The Relation Between Activity-Based Work Environments and Office Workers’ Job Attitudes and Vitality

Abstract

Activity-based work environments (WEs) aim to support office workers doing both concentrated and communicative work, but empirical tests are rare. We expected the availability of different WEs to be beneficial for job attitudes and vitality, and that the benefits would be stronger when available WEs were perceived to fit to tasks, and when workers used WEs appropriately. As predictors of appropriate use of WEs, we postulated need for routine seeking and trust in management. Hypotheses were tested in a questionnaire study with 560 office workers from different organizations. The availability of WEs that support undisturbed working was positively related to job attitudes and vitality. For WEs that support communicative work, job attitudes and vitality were additionally explained by the relative fit to the task and appropriate use of WEs. Finally, appropriate use of WEs correlated positively with trust in management and negatively with workers’ need for routine seeking.

Keywords

activity-based workspaces person–environment fit work environment use trust in management need for routine seeking

Organizations increasingly implement office layouts that include work environments (WEs) that are activity-based, that is, office space that is designed to support different task characteristics, such as spaces for solitary concentrated work, for creative work, or for collaborative work with others (e.g., De Been & Beijer, 2014; Hoendervanger, De Been, Van Yperen, Mobach, & Albers, 2016). Prominent examples are combi-offices and activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs) whose characteristic features include the provision of WEs supporting different tasks and the use of desk-sharing (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017). Through these office designs, organizations respond to the requirements of modern office work—to communicate and interact with colleagues as well as to concentrate on tasks—as office workers can easily switch workstations according to their current task requirements (e.g., Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008). In addition, a better fit between task requirements and WEs is expected to positively affect office workers’ job attitudes and well-being.

Although a growing body of literature emphasizes the importance of investigating the impact of office layouts on job attitudes and well-being in general (e.g., Ashkanasy, Ayoko, & Jehn, 2014; Elsbach & Pratt, 2007), research has only started to examine whether and how the provision of activity-based WEs for concentrated or collaborative work lives up to its expectations. Moreover, existing studies on office design often have investigated effects of combined design features and are rather silent on the individual impact of single features in isolation (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, 2011; Bodin Danielsson, Chungkham, Wulff, & Westerlund, 2014; De Been, Beijer, & Den Hollander, 2015; Gerdenitsch, Korunka, & Hertel, 2017). Consequently, it is difficult to understand the isolated effects of particular WEs for different tasks. For notable exceptions, see, for example, studies on desk-sharing (Hirst, 2011; Kim, Candido, Thomas, & de Dear, 2016; Millward, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007), openness of WEs (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002), or physical design parameters such as workstation size or window access (Brunia, de Been, & van der Voordt, 2016; Leder, Newsham, Veitch, Mancini, & Charles, 2016). Furthermore, hardly any study has considered current task requirements that might moderate the effects of WEs (for notable exceptions see (Haynes, 2008b; Seddigh, Berntson, Bodin Danielsson, & Westerlund, 2014). As the provision of activity-based WEs is a key but also costly feature of office design today, empirical research that systematically examines the postulated effects of activity-based WEs is desirable.

The current study examined potential relations between activity-based WEs and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. For job attitudes, we considered job satisfaction as positive feelings toward the job itself or job-related experiences (Locke, 1976) and affective commitment as an emotional attachment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996). Vitality is defined as an affective, dynamic component of well-being and reflects general physical and mental health that captures the subjective experience of energy, liveliness, and the willingness to invest effort (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Drawing upon the needs-supplies conceptualization of person–environment fit (P-E-fit) theory (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof, 1996), we expect that the perceived fit between task requirements and WEs (need–supply fit) is positively associated with office workers’ job attitudes and vitality because work-related needs can be fulfilled (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004). Furthermore, the relationship between need–supply fit and outcomes might be qualified by workers’ willingness to use WEs according to the task requirements. A fit between work-related needs and provided WEs is only realized when office workers actually use the appropriate WEs for current tasks, which should in turn positively affect job attitudes and vitality (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).

The contribution of the current study is to provide a better understanding of activity-based WEs in four aspects: First, we empirically test their postulated relation to office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Second, we disentangle the interplay of the most common types of task requirements and WEs in organizations—namely, WEs for undisturbed work and WEs for interactive and collaborative work—and their relation to office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Third, we distinguish between perceiving a potential fit between task requirements and WEs (need–supply fit) and the appropriate use of them. Fourth, we also examine (according to our knowledge, for the first time) potential predictors of appropriate use of WEs, that is, trust in management and individuals’ need for routine seeking, which is the employees’ desire to have routine and stability in their lives.

WEs Supporting Different Work Activities

Office work includes a variety of activities that pose different demands on office workers (Davenport, 2013; Heerwagen, Kampschroer, Powell, & Loftness, 2004). When studying office work, two basic categories can be identified: concentrated work that deals with focused tasks and is carried out alone, as well as collaborative and interactive work performed with others. For concentrated work, office workers need to spend time alone to think or draw upon their analytical skills. These task requirements can be supported by undisturbed WEs that reduce the level of unplanned disruptions and disturbances. Collaborative and interactive work requires sharing of information and exchanging ideas with colleagues. Such tasks require communicative WEs, such as meeting rooms or discussion zones for planned communication, creativity zones for developing new ideas, or coffee lounges for prompting spontaneous sharing of ideas (Davenport, 2013; Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011; Haynes, 2008a). During a single workday, the tasks of an office worker can vary considerably, posing constantly changing requirements on the WEs to support the specific tasks. Providing WEs for concentration or communication purposes is part of many office designs (Duffy & Powell, 1997). Examples range from early office designs, such as the Bürolandschaft (“office landscape”), a movement already introduced in the 1960s to provide a more collaborative office by rearranging desks from rows into groups (e.g., van Meel, 2000; Zalesny & Farace, 1987), to corporate campuses, an office design providing amenities like cafeterias and fitness centers that should contribute to cross-departmental communication (Becker, Sims, & Schoss, 2003). More recent approaches include combi-offices, which group private or shared cells around an additional common space (e.g., Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2009), or A-FOs, providing task-supporting WEs and desk-sharing within open or half open WEs (e.g., Wohlers & Hertel, 2017).¹ Yet, office designs differ in the extent to which they provide additional WEs for both communicative and concentrative work (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008; Brunia et al., 2016). The most advanced design today is probably the A-FO, whose central feature is the provision of additional WEs for communication and concentration purposes (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017). According to signaling theory (e.g., Casper & Harris, 2008), the provision of additional WEs may signal that the organization cares about employees’ well-being, which in turn should trigger favorable job attitudes. The latter assumption is in line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), assuming that benefits or rewards received from another party generate felt obligations to respond in a positive way to this party (reciprocity norm). Moreover, we proposed that perceived signals of the organization’s care about employees’ well-being should also directly affect workers’ well-being (in this study, represented by vitality) in addition to their job attitudes. Thus, based on signaling theory as well as social exchange theory, we hypothesized that the mere supplies of additional WEs (without considering the interplay between current task requirements and available WEs) are already positively related to workers’ job attitudes and vitality:

Hypothesis 1a: Office workers’ perception of mere supplies of undisturbed WEs is positively related to their job attitudes and vitality.

