine learning that collects and interpret their interests. These medallions alert nearby crewmembers, who can then anticipate customers’ needs and offer attention typically reserved for high-end guests (Shook and Knickrehm, 2019). This approach to collecting real-time data about interactional patterns in OPO or the physical environment might resolve the mixed outcomes that are currently prevalent in this area of research. Summing up, outcomes of survey and real-time data may also provide opportunities to generalise these findings across organisations and industries.

Along similar lines, Kilduff and Brass (2010) examined how the physical environment might promote collaboration using network analysis. They found that the number and strength of collaborative ties, as well as the outcomes of such collaboration in project teams, is determined, in part, by the nature and form of the work environment. Social network analysis may also be important to study communication patterns in OPOs to compare those who are engaged in all forms of work, including teleworking, traditional and field teams. We also argue that other forms of network analytical tools might help to understand mobile workers’ web of relationships to complete their tasks (Veneziaa et al., 2008).

Value network analysis (Allee, 2003) is another approach that researchers might consider employing to examine the actual value-adding roles people play as well as the specific value deliverables they convey to others. In addition, given that research outcomes show that proximity need not necessarily ‘beget interaction’ (Kabo et al., 2015; see also Irving et al., 2019), social network analysis such as functional distance (measuring relations aspect of the physical layouts by emphasising ease or difficulty of movement among spaces; Kabo et al., 2015) may be impactful in measuring interactions and potential for effective employee collaboration.

Researchers can also combine social network analysis with qualitative methods to study interactions in the OPO (e.g. see Martınez et al., 2003). In addition, a combination of social network analysis and epistemic network analysis can detect information about an employee’s enactment of the cognitive and social dimensions that is marked by interacting with the appropriate people and context. In this way, insights from such research could enhance managerial effectiveness in managing multigenerational, virtual and face-to-face teams at work.

Finally, it is important to mention that OPOs of the future will require new approaches to training. This is partly because automation is likely to affect many low and middle-skilled roles. In this regard, and to stay relevant in the labour market, employees will require significant upskilling. For example, in a global survey of 1200 CEOs and top executives (Shook and Knickrehm, 2019) reported that 67% believed that it will be important to learn new skills to work with intelligent technologies in the subsequent 3–5 years. In sum, programmes for skilling up for new jobs and for developing new interfaces between human and machines must be rapid, flexible, tailored and large-scale to maximise the value human and machines can create together (Shook and Knickrehm, 2019).

5. Conclusion

In this article, we have argued that, while there is a surge of renewed interest in the study of the work environments (especially OPOs), research that connects the physical environment of work with OB is still sporadic. In particular, our goal in this article is to spur conversation around what the future hold for OPO and to discuss how the new office configurations might affect the future of work (including both research and practice). In so doing, we briefly reviewed related literature and speculated on the future of work using OPOs as a backdrop. Arising from our review, and consistent with the structure we identified in the introduction, we identify five areas that future researchers may wish to prioritise, as follows.

5.1. Work design

As Oldham and Hackman (2010) point out, the future of work is likely to be markedly different to that we experience today, especially with the increasing sophistication and prevalence of robotic and AI technology, and that the science of work design will need to adapt accordingly. Given the developing nature of the technology, researchers of the future will need to engage more with the new technology and to employ a mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures. In particular, real-time methods such as sociometric badges, network badges and experience sampling will increasingly be required.

5.2. Interpersonal processes and teams

Given that the increasing prevalence of teamwork and collaboration in today’s organisations (Oldham and Hackman, 2010) is a major driver of the move to OPOs, we need to understand more about how such OPO configurations will affect interpersonal processes and teams. In particular, availability of collaboration software platforms such as Slack software and Zoom could present ripe opportunities for future research into one of the main aspects of OPOs, including how to deal with distractions and noise that inevitably come with open office settings.

5.3. Noise, distractions and conflict

Perhaps, the major issue for employees working in OPOs is how to deal with the inevitability of noise and distractions in open settings, and the attendant likelihood of conflict arising and negatively affecting productivity. Future researchers will need in particular to consider the unique characteristics of OPOs and how they contribute to these issues, including the role of privacy invasion and territoriality. Here again, real-time research conducted on-site will increasingly be required.

