Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h y s i c a lenvironment on j o bperformance: towardsa t h e o r e t i c a l modelo f workspace s t r e s sJacqueline C. Vischer*,†

School of Industrial Design, Faculté de l’aménagement, University of Montreal,Montréal, Québec, Canada*Correspondence to: Jacqueline C. Vischer, School ofIndustrial Design, Faculté de l’aménagement, Universityof Montreal, C.P. 6128 succursale Centreville,Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada. Tel: 514-343-6684; Fax: 514-343-5694.† E-mail: jacqueline.vischer@umontreal.ca

S t r e s s a n d H e a l t hStress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)Published online 8 February 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1134Received 31 March 2006; Accepted 10 October 2006SummaryStudies of stress in the work environment pay little attention to features of the physical environmentin which work is performed. Yet evidence is accumulating that the physical environment ofwork affects both job performance and job satisfaction. Contemporary research on stress in thework environment typically focuses on psychosocial factors that affect job performance, strainand employee health, and does not address the growing body of work on the environmental psychologyof workspace. This paper reviews theory and research bearing on stress in the workplaceand explores how current theory might be applied to the relationship between worker behaviourand physical features of the work environment. The paper proposes a theoretical model of theworker–workspace relationship in which stress and comfort play a critical part, and suggests amethodological approach on which to base future empirical studies. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.Key Words

environmental psychology; occupational health; stress; comfort; workspace; office designment where work is performed. This paper assertsthat another important influence on work performanceresults from physical features of thework environment. Evidence is accumulating thatthe physical environment in which people workaffects both job performance and job satisfaction(Brill, Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Clements-Croome, 2000; Davis, 1984; Dolden & Ward,1986; Newsham, Veitch, Charles, Clinton,Marquardt, Bradley, Shaw, & Readon, 2004;Vischer, 1989, 1996). The tasks workers performin modern office buildings are increasinglycomplex and depend on sophisticated technology;IntroductionStudies of stress in the work environment tend tofocus on psychosocial influences in the environandcompanies whose occupancy costs areincreasing generally seek to reduce them withoutadversely affecting the workers. Such workspacedecisions aspire to create an investment inemployees’ quality of life, the argument beingmade that measurable productivity increases willresult. In addition, researchers are increasinglyfinding links between employee health andaspects of the physical environment at work suchas indoor air quality, ergonomic furniture andlighting (Dilani, 2004; Milton, Glencross, &Walters, 2000; Veitch & Newsham, 2000).Contemporary literature on stress in the workenvironment typically focuses on psychosocialfactors that affect job performance, strain andemployee health. Some theoretical models ofstress at work have included the physical environmentas a factor (Ivancevich & Matteson,1980; Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). But in many cases, studies referringto physical environment factors tend to referto the physical parameters of the tasks being performedrather than to features of the physicalspace in which work is done. As research on jobstrain and other aspects of stress at work tendsnot to address the growing body of work on theenvironmental psychology of workspace, thepurpose of this paper is to create a link betweenthese two fields of endeavour.In light of the growing importance of the environmentaldesign of workspace in terms of financialinvestments as well as employee health andwell-being, this paper reviews theory and researchbearing on stress in the workplace. It then draws

on research in environmental psychology toexplore how current thinking might be applied tothe relationship between worker behaviour andphysical features of the work environment. Thepaper proposes a theoretical model of theworker–workspace relationship in which stressand comfort play a critical part, and outlines amethodological approach on which to base futureempirical studies.Overview of environmental stress researchThe term ‘environmental stress’ often denotesadverse environmental effects in the naturalworld, such as damage to certain types of plant.The term ‘work environment’ is used in stressresearch to incorporate psychosocial dimensionssuch as employee–employer relations, motivationand advancement, job demands and socialsupport. In this paper, therefore, the more specificterm ‘workspace stress’ will be used to refer tothe effects of the physical environment of work.Established theories and current thinking in thefield of stress at work provide some promisingthemes that can help define workspace stress.Cooper and Dewe (2004) in their description ofhow the concept of ‘stress’ has evolved, point outthat it was originally an engineering term referringto the area or part of a structure affected bythe load or demand placed on it by other parts.It has since broadened into a field of applied psychology.In this context, the term ‘stress’ appliesboth to the effects of fatigue on performance,namely in the context of man–machine systems,and to mental hygiene, or the diagnosis and treatmentof mental problems at work (p. 11). Selye(1956) described the three stages of alarm, resistanceand exhaustion as the human body dealswith adverse environmental circumstances. Thesecan equally well be applied to extreme physicalenvironmental conditions. Mason (1972) identifiedlikely causes of stress in a variety of job andother situations. His studies conclude that threemain situational stressors are that the situation isnovel, the situation is unpredictable, from theindividual’s point of view, and the individual hasthe feeling that he/she has no control over the situation.These stressors can be transposed to ananalysis of the physical work environment, whereit is not uncommon for workers to feel little orno control over, or understanding of, the workspaceprovided to them.Studies of stress at work developed as techniquesbecame available to measure levels of

stress hormones such as adrenalin and noradrenalin(Theorell, 1986). From this and relatedresearch, decision latitude and psychologicalcontrol emerged as two determining dimensionsof job strain that could be applied to various jobtypes. At a later stage, the third critical dimensionof social support was added. Known as the‘demand-control’ or ‘job-strain’ model, thismodel has dominated much of the research onwork-related stress, the measurement of whichhas led to widespread use of the job strain scale(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). This framework canusefully be applied to analysis of the physicalenvironment in which people work, both in termsof the environmental demands placed on usersand the control, or lack of it, they have over theirspace (Vischer, 2005).Other models currently guiding theory andempirical work on stress can also be consideredJ. C. VischerCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi176relevant to workspace stress. Cooper and Dewe(2004 p. 95) identify the ‘interactional model’of stress, employing the traditional stimulus–response paradigm that has enabled researchersto generate data on multiple causes of stress atwork. This is distinct from the ‘transactional’model, in which stress is defined in terms of theinteractive processes that relate an individual tohis environment. Lazarus & Cohen (1977) introducedthe concept of ‘daily hassles’ as a categoryof likely causes of stress that need to be distinguishedfrom major life events because they are‘closer to the person’s daily experience’ (Kanner,Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). In ‘dailyhassles’, stress is generated by stable, repetitive orchronic conditions that ‘annoy’ on a regularbasis. The concept of stress-causing hassles hasproved useful to the study of the physical environmenton people’s behaviour (Lazarus &Cohen, 1977). Lazarus and his co-workers developeda ‘hassles scale’, which, after testing, seemedto confirm the importance of daily hassles in creatingstress (Lazarus, 1984). His research emphasizes‘appraisal’, or the effects of the perceptionof the subject, in mediating between environmentalevents and the experience of stress: forLazarus, appraisal links person and environment,including physical environment.Coping, the processes by which humans

respond to stress, is related to appraisal in thetransactional model (Lazarus, 1981). Studies ofcoping mechanisms have become part of thestudy of stress at work (Dewe & Guest, 1990;Latack, 1986; Schwartz & Stone, 1993). The distinctionthat Folkman and Lazarus (1985) drawbetween problem-focused and emotion-focusedcoping strategies might be applied to coping withenvironmental adversities, that is, workspacestress. ‘Problem-focused’ strategies are analogousto biomechanical responses such as coping withproblems of glare from lights or seating that doesnot support backs, and ‘emotion-focused’ strategiesare analogous to psychosocial responses suchas inferring status from office size, opportunitiesfor workspace personalization, and defininghome territory. The assertion that a characteristicof coping behaviour is that it changes over thecourse of the event confirms that no single behaviouror psychosocial outcome can be identified ascoping with adverse, uncomfortable or stressfulworkspace features. Rather, the presence of anybehaviour form that can be construed as ‘coping’with workspace suggests the presence of workspacestress.Almost all theoretical models of stress at workrefer to a mismatch or misfit between thedemands of the situation and the resources of theindividual. The focus on misfit, what it means,how it shows itself and how to measure it, is fundamentalto work stress research and focuses onthe transactional nature of the person–environmentrelationship and the processes that underlieit. The value of the ‘cybernetic model’ advancedby Cooper and Dewe (2004, p. 97) is its focus onperson–environment interaction as a system, inwhich individuals constantly modify their environmentwhile, at the same time, adjusting andadapting their behaviour to fit the environmentthey occupy. Prevailing theoretical models ofstress at work emphasize the need for a good fitbetween a person’s abilities, skills and degree ofcontrol—or decision latitude—and the workenvironment’s demands, complexity, expectationsand challenges. A poor fit in either direction(too many skills, not enough demands, or toomany demands and insufficient control) generatesstress (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kaplan, 1983;Lawton, 1980). The relevance of the concept of‘fit’ in environmental psychology is discussedbelow.

The environmental psychology ofworkspaceResearchers in environmental psychology havedeveloped a rich literature on ways of measuringhow the physical environment meets people’s(users’) needs, in which many varieties and examplesof misfit are recorded. The definition of misfitis one in which the environment places inappropriateor excessive demands on users, in spite oftheir adaptation and adjustment behaviours(coping). The concept of environmental fit is wellintegrated into the environmental psychology literature(Alexander, 1970; Herring, Szigeti, &Vischer, 1977; Preiser, 1983; Zeisel, 2005).So what are the elements in the physical workspacethat can be identified as affecting fit ormisfit between person and environment at work?One area of research that has begun to answerthis question is ergonomics. Initially developedfor military and manufacturing processes,ergonomics researchers now apply their assessmenttools to office furniture and equipment toprotect workers from long-term muscular ornerve injury due to poor bodily positioning ormuscle use. Stress, from the ergonomics stand-A theoretical model of workspace stressCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi177point, ‘is frequently discussed in terms of the relationshipbetween levels of performance and conceptssuch as arousal, signal detection theory anddifferent environmental demands’ (Cooper &Dewe, 2004, p. 65).The ergonomic approach studies tools andequipment as well as workspace features as extensionsof the human body. Those ergonomic featuresmost frequently studied in workspaceinclude lighting and daylighting, noise and noisecontrol, and office furniture and spatial layoutsin offices. These are summarized below.Lighting research has tended to distinguishbetween the effects on building occupants of artificial,interior lighting and of natural light or daylightingfrom windows. Daylighting research haslinked increased comfort and productivity withwindow size and proximity, as well as with viewout, control over blinds and shielding from glare(Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, &Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, van der Voost, &Van Dortmost, 2004). More significantly,research on daylight and views from hospital