Hypothesis 1b: Office workers’ perception of mere supplies of communicative WEs is positively related to their job attitudes and vitality.

Effects of Need–Supply Fit on Job Attitudes and Well-Being

The interplay between task requirements and the supplies of WEs is addressed in P-E-fit theory (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006; Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). P-E-fit theory distinguishes different forms of fit between person and environment, with need–supply fit referring to the congruence between the needs of a person and the supplies available to fulfill these needs (French, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982; Kristof, 1996). Needs generally refer to a person’s biological and psychological requirements, values, motives, and goals (Harrison, 1985). Supplies refer to any aspects that are helpful for a person to fulfill her or his needs, such as intrinsic or extrinsic rewards (e.g., money or social involvement) or environmental conditions (e.g., ergonomic workstations, air conditioning; Cable & Edwards, 2004; French et al., 1982). According to P-E-fit theory, work-related outcomes are maximized when supplies perfectly match individual needs (Edwards, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1998; French et al., 1982; Harrison, 1978). This positive effect can be explained based on need fulfillment theories, which propose that people experience negative affect when they perceive that supplies are inadequate to fulfill their needs (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Locke, 1969). Conversely, when people perceive that supplies are matching their needs, this can lead to positive work-related attitudes (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009) and well-being (Furnham & Schaeffer, 1984). Moreover, in the context of need–supply fit, research has revealed that supplies beyond needs, that is, oversupplies, do not necessarily affect outcomes negatively (Cable & Edwards, 2004), which can be explained by conservation mechanisms (Edwards, 1996). Conservation posits that oversupplies improve outcomes, such as satisfaction, by retaining supplies, thus ensuring need fulfillment now and at later times (Edwards, 1996). In other words, when office workers perceive oversupplies of WEs (i.e., there are more supplies than needed), they can be confident that there is always a suitable workplace available for them when necessary, guaranteeing a good fit also in the future. Thus, supplies matching the requirements or even exceeding them should have a beneficial impact on job attitudes and vitality. We employed the term need–supply fit to describe how well the provided office supplies (i.e., either undisturbed or communicative WEs) matched the workers’ task requirements. Note that this term covers the whole range from undersupply (or underfit), where the supplies do not match all task requirements, to a perfect fit, up to oversupply (or overfit), where the supplies exceed the task requirements. Based on these theoretical considerations, we hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 2a: Office workers’ perception of need–supply fit of undisturbed WEs is positively related to their job attitudes and vitality.

Hypothesis 2b: Office workers’ perception of need–supply fit of communicative WEs is positively related to their job attitudes and vitality.

Moderating Effect of Appropriate Use of WEs

Empirical research has so far provided mixed results on the effects of A-FOs, that is, effects of office designs that explicitly provide activity-based WEs on job attitudes and well-being. Although some studies showed higher levels of employee health and job satisfaction in these office types as compared with traditional office types (Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008), other studies reported negative effects (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011; De Been & Beijer, 2014).

A potential explanation for the unexpected negative effects of A-FOs might be that beneficial effects of activity-based WEs do not occur automatically with their installation, but only if these WEs are used appropriately by office workers. Indeed, office workers often choose WEs that are inappropriate to their current task requirements due to personal preferences and routines (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011). For instance, a recent study by Hoendervanger et al. (2016) has revealed that employees were more satisfied with the office design and productivity support the more they switched workstations during the day. Although this study did not test for causal effects between switching behavior and outcomes, these findings might indicate a beneficial effect of an appropriate use of WEs if employees’ switching behavior is connected with choosing an appropriate WE. Thus, in addition to a perceived fit between WEs and task requirements, it might also be important that office workers actively choose these supplies according to the task requirements. Office workers that actually work in an environment supporting their needs should have additional resources to better cope with the strain of job demands (cf. Job Demands–Resources [JD-R] model, Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). More specifically, we expect that office workers report more favorable job attitudes and more vitality when they choose to work in WEs that support undisturbed work when they need to concentrate (i.e., establish a task–environment fit). In contrast, office workers who work in a communicative WE when they have to concentrate, should face interruptions and disturbances and, consequently, should exhibit less favorable job attitudes and impaired vitality. Hence, we expected that the appropriate use of WEs moderates the relationship between perceived need–supply fit as predictor and job attitudes and vitality as outcome variables:

Hypothesis 3a: The appropriate use of undisturbed WEs moderates the relationship between need–supply fit of undisturbed WEs and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. When office workers use the appropriate WEs, need–supply fit is more strongly related to job attitudes and vitality.

Hypothesis 3b: The appropriate use of communicative WEs moderates the relationship between need–supply fit of communicative WEs and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. When office workers use the appropriate WEs, need–supply fit is more strongly related to job attitudes and vitality.

Predictors of Appropriate Use of Different WEs

To explore office workers’ motivations for using WEs appropriately, we also examined potential predictors of appropriate use of WEs. In doing so, we considered an organization-related factor (i.e., trust in management) and a person-related factor (i.e., workers’ need for routine seeking). Switching workstations might be hindered because office workers feel uncertain whether this behavior is fully accepted by supervisors and management. For instance, an office worker who often chooses to work in a silent area out of sight of others has to trust that the management does not misinterpret and sanction his or her switching behavior, making it risky to choose workstations based on personal needs. Trust in management has been shown to enable people to cope with situations entailing risks or uncertainty (Lane & Bachmann, 1996; Luhmann, 1979; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2009) by holding a positive attitude toward the goodwill and predictability of another party’s behavior and decisions (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). When office workers have high trust in their management (who is usually responsible for the office design), they should have the sense that switching workstations according to personal needs is accepted and even desired, and therefore interpreted in a positive and benevolent way. This in turn should help office workers to be more committed toward the office design and encourage the switching of workstations in accordance to their task requirements.

Hypothesis 4: Trust in management is positively related to the appropriate use of WEs.