5.4. HRM practices

The rise in popularity of concepts such as agile workplaces present special challenges for HR managers, often involving the use of sophisticated new technology. In particular, organisations need to understand how workers in OPO settings can achieve job satisfaction and therefore demonstrate reduced tendency to turnover. This problem is especially relevant for younger generations working in the context of today’s diverse workplaces. Ethnographic research is likely to prove especially handy in such settings, as new and unexplored workplace technology comes online.

5.5. Leading and managing in OPO settings

OPOs present a range of issues (e.g. noise, distractions, conflict) that can easily subvert work effectiveness and efficiency. In this regard, future researchers will need to examine if existing leadership styles (e.g. transformational leadership, servant, authentic and spiritual leadership) can work in OPO settings, or if these leadership models need to be adjusted to accommodate the new environments of work. Leaders in particular will have a critical role into the future, as office employees face an uncertain future. Given the complexity of the issues involved in leading and managing in such an uncertain environment, there will be an increasing need for more research based in the tradition of grounded theory (cf. Parry, 1998).

Key practical and research implications

Advancement in OPO design, technology, robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) suggests new work design. Programs for skilling up for new jobs and for developing interfaces between human and machines must be rapid, flexible and tailored to maximise the potential value created by human and machines.

Lack of privacy, increased noise and surveillance may threaten interpersonal interactions and collaboration in OPOs. Managers may use different aspects of OPO settings (e.g. movable desks, bench layouts, room dividers) in designing future OPOs.

The challenge of implementing OPOs poses difficulties for HR managers; necessitating new technological approached (e.g. Slack, Zoom) to promote collaborative work.

Problems with leadership will persist in future OPO configurations. Leaders and practitioners should explore styles forms of leadership (e.g. servant, authentic or spiritual) to manage employee anxiety and vulnerability that may be triggered by noise, distractions and (lack of) privacy in OPO.

Research into OPOs is challenging. Future research should consider the use of qualitative and quantitative methods; real-time observational methods (e.g. sociometric badges), social network analysis, diary and experience sampling studies to enhance effectiveness in managing employees interactions in OPOs.

Footnotes

Final transcript accepted 22 March 2020 by Catherine Collins (AE Special Issue).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP110102525.

ORCID iDs

Oluremi B Ayoko

Neal M Ashkanasy

Notes

References

Accenture (2018) Future workforce worker and C-Suite surveys: AI future workforce survey for insurance. Available at: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/accenture/conversion-assets/dotcom/documents/global/pdf/about-accenture/accenture-ai-future-workforce-insurance-transcript.pdf (accessed 5 September 2019).

Allee

(2003) The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks. Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

Anders

(2016) Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication 53: 224–261.

Anonymous (2020) My employer has installed CCTV cameras in the office without my knowledge. Is this a breach of privacy? Available at: https://www.employmentlawonline.com.au/employer-installed-cctv-cameras-office-without-knowledge-breach-privacy/ (accessed May 2020).

Ashkanasy

Ayoko

Jehn

(2014) Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35: 1169–1184.

Asprino

Gangemi

Nuzzolese

, et al. (2019) Ontology-based knowledge management for comprehensive geriatric assessment and reminiscence therapy on social robots. In: Consoli

Recupero

Petković

(eds) Data Science for Healthcare. New York: Springer, pp. 173–193.

Ayoko

Ashkanasy

(eds) (2019) Organizational Behaviour and the Physical Environment. London: Routledge.

Ayoko

Chua

(2014) The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict. Group & Organization Management 39: 504–531.

Ayoko

Härtel

CEJ

(2003) The role of space as both a conflict trigger and a conflict control mechanism in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. Applied Psychology: An International Review 52: 383–412.

10.

Ayoko

Ashkanasy

Jehn

(2014) Approaches to the study of employees’ territoriality, conflict, emotions and well-being. In: Ayoko

Ashkanasy

Jehn

(eds) Handbook of Conflict Management Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 363–381.

11.

Ball

(2010) Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History 51: 87–106.

12.

Becker

Sims

(2001) Offices That Work: Balancing Cost, Flexibility, and Communication. Ithaca, NY: International Workplace Studies Program, Cornell University.

13.

Becker

(2004) Making sustainable development evaluations work. Sustainable Development 12: 200–211.

14.

Bernstein

Turban

(2018) The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373: 1753.

15.