rooms has been shown to affect medicationrequirements and recovery rates (Ulrich, 1991;Verderber & Reuman, 1988). In their overviewof the effects of different kinds of artificial lightingon task performance and occupant satisfaction,Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer, and Hunter(2003) concluded that current office lighting standardsare preferred by most people carrying outtypical office tasks in a simulated office environment,where workers used controls to exercisetheir lighting choices. The study results made adistinction between visual comfort—lightingneeded to perform well on office tasks—and satisfaction,or lighting judged to be aesthetic.Current studies of noise in offices have adaptedtechniques for measuring noise levels in industrialenvironments. Workers in open plan workspacetend to judge noise to be a primary source ofdiscomfort and reduced productivity (Hedge,1986; Oldham, 1988; Stokols & Scharf, 1990;Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982). Acousticcomfort studies have focused on correlating physicalmeasures, such as signal-to-noise ratios at differentdensities, background noise levels andintensities, and speech intelligibility under differingphysical conditions, with occupant judgementsof distraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo,& Martellota, 2001; Chu & Warnock, 2002;Mital, McGlothlin, & Faard, 1992). Efforts tocontrol office noise through more absorbent surfaces,sound-masking systems and behaviouralcontrols have been undermined by increasingoffice densities and collaborative work in modernworkspace.Perhaps the largest number of environmentalpsychology studies of workspace has focused onfloor configuration and furniture layouts in theopen plan office. Research indicates that theseenvironmental factors have the greatest influenceon worker satisfaction and performance (Brill,Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Hatch, 1987; Sullivan,1990; Vischer, 1989). Studies have tended tofocus on the height and density of workstationpartitions, the amount and accessibility of file andwork storage, and furniture dimensions such aswork surfaces as being these elements of furnitureand spatial layout which have the most effect notonly on the satisfaction of individual workers buton the performance of teams. One study indicatedthat the additional investment in ergonomictables and chairs for workers yielded a 5-month

payback in terms of increased productivity(Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidencethat office workers are uncomfortable in openplan configurations and prefer private enclosedworkspace (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002;Fried, Slowik, Ben-David, & Tiegs, 2001; Ornstein,1999). In addition, aspects of psychologicalcomfort such as territoriality and privacy arestrongly affected by spatial layout: office size andlocation is linked with status; partitioning influencesacoustic as well as visual privacy; amountof office storage is linked with territoriality andstatus (Fischer, Tarquinio, & Vischer, 2004;McCusker, 2002; Vischer, 2005; Vischer,McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo, & Castonguay-Vien,2003; Wells, 2000).In their overview of stress related to the physicalwork environment, McCoy and Evans (2005)go beyond ergonomics to characterize as stressfulthose situations where elements of the physicalenvironment interfere with the attainment ofwork objectives. Stressors in the work environmentaffect employee performance adverselywhen they are high intensity or prolonged; theyslow down the individual’s ability to process andunderstand the number and predictability of‘signals’, which increase with task complexity.Potential stressors (i.e. elements that interferewith task performance, motivation and socialrelationships) include ‘spatial organisation, architectonicdetails, ambient conditions andresources, and view or visual access from theworkspace. As environmental stressors, [these]can influence physiological processes, produceJ. C. VischerCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi178negative affect, limit motivation and performance,and impede social interaction’ (p. 222).Spatial organization issues include the opennessof the layout: that is, the proportion of openworkstations to private, enclosed offices, theheight of partitions and the distance betweenopen workstations, as well as access to neededresources, such as technology and equipment,meeting rooms and washrooms. Closely relatedto spatial organization are ambient conditionssuch as sound, visual openness and light, as wellas ventilation and thermal comfort.Architectonic details, which include coloursand decoration, signage, artwork and designdetails, convey meaning and can have symbolicsignificance that affects people emotionally. Forexample, some work environments encourage

personalization and individual decoration; somehave key landmark elements that facilitate territorialdefinition for individuals or groups; somecarry symbolic status, such as proximity towindows (positive) or to washrooms (negative).Architectonic details are likely to affect ‘emotionfocused’coping behaviour in situations of workspacestress.A mismatch between the demands placed onworkers and the control they have over the physicalenvironment in which they meet thosedemands is by definition stress-generating.McCoy and Evans (2005) emphasize the temporaldimension: an environmental element that istemporarily annoying cannot be identified as astressor in the same way as that same annoyingelement’s effect over time, when it becomes adaily hassle. The sustained impact of adverseenvironmental elements may also cause a delayedreaction, affecting performance after the stressorhas been removed.Environmental psychology research into thework environment has until recently focused onmeasuring user satisfaction—both job satisfactionand environmental satisfaction. Based onstimulus–response logic, this approach posits usersatisfaction as a measurable behavioural responseto features of the physical environment. However,little in this approach controls for the personaland experiential influences and prejudices thataffect people’s assessment of the quality of theirworkspace. The global and inexact concept ofsatisfaction does not address the complexities ofthe transactional nature of the person–environmentrelationship. More recent work on environmentalcomfort elaborates on the notion of fitbetween user and workspace, providing asounder theoretical basis for workspace stressresearch.Comfort and stressThe idea of human comfort has traditionally beenapplied in architectural history research to studyingthe functional aspects of the dwellings andbuildings of older and remote cultures. Comfortas a basis for setting environmental standards inpublic buildings has developed out of recognizingthat people need to be more than simply healthyand safe in the buildings they occupy. Once healthand safety are assured, users need environmentalsupport for the activities they are there toperform, that is, environmental comfort (Vischer,1989). The concept of environmental comfort

links the psychological aspects of workers’ environmentallikes and dislikes with concreteoutcome measures such as improved task performance,as well as with organizational productivitythrough workspace support for work-relatedtasks.Evidence suggests that environmental comfortcomprises at least three hierarchically related categories:physical, functional and psychological(Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort includes basichuman needs such as safety, hygiene and accessibilitywithout which a building is uninhabitable.These needs are met through applying currentbuilding codes and standards to architecturaldesign and construction decision making. Functionalcomfort is defined in terms of ergonomicsupport for users’ performance of work-relatedtasks and activities. Appropriate lighting forscreen-based work, ergonomic furniture for computerusers, and enclosed rooms available formeetings and collaborative work, for example,help ensure functional comfort. Psychologicalcomfort results from feelings of belonging, ownershipand control over workspace. The environmentalcomfort model postulates that, althoughweakness in one category can be compensated forby strength in another, optimal environmentalsupport for work performance is most likely tooccur when workspace quality is assured at allthree comfort levels.Figure 1 illustrates the environmental comfortmodel. The diagram shows that while physicalcomfort is at the threshold of acceptable workspace,psychological comfort is affected by thedegree of environmental choice or empowermentusers feel they have through decision-makingA theoretical model of workspace stressCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi179processes. The third category, functional comfort,needs to be measured in order to determine whichenvironmental elements support, or fail tosupport, work. Functionally uncomfortableworkspace draws energy out of the worker thatwould otherwise be directed to performing work.Depending on the tasks they are performing,workers are more or less affected by environmentalfactors such as lighting, furniture layout

and ergonomics, noise level and temperature. Anadverse or problematic workspace (‘poor fit’)drains effort and energy out of the user: shecannot see well in poor lighting conditions, shehas to get up and walk around to relieve back orneck pain, she has to wait to have a meetingbecause there is no space in her cubicle and noavailable conference room. On the other hand, asupportive, positive and effective work environment(‘good fit’) allows and even encouragesoccupants to apply all their energy and attentionto performing work. The difference between asupportive and an unsupportive workspace isthus the degree to which occupants can conservetheir attention and energy for their tasks, asopposed to expending it to cope with adverseenvironmental conditions. The ‘energy’ drawnout of users in adverse environmental conditionscan therefore be hypothesized as coping mechanismsor behaviour; evidence that such mechanismsare present in employees’ behaviouralrepertoire at work indicates a stressful (uncomfortablebecause unsupportive) workspace.The environmental comfort model posits‘uncomfortable workspace’—where there is amisfit between what people need to perform theirtasks and resources the physical environmentprovides—as a definition of workspace stress orstrain. That is, sustained misfit situations generatestress, both of the ‘daily hassle’ variety as wellas on a more critical level, such as in cases of sickbuilding syndrome, where pollutants in theindoor air cause illness and absenteeism. Dependingon the type of space and the work being performed,every office environment is situatedsomewhere along the stress-to-support continuum,with none being either all good or all bad,but most varying with type of user and type oftasks. Where the person–workspace interactionfalls on the continuum also depends on time ofday, time of year, availability and accessibility ofoffice technology, and corporate values andculture.According to the environmental comfortmodel, psychological comfort links psychosocialaspects with the environmental design and managementof workspace through the concepts ofterritoriality, privacy and control (Sundstrom &Sundstrom, 1986; Vischer et al., 2003; Wells,2000). A sense of territory is associated with feelingsof belonging and ownership. Privacy is best

understood as the need to exercise control overone’s accessibility to others (Altman, 1975;Kupritz, 2000; Steele, 1986). Environmentalcontrol can be said to affect workers on at leasttwo levels: mechanical or instrumental control,and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Instrumentalcontrol exists where chairs and work surfaces canbe raised and lowered, work tables on wheels canbe moved around, lights are switchable, and thereis an office door to open and close. Evidence indicatesa positive psychological impact from thistype of control in certain circumstances(Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault, & Duval, 2004; Tu& Loftness, 1998).Empowerment as a form of environmentalcontrol increases opportunities for employees toparticipate and be heard in workspace decisionmaking and means they are better informed. Thisalleviates the three stress-causing conditions identifiedby Mason (1972) by reducing novelty andunpredictability as well providing a sense ofcontrol through opportunities to have a say indesign decisions. McCoy and Evans (2005, p.237) characterize uncontrollability over workspaceas a demotivator leading to ‘learnedhelplessness’. Several studies demonstrate thatpsychosocial control by means of user participationin the design process has a positive effect onpeople’s response to and feelings about theirworkspace (Dewulf & Van Meel, 2003; Veitch &Newsham, 2000; Vischer, 2004).J. C. VischerCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi180habitability threshholdphysical comfortpsychologicalcomfortfunctional comfortoccupant satisfactionand well-beingdiscomfort‘value’ calculatedthrough measurement‘value’ added through process‘value’ based on necessity