Switching of workstations is also accompanied by a change of routines, structures, or work habits and a loss of stability. Workdays are less predictable, for instance, with respect to the location of a free workstation or seating neighbor. Individuals differ in the extent to which they accept such changes or easily give up routines and habits (Kirton, 1980; Oreg, 2003). Studies have illustrated that people with a high need for routine seeking react more negatively toward change processes, innovations, and other situations affecting their daily routines and habits (e.g., Oreg, 2006). Having to switch the WEs contingent on the tasks might be particularly challenging for workers with a high need for routine. Consequently, these workers might be more likely to establish seating preferences and not switch their workstation according to their task requirements, as this might support some kind of stability and routine at work. Thus, we expect that personal characteristics that reflect an employee’s desire to have routines and stability will be a negative predictor of appropriate WEs’ use. Figure 1 depicts the proposed research framework.

Figure 1.

Proposed research framework.

Hypothesis 5: Need for routine seeking is negatively related to the appropriate use of WEs.

Method

Sample and Procedure

This study used a cross-sectional design; data from participants were collected via a questionnaire at one point in time. The sample consisted of N = 562 office workers from a variety of organizations. The sample was obtained via an online business network (https://www.xing.com) for the German speaking region (n = 299, incentivized with an Amazon voucher of 8 Euros each) and via an existing online panel (n = 263) for psychological research (https://psyweb.uni-muenster.de). Online panels consist of voluntarily subscribed participants, allowing immediate access to participants, short field times, and high data quality (Göritz, 2007). The survey responses came from office workers employed in different office designs with differing extent and nature of additional workspaces. These extra workspaces are a part of several office designs, but are the central feature of A-FOs. To capture the effect of varying degrees of additional WEs, we recruited participants from various office types (A-FO, combi-office, etc.). To ensure a high number of participants with activity-based WEs in our sample, we explicitly contacted employees of organizations which we knew had introduced A-FOs. In contrast, participants recruited via the online panel typically worked in more traditional office designs with varying degrees of activity-based WEs. Thus, the results are not restricted to A-FOs, but are based on a variety of office designs with varying degrees of activity-based WEs. We only excluded two persons who stated not to work in an office.

The final sample consisted of N = 560 office workers (53.4% males and 46.6% females). The average age was 42.2 years (SD = 9.88 years) with a range from 20 to 64 years. The average organizational tenure was 12.5 years (SD = 10.26 years). Regarding educational attainment, 5.0% reported to hold a PhD, 65.0% a university degree, 17.2% a German A-level high school degree, and 12.8% a German B- or C-level high school degree, respectively. Overall, 33.2% of the participants reported to have leadership functions. Participants worked in a variety of industries and occupations (health care/public service: 22.9%, IT/consulting: 20.7%, industry: 19.0%, financial sector: 17.6%, energy/logistics: 6.4%, others: 13.4%). About half of the participants (53.8%) reported to have an enclosed office room, whereas the other half (46.2%) reported to work in an open office landscape. A permanent workstation was used by 71.4% of the participants, whereas 28.6% of the participants reported desk-sharing. Additional WEs (e.g., communication zones, creativity zones) for different kinds of work activities were available for 66.1% of the participants. The number of participants working in an A-FO, that is, participants without an assigned workstation who had access to activity-based WEs, accounted for 24.3%. The majority of the respondents (62.1%) worked in multiperson offices (4 to >24 persons), 18.9% had shared offices (2-3 persons), and 19.0% had single offices.

Measures

Task requirements

We assessed the extent to which tasks require undisturbed working or communication with 10 author-developed items. All items were scored on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR estimator) confirmed the proposed two-factor structure and yielded good fit indicators, χ²(30, N = 560) = 75.67, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .05. The first factor (undisturbed working) encompassed five items asking for the need to work without disturbances in privacy (sample item: “My work tasks require me to be able to work without distractions and disturbances.”). Cronbach’s alpha was .75. The second factor included five items assessing the need to interact and collaborate with colleagues (sample item: “My work tasks require me to be able to have intensive discussions with colleagues.”). Cronbach’s alpha was .83. The correlation of both factors was r = .20, p < .001. Original German and translated English items are listed in the online appendix.

WEs

We asked participants whether their organization offers undisturbed WEs or communicative WEs with the same phrases used above for task requirements. This ensured that the fit dimensions for our analysis are commensurate (i.e., needs and supplies are described in the same terms and assessed on the same metric scale; French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974), which is an important prerequisite for fit analyses (e.g., Edwards & Shipp, 2007). All items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The two-factor structure was confirmed using CFA with MLR estimator, χ²(31, N = 560) = 95.99, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .03, yielding good model fit indicators. The two factors encompassed undisturbed WEs (sample item: “My organization offers work environments where I can work without distractions and disturbances.”) and communicative WEs (sample item: “My organization offers work environments where I can have intensive discussions with colleagues.”). Both factors correlated (r = .65, p < .001). Cronbach’s alpha for undisturbed WEs was .92 and for communicative WEs it was .85. Items are listed in German and in English in the online appendix.

Job attitudes

We considered job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment as central job attitudes in this study. Job satisfaction, defined as a pleasant state of the appraisal of the characteristics of the job itself or job-related experiences (cf. Locke, 1976), was measured with a single item (“All in all I am satisfied with my job.”) on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Affective organizational commitment, understood as emotional attachment with the organization (cf. Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996) was measured with a three-item scale (Fisher, 2014; sample item: “I feel like I really belong to this company.”). These items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Given the high correlation between job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment in this study (r = .62, p < .001), we created a composite “job attitude” measure of the two variables after transforming the commitment scale to the same 7-point scale as the job satisfaction scale (Cronbach’s α = .86).

Vitality

We measured vitality as a specific aspect of well-being. Vitality is an affective, dynamic component of well-being and reflects general physical and mental health that captures the subjective experience of energy, aliveness, and the willingness to invest effort (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). We assessed vitality by using the three-item vigor subscale of the German version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–9 (UWES-9; Schaufeli, 2006). The items were scored on a 7-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). A sample item is “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.” Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Appropriate use of WEs

Similar to how we assessed task requirements and WEs, we formulated 10 items that assessed the appropriate use of WEs. All items (see online appendix) were answered on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Analogous to the WE items, we assumed a two-factor structure (appropriate use of undisturbed WEs as well as appropriate use of communicative WEs), which was confirmed by a CFA with MLR estimator, χ²(29, N = 560) = 91.31, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. One factor included five items assessing the use of undisturbed WEs according to task requirements (sample item: “I use work environments that support working without distractions and disturbances when I need to be able to work without distractions and disturbances.”). The second factor included five items assessing the use of communicative WEs when tasks require this (sample item: “I use work environments that support having intensive discussions with colleagues when I need to be able to have intensive discussions with colleagues.”). The two factors correlated (r = .61, p < .001) and Cronbach’s alpha for appropriate use of undisturbed WEs was .90 and for communicative WEs it was .83.