Bissing-Olson

Iyer

Fielding

, et al. (2013) Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34: 156–175.

16.

Bodin Danielsson

Bodin

(2009) Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 26: 241–257.

17.

Bodin Danielsson

Bodin

Wulff

, et al. (2015) The relation between office type and workplace conflict: A gender and noise perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology 42: 161–171.

18.

Bolino

Valcea

Harvey

(2010) Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83: 325–345.

19.

Boutellier

Ullman

Schreiber

, et al. (2008) Impact of office layout on communication in a science-driven business. R&D Management 38: 372–391.

20.

Casio

(2000) Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive 13: 81–90.

21.

Charles

Veitch

(2002) Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 2. Effects of workstation size, partition height and windows. Internal report no. IRC-IR-.845. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada.

22.

Chigot

(2003) Controlled transparency in workplace design: Balancing visual and acoustic interaction in office environments. Journal of Facilities Management 2: 121–130.

23.

Chiu

Staples

(2013) Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams. Small Group Research 44: 498–531.

24.

Colbert

Yee

George

(2016) The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Journal 59: 731–739.

25.

Crane

(2000) Corporate greening as amoralization. Organisation Studies 21: 673–696.

26.

Davis

Challenger

Jayewardene

, et al. (2014) Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: A call for bravery. Applied Ergonomics 45: 171–180.

27.

Davis

Leach

Clegg

(2019) Breaking out of open-plan: Extending social interference theory through an evaluation of contemporary offices. Environment and Behavior. Epub ahead of print 8 October. DOI: 10.1177/0013916519878211.

28.

Dean

Pugh

Gunderson

(1975) Spatial and perceptual components of crowding. Environment and Behavior 7: 225–236.

29.

DeCanio

(2016) Robots and humans: Complements or substitutes? Journal of Macroeconomics 49: 280–291.

30.

DeGuzman

Tang

(2011) Working in the Unoffice: A Guide to Coworking for Indie Workers, Small Businesses, and Nonprofits. San Francisco, CA: Night Owls Press LLC.

31.

Dierdorff

Morgeson

(2007) Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupational context on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1228–1241.

32.

Duffy

(1999) The New Office (2nd edn). London, UK: Conran Octopus.

33.

Earle

(2003) Building a workplace of choice: Using the work environment to attract and retain top talent. Journal of Facilities Management 2: 244–257.

34.

Edenius

Yakhlef

(2007) Space, vision and organizational learning: The interplay of incorporating and inscribing practices. Management Learning 38: 193–210.

35.

Elsbach

(2003) Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 622–654.

36.

Elsbach

(2004) Interpreting workplace identities: The role of office décor. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 99–128.

37.

Elsbach

Pratt

(2007) The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals 1: 181–224.

38.

Elsbach

Stigliani

(2020) The physical work environment and creativity: How creative workspaces support and encourage design thinking. In: Ayoko

Ashkanasy

(eds) Organizational Behavior and the Physical Environment. London: Routledge, pp. 13–36.

39.

Engelen

Chau

Young

, et al. (2019) Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Building Research & Information 47: 468–479.

40.

Evans

(2015) No phones on desks as KPMG spends $7m on agile workspace for digital age. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/no-phones-on-desks-as-kpmg-spends-7m-on-agile-workspace-for-digital-age-20150803-giqitt.html (accessed March 2019).

41.

Fairholm

(1996) Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17: 11–17.

42.

Fisher

(2012) Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 865–877.

43.

Fleming

(2019) Robots and organization studies: Why robots might not want to steal your job. Organization Studies 40: 23–38.

44.

Franke

Kaul

(1978) The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. American Sociological Review 43: 623–643.

45.

Fried

Slowik

Ben-David

, et al. (2001) Exploring the relationship between workspace density and employee attitudinal reactions: An integrative model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74: 359–372.

46.

Fry

(2003) Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 14: 693–728.

47.

Gardner

Mortensen

(2015) Collaborating well in large global teams. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/07/collaborating-well-in-large-global-teams (accessed March 2019).

48.

Golden

(2009) Applying technology to work: Toward a better understanding of telework. Organization Management Journal 6: 241–250.

49.

Goldhill

(2013) Google wins final approval for huge British HQ. The Telegraph. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10290136/Google-wins-final-approval-for-huge-British-HQ.html (accessed February 2020).