Figure 1. The ‘Habitability’ pyramid.Note: From Vischer (2005).Towards a theory of workspace stressSeveral of the concepts described in this paper canbe applied to a framework for the study of workspacestress. First among these is ‘goodness of fit’.The concept of fit can be expanded beyond theprimarily architectural framework posited byAlexander (1966), which is somewhat static in itsemphasis on environmental design, to a broaderdefinition of fit between user abilities and motives

over time, and degree of environmental complexity(Lawton, 1980). Broadening this definitionand applying it to workspace takes us in severalfruitful directions.The environmental comfort model states that aworkspace either supports the tasks and activitiesthat are being performed there (comfort condition),or it fails to support them and in fact slowsthem down (uncomfortable condition and causeof stress). Studies of users’ work behaviour,through observation and questioning, providerich data on the degree to which workspaces aresupportive (good fit) or unsupportive (bad fit, ormismatch). Applying this framework, the energya user expends to overcome mismatched orunsupportive spatial elements is expressed ascoping behaviour and can be measured as such.Another potential direction for workspacestress research builds on the demand-controlmodel of job stress. As Figure 2 shows, the twoaxes of decision latitude and psychologicaldemands that are applied to different job typescan be modified to apply to types of workspacesuch that workspace categories can be identifiedin terms of more or less strain on users.This approach reduces the strict separation ofbehavioural measures from environmental featuresby fusing them into the more interactivenotion of workspace as space accommodatingspecific tasks. Decision latitude translates into thedegree of control users have over their workspacethrough participation in decisions; and psychologicaldemands translate into the demandingnessor energy required to perform tasks in a givenworkspace. Moreover, the demand-control modelidentifies social support as a third key factor influencingjob stress and coping, and as indicated byMcCoy and Evans (2005), physical elements andworkspace design have an important role indetermining social relationships and networksthat develop at work. Stephenson (1998) hasamply demonstrated the importance of informalsocial networks to facilitate the flow of informationin organizations, and efforts have been madein some organizations to design workspace thatfacilitates informal social network formation.In summary, the key building blocks for a theoreticalmodel of workspace stress build on wellestablishedthemes in both stress research andenvironmental psychology. These include the

notion of fit or match between user and environment,the concept of control and managingnovelty and unpredictability, the measurement ofdaily hassles and energy-consuming impedimentsto the smooth performance of tasks, as well as theimportance of social support, territoriality andenvironmental control.Directions for future researchTo validate and build on these theoretical links,workspace stress needs to be measured. Toolsexist to measure functional comfort (Vischer,1989), daily hassles (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985),coping and appraisal (Lazarus, 1981), as well asthe multidimensional concept of control in relationto environmental novelty and predictability(Lupien et al., 2006). The concept of environmentalcomfort is derived in part from the notionof fit between user and environment and serves asa basis for the following hypotheses.Every workspace can be defined as providingmore or less support to people performing specifictasks and activities that have specific environmentalrequirements. The more supportA theoretical model of workspace stressCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175–184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi181Decisionlatitude(controloverworkspace)Psychological demandingnessof workspacePARTICIPATIONENERGY IN ENERGY OUTactivepassivelow-strainhigh-strainNOPARTICIPATIONFigure 2. ‘Demand-Control Model’ of workspacestress.Note: From Vischer (2005), after Karasek andTheorell (1990).people receive for the task, the more comfortablethe space and the better fit between space anduser. Spaces providing less support, that is, thosethat are inappropriate to some degree for thetasks being performed, are appraised as uncomfortableby users, requiring them to performcoping activities to solve environmental problems,

and are therefore stressful. The degree towhich coping with workspace occupies the timeand attention of users represents, for employers,loss of time and attention from the performanceof work.Sense of control is an important mediating variable,in that perceived environmental control canreduce strain even when workspace discomfortresults in coping behaviour. Furthermore, instrumentalenvironmental controls effectively reducestress by providing physical ways of solving environmentalproblems or discomfort, providingworkers know how to activate them. Environmentalempowerment, on the other hand,increases psychological comfort and reduces stressby increasing decision latitude. Without somedegree of environmental empowerment (control),the novelty and unpredictability of workspacechanges in today’s modern corporate world arelikely to increase discomfort and therefore stress.Balancing environmental demands with theskills and abilities of users to act on their environmentis a way of defining optimal workspacefor creativity and flow (Czikszentmihalyi, 2003).The concepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) andof environmental competence (Lawton, 1980;Sternberg, 2001) are both useful in this context,in that they recognize that some challenge is necessaryto ensure active engagement. A workspacecannot be designed to be a one-time, final andpermanent ergonomic support for all office tasks,but rather needs to be adaptable and ‘negotiable’to be most supportive to users (Joiner & Ellis,1985). Users need decision latitude as well as theskills and opportunities to engage with and adjusttheir environment successfully, over time andwith changing task requirements, in order tooptimize comfort and manage workspace stresssuccessfully.The environmental comfort model implies amulti-pronged approach to measurement andtesting. Measures need to be developed to evaluatethe demands or ‘demandingness’ of a givenworkspace (in terms of both task requirementsand spatial features), to assess workers’ decisionlatitude or experience of control, as well as todetermine the amount of stress (discomfort) or ofsupport (comfort) judged to be present. The wellestablishedfunctional comfort scale may beuseful in establishing the demandingness of workspace,as users’ judgements of functional comfort

pertain to the combined assessment of therequirements of the tasks and the suitability of thespaces in which the tasks are being carried out(Vischer & Fischer, 2005).The presence of workspace stress can beinferred from number and frequency of copingbehaviours. The functions of coping are ‘First, tochange the situation for the better . . . , either bychanging one’s own offending action . . . or bychanging the damaging or threatening environment;and second, to manage the subjective andsomatic components of stress-related emotionsthemselves’ (Lazarus, 1981, p. 197). Lazarus(1981) posits four coping modes, of which informationsearch and direct action are likely to berelevant to workspace stress assessment. By definingworkspace coping as behaviour (actions,thoughts, feelings) that solve a workspaceproblem, but that in doing so, claim workers’time and attention from their work, many of thebehaviours that Lazarus and his colleagues haveintegrated into measurement scales can be used asa basis for measuring space-related coping. Themore coping behaviour is recorded in a givenspace, the more workspace stress can be inferred.Applying measurement results to the comfortmodel enables us to rate specific workspaces ona scale where comfort (‘supportive’) is at one endand lack of comfort (‘stressful’) is at the other,thus indicating the degree of worker effort andenergy required. This could be developed into atool to help organizations understand not onlywhat kinds of changes to make to improve workspace,but also to see the return on investmentfrom increased worker efficacy.Thus, by combining elements of work stressresearch with the environmental psychology ofworkspace, it is evident that a new area of studyis opening up, namely the study of stress attributableto the design of workspace. As we find outmore about how, when and why the buildingswhere people work affect their health and morale,so we will be able to help companies make morehumane and cost-effective decisions about workspace.

© 2008 University of Sydney. All rights reserved.www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asrArchitectural Science ReviewVolume 51.2, pp 97-108

Invited Review Paper

Towards an Environmental Psychologyof Workspace: How People are affected byEnvironments for WorkJacqueline C. VischerResearch Group on Environments for Work, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Montreal, C.P. 6128Succursale Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada

Corresponding author: Tel: (1-514) 343 6684; Fax: (1-514) 343 5694; Email: jacqueline.vischer@umontreal.caReceived 31 March 2008; accepted 29 April 2008Abstract: Inquiry into how people experience environmental conditions at work is a growing area of study. Until the1980s, there was insufficient research on ‘workspaces’ –and on office environments in particular – to warrant review.Since that time, the range and number of studies of workspace have burgeoned. This paper will identify and reviewthe main themes and findings of this area of research with the objective of defining basic parameters and prevailingtheories of the environmental psychology of workspace. These will generate questions and directions for future researchKeywords: Ambient environmental conditions, Ergonomics, Functional comfort, Furniture, Health and safety, Office buildings, Office layouts,Productivity, Satisfaction, Territoriality, User participation, Workspace

IntroductionEvidence from commercial leasing agents, office furnituremanufacturers the design professions and building contractorsindicates that some new knowledge is finding its way into thereal estate industry as commercial building owners and tenantsdemand better quality workspaces for their employees. Untilrecently, the design of office buildings adhered to a 19th Centurymodel of work (Duffy, 1997). Workers who are asked to performrather than to think, who are brought together in space andtime so that they can be supervised, so that they have access tonecessary tools, and so that there is a clear barrier between workand their other activities, occupy standardized and often uniformworkspace. Formerly in the form of factories, contemporaryworkspace is more likely to be in the form of offices, and reducingoccupancy costs is a key driver of design decision-making (Vischer,2007a). With the changes in the 21st Century world of work, fewof these conditions are still valid. Tools for work have radicallychanged, and advances in computers and tele-communicationsmean that people no longer need to be fixed in space and time

to work together. Barriers between work and personal life arebreaking down as people seek career opportunities rather thanjobs, work at all hours, make a social life at work, and sleep andeat at work if necessary. What may now be called workspace1

is diversifying, mobile work and non-territorial workspace isincreasing, and companies are applying quality as well as costcriteria to workspace design (Becker & Kelley, 2004; Preiser &Vischer, 2005).As part of these changes, conceptualization of theenvironments for work is shifting from the notion of workspaceas a backdrop – that is, passive setting – for work, to the conceptof workspace as an active support to – and tool for – gettingwork done (Newsham, 1997). One of the results of this shiftis the growing interest in how building occupants behave asa function of workspace features. As the research reviewedin this paper suggests, evidence is mounting that employeesmay waste time and energy trying to cope in poorly designedworkspace and that employers are increasingly concerned thattheir employees invest their energy in work and relationshipsrather than in coping with adverse or uncomfortable workspaceconditions. In reviewing some of the knowledge accrued to dateon how workers interact with and are affected by environmental1 I have always tried to avoid using “office” or “offices” in titling any of my work, books or articles. I find the word limits the notion of thediversity of work spaces and only inspires yawns. People think of boxes with windows or partitions. “Office” is in my view a dated concept. Iuse workspace because the domain of study includes all types of space in which people do work. While much of the research has in fact been donein office buildings, the broader concept of “workspace” includes places to meet, to use technology, public spaces where work occurs, amenities tosupport work, and so on, as well as office-type workspace in places like hospitals, universities and numerous other contexts.98 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008Table 1: Proposed Typology of Research on the Environmental Psychology of Workspace.features, this paper groups findings from workspace research

according to, first, the aspect of workspace studied, and second,to the type of outcome measure or research result identified.Thus, the environmental aspects of workspace include ambientenvironmental conditions (noise, lighting, air quality, thermalcomfort), furniture layout and ergonomics (workstations,offices and shared amenities), and process issues, such as userparticipation in design, and meeting business and organizationalobjectives. Behavioral or outcome measures common in workenvironment research include employee satisfaction, employees’feelings about their work environment as expressed in thesense of territory, ownership and belonging, and employeeproductivity. Most work environment studies can be organizedinto the typology identified in Table 1.Linking the satisfaction and productivity categories is thenotion of comfort, specifically functional comfort. A threewaydefinition of the concept of comfort has been appliedto numerous field studies of office buildings; it posits thatpeople need to be more than simply healthy and safe in thebuildings they occupy, they need environmental supportfor the activities they are there to perform (Vischer, 1996).This notion of functional comfort goes beyond the moretraditional concept of comfort based on measurements ofusers’ responses to varying environmental conditions. Thelatter may focus, for example, on temperature and relativehumidity for thermal comfort, air speed and freshness forventilation comfort, and brightness, contrast conditionsand luminance for lighting comfort (Cheng & Ng, 2006;Odemis, Yener & Camgoz, 2004; Ozturk, 2003; Rowe,2004). The results of many comfort studies, using feedbackfrom occupants as well as sensitive environmental measuringdevices, form the basis for environmental standards in public

buildings. The concept of functional comfort, however, linksthe psychological aspects of workers’ environmental likes anddislikes with concrete outcome measures such as improvedtask performance and team effectiveness.Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 99How workspace is designed and occupied affects notonly how people feel, but also their work performance, theircommitment to their employer, and the creation of newknowledge (human capital) in the organization. These arethe cornerstones of the domain known as the environmentalpsychology of workspace (Vischer, 2008). Moreover, measuresof user perceptions of environmental conditions can be used todiagnose building performance and the effectiveness of buildingsystems (Vischer & Fischer, 2005). The focus of this paper,then, is on the behaviour of building occupants, behaviourin this context being a broad term covering not only people’sactions and responses but also attitudes, feelings, expectations,values and beliefs. In this context, it is useful to think of theuser-environment relation as dynamic and interactive: that is tosay, that part of the user’s environmental experience includes theconsequences of any user behaviour that may occur. The useris not a passive receptacle experiencing the built environmentstatically, as input; the user’s experience of the environment isitself transformed by the activities she is performing in thatenvironment: the relationship might better be characterised astransactional (Moore, 1980; Vischer, 2008). This paper willreview research results clustered into three broad categories ofuser satisfaction and functional comfort, territoriality or senseof belonging, and productivity, and will indicate how theseresults have practical applications to design, construction andmanagement of buildings in which people work.