Trust in management

We used the well-established four-item subscale from Mayer and Davis (1999) to measure the extent to which participants were willing to accept management’s decisions (for a review on the measures of trust in the organizational context, see McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011). A sample item of this scale is “I would be willing to let top management have complete control over my future in this company.” All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .71.

Need for routine seeking

We assessed need for routine seeking by the routine seeking dimension of the Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) to measure the extent to which participants prefer routine and stability in contrast to changes and novelty. The five items were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I’ll take a routine day over a day of full of unexpected events any time.” Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

Control variables

In addition to demographic variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, and educational level), we controlled for contextual and potential confounding influences such as office layout (i.e., open vs. enclosed office environment) and task variability, which was assessed with one item (“How much variability is there in your task?”) answered on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (very low—I always do the same type of tasks) to 7 (very much—I always do different types of tasks). We did not control for permanent/shared desk as this variable was not significantly correlated with our outcome variables (partial correlation job attitudes: r_XY|Z = .04, p = .342; partial correlation vitality: r_XY|Z = .01, p = .765). Nevertheless, the results of our main analyses were virtually the same when controlling for this variable.

Analytical Approach

Effects of need–supply fit and the moderation of appropriate use of activity-based WEs on outcomes were tested by applying (moderated) polynomial regression with response surface analysis (RSA; cf. Devloo, Anseel, & de Beuckelaer, 2011; Thielgen, Krumm, & Hertel, 2015). For moderated polynomial regression, the RSA was conducted for different values of the moderator variable separately (±1 SD; cf. Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991).

Prior to the analysis, we scale-centered our predictors (Edwards, 1994; Shanock, Baran, Gentry, Pattison, & Heggestad, 2010). Compared with difference scores or moderated regressions, the use of polynomial regression for the analysis of fit hypotheses is more rigid, has more explanatory potential (Edwards, 2002; Edwards & Parry, 1993), and enabled us to determine how need–supply fit, as the interplay of supplied WEs and task requirements, relates to the outcomes (Edwards, 1994, 2002; Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock et al., 2010). In RSA, the polynomial regression results are then interpreted using a three-dimensional plot of the data (Shanock et al., 2010). We conducted moderated polynomial regressions hierarchically and entered the control variables in Step 1, supplied WEs in Step 2, task requirements and supplied WEs, as well as the nonlinear and interaction terms in Step 3, the moderator variable appropriate use of WEs in Step 4, the moderation terms of use of WEs in Step 5 (cf. Edwards, 1996; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). Note that supplied WEs were entered separately in Step 2 to exclude the possibility that effects of the interaction terms of the predictor variables (Step 3) solely relied on the effect of the supplies component irrespective of task requirements. When the regression models yielded significant incremental explained variance for the step of interest, results of the (moderated) polynomial regression analyses were further qualified by RSA.

Results

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach’s α) of all measures are reported in Table 1. (Moderated) polynomial regression analyses pertaining to all hypotheses are displayed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities (Cronbach’s α on the Diagonal), and Correlations Between the Study Variables.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
1.	Age	—^a
2.	Gender^a	.05	—^a
3.	Organizational tenure	.59***	.00	—^a
4.	Educational attainment^a	−.21***	.08^†	−.27***	—^a
5.	Office environment^a	.20***	−.10*	.16***	−.07	—^a
6.	Task variability	.03	.15***	−.04	.19***	−.15**	—^a
7.	Need for UW	.09*	.04	.05	.11**	.16***	.20***	(.75)
8.	Need for COM	−.08^†	.11**	−.08*	.14**	−.28***	.31***	.20***	(.83)
9.	Work environment UW	.08^†	.11**	.07	.04	.09*	.17***	.14**	.02	(.92)
10.	Work environment COM	−.04	.11**	−.02	.07	−.13**	.17***	.04	.31***	.65***	(.85)
11.	Appropriate use of UW work environment	.08^†	.10*	.03	.12**	.05	.17***	.25**	.05	.78***	.49***	(.90)
12.	Appropriate use of COM work environment	−.06	.09*	−.04	.16***	−.12**	.22***	.11*	.36***	.52***	.80***	.61***	(.83)
13.	Trust in management	−.08^†	.01	−.11**	−.01	−.10*	.12**	.03	.06	.20***	.18***	.12**	.12**	(.71)
14.	Need for routine seeking	−.11**	−.16***	.04	−.10*	.11**	−.34***	−.11*	−.15**	−.13**	−.14**	−.17***	−.17***	−.08^†	(.82)
15.	Job attitudes	−.04	.05	.02	.00	−.02	.26***	.05	.18***	.38***	.36***	.26***	.28***	.51***	−.13**	(.86)
16.	Vitality	.05	.06	.04	.02	−.07	.41***	.18***	.24***	.29***	.29***	.25***	.25***	.31***	−.28***	.62***	(.85)
	M	42.19	—^a	10.78	—^a	—^a	5.40	5.37	5.08	5.11	5.25	5.32	5.36	2.80	2.59	4.14	4.71
	SD	9.88	—^a	9.51	—^a	—^a	1.44	1.09	1.24	1.54	1.21	1.47	1.17	0.79	0.79	0.97	1.23

Note. Cronbach’s alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. N = 560. UW = undisturbed working; COM = communicative work.

Means and standard deviations are not reported for categorical variables. Cronbach’s alphas are not reported for categorical and single items. Gender (1 = female, 2 = male); educational attainment (1 = no secondary school degree, 8 = doctoral degree); office environment (1 = open office environment, 2 = enclosed office environment).

†

p < .10. ^*p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

Table 2.

Polynomial Regression Analysis Predicting Work-Related Outcomes From (Mis)fit of Task Requirements and Supplied Undisturbed Environments or Communicative Environments.