50.

Gratton

Erickson

(2007) Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review 85: 11100–11109.

51.

Hackman

Oldham

(1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 250–279.

52.

Hua

Loftness

Heerwagen

, et al. (2011) Relationship between workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration. Environment and Behavior 43: 807–826.

53.

Humphrey

Nahrgang

Morgeson

(2007) Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1332–1356.

54.

Irving

Ayoko

Ashkanasy

(2019) Collaboration, physical proximity and serendipitous encounters: Avoiding collaboration in a collaborative building. Organization Studies. Epub ahead of print 27 June. DOI: 10.1177/0170840619856913.

55.

Johns

(2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review 31: 386–408.

56.

Johns

(2018) Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5: 21–46.

57.

Joroff

Porter

Feinberg

, et al. (2003) The agile workplace. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 5: 293–311.

58.

Jung

Lee

S-Y

(2015) The Hawthorne studies revisited: Evidence from the US Federal workforce. Administration & Society 47: 507–531.

59.

Justa

Gola

(1977) Office design: Is privacy still a problem? Journal of Architectural Research 6: 5–12.

60.

Kabo

(2016) A model of potential encounters in the workplace: The relationships of homophily, spatial distance, organizational structure, and perceived networks. Environment & Behavior 46: 638–662.

61.

Kabo

Hwang

Levenstein

, et al. (2015) Shared paths to the lab: A socio spatial network analysis of collaboration. Environment and Behavior 47: 57–84.

62.

Keeling

Clements-Croome

Roesch

(2015) The effect of agile workspace and remote working on experiences of privacy, crowding, and satisfaction. Buildings 5: 880–898.

63.

Khazanchi

Sprinkle

Masterson

, et al. (2018) A spatial model of work relationships: The relationship-building and relationship-straining effects of workspace design. Academy of Management Review 43: 590–609.

64.

Kilduff

Brass

(2010) Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals 4: 317–357.

65.

Kim

de Dear

(2013) Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 18–26.

66.

Kim

de Dear

(2020) Employee satisfaction and the quality of workplace environment. In: Ayoko

Ashkanasy

(eds) Organizational Behavior and the Physical Environment. London: Routledge, pp. 13–36.

67.

Kim

McFee

Olguin

, et al. (2012) Sociometric badges: Using sensor technology to capture new forms of collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33(3): 412–427.

68.

Kim

Liu

Diefendorff

(2015) Leader–member exchange and job performance: The effects of taking charge and organizational tenure. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: 216–231.

69.

Krauskopf

(2018) Global co-working unconference: A world explosion of co-working awesomeness. Available at: https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/gov-tech/news/co-working-conference-for-sydney-start-ups-468366425 (accessed May 2020).

70.

Low

Ayoko

(2018) The emergence of spiritual leader and leadership in religion-based organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 161: 513–530.

71.

Maaninen-Olsson

Müllern

(2009) A contextual understanding of projects: The importance of space and time. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25: 327–339.

72.

McCoy

(2005) Linking the physical work environment to creative context. Journal of Creative Behavior 39: 169–191.

73.

McGregor

(2000) The future of workspace management. Facilities 18: 138–143.

74.

Manchha

Ayoko

(2018) An exploratory study of employees’ lived experiences, emotions and paradoxes within the paradoxical open-plan office. In: 32nd ANZAM conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 4–7 December.

75.

Martınez

Dimitriadis

Rubia

, et al. (2003) Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers & Education 41: 353–368.

76.

Martin

Wall

(1987) Double machine operation and psychological strain. Work & Stress 3: 323–326.

77.

Mathieu

Heffner

Goodwin

, et al. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 273–283.

78.

Mayo

(1933) The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan.

79.

Monaghan

Ayoko

(2019) Open-plan office, employees’ enactment, interpretations and reactions to territoriality. International Journal of Manpower 40: 228–245.

80.

Morgeson

Campion

(2003) Work design. In: Borman

Ilgen

Klimoski

(eds) Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 423–452.

81.

Morgeson

Humphrey

(2006) The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 1321–1339.

82.

Morgeson

Humphrey

(2008) Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In: Martoccio

(ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 39–61.

83.

Morgeson

Dierdorff

Hmurovic

(2010) Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 351–360.

84.