Satisfaction and Functional ComfortHow satisfied or not users are with the space they areoccupying is a notion that has guided environmental evaluationsince its earliest efforts (Craik, 1966; Friedman, Zimring &Zube, 1978; Little, 1968). It refers to the processes wherebyusers know and judge their physical environment. The basicpremises state that the processes of environmental knowing andassessing are linked not only to observable physical features,but also to the attitudes individuals have towards a particularspace. Evaluation research, such as post-occupancy evaluation,seeks to determine the extent to which certain environmentalcharacteristics affect users’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction; theyhave been carried out in office environments since the 1980s(Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1981; Ornstein, 1999; Stokols,1978; Wineman, 1986).The earliest post-occupancy evaluations of offices usedextensive survey questionnaires of building users to identify whatwhat occupants ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ about their work environment,on the assumption that measuring users’ self-rated satisfactionwith individual features helps to understand the effects of thebuilt environment on users. Studies of occupant satisfaction implythat this concept is a de facto measure of building quality: usersfeel positive (satisfied) about good quality built space, whereas ifthey are ‘dissatisfied’ the place is not performing or has somehowfailed. Studies of users’ satisfaction levels in offices have generatedextensive knowledge of workers’ preferences but relatively littleadditional understanding of building performance. Most postoccupancyevaluations question occupants on their perceptionsand judgments of workspaces in terms of the “perceivedqualities” of the place. Evaluation in this sense includes twoessential elements: the functional characteristics of the space

that lend themselves to measurement, and are considered factorsinfluencing the performance of workers; and the qualities of aplace that cause users to consider it satisfactory or unsatisfactory.Thus, surveys of occupant satisfaction in specific buildingsindicate which features are preferred and which are disliked byoccupants (Walden, 2005; Windsor, 2005).One of the most consistent findings from user surveysis that office workers are dissatisfied with the ‘open plan’office, whether this is due to noise levels, distractions, lack ofprivacy or the sameness of ‘cubicles’ (Churchman, Stokols,Scharf, Nishimoto & Wright, 1990; Hedge, 1986; Oldham,1988; Sommer & Steiner, 1988; Sundstrom, Herbert &Brown, 1982). However, the prevalence of this finding hasnot prevented employers from favouring the open plan - inpart because it is cheaper to construct and more flexible toreconfigure than a conventional private or cellular office layout,and in part because workstations occupy less square feet thanprivate offices. A more useful question to ask is to what degreeare workers supported in the performance of their tasks in openworkstations – in other words, to what degree is their ability towork affected? Studies show that, on the positive side, openworkstations facilitate communication and enable workers toexchange information rapidly and informally. On the negativeside, the open environment can generate distractions thatprevent workers from concentrating on their tasks.A large number of work environment studies have testedusers’ satisfaction in reference to specific workspace features(Becker, 1981; Brennan, Chugh & Kline, 2002; Hedge, 1991;Humphries, 2005; Veitch, Charles, Newsham, Marquardt &Geerts, 2004). These studies show that people’s preferences areaffected by, among other things, indirect lighting, mechanical

ventilation rates, access to natural light, new furniture, andaspects of the acoustic environment, as well as some degree ofparticipation in decision-making. According to this approach,environmental satisfaction is implicitly a measure not only ofworkspace effectiveness or success, but also of job satisfaction,in spite of the lack of proven connections between them. Asa result, occupant satisfaction has become the main yardstickby which workspace features are evaluated, with many studiesfalsely assuming a direct link between users’ level of job orworkspace satisfaction and their effectiveness or productivity(Karasek & Theorell, 1990).Some studies have gone beyond the simple ‘if-then’ logic ofhow satisfaction is affected by physical features to developing anapproach to environmental evaluation that is more responsiveto the concept of place as an interactive system composed ofboth physical and social elements. This model posits spaceas a resource in terms of its inherent potential to make anysocial system function (Moos, 1973; Perin, 1970; Thiel, 1997).In applying this approach to work environment evaluation,researchers have examined links between workspace design andthe organization of work, and attempted to demonstrate waysin which space can be considered an organizational resource(Fischer, 1983; Fischer & Vischer, 1998; Kampschroer &Heerwagen, 2005; Seiler, 1984).The concept of functional comfort links users’ environmentalassessments of their environment to the requirements of thetasks they are performing; this goes beyond general findingson what people like and dislike, and towards assessing buildingperformance (Vischer, 1989, 1996, 1999). It was developed100 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008to respond to the limitations of measuring user satisfaction byapplying feedback from users to the performance of building

systems. While building users’ physical comfort refers to meetingthe basic human needs, such as safety, hygiene and accessibility,without which a building is uninhabitable, functional comfortis defined as environmental support for users’ performanceof work-related tasks and activities. Appropriate lighting forscreen-based work, ergonomic furniture for computer users,and enclosed rooms available for meetings and collaborativework, for example, help ensure users functional comfort atwork.The difference between a supportive and an unsupportiveworkspace is the degree to which occupants can conserve theirattention and energy for their tasks, as opposed to expending itto cope with adverse environmental conditions. For example,certain variables such as lighting, ventilation and noise can,under certain conditions, generate stress, which, in turn, hasa negative effect on productivity (Evans & Cohen, 1987).This is further discussed, below. The obverse of this argumentholds that an environment conducive to the performance ofwork improves performance and morale (Dewulf & Van Meel,2003).The functional comfort approach makes human judgementsthe focus of study, thereby avoiding the temporal and calibrationlimitations of instrument-based data collection. However,researchers may take measurements of building systemsperformance as a follow-up procedure to help understandthe meaning behind the feedback yielded by users on theirperceptions of building conditions. Traditionally humancomfort measurements have been linked to individual buildingsystems (lighting, ventilation, temperature) in order to enablestandards of comfort and health to be established, and thus toguide the design of buildings. Functional comfort is defined by

the degree to which workers can perform their tasks in the placethey occupy; it is derived from notions of comfort as definedby environmental standards, with the added precision that users’experience of comfort varies with the requirements of the tasksthey have to perform. Therefore, one of the outcome measuresof diagnostic evaluation of functional comfort is whether peoplecan perform tasks easily, with difficulty, or not at all in theworkspace occupied. The diagnostic approach was designed tolearn more about how people work and how space affects workperformance, as well as to understand the impact of changingoffice technologies on the performance of work and on spaceuse.Data on users’ functional comfort provide a diagnosticyardstick for designers, planners and managers; systematic andreliable feedback from occupants takes the form of a simple,accurate profile of user comfort in a given work environment.This approach yields a more precise definition of how workers areaffected by their space than users’ satisfaction ratings.Balancing environmental demands with the skills and abilitiesof users to act on their environment is a way of defining optimalworkspace for creativity and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Theconcepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) and of environmentalcompetence (Lawton, 1980; Sternberg, 2001) are both usefulin this context, in that they recognize that some environmentalchallenge is necessary to ensure active engagement. A workspacecannot be designed to be a one-time, final, and permanentergonomic support for all office tasks, but rather needs to beadaptable and ‘negotiable’ to be most supportive to users. Usersneed the skills and opportunities to engage with and adjusttheir environment successfully, over time and with changingtask requirements, in order to optimize comfort and manageworkspace stress successfully (Vischer, 2007b).

Territoriality and BelongingSeveral studies identify a sense of belonging (appropriation),along with loyalty or commitment to the organization anda sense of territory, as outcome measures of environmentalstudies because a sense of belonging or ownership is a bettermeasure of environmental quality or success than eithersatisfaction or effective task performance (Fischer, 1983;Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986). Unlike user satisfaction,sense of belonging is linked to employee commitment to andretention in the organization – results that have a direct effecton company operations and costs. Territoriality at work goesbeyond the physical attributes of spaces occupied by individualworkers (Davis & Altman, 1976). The sense of ownership,or occupying territory, is affected by how team and sharedworkspace is defined, as well as characteristics of individualworkspace. It is also affected by participation in designdecisions and feeling ’empowered’ in regards to environmentaldecision-making. Users’ experience of territoriality, controland appropriation combine as ‘psychological comfort’: one ofthree types of environmental comfort according to which theusers’ experience of workspace can be organized (Vischer, 1996;Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort refers to basic human needssuch as safety, hygiene and accessibility, which must be assured -usually through applying existing building codes and standards- so that users find their environment habitable. Functionalcomfort, as mentioned previously, refers to the degree to whichtheir environment supports users’ tasks. At a more abstract levelbut equally important to users at work is psychological comfort,including feelings of belonging, ownership and control over theworkspace (see Figure 1).Psychological comfort links psychosocial aspects of the

worker with the environmental design and management ofworkspace through territoriality, privacy and environmentalcontrol (Vischer, McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo & Castonguay-Vien, 2003). The primary component of psychologicalcomfort is sense of territory, both individual territory (office,workstation, micro-workspace) and group territory (team,group, midrange workspace). Human territory at work haspsychological value that is represented both by space for one’swork and by one’s place in the organization. Underlying these isa human behavioral schema that expresses itself in terms of thepersonalization and appropriation of space: marking territoryand constructing boundaries of social and environmentalcontrol (Fischer, 1989; Sundstrom, Town, Brown, Forman& McGee, 1982). Territorial ownership affects employees’interaction with the environmental milieu (Steele, 1986).Workspace personalization and space appropriation behaviorshave become more noticeable in offices where denser and moreopen office configurations have been installed (Wells & Thelen,2002). The introduction and use of new technology and bettervirtual communications tools have also affected workers’perceptions of and attitude towards their physical environmentand workspace (Cascio, 2000; Lai, Levas, Chou, Pinhanez &Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 101Viveros, 2002). Territory is not simply made up of the walls anddoors that enclose space; territoriality at work is also affected bysense of privacy, social status and perception of control.Studies have found that people moving out of privateenclosed offices into open workstations judge their environmentmore negatively, citing lack of privacy, acoustic conditions,and confidentiality problems (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline,2002; Rishi, Sinha & Dubey, 2000). These reasons are given