	Undisturbed WEs		Communicative WEs
	JAβ	VITβ	JAβ	VITβ
Step 1
Age	−.11*	.01	−.11*	.01
Gender	.02	.00	.02	.00
Tenure	.07	.04	.07	.04
Educational attainment	−.06	−.05	−.06	−.05
Office environment	.03	−.02	.03	−.02
Task variability	.28***	.42***	.28***	.42***
Step 2
Supplied WEs	.35***	.23***	.32***	.23***
Step 3
Needed WEs	−.13^†	−.03	−.05	.01
Needed WEs²	.11	.13†	−.01	−.01
Needed WEs × Supplied WEs	−.01	.01	.17**	.17**
Supplied WEs²	.02	−.01	.05	.04
Step 4
Use of WEs	−.09	.01	−.04	−.02
Step 5
Needed WEs × Use of WEs	.04	−.12	.30	.83**
Supplied × Use of WEs	−.01	−.16	.65*	.66**
(Needed × Use of WEs)²	−.21	.06	−.44*	−.47*
Needed WEs × Supplied WEs × Use of WEs	−.04	.42†	−.05	−.10
(Supplied × Use of WEs)²	−.25	−.10	.09	.28
Step 1: ∆R²	.08***	.17***	.08***	.17***
Step 2: ∆R²	.11***	.05***	.10***	.05***
Step 3: ∆R²	.01	.01^†	.02*	.02**
Step 4: ∆R²	.00	.00	.00	.00
Step 5: ∆R²	.00	.01	.02*	.03**
R² total	.21***	.24***	.21***	.27***
F total	8.30	9.96	8.66	11.72

Note. WEs = work environments; JA = job attitudes; β = standardized regression coefficients; VIT = vitality.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Activity-Based WEs That Support Undisturbed Working

We first tested whether the mere supplies of undisturbed WEs explained variance in the outcomes in addition to the control variables (cf. Step 2 in Table 2). Adding the supplies of undisturbed WEs to the regression model revealed a significant increment in explained variance for both outcomes (job attitudes: ∆R² = .11, p < .001; vitality: ∆R² = .05, p < .001). The regression weights for job attitudes (β = .35, p < .001) and vitality (β = .23, p < .001) indicated that supplies of undisturbed WEs related positively to office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported.

Second, we tested whether task requirements and the relationship between task requirements and the supplied WEs explained additional variance in the outcomes. As displayed in Table 2, Step 3 did not explain additional variance in job attitudes (∆R² = .01, p = .482) or vitality (∆R² = .01, p = .084). Thus, the need–supply fit between task requirements and supplies of undisturbed WEs did not explain additional variance beyond the (main) effect of supplied WEs. This result did not support Hypothesis 2a. We also found no evidence that the relationship between perceived need–supply fit of undisturbed WEs and workers’ job attitudes and vitality was moderated by the appropriate use of undisturbed WEs (Hypothesis 3a), as the results of the moderated polynomial regression analyses incorporating the moderation term of appropriate use of undisturbed WEs (see Step 5 in Table 2) showed no additional effects (job attitudes: ∆R² = .00, p = .756; vitality: ∆R² = .01, p = .578). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not supported. Together, for activity-based WEs that support undisturbed working, the results suggest that just offering these WEs relates positively to job attitudes and vitality irrespective of task requirements and appropriate WEs’ use.

Activity-Based WEs That Support Communication

Analogous to the analyses of activity-based WEs that support undisturbed working, we first examined the mere supplies of WEs that support communication. As displayed in Step 2 of Table 2, the polynomial regression revealed a significant increment of variance in job attitudes (∆R² = .10, p < .001) and in vitality (∆R² = .05, p < .001). The regression weights indicated that supplies of communicative WEs related positively to job attitudes (β = .32, p < .001) and vitality (β = .23, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was supported.

Adding task requirements and the interaction of task requirements and supplied WEs into the model (cf. Table 2, Step 3) yielded a small, but significant increment in explained variance both for job attitudes (∆R² = .02, p = .025) and for vitality (∆R² = .02, p = .006). Given these significant increments, we further examined the surface charts (Figure 2) and surface parameters for the lines of interest. To interpret the data in RSA, two reference lines in the chart are of importance. First, the fit line indicates the direction along which current office workers’ task requirements and currently supplied WEs exhibit a perfect fit (requirements = supplies, for example, requirements = 2 and supplies = 2). Second, the misfit line indicates the direction along which the current task requirements and the current WEs are opposing (requirements = −supplies, for example, requirements = 2 and supplies = −2, each on a centered scale from −3 to 3), that is, along this line the need–supply relation varies from an undersupply to an oversupply. The graph’s shape can be described by the slopes (a₁ and a₃) and curvatures (a₂ and a₄) along the two reference lines (cf. Shanock et al., 2010). A significant a₁ indicates that the outcome increases when both predictors (task requirements and supplied WEs) increase. A significant a₂ coefficient indicates that under the assumption of a fit, both a high and a low value of the predictors relate to the outcome. A significant a₃ coefficient represents that the misfit of the two predictors directly relates to the outcome variable, whereas a negative coefficient indicates that the outcome increases when the supplies increase as compared with the needs. Finally, a₄ indicates how the degree of the lack of fit between the predictors relates to the outcomes, irrespective of the direction of the lack of fit. As Hypothesis 2b predicted that need–supply fit relates positively to the outcomes, we assume a significant negative slope of the misfit line (a₃). The results of the analysis of slopes and curvatures testing Hypothesis 2b are displayed in Table 3. Figure 2 shows the surface charts related to Hypothesis 2b.

Figure 2.

Surface charts of Hypothesis 2b.

Table 3.

Effects of Need–Supply Fit and Appropriate Use of Work Environments Supporting Communication on Outcomes: Analysis of Slopes and Curvatures.

Effect as related to outcomes	Shape along fit line		Shape along misfit line
Effect as related to outcomes	Slopea₁	Curvaturea₂	Slopea₃	Curvaturea₄
Hypothesis 2b^a
Main effect JA	.18*	.10**	−.26**	−.01
Main effect VIT	.13^†	.09**	−.10	−.07
Moderation effect appropriate use
Hypothesis 3b^b JA
Nonappropriate use	.05	.18	−.44^†	.05
Appropriate use	.79	.06	−.81**	−.15
Hypothesis 3b^b VIT
Nonappropriate use	−.10	.19	−.24	.02
Appropriate use	−.21	.22	−.58**	−.21

Note. The columns labeled a₁ + a₂ represent slope and curvature of the task requirements for work environment = supplied work environment (fit line). The columns labeled a₃ + a₄ represent slope and curvature of the task requirements for work environment = − supplied work environment (misfit line). JA = job attitudes; VIT = vitality.

Coefficients are based on regression equation up to Step 3.

Coefficients are based on regression equation up to Step 5.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results of the RSA showed that the slope along the misfit line (a₃) was significant for job attitudes (a₃ = −.26, p = .003) but not for vitality (a₃ = −.10, p = .182). These results indicate that need–supply fit of communicative WEs was associated with better job attitudes, but not with vitality. Thus, we found partial support for Hypothesis 2b.