Motlagh

Golmohammadi

Aliabadi

, et al. (2018) Empirical study of room acoustic conditions and neurophysiologic strain in staff working in special open-plan bank offices. Acoustics Australia 46: 329–338.

85.

Mulville

Callaghan

Isaac

(2016) The impact of the ambient environment and building configuration on occupant productivity in open-plan commercial offices. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 18: 180–193.

86.

Niessen

Weseler

Kostova

(2016) When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations 69: 1287–1313.

87.

Offermann

Gowing

(1990) Organizations of the future: Changes and challenges. American Psychologist 45: 95–108.

88.

Oldham

Hackman

(2010) Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 463–479.

89.

Oldham

Fried

(1987) Employee reactions to workspace characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 75–80.

90.

Oldham

Rotchford

(1983) Relationships between office characteristics and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 542–556.

91.

O’Neill

(1994) Work space adjustability, storage, and enclosure as predictors of employee reactions and performance. Environment and Behavior 26: 504–526.

92.

Parker

Wall

(1998) Job and Work Design: Organising Work to Promote Well-being and Effectiveness. London: SAGE.

93.

Parker

Wall

Cordery

(2001) Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74: 413–440.

94.

Parker

Morgeson

Johns

(2017) One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 403–420.

95.

Parkin

Austin

Pinder

, et al. (2011) Balancing collaboration and privacy in academic workspaces. Facilities 29: 31–49.

96.

Parry

(1998) Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly 9: 85–105.

97.

Pejtersen

Allermann

Kristensen

, et al. (2006) Indoor climate, psychosocial work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices. Indoor Air 16: 392–401.

98.

Pejtersen

Feveile

Christensen

, et al. (2011) Sickness absence associated with shared and open-plan offices: A national cross sectional questionnaire survey. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 37: 376–382.

99.

Rashid

Zimring

(2008) A review of the empirical literature on the relationships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings: Problems and prospects of sharing evidence. Environment and Behavior 40: 151–190.

100.

Severinson-Eklundh

Green

Hüttenrauch

(2003) Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42: 223–234.

101.

Shook

Knickrehm

(2019) Reworking the revolution: Are you ready to compete as intelligent technology meets human ingenuity to create the future workforce? Accenture. Available at: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/pdf-69/accenture-reworking-the-revolution-jan-2018-pov.pdf (accessed 5 September 2019).

102.

Stanton

(2000) Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review and research directions. Human Performance 13: 85–113.

103.

Sundstrom

Town

Rice

, et al. (1994) Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environment & Behavior 26: 195–222.

104.

Taylor

(1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. 1st ed. New York: Ingram.

105.

Toker

Gray

(2008) Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in US university research centers. Research Policy 37: 309–329.

106.

Venezia

Allee

Schwabe

(2008) Designing productive spaces for mobile workers: Role insights from network analysis. Information Knowledge Systems Management 7(1, 2): 61–75.

107.

Vischer

(2005) Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance. Oxford: Routledge.

108.

Vischer

(2007) Revaluing construction: A building users’ perspective. In: Barrett

(ed.) Revaluing Construction. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 149–163.

109.

Vischer

(2008) Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review 51: 97–108.

110.

Wall

Bellamy

Evans

, et al. (2017) Revisiting impact in the context of workplace research: A review and possible directions. Journal of Work-applied Management 9: 95–109.

111.

Ward

Parker

(2020) Connecting workspace, work design and outcomes through work design: Themes, models and directions. In: Ayoko

Ashkanasy

(eds) Organizational Behaviour and the Physical Environment. London: Routledge, pp. 147–166.

112.

Warrick

Milliman

Ferguson

(2016) Lessons learned from Zappos on what it takes to build high performance cultures. Organizational Dynamics 45: 64–70.

113.

Winkle

Caleb-Solly

Turton

, et al. (2019) Mutual shaping in the design of socially assistive robots: A case study on social robots for therapy. International Journal of Social Robotics. Epub ahead of print 7 March. DOI: 10.1007/s12369-019-00536-9.

114.

Zhong

House

(2012) Hawthorne revisited: Organizational implications of the physical work environment. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 32. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 3–22.

115.

Zoller

Boutellier

(2013) Design principles for innovative workspaces to increase efficiency in pharmaceutical R&D: Lessons learned from the Novartis campus. Drug Discovery Today 18: 318–322.