irrespective of whether or not their work is confidential, andwhether or not they need to be alone to perform tasks effectively.Complaints about lack of privacy abound in before-and-afterstudies of workspace change, independent of physical featuresof the workspace such as furniture configuration and partitionheight (Wineman, 1986). On the other hand, data collectedfrom professionals in open workstations who were not facedwith an imminent or recent move indicated that the demandsof the job are more important than individual privacy (Kupritz,1998). The need for privacy seems to be only indirectly relatedto workspace design and to depend on psychological factors,such as concerns about status and control.Environmental control – and users’ perception of control –affects workers on at least two levels: mechanical or instrumentalcontrol, and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Experimentalefforts to increase users’ control over environmental conditionsprovide evidence of beneficial effects on workers, includingone experimental design that found a clear association betweenparticipation in design decisions and degree of workplacesatisfaction following a move to a new facility (Niemala, Rautio,Hannula & Reijula, 2002). Environmental control can bemechanical, such as chairs and worktables that are raised andlowered, shelving and tables on wheels to be moved around,switchable lights, and a door to open and close. Evidenceindicates a positive psychological impact from this type ofcontrol in situations where employees are informed and eventrained to make use of the controls available (Newsham, Veitch,Arsenault & Duval, 2004; Tu & Loftness, 1998). Anotherform of environmental control is empowerment: increasedopportunities for employees to participate in workspacedecision-making. Access to such opportunities increases users’

perceptions of having some control over their environment andis a constructive response to the need for psychological comfort.This helps people cope with environmental demands andencourages workers to find new ways of solving environmentalproblems, so that they also increase their learning and knowledgeabout their building and workspace. Empowerment as a formof environmental control increases opportunities for employeesto both participate in and be listened to in workspace decisionmaking,and means they are better informed. Lack of controlover workspace has been described as demotivating and leadingto ‘learned helplessness’ (McCoy & Evans, 2005). Severalstudies demonstrate that psychosocial control by means ofuser participation in the design process has a positive effect onpeople’s response to and feelings about their workspace (Lee& Brand, 2005; Veitch & Newsham, 2000). Environmentalempowerment is directly linked to psychological comfort.People who are informed about workspace-related decisions,and who participate in decisions about their own space, aremore likely to feel territorial about their workspace and to havefeelings of belonging and ownership (Vischer, 2005).Thus notions of appropriation and belonging arepsychosocial aspects expressed through territoriality at work.A sense of territory is associated with feelings of belongingand ownership, and privacy is best understood as the needto exercise control over one’s accessibility to others (Altman,1975). Finally, some studies have demonstrated a connectionbetween users’ psychological traits and their reactions to the builtenvironment at work. In focusing on cognitive processes, thisresearch orientation links up with a well-established paradigmof social psychology, namely Lewin’s field theory (1951). Itaddresses the effects of users’ individual differences and how

workers’ evaluation of their workspace affects their perceptionof themselves at work (Somat, Tarquinio & Dufresne, 1999).Not only do employees’ cognitive and affective processes affecttheir perception and evaluation of their work environment, buttheir perception and assessment of their workspace also affecttheir view of themselves as workers and of their professionaleffectiveness (Fischer, Tarquinio & Vischer, 2004). A studycomparing open with enclosed office users showed thatFigure 1: Environmental comfort model of workspace quality.Occupantsatisfactionand well-beingPsychologicalcomfortFunctional comfortPhysical comfortDiscomfortHabitability threshold102 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008extraverts respond more positively to more possibilities forcommunication, and therefore do better in open office settingsthan workers with more introvert personalities (McCusker,2002).Productivity and the Performance of WorkMany studies have sought to make direct links between theenvironmental design of workspace and worker performanceor organizational productivity.2 The concept of ‘workplaceperformance’ has come to mean workspace whose explicitobjective is to support the performance of work: a performingworkplace is designed to optimise worker productivity(Clements-Croome, 2006). The concept of worker productivitytends to be applied to a whole range of desired behaviouraloutcomes in the context of work. A recent review of studiesof the effects of environment on productivity concluded thatconfusion about what productivity means has made it difficultto identify how environmental conditions affect worker

performance (CABE, 2004). Many studies use respondents’own self-reports of ‘improved’ or ‘reduced’ productivity as thedependent variable, and studies measuring ‘real’ or quantifiableoutput per worker or team are few and far between (Oseland,1999).There are at least three types of productivity that areinfluenced by environmental design, each of them in differentways.3 These three categories are individual, group, andorganisational productivity: each category denotes a variationin scale of environmental influence (Vischer, 2006). Individualproductivity is typically evaluated at the scale of the individualworkspace (desk and office) and on how the micro-environmentinfluences individual task performance, that is to say, how fastand accurately a worker carries out his tasks at work. Individualtask performance is affected by environmental conditions suchas lighting and visual conditions, variations in temperature andhumidity, furniture ergonomics, and, to some degree, acoustics.Positive individual productivity outcomes mean improvedspeed and accuracy of the tasks performed, whereas negativeoutcomes might include a higher error rate, slower time for taskcompletion, or adverse health effects on workers, such as soreeyes, fatigue or upper respiratory problems.The productivity of workgroups sharing workspace, such asa teamwork environment, is typically evaluated in terms of thequality and quantity of group processes. Teamwork is affectedby the mid-range environment, that of the work-group or team,and it is measured in tangible terms such as time to marketof a new product, or in terms of more qualitative outcomes,such as number of good new ideas or good (i.e. successful)recommendations coming out of effective business processes.Group process is affected by workgroup size and the relative

proximity of team members (Leaman & Bordass, 1998). Otherenvironmental determinants of workgroup effectiveness includethe positioning of work areas and shared space, as well as accessto shared tools and equipment (Heerwagen, Kampschroer,Powell & Loftness, 2004).A third level of productivity corresponds to the company ororganization’s entire workspace or accommodation – the macroenvironment.There are many approaches to assessing the degreeto which workspace helps (or fails to help) a company meet itsbusiness objectives and/or increase its competitive advantage.Organisational effectiveness is affected by locational advantagesand ease of access, balancing consolidation under one roof(centralisation) with dispersion of different groups in differentfacilities over manageable distances, and by building amenitiessuch as fast elevators, convenient bathrooms, adequate parking,and attractive eating areas (Vischer, 2006). Studies have shownthat both worker performance and organisational success iscompromised “when the physical environment interferes withactions taken towards achievement [of objectives]” (McCoy &Evans, 2005).Tools exist to measure environmental impacts on productivityin each of the three categories. Individual productivity is themost often measured, using various tools for ergonomic analysisas well as a wide variety of questionnaire surveys that focus onthe effects on building users of ambient conditions as lighting,noise levels, furniture comfort, temperature, and indoor airquality. Team effectiveness studies tend to be more dependenton anecdotal data, although indirect measures such as analysisof social networks, ‘gaming’, and comparing outcomes amongcomparable workgroups in different environments, have alsoyielded valuable results (Horgen, Joroff, Porter & Schon,

1999; Stephenson, 1998). A recent review of four of the mostpopular methods for evaluating organisational effectivenessconcluded that none is entirely satisfactory, as this is an elusiveconcept to define and measure (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen &Roos, 1999). However, some researchers have been successfuladapting the Balanced Scorecard to measure environmentaleffects on organisational effectiveness (Kampschroer &Heerwagen, 2005).The BOSTI-Westinghouse study was an important advance,which attempted to link environmental features not just withlevels of satisfaction, but also directly with functional supportto individual workers (Brill, Margulis & Konar, 1985). Thislongitudinal study examined employee behaviour beforeand after an office move and attempted to measure the costsof worker productivity lost through poorly-designed ordysfunctional workspace; it used employee self-reports ofproductivity to measure the impact of features like open officedesign on task performance. The results showed, among otherthings, that employees, especially managers, working in openplan workstations felt they were more productive in enclosed2 The editor has suggested that these relations might best be conceptualised as a model of workplace environmental design factors (eg, ambientenvironmental conditions, furniture and office layouts) as independent variables, with productivity as the ultimate dependent outcome variableand satisfaction, territoriality and belonging, as mediating variables. This is an interesting line of inquiry that deserves further consideration.3 There are numerous studies of how age, gender, SES and job-rank affect workers attitudes, performance and effectiveness in the workenvironment, but very few use the term ‘environment’ to refer to the physical setting. Consequently, most of this research is published in theindustrial and occupational psychology literature and is not included in this review. However, it would make an interesting addition to ourresearch to study this literature and develop some hypotheses of how these function as moderating variables in the user-space relationship atwork. See, for example, the review by Gifford (2007) and the role of moderating variables in a different architectural setting.

Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 103offices. Subsequent studies have attempted to measure theeconomic value of workers’ productivity increases that areconsidered to result from environmental improvements, suchthat the return on investment of an environmental interventioncan be calculated (Brill & Weideman, 2001; Sullivan, 1990).At about the same time, an overview of studies measuringthe impact of furniture and layout changes on teams workingon assembly line-like paper processing tasks in differentorganizations indicated extraordinary increases in process speedand results (Springer, 1986). These findings are reminiscentof the changes in task performance found in the 1940’s in thefamous Hawthorne studies of lighting in factories, suggestingthat any environmental change improves team performanceregardless of its actual effect (Adair, 1984). More judiciously,several studies conclude that workspace design can be supportive(have positive effects on work) or non-supportive (have negativeeffects on work) as well as affecting organizational performance(Davenport & Bruce, 2002; Ilozor, Love, & Treloar, 2002;Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Stallworth & Kleiner, 1996). Thedomain of organizational ecology is a framework for analyzingorganizations according to different aspects of their structureand function, including features of the workspace they occupy(Steele, 1973). The systems framework of organizationalecology strengthens the notion that the space it occupies is anintegral part of how an organization functions. Later work hasbuilt on this concept, producing such ideas as ‘workscape’ toindicate an inclusive approach to both the use and the planningand design of the work environment (Becker & Steele, 1994).An increasing number of ergonomically oriented studieshave looked at specific environmental conditions, such as

ventilation and indoor air quality, lighting and daylighting,acoustics and noise control, as well as furniture placementand comfort. In these studies, environmental effects ontask performance, rates of absenteeism and self-reportedproductivity are measured rather than users’ satisfactionratings. Lighting research, for example, has tended todistinguish between the effects on building occupants ofartificial, interior lighting and of natural light or daylightingfrom windows. Daylighting research has linked increasedcomfort and self-reported productivity with window sizeand proximity, as well as with view out, control over blindsand shielding from glare (Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas,Beale & Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, Van der Voost &Van Dortmont, 2005). More significantly, research ondaylight and views from hospital rooms has been shown toaffect medication requirements and recovery rates (Verderber& Reuman, 1988; Ulrich, 1991). In their recent overviewof the effects of different kinds of artificial lighting on taskperformance and occupant satisfaction in a simulated officeenvironment where workers used controls to exercise theirlighting choices, (Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer & Hunter,2003) concluded that current office lighting standards arepreferred by most people carrying out typical individualoffice tasks, Boyce et al. The study results made a distinctionbetween visual comfort – lighting needed to perform wellon office tasks – and satisfaction, or lighting judged to beaesthetic.Current studies of noise in offices have adapted techniquesfor measuring noise levels in industrial environments. Workersin open plan workspace tend to judge noise to be a primarysource of discomfort and reduced productivity (Stokols &