Testing the moderation effect of appropriate use (Hypothesis 3b), we expected that the slope coefficient (a₃) for the misfit line is strengthened for office workers who use the WEs according to their task requirements. For tasks requiring communicative WEs, Step 5 (cf. Table 2) of the polynomial regression analysis revealed an increment of variance for all outcomes (job attitudes: ∆R² = .02, p = .041; vitality ∆R² = .03, p = .002). We computed two separate polynomial regressions, that is, one for low levels (−1 SD) and one for high levels of the moderator (+1 SD; cf. Aiken et al., 1991) to compare users that use the WEs appropriately and those who do not. Again, we plotted the data for each regression in surface charts and computed the surface parameters (cf. Devloo et al., 2011). Figure 3 shows the surface charts for testing the moderation effect of appropriate use (Hypothesis 3b). In line with Hypothesis 3b, we found that office workers who used WEs appropriately yielded a negative slope of the misfit line (job attitudes: a₃ = −.81, p = .001; vitality: a₃ = −.58, p = .007), whereas this relation was not significant for office workers who did not use WEs appropriately (job attitudes: a₃ = −.44, p = .068; vitality: a₃ = −.24, p = .221). Hence, appropriate use strengthened the relationship between need–supply fit of communicative WEs and the outcomes. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was supported.

Figure 3.

Surface charts of Hypothesis 3b.

Together, for communicative WEs, results have revealed that perceived need–supply fit of communicative WEs was associated with better job attitudes. In addition, the appropriate use of communicative WEs moderated the relationship between need–supply fit and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Perceived need–supply fit of communicative WEs related more strongly to job attitudes and vitality for office workers who used these WEs appropriately compared with office workers who did not.

Predictors of appropriate WEs use

To better understand which factors contribute to an appropriate use of WEs, we also examined potential predictors of such use. To test Hypothesis 4 (trust in management relates positively to the appropriate use of WEs), we calculated a partial correlation, controlling for the same variables as in the polynomial regression analyses. In line with Hypothesis 4, trust in management correlated positively with the appropriate use of communicative WEs (r_XY|Z = .09, p = .039). Moreover, the partial correlation coefficient between need for routine seeking and appropriate use of communicative WEs was negative (r_XY|Z = −.10, p = .019). Thus, in line with Hypothesis 5, a high need for structure related negatively to the appropriate use of WEs.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to explore the relation of activity-based WEs with office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. In addition to merely having access to certain types of WEs, we put a special emphasis on the interplay of task requirements and WEs. Drawing upon P-E-fit theory, we examined whether office workers’ perceived fit of task requirements (needs) and WEs (supplies) explained additional variance in job attitudes and vitality beyond merely having access to the WEs. Moreover, we tested whether these effects were further strengthened if office workers used the WEs appropriately. Finally, we investigated trust in management and need for routine seeking as potential predictors of appropriate use of activity-based WEs.

Results indicated that the mere supplies of undisturbed WEs were positively related to office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. This is in line with signaling theory (Casper & Harris, 2008), stating that the provision of benefits, such as additional WEs, signals organizations’ care and concern for employees which directly affects office workers’ well-being. The beneficial effects on job attitudes can be explained by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), indicating that employees respond in a positive way to offered benefits. When taking task requirements and appropriate use of undisturbed WEs into account, we found that, in contrast to our assumptions, no further variance was explained. This somewhat unexpected result might indicate a ceiling effect because about one third of the participants reported high requirements for concentrated work (mean = 6 or higher on a 7-point scale). In addition, undisturbed WEs might be perceived as a privilege and expression of the organization’s concern in general, regardless of specific task requirements. Moreover, having access to undisturbed and private WEs might establish a feeling of privacy as “selective control of access to the self” (Altman, 1975, p. 24) irrespective of task requirements, which has been shown to be positively related to job attitudes and well-being (Lee & Brand, 2010; Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980).

However, for communicative WEs, we found that office workers’ task requirements explained a small, but significant increment of variance in job attitudes and vitality beyond the mere supply of such WEs. More specifically, we found that more favorable job attitudes occurred for supplies of communicative WEs that exceeded workers’ needs. This result is in line with P-E-fit theory (Edwards, 1991; Edwards et al., 2006; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Having more WEs for communicative tasks than currently needed might increase workers’ confidence that they can always switch to an appropriate WE, and thus establish a good fit between task and environment at a later time, as described by the conservation process in P-E-fit research (Edwards, 1996). This finding is also consistent with research on reactions to over- and underpayment, revealing that employees were not negatively affected by overpayment (cf. Cable & Edwards, 2004; Mowday, 1996). Moreover, the risk of crowding and overstimulation that has been shown to be negatively associated with office workers’ satisfaction and well-being (Desor, 1972; May, Oldham, & Rathert, 2005; Oldham, 1988) is reduced when there is more space than needed. However, the positive results regarding need–supply fit for communicative WEs occurred only for job attitudes but not for vitality, possibly because office workers would need to use these WEs appropriately to experience higher vitality. Job attitudes, on the contrary, are cognitive evaluations that are even influenced by just being aware of the possibility to have suitable WEs available when needed. This assumption is underpinned by the results demonstrating a moderation effect of appropriate use of communicative WEs on the relationship between need–supply fit and outcomes. Office workers who reported to use communicative WEs appropriately reported more favorable job attitudes and more vitality compared with those who do not. That way, office workers can take advantage of the features of the WEs, which might result in a boost of energy and liveliness and more favorable job attitudes.

Finally, we identified two aspects that were connected to the appropriate use of WEs. On the organizational level, we found that trust in management was positively related to the appropriate use of WEs. On the individual level, the need for routine seeking was negatively related to it. Both findings provide valuable insights for management to define possible strategies to support the appropriate use of WEs.

Theoretical Implications

Together, the results of this research contribute to existing knowledge about the interrelations between functional features of office designs and workers’ experiences. Whereas some features are more extensively investigated, such as openness of WEs (e.g., Brennan et al., 2002; Kim & de Dear, 2013) and desk-sharing (Hirst, 2011; Kim et al., 2016; Millward et al., 2007), our study is among the first to provide empirical evidence for beneficial relationships between activity-based WEs supporting either concentration or communication, and job attitudes and vitality. To the best of our knowledge, previous studies focusing on the evaluation of office designs with different kinds of WEs mostly neglected to incorporate office workers’ task requirements, which is a central theoretical contribution of the current research. The results show that for the understanding and evaluation of effects of communicative WEs, office workers’ task requirements can play a role, whereas for undisturbed WEs, task requirements might be of minor importance. Our study demonstrates that it is important to distinguish between different types of activity-based WEs, as these interact with task requirements, and thus relate to job attitudes and well-being differently.