Scharf, 1990; Mital, McGlothlin, Faard, 1992). Acousticcomfort studies have focussed on correlating physical measures,such as signal-to-noise ratios at different densities, backgroundnoise levels and intensities, and speech intelligibility underdiffering physical conditions, with occupant judgements ofdistraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo & Martellota, 2001;Chu & Warnock, 2002). Efforts to control office noisethrough more absorbent surfaces, sound-masking systems andbehavioural controls have been weakened by increasing officedensities and collaborative work in modern workspace.Studies focussing on floor layouts and furniture suggest thesefactors influence teamwork effectiveness as well as individual taskperformance (Vischer, 2006). Studies focus on the height anddensity of workstation partitions, the amount and accessibilityof file and work storage, and furniture dimensions such aswork-surfaces. These elements of furniture and spatial layouthave a powerful effect not only on the satisfaction of individualworkers but also on the performance of teams. One studyindicated that the additional investment in ergonomic tablesand chairs for workers, as well as ergonomic training, yielded a5-month payback in terms of increased individual productivity(Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidence that officeworkers are uncomfortable in open plan configurations andprefer private enclosed workspace, which may work better forindividual tasks but are less successful for teamwork (Hatch,1987; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David & Tiegs, 2001; Ornstein,Andrade, Coelho & Leite, 2005).Evidence is mounting that the design of their workspacedoes make workers more or less effective. However, findingout more about how this relationship works should not leadto ‘social engineering’ solutions, where employers or building

owners apply a recipe for environmental design with a viewto guaranteeing maximum performance from their workers.It is preferable for employers and decision-makers to useresearch evidence to consider environmental design decisionsas investments in the work force. Workspace can and shouldbe a tool for performing work, much as investing in computertechnology ensures better tools for employees.DiscussionWhile much of the research on which norms and standardsfor user health and comfort at work are based has been carriedout in laboratory settings, the most frequent approach tostudying how workspace affects users is questioning the latterdirectly. This may take the form of experimental designsin controlled laboratory settings, where an environmentalcondition is varied and subjects provide ratings, as well as inquasi-experimental settings, such as controlled field situationswhere building users’ assessments are compared before andafter some environmental change. More commonly, surveyresearch is applied in uncontrolled field situations, either inthe form of eliciting satisfaction ratings as in a conventionalpost-occupancy evaluation, or using a standardised surveyquestionnaire in order to compare the same data from subjectsacross a number of buildings. A variety of field-tested tools andtechniques to study workspace behaviour has been developedin this latter category.104 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008The structure and form of the way users are approachedand the data they are required to yield needs to be precise andstandardised to link user feedback with building performance.The results yielded by this approach provide a rich and diversebasis for understanding the user experience (Gann & Whyte,2003; Leaman & Bordass, 2001; Vischer, 1989, 2005; Zagreus,

Huizenga, Arens & Lehrer, 2004). Data yielded by assessmenttools, whether in the context of post-occupancy evaluation,design and environmental quality indicators, or building-inuseassessment, can be analysed both for what they tell us aboutbuilding use as well as about building performance. These fieldtools are a natural outgrowth of early studies on the sociologyof work, of which a few included the physical setting forwork. Of these, the most important, and still salient today, isHerzberg’s analysis of factors that influence worker motivation.His research established that several key elements of the workenvironment influence worker motivation, and they can benegative, positive or neutral (Herzberg, 1966). Among theseelements is the physical environment, which can be either aneutral or a negative influence on worker motivation. Thisimplies that if it is supportive of the performance of work, itis not noticed. The ‘threshold effect’ means that those workconditions that affect motivation can be measured in terms oftheir propensity to move from a neutral, ‘no effect’ categoryinto ‘negative effect’; there is no ‘positive effect’ category.Building on this theoretical base, and in line with theresults of functional comfort studies, researcher attention isbeing increasingly paid to the concept of workspace stress.Functional comfort links psychosocial aspects, includingworker motivation, with workspace elements and thereby withorganisational productivity by measuring environmental supportfor task performance. The notion of support incorporates notjust receiving support from, but also being able to act on theenvironment to achieve a desired, supportive result. Theinverse is also true: where workers’ have to struggle to performtheir tasks because the built environment is problematic, their

situation can be characterised as stressful. In situations whereworkers do not feel supported, and indeed have to make anextra effort to ‘deal’ with environmental barriers or problemsin order to get their work done, they may lose motivation andexperience stress. The definition of workspace stress is thedegree to which users have to compensate and expend theirown energy performing activities in adverse environmentalconditions (Vischer, 2007b). All built environments forwork can be placed somewhere on the continuum rangingfrom completely functionally comfortable to completelydysfunctional and stressful, using feedback from users at agiven point in time.In their overview of stress related to the physical workenvironment, McCoy and Evans (2005) go beyond ergonomicsFigure: 2: Dimensions of functionally comfortable workspace design.Jacqueline Vischer Environmental Psychology of Workspace 105to characterise as stressful those situations where elements ofthe physical environment interfere with the attainment ofwork objectives. Stressors in the work environment affectemployee performance adversely when they are high intensityor prolonged; they slow down the individual’s ability to processand understand the number and predictability of ‘signals’, whichincrease with task complexity. Potential stressors (i.e. elementsthat interfere with task performance, motivation and socialrelationships) include “spatial organisation, architectonic details,ambient conditions and resources, and view or visual accessfrom the workspace. As environmental stressors, [these] caninfluence physiological processes, produce negative affect, limitmotivation and performance, and impede social interaction”.These physical stressors in the workplace affect workers’ senseof control and effectiveness. Physical environmental stressors

also affect social relationships, as the negative effects of stressorexposure reduce “cooperative behaviors, such as social support,altruistic behaviors, and teamwork” (Evans & Cohen, 1987).Thus in addition to satisfaction, comfort and belonging,the environmental psychology of workspace also includes wellestablished concepts such as worker motivation and how it isinfluenced by the physical setting, and, more recently, the notionthat some measurable amount of stress at work can be attributedto the design of the physical environment. A comprehensiveenvironmental comfort model of workspace quality thatincorporates these and other factors is shown in Figure 3. Moreresearch is needed to link these concepts together and provide asolid theoretical framework for advancing knowledge throughfuture research.Conclusions and Directions for FutureResearchWhile considerable knowledge has accrued from studyingvarious aspects of the environmental psychology of workspace,important gaps remain. The structure and content of this areaof research have given rise to some new and important questionsthat are fruitful directions for future research. Before exploringthese new directions, we will comment on the development ofthis field of knowledge to date with a view to strengtheningthe theoretical framework and lending greater coherence toknowledge already acquired.By comparing research studies looking at different aspectsof the work environment, the lack of clarity about outcomesbeing measured shows that clarification is needed to guidefuture research. Occupant satisfaction, while offering a broadand comprehensive measure of environmental quality, is nota practical outcome measure for workspace research. While

occupants’ self-reports provide data on their needs andpreferences, such studies generate little information about whatsupports task completion, what adds value to the organisation,and why owners and managers should invest in workspaceimprovement. However, much has been learned about whatworkers like and dislike in their work environment.Functional comfort, as measured through systematicfeedback from users, invites occupants to provide diagnosticfeedback on specific features of the work environment basedon what environmental supports they need to perform theirtasks. Decisions to remove, replace or change workspacefeatures can be based on how well or not they supportoccupants’ work and thereby affect the productivity of theorganisation. Structured feedback on ambient conditions canalso be applied to assessing building systems, and subsequentlyused to diagnose building problems that are amenable tointervention and improvement. However, a clearer distinctionneeds to be made between measuring user perceptions andjudgements, and measuring actual behavioural effects thatare attributable to physical features. For example, workers’perceptions of team workspace (e.g. meeting-rooms andworktables) may not be related to whether or not teamworkbehaviour occurs.Productivity has also been measured largely in terms ofoccupants’ self-reports. These are subject to more subjectivebias than satisfaction ratings, as respondents are being asked tomake an estimate based on their own feelings. However, thereare some studies where more objective productivity indicatorssuch as reduced illness rates, increased speed and accuracy oftask completion, and even rate of new ideas generation, havebeen used as measures of environmental effectiveness in terms

of productivity outcomes. A new and little explored outcomemeasure concerns the effect of the work environment on thecreation and transmission of knowledge in organisations (VonKrogh, Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2000). Many companies areinterested in understanding how knowledge accrues in theirorganisations and how this process can be optimized. Theconcept termed ‘ba’ – an environment that supports andencourages knowledge creation, not only through the designof the space but also through the structure and operationsof the social and cultural environment – is now a focus ofresearch. To date, human capital researchers have focusedon developing a better understanding of ba. This offers anew and promising direction for analyzing how features ofthe work environment add value to an organisation’s humancapital (Nenonen, 2004). Although the concept of ba is onlypartly definable in physical terms, it would be useful to learnmore about how physical settings encourage and support it.In summary, a rich range of measures of worker productivityis available, and more diversity is needed to advance this lineof inquiry. As these new directions for workspace researchindicate, worker productivity in the knowledge economyis less a matter of improving speed and accuracy of routinetasks and increasingly a function of generating new ideas,being creative, working effectively in teams, and generatingknowledge that adds value to the organisation.Finally, the feeling of belonging, as might be measuredthrough territoriality and appropriation of space, needs furtherstudy owing to the important link with employee retention andreducing costly turnover in organisations. More informationabout how and why certain environmental features affectemployees’ sense of belonging and support constructive

appropriation behaviours will help organisations determinehow and to what degree investment in environmental qualitywill affect both recruitment and retention of their employees.In recent years, as the real estate and construction industryshifts its attention to sustainability and the environment,researchers have started to look at the interaction between usercomfort at work and the presence or absence of environmentallysustainable features (Heerwagen, 2000; Leaman & Bordass,2007; Vischer & Prasow, 2008). This direction for future106 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 2, June 2008study has two possible lines of exploration: the effects ofsustainable building features, such as natural ventilation,water recycling and passive cooling technology on occupantsand their work; and the behaviour and behavioural changesneeded and expected from occupants as a result of sustainabledesign features in office and other buildings.4

These mightinclude turning off lights when out of the room, droppingblinds on sunny windows to reduce heat gain, and usingpublic transportation to get to and from work. Anecdotalevidence already exists of buildings supplied with innovativesustainable design features that occupants have either notwanted or not been able to use. There is also some evidencethat giving occupants a more active role and responsibilityfor changing their behaviour in environmentally sustainablebuildings is a necessary condition for success.The environmental psychology of workspace is a rich anddiverse field of study that is growing fast. As human beingsin all parts of the world spend increasing amounts of timein offices in a wide variety of buildings, the effects of theseenvironments on occupants’ performance, health and moraleurgently needs to be understood. The knowledge yielded by

research in this field will inform employers’ decisions as well ascorporate investments in the work settings they create, and willassist and improve the building industry as designers, facilitiesmanagers, leasing agents and construction professionals acquireit. Business managers also need to understand more abouthow workspace affects their personnel, as companies needto become more ‘agile’ and by making ongoing changes toworkspace (Joroff, Porter, Feinberg & Kukla, 2003). Finally,all indications are that a better understanding of occupantcomfort is a prerequisite for successful sustainability and aneffective impact on global warming.References

1Volume 3, Issue 1, 2009Impact of Office Design on Employees’ Productivity: A Case study of BankingOrganizations of Abbottabad, PakistanAmina Hameed, Research Associate, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute ofInformation Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan, amina_7_h@yahoo.comShehla Amjad, Professor, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of InformationTechnology, Abbottabad, Pakistan, shehla@ciit.net.pkAbstractIncreased personal control and comfort needs of employees triggered the concern among organizations toprovide them with an environment and office design, which fulfills the employees’ needs and helps to boosttheir productivity. The main objective of this study is to find out the relationship between office design andproductivity. For this purpose, 31 bank branches of 13 banks were contacted and studied. The findings of

this study show that office design is very vital in terms of increasing employees’ productivity. Comfortableand ergonomic office design motivates the employees and increases their performance substantially.Keywords: Productivity; Office Design; Ergonomics.1. IntroductionMost people spend fifty percent of their lives within indoor environments, which greatly influence their mentalstatus, actions, abilities and performance (Sundstrom, 1994). Better outcomes and increased productivity isassumed to be the result of better workplace environment. Better physical environment of office will booststhe employees and ultimately improve their productivity. Various literature pertain to the study of multipleoffices and office buildings indicated that the factors such as dissatisfaction, cluttered workplaces and thephysical environment are playing a major role in the loss of employees’ productivity (Carnevale 1992,Clements-Croome 1997).Hughes (2007) surveyed 2000 employees pertain to various organizations and industries in multiple levels.The reported results of these survey showed that nine out of ten believed that a workspace quality affectsthe attitude of employees and increases their productivity. Employees in different organizations havedifferent office designs. Every office has unique furniture and spatial arrangements, lighting and heatingarrangements and different levels of noise. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the officedesign factors on employees’ productivity. The literature reveals that good office design has a positive affecton employees’ productivity and the same assumption is being tested in this study for the banking sector ofPakistan. This study will try to find out the effects of office design on employees’ productivity. The areachosen is the banking sector of Abbottabad District, Pakistan. The study will be based on primary datacollected through a structured questionnaire (Appendix 1).2. Significance of the StudyThe impact and significance of office design on employees’ productivity is addressed in this study. Humanresource professionals in the organizations are well aware of the importance of this issue. In the context ofPakistan, this is a relatively new topic. Very few researchers addressed in the context of human resourcemanagement. Very few researches can be found in the field of Human Resource Management, this hugegap needs to be filled by new research scholars.In Pakistan, workplace environment and its related issues are significantly neglected. It is evident that thereis less importance to office design, incentives and assisting facilities and also it is not available to theemployees. The situation is that they cannot even complain about them. These circumstances are affectingthe performance of the employees greatly, in the form of delay in work completion, frustration, effect onpersonal growth etc. This study will try to find out the effects of office design in terms of furniture, noise,lighting, temperature and spatial arrangement on employees’ productivity.

23. Literature ReviewA widely accepted assumption is that better workplace environment produces better results. Mostly theoffice is designed with due importance to the nature of job and the individuals that are going to work in thatoffice. The performance of an employee is measured actually by the output that the individiual produces

and it is related to productivity. At corporate level, productivity is affected by many factors such asemployees, technology and objectives of the organization. It is also dependent on the physical environmentand its affect on health and employees’ performance.3.1 Defining Office DesignOffice design is defined by BNet Business Dictionary (2008) as, “the arrangement of workspace so that workcan be performed in the most efficient way”. Office design incorporates both ergonomics and work flow,which examine the way in which work is performed in order to optimize layout. Office design is an importantfactor in job satisfaction. It affects the way in which employees work, and many organizations haveimplemented open-plan offices to encourage teamwork. Office design is very vital in employee satisfaction,and the broad concept of office design also includes the workflow. The work is analyzed initially and it isidentified that how it is accomplished and then the overall setting of the office is made according to that flow.This ensures the smooth running of work in the office without hindrances.3.2 Defining ProductivityRolloos (1997) defined the productivity as, “productivity is that which people can produce with the leasteffort”. Productivity is also defined by Sutermeister (1976) as, “output per employee hour, qualityconsidered”. Dorgan (1994) defines productivity as, “the increased functional and organizationalperformance, including quality”. Productivity is a ratio to measure how well an organization (or individual,industry, country) converts input resources (labor, materials, machines etc.) into goods and services. In thiscase, we are considering performance increase as when there is less absenteeism, fewer employee leavingearly and less breaks; whereas in a factory setting, increase in performance can be measured by thenumber of units produced per employee per hour. In this study, subjective productivity measurement methodis used. The measures of this method are not based on quantitative operational information. Instead, theyare based on personnel’s subjective assessments. Wang and Gianakis (1999) have defined subjectiveperformance measure as an indicator used to assess individuals’ aggregated perceptions, attitudes orassessments toward an organizations product or service. Subjective productivity data is usually collectedusing survey questionnaires. Subjective data can also be descriptive or qualitative collected by interviews.(Clements-Croome and Kaluarachchi 2000) Subjective productivity data is gathered from employees,supervisors, clients, customers and suppliers.3.3 Workplace and ProductivityOver the years, many organizations have been trying new designs and techniques to construct officebuildings, which can increase productivity, and attract more employees. Many authors have noted that, thephysical layout of the workspace, along with efficient management processes, is playing a major role inboosting employees’ productivity and improving organizational performance (Uzee, 1999; Leaman andBordass, 1993; Williams et al. 1985).An independent research firm conducted a research on US workplace environment (Gensler, 2006). InMarch 2006, a survey was conducted by taking a sample size of 2013. The research was related to;workplace designs, work satisfaction, and productivity. 89 percent of the respondents rated design, from

important to very important. Almost 90 percent of senior officials revealed that effective workplace design isimportant for the increase in employees’ productivity. The final outcome of the survey suggested thatbusinesses can enhance their productivity by improving their workplace designs. A rough estimation wasmade by executives, which showed that almost 22 percent increase can be achieved in the company’sperformance if their offices are well designed.But practically, many organizations still do not give much importance to workplace design. As many as 40percent of the employees believe that their companies want to keep their costs low that is why theirworkplaces have bad designs; and 46 percent of employees think that the priority list of their company doesnot have workplace design on top. When data was summarized, almost one out of every five employeesrated their workplace environment from, ‘fair to poor’. 90 percent admitted that their attitude about work isadversely affected by the quality of their workplace environment. Yet again 89 percent blamed their workingenvironment for their job dissatisfaction (Gensler, 2006).

33.4 Relationship between Office Design and ProductivityThe American Society of Interior Designers (ASID, 1999) carried out an independent study and revealed thatthe physical workplace design is one of the top three factors, which affect performance and job satisfaction.The study results showed that 31 percent of people were satisfied with their jobs and had pleasingworkplace environments. 50 percent of people were seeking jobs and said that they would prefer a job in acompany where the physical environment is good.Brill et al. (1984) ranked factors, which affect productivity according to their importance. The factors aresequenced based on the significance: Furniture, Noise, Flexibility, Comfort, Communication, Lighting,Temperature and the Air Quality. Springer Inc (1986) stated that “an insurance company in a study revealedthat the best ergonomic furniture improved performance by 10 to 15 percent.Leaman (1995) conducted a survey which is briefly highlighted here. Author attempted to find therelationship between indoor environment, dissatisfied employees and their productivity. The results revealedthat the productivity of the work is affected because the people were unhappy with temperature, air quality,light and noise levels in the office. The productivity level was measured by the method of self reportedmeasurement, which is a 9 point scale from greater than -40 and less than +40 percent (loss/gain). Thescale was associated with the question: “Does your office environment affect your productivity at work?”(Leaman, 1995). The data collected was correlated and results said that the coefficient of correlation(r)=0.92 and the correlation exists between people who showed dissatisfaction with their indoor environmentand those reporting that their productivity is affected by the office environment. The significant level p-valueis 0.0034.4. Research MethodologyThe purpose of the study is to find out the relationship between office design and employees’ productivityand the impact of office design on employees’ productivity.The objectives of the study include: To analyze office design of banks in Abbottabad, Pakistan. To analyze the features that employees value in the workplace.

To assess whether office design is one of the factors in affecting employees’ productivity. To determine the impact of office design on employees’ productivity. To analyze the impact of office design if any on gender of employees.The Banking sector of Abbottabad, Pakistan has been chosen as the population for the study. Out of 31bank branches, 21 bank branches in Abbottabad, Pakistan were taken as sample. A total of 105 employeesfrom these 21 branches were taken as the sample size. The distribution of sample among banks andnumber of employees taken from each bank are given.Primary data was collected through a structured questionnaire. Observation was also used to collectinformation about the office design. The Questionnaire consisted of 24 questions; 4 questions on eachvariable. Out of these, 4 questions were on productivity, based on the technique of subjective productivitymeasurement. Subjective productivity data was gathered from the employees, supervisors, clients,customers and suppliers. A direct subjective productivity measurement is a survey question concerning anemployees’ own productivity. For example, such a question might be, on a scale of 1-4; ‘how yourproductivity changed during the last year’ (Black and Lynch, 1996 and Laitinen et al. 1999). Data wascollected from the sample of 13 banks (105 employees). A five point Likert Scale was used to measure allthe variables. The scale varies from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for most of the questions. Afew questions were measured by the five point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always). Thequestions in the questionnaire for the subjective productivity measurement were in percentages.5. Conceptual frameworkBased on the literature review, the relationship between office design and productivity can beconceptualized and depicted in Figure (1). The relationship is defined in such a way that the set of factorsimpact on an individual, which in turn determine the final outcome in terms of increased or decreasedproductivity of that individual. These factors have different impacts on different employees based on theirgender.

4Figure: 1. Conceptual FrameworkIndependent Variables Dependent Variable(Office Design)6. Research FindingsFive indicators of office design such as furniture, noise, temperature, lighting and spatial arrangement areconsidered for study. The overall response for each factor was analyzed and the mean and standarddeviation values are shown in the Table 1. Data was analyzed to identify the factor that the relatively hightendency towards decreasing productivity. Different office design factors such as furniture, noise, lighting,temperature and spatial arrangement were used to determine the extent of the loss in productivity.Table 1. Mean of factorsFactorsTotal number ofrespondentsMean (SD) forFactorFurniture 105 3.70 (0.63)Noise105 3.67 (0.62)

Lighting 105 3.23 (0.77)Temperature 105 3.86 (0.44)Spatialarrangement105 3.41 (0.63)SD= Standard deviation