In addition, this study contributes to the office design literature by exploring the moderating effect of appropriate use of communicative WEs and provides information on how to foster this appropriate use. Previous research focusing on A-FOs discussed the role of inappropriate WEs’ use for explaining negative effects of activity-based WEs on job attitudes and well-being (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011). Our study now underlines these ideas with empirical results, demonstrating that need–supply fit of communicative WEs was associated with more favorable job attitudes and more vitality when office workers used the environments appropriately.

Beyond extending the office design literature, the results of our study also make a theoretical contribution to the P-E-fit literature. To the best of our knowledge, P-E-fit theory makes no clear assumptions whether the mere perception of a potential fit already suffices to yield beneficial effects on job attitudes and well-being, or whether it is important that employees actively use the supplies appropriately to their needs. Our results suggest that both mechanisms are associated with more favorable job attitudes and vitality. However, these positive outcomes might even increase further when workers actively establish a good fit.

Practical Implications

This study also provides practical implications for managers and architects in light of the increasing trends to build more flexible, activity-based offices with extra spaces for communication and interaction purposes. First, the mere supply of undisturbed WEs as well as communicative WEs can positively relate to office workers’ job attitudes and vitality, irrespective of the office workers’ task requirements for such WEs. For communicative WEs, the results of our study moreover suggest that it might do no harm to provide more communicative WEs than needed by the office workers. That way, office workers can always switch to WEs suitable to fulfill their task requirements. Yet, costs and benefits have to be balanced when planning to provide more communicative WEs than needed by the office workers, as the increase in explained variance when also considering task requirements and appropriate use of WEs was only small.

Moreover, the results of this study highlight the beneficial role of an appropriate use of communicative WEs. Given that previous research (e.g., Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011) on A-FOs has illustrated that WEs are often not used as intended, our results suggest potential beneficial effects of coaching interventions. Managers might want to educate and motivate their office workers to use the communicative WEs appropriately.

This study further identifies factors fostering or hindering the appropriate use of WEs. First, building trusting relationships between office workers and their supervisors seems to support the appropriate use. This is important because switching workstations might be misinterpreted or even sanctioned by supervisors, particularly if the followers are working out of sight. Trusting relationships with supervisors might buffer such concerns of employees. Therefore, supervisors in A-FOs or other office types providing activity-based WEs should pay particular attention to signal trust to their followers and explicitly encourage also working in WEs that are out of sight of themselves.

Furthermore, the results of our study point to need for routine seeking as a dispositional preference that might hinder the appropriate use of WEs. Thus, managers of A-FOs should also consider permitting stable WEs for those office workers who favor routines in their daily work and prefer working at the same workstation each day. Of course, this is not trivial as allowing workers to refrain from switching workstations might conflict with motivating others to use WEs appropriately. In general, supervisors might have to repeatedly stress the benefits and opportunities of activity-based WEs to motivate office workers to use these environments appropriately. Supervisors have to be aware that they act as role models in this respect.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although we found some support for our hypotheses, various limitations need to be considered. First, all measures were based on self-reported data, which might cause problems due to common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, using self-reported data is not a serious limitation in this study for two reasons: First, as argued by Devloo et al. (2011), common method variance is unlikely to generate nonlinear and interactive relationships. As we have hypothesized such relationships, we are confident that this design is suitable for answering our research questions. Second, office workers’ perceptions are the most appropriate source for the variables of interest as we aimed to capture the subjective experience of need–supply fit and related outcomes. Moreover, the perception of a fit or misfit in contrast to objective indicators has been demonstrated to have the strongest and most direct impact on psychological reactions (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Thus, self-reported data in this research provides valuable insights into the proposed relationships. Still, we cannot be sure that office workers really used the different WEs correctly. To better understand the moderation effect of appropriate use of WEs, future research is needed that gathers behavioral data on office workers’ use of different WEs. Observation studies in combination with a diary study and tracking devices seem to be promising approaches. In addition, the definition of “appropriate use of WEs” and “need–supply fit” rely on the premise that a particular WE indeed supports the tasks it was designed for. However, simply because a specific WE is labeled to support a particular activity does not guarantee that this WE indeed does so. Until now, only a few studies have examined how WEs need to be designed to support specific activities (Appel-Meulenbroek, 2010; Peponis et al., 2007). Future studies on this topic might also collect data that allow objective judgments about whether a WE is indeed supportive for the tasks it is designed for. In addition, future studies might also include objective measures characterizing the office layout, such as square meter or additional WE space allocated per person. As implementations of office designs vary in detail, such objective measures could facilitate the comparison of their effects.

Another limitation is that we used a single-item measure for job satisfaction. Single-item measures often are presumed to have low reliability and validity. Yet, various research has demonstrated that single-item measures have acceptable reliability and face validity when the construct of interest is unidimensional and clear to the respondents, as given in overall job satisfaction (Nagy, 2002; Wanous & Hudy, 2001; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).

Furthermore, all data (predictors of the moderator, moderator, independent and dependent variable) were collected at the same time. This prohibits conclusions about causal relationships, and therefore requires future replications of the results using longitudinal designs. Still, we interpreted the analyses of correlations and regressions with respect to the outlined theories (P-E-fit theory, signaling theory, social exchange theory). Although the observed findings are consistent with our theoretical framework, other interpretations cannot be excluded. Vitality, for example, might not only be affected by the use of appropriate WEs, but also vice versa. Perhaps, it is most fruitful to consider the connection between appropriate use of WEs and vitality (as well as other outcome variables) as reciprocal, leading to upward or downward spirals over time (e.g., vitality predicting appropriate use of WEs, predicting changes in vitality, predicting further use of WEs, etc.; see Hertel, Rauschenbach, Thielgen, & Krumm, 2015, for similar results with respect to coping strategies and experienced strain). Longitudinal studies with (quasi)-experimental designs are needed to shed further light on these questions. Furthermore, the interplay with third variables such as personality should be investigated.

Finally, our research focus was limited to investigating the effects of the general supply of undisturbed and communicative WEs without asking for the exact number of different types of supplied or required WEs. Furthermore, the question arises how many different zones office workers can distinguish to use them appropriately and not be confused about the purpose of each working zone. As an initial example, De Bruyne and Beijer (2015) presented a space calculation tool for different WEs (PACT model). Finally, additional predictors of the appropriate use of WEs should be identified in further research as our study illustrates the positive relationship with favorable job attitudes and vitality. Besides behavioral aspects, a variety of socioemotional factors (e.g., supervisor–employee relationship, explicit/implicit incentives, individual differences such as age, see for example Pullen, 2014) might affect the appropriate use of WEs. As many organizations are currently redesigning their offices, research is highly needed that answers the research questions and issues raised above.