FurnitureNoiseLightingTemperatureSpatialarrangementsProductivity5The prime factor which affects the productivity of employees is lighting in the office. Next to the factorlighting, it is spatial arrangement. Then the importance sequence is noise, furniture and temperature. Bothnatural and artificial light is very essential in any office environment. It gives a sense of energy and affectsthe mood of the employees. Hawthorne effect is the best example of benefit of lighting in productivity.Accomplishment of daily tasks in workplaces with less or dim light is difficult for employees. Working in dimlight leads to eye strain and thus causing headaches and irritability. Due to this discomfort, productivity isvery much affected causing overall decrease in employee’s performance.According to the data collected, 26.6 percent respondents were female employees and 73.3 percent weremale employees. The overall response according to the gender and the mean and productivity for male andfemale employees is detailed in Table 2.Table 2 Overall Responses According to GenderSD= standard deviationAccording to the results in Table 2, male employees are affected by the furniture in their offices (3.68); theirproductivity is also affected by the furniture they are using or which surrounds their workplaces (3.62). Alongwith this the results also show that female employees are less affected by the furniture in their work area(3.77) and their performance also remains unaffected with uncomfortable furniture (3.23). If only theperformance of both male and female employees is compared then we can see that male employeesperform less than female employees due to bad furniture, which they use in their workplaces.While analyzing the means of Noise obtained from the data, it was revealed that male employees were notmuch affected by noise (3.84) but due to even a little noise their productivity was affected (3.62). On theother hand, the female respondents’ results show that there are many noise distractions in their workplace(3.21) and in their surroundings. But due to this noise productivity of female employees is not affected(3.23). Because female employees are always chatting, therefore, they can work in noisy surroundings.Comparing the productivity of male employees (3.62) and female employees (3.23) with respect to noise,productivity of male employees is more then female employees.One of the most important features in office design is light. Both natural and artificial light is needed in aproper and adequate amount to carry out normal activities of everyday office work. This factor was analyzed

in my research. Results revealed that male employees show a low mean (3.26), which means that lighting isnot proper in offices and when we see the productivity of male employees against this mean it is high(3.62). So, the conclusion can be made that due of improper lighting in offices male employees havedifficulty in completing and concentrating on their work and their productivity (3.62) is affected. In the sameway when female employees’ results were analyzed, and it transpired that they were affected (3.13) a littlemore than male employees, but their productivity (3.23) is not affected by lighting around their workplace.On comparing, only the productivity of male employees (3.62) and female employees (3.23) the result showsthat lighting affects male employees more while working in offices then female employees.Factors Mean (SD) for MaleemployeesMean (SD) for femaleemployeesFurniture3.68 (0.64)3.77 (0.61)Noise3.84 (0.46) 3.21 (0.77)Lighting3.26 ((0.82) 3.13 (0.59)Temperature3.84 (0.46)3.92 (0.36)Spatial arrangement 3.49 (0.61) 3.21 (0.66)Overall meanOverall Productivity3.623.623.453.23

6Temperature affects productivity the most. Female respondents’ results show that the temperatureconditions of their offices are good (3.92) in both summers and winters. Due to the pleasant temperature insummers and winters there is no adverse effect on their productivity (3.23). Similarly, the mean value formale employees is (3.84), which means that temperature is not irregular in their offices. But a littleirregularity in temperature affects their productivity (3.62). Another major aspect of the way in which theworkplace aids productivity is in supporting work processes through the way that space is arranged.According to the results female employees are more conscious about the arrangement of space in theirworkplaces (3.21) but due to this their productivity is not affected (3.23), it is satisfactory. In case of maleemployees, they are far less affected (3.49) by the spatial arrangement than female employees but theirproductivity (3.62) is affected by this.The overall mean of all the factors show a low mean for female employees (3.45) and a relatively high meanfor male employees (3.62). This means that female employees are more concerned about their workplacesurroundings than male employees.Differences are found amongst the responses to different factors in the workplace. Male employees’ resultsshow that they are more concerned about the lighting in their offices then the spatial arrangement and otherfactors.There is a direct relationship between office Design and productivity. This relationship between office design

and productivity was determined by using the Pearson’s Correlation in standard statistical software“Statistical Package for Social Sciences” (SPSS). Pearson’s Correlation is a measurement of the strength ofa linear or straight line relationship between two variables. The Correlation Coefficients indicate both thedirection of the relationship and its magnitude (Table 3).Table 3 Correlation between Elements of Office Design and Employee ProductivityThe analysis of the results indicate a positive correlation between furniture and productivity (r = 0.194) and issignificant at 0.05. This shows that when the furniture of the office is not comfortable and according to theneeds of the employees their productivity is affected. There is a positive relationship between Noise andProductivity. The correlation coefficient (r=0.429) is significant at 0.01.The positive relationship between lighting and productivity (r = 0.720) at 0.01 shows that employees’productivity highly correlates to the lighting conditions in the offices. The results of temperature reveal itssignificant correlation with productivity (r=0.467) at p=0.01. Spatial Arrangement is the space factor in officedesign; when the correlation was calculated in SPSS it gave a positive relation with productivity (r=0.380)where p=0.01. It means that the spatial arrangement has a considerable effect on the employees’productivity (Table 4).Office design Elements PearsonCorrelation (r)Significance(2-tailed)Furniture.194(*) .047Noise.429(**) .000Lighting.720(**) .000Temperature and Air Quality.467(**) .000Spatial arrangement .380(**) .000r is Pearson correlation coefficient*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

7Table 4. Regression Results of ModelModel SummaryModel R R SquareAdjusted RSquareStd. Error of theEstimate1 .759(a) .576 .555 .51525R= Correlation coefficienta. Predictors: (Constant), Spatial arrangement, Noise, Furniture, Lighting, TemperatureSource: SurveyModelSum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.Regression 35.717 5 7.143 26.907 .000(a)Residual 26.283 99 .2651Total 62.000 104df= degree of freedom , F=regression mean square/residual mean square ,Sig=P-valuea. Predictors: (Constant), Spatial arrangement, Noise, Furniture, Lighting, Temperatureb. Dependent Variable: Productivity Source: Survey

The coefficient of determination R. square = 0.576. This gives us the ratio of explained variation to totalvariation. On converting the R. square value to percentage it comes to be approximately 58 Percent. Fromthis percentage it is concluded that 58 percent of the variability of employees’ productivity is accounted forby the variables in this model.The regression co-efficient for the predictor variables; furniture, noise, lighting, temperature and spatialarrangements are 0.015, -0.068, 0.739, and 0.021 and 0.162, respectively. The coefficient values show, thechange in productivity with a unit change in a variable value, when all the other variables are held constant.When we analyze the coefficient value for the variable, ‘lighting’ we can say that there is an increase of0.739 in the productivity of an employee for every unit increase (betterment) in the lighting conditions of theoffice, keeping all the other variables constant.The Regression Equation:Employee Productivity = -0.645 + .015 F - 0.068 N+ 0.739 L + 0.021 T + 0.162 SA(Where F=furniture, N=noise, L=lighting, T=temperature and SA=spatial arrangements)7. Discussion of the FindingsAnalysis of the collected data revealed that office design has a substantial impact on the employees’productivity. The overall impact of different elements showed that lighting affects the productivity of mostemployees. The overall mean of all the factors show that female employees are more concerned about theirworkplace surroundings, whereas, their male counterparts are less concerned with it.The overall response, according to gender, showed differences amongst the responses for differentelements in the workplace. Male respondents’ results show that they are more concerned about the lightingin their offices, followed by the spatial arrangement.There is a direct relationship between office design and productivity. The Relationship between Officedesign and Productivity was determined by using the Pearson’s Correlation in SPSS. A strong correlationexists between elements of office design and productivity of office design. The regression analysis of thedata shows that the coefficient of determination R. square = 0.576, so, it can be concluded that 58 percentof the variability in employees’ productivity is accounted for by the variables in this model.

87.1 Implications for ManagementBased on the findings, following are the implications of the study. Lighting was found to be the major factor, which is affecting the daily and overall productivity ofemployees in offices. Therefore, it is recommended to have proper and adequate artificial as wellas natural light to improve the office design for better performance. Most of the organizations do not give importance to office design; this study will give them amplereasons to consider office design as an important factor in increasing their employees’ productivity.7.2 Limitations of the StudyFollowing are a few limitations of the study The sample size was not diverse enough to give the image of all organizations functioning inPakistan. The data collected was based on subjective productivity measurement; some other objectivemethod of collecting data can also be used.

Data was collected by employing the simple method of structured questionnaires; other methodscould have been used for collecting data.7.3 Direction for future ResearchIn order to establish a greater understanding of these relationships research, which combines humanresource management, workplace layout and performance management, needs to be developed.Within the indoor environment, lighting and thermal environment have the biggest influence on employees’productivity. It would therefore make sense to develop, in the near future, a validated human model in whichat least the thermal environment in combination with the lighting conditions can be evaluated in terms ofcomfort and loss of productivity.Appendix 1Questionnaire for Research study on“Impact of Office Design on Employees’ Productivity”INSTRUCTIONS:Please READ each question carefully.ENCIRCLE the option you think best suits you.Encircle only ONE option for each question.Name :( optional) _________________________Designation:______________________Bank’s Name: ______________________Branch’s Name: ________________Age____ Gender___________Furniture1. My furniture is flexible to adjust, rearrange or reorganize my workspace.1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Almost4- Fairly enough5- Completely flexible2. My furniture is comfortable enough so that I can work without getting tired till 5pm.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agree3. The physical conditions at work influence my productivity.1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Often4- Mostly5- Always4. Adequate and comfortable furniture will affect my productivity positively.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agreeNoise5. My work environment is quiet.1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Often4- Mostly5- Always6. I am able to have quiet and undisturbed time alone.1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Often4- Mostly5- Always

117. My workspace has many noise distractions.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agree8. Noise free environment will increase my productivity.1- 10%2- 20%3- 30%4- 40%5- 50% or moreTemperature9. To what extent your room temperature affects your normal level of productivity.1- No effect2- Positive effect3- Normal effect4- Quite good effect5- Bad effect10. The overall temperature of my workspace in winters is1- Cold2- Cool3- Pleasant4- Slightly warm5- Warm11. The overall temperature of my workspace in Summers is1- Cold2- Cool3- Pleasant4- Slightly warm5- Warm12. I am able to control temperature or airflow in my office.1-I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agreeLighting13. My workspace is provided with efficient lighting so that I can work easily without strain on my eyes.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agree14. Do you have control over the lighting on your desk (i-e adjustable desk light on desk)?1- Not at all2- To some extent3- I don’t need desk light4- Mostly5- Completely15. Ample amount of natural light comes into my office.1- Not at all2- To some extent

123- Often4- Mostly5- Always16. Number of windows in my work area complete my fresh air and light need.1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Did not notice4- Mostly5- Always

Spatial Arrangement17. My office/branch is open enough to see my colleagues working.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agree18. My work area is sufficiently equipped for my typical needs (normal storage, movements, etc).1- Not at all2- To some extent3- Often4- Mostly5- Always19. I am satisfied with the amount of space for storage and displaying important materials.1- Extremely dissatisfied2- Dissatisfied3- Neutral4- Satisfied5- Extremely satisfied20. My workspace serves multi purpose functions for informal and instant meetings.1- I strongly disagree2- I disagree3- I’m neutral4- I agree5- I strongly agreeProductivity21. Favorable environmental conditions(less noise, suitable temperature etc) in the office building willincrease my productivity at work1- No effect2- Increase by 20%3- Increase by 30%4- Increase by 40%5- Increase by 50% or more22. Unfavorable environmental conditions(noise distractions, unsuitable temperature etc) in the officebuilding will Decrease my productivity at work1- No effect2- Decrease by 20%3- Decrease by 30%4- Decrease by 40%5- Decrease by 50% or more23. Due to overall office environment can you complete your daily tasks easily?1- Not at all

132- To some extent3- Often4- Mostly5- Always24. By what percentage your overall productivity would increase if the related office environmentproblems are solved.1- No change2- 10%3- 20%4- 30%5- 40% or more.