Conclusion

This research contributes to our understanding of activity-based WEs as part of many contemporary office designs. Results have revealed a positive relation between the provision of activity-based WEs and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Whereas for undisturbed WEs, it is sufficient to provide such environments, organizations should also pay attention to office workers’ task requirements when planning communicative WEs. Furthermore, to strengthen the positive findings regarding job attitudes and vitality, it is important that office workers use the WEs according to their task requirements. Building trusting relationships between office workers and the management could help to foster an appropriate WEs’ use, whereas need for routine seeking might hamper it.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation to the research training group “Trust and Communication in a Digitized World” (1712/1).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Christina Wohlers is pursuing a doctoral degree in organizational and business psychology in the interdisciplinary research training group “Trust and Communication in a Digitized World” at the University of Münster, Germany. Her research examines how new ways of working, in particular activity-based flexible offices, alter and affect individual and team processes in organizations.

Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler is a senior scientist at the Institute for Management Science, TU Wien, Austria. Her current research lies in the area of flexible work. In this context, she is interested in the individual psychological factors as well as in the organizational factors.

Guido Hertel is full professor of organizational and business psychology at the University of Münster, Germany. His research interests include new ways of working, online collaboration, and electronic human resource management, but also demografic changes at work and synergetic effects in teams.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. M.

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. M.

(1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043

Altman

(1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Appel-Meulenbroek

(2010). Knowledge sharing through co-presence: Added value of facilities. Facilities, 28, 189-205. doi:10.1108/02632771011023140

Appel-Meulenbroek

Groenen

Janssen

(2011). An end user’s perspective on activity based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13, 122-135. doi:10.1108/14630011111136830

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Ayoko

O. B.

Jehn

K. A.

(2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1169-1184. doi:10.1002/job.1973

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

Becker

Sims

Schoss

J. H.

(2003). Interaction, identity and collocation: What value is a corporate campus? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 5, 344-365. doi:10.1108/14630010310812163

10.

Beckers

van der Voordt

Dewulf

(2015). A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities, 33, 2-19. doi:10.1108/F-02-2013-0013

11.

Beckers

van der Voordt

Dewulf

(2016). Learning space preferences of higher education students. Building and Environment, 104, 243-252. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.013

12.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

13.

Bodin Danielsson

Bodin

. (2008). Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environment and Behavior, 40, 636-668. doi:10.1177/0013916507307459

14.

Bodin Danielsson

Bodin

. (2009). Differences in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26, 241-257.

15.

Bodin Danielsson

Chungkham

H. S.

Wulff

Westerlund

. (2014). Office design’s impact on sick leave rates. Ergonomics, 57, 139-147. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.871064

16.

Brennan

Chugh

J. S.

Kline

(2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior, 34, 279-299. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003001

17.

Brunia

de Been

van der Voordt

T. J. M.

(2016). Accommodating new ways of working: Lessons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18, 30-47. doi:10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0028

18.

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875

19.

Cable

D. M.

Edwards

J. R.

(2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822

20.

Casper

W. J.

Harris

C. M.

(2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 95-109. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.015

21.

Davenport

T. H.

(2013). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

22.

Davis

M. C.

Leach

D. J.

Clegg

C. W.

(2011). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. In Hodgkinson

G. P.

Ford

J. K.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1993-1237). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119992592

23.

De Been

Beijer

. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12, 142-157. doi:10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011

24.

De Been

Beijer

Den Hollander

. (2015). How to cope with dilemmas in activity based work environments-results from user-centred research. Conference Paper 14th EuroFM Research Symposium, EuroFM research papers (pp. 1-10).

25.

De Bruyne

Beijer

. (2015). Calculating NWoW office space with the PACT model. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17(2), 122-133. doi:10.1108/JCRE-12-2014-0032

26.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

27.

Desor

J. A.

(1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 79-83. doi:10.1037/h0032112

28.

Devloo

Anseel

de Beuckelaer

(2011). Do managers use feedback seeking as a strategy to regulate demands-abilities misfit? The moderating role of implicit person theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 453-465. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9200-7

29.

Duffy

Powell

(1997). The New Office. London, England: Conran Octopus.

30.

Edwards

J. R.

(1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

I. T.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 283-357). New York, NY: John Wiley.

31.

Edwards

J. R.

(1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683-689. doi:10.1177/014920639402000311

32.

Edwards

J. R.

(1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292-339. doi:10.2307/256782

33.

Edwards

J. R.

(2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In Drasgow

Schmitt

(Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350-400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

Williamson

I. O.

Lambert

L. S.

Shipp

A. J.

(2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802

35.

Edwards

J. R.

Caplan

R. D.

Van Harrison

(1998). Person-environment fit theory. In Cooper

C. L.

(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

36.

Edwards

J. R.

Harrison

R. V.

(1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 628-648. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.628

37.

Edwards

J. R.

Parry

M. E.

(1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577-1613. doi:10.2307/256822

38.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

(1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85-129. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2813

39.

Edwards

J. R.

Shipp

A. J.

(2007). Perspectives on organizational fit. Perspectives on Organizational Fit, 40, 209-258. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01160_6.x

40.

Elsbach

K. D.

Pratt

M. G.

(2007). The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 181-224. doi:10.1080/078559809

41.

Fisher

D. M.

(2014). A multilevel cross-cultural examination of role overload and organizational commitment: Investigating the interactive effects of context. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 723-736. doi:10.1037/a0035861

42.

French

J. R. P.

Caplan

R. D.

Van Harrison

(1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York, NY: John Wiley.

43.

French

J. R. P.

Rodgers

W. L.

Cobb

(1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In Coelho

Hamburg

Adams

(Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 316-333). New York, NY: Basic Books.

44.

Furnham

Schaeffer

(1984). Person-environment fit, job satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 295-307. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00170.x

45.

Gerdenitsch

Korunka

Hertel

(2017). Need–supply fit in an activity-based flexible office. Environment and Behavior, 50, 273-297. doi:10.1177/0013916517697766

46.

Göritz

A. S.

(2007). Using online panels in psychological research. In Joinson

A. N.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Postmes

Reips

U.-D.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology, (pp. 473-485). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

47.

Greguras

G. J.

Diefendorff

J. M.

(2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 465-477. doi:10.1037/a0014068

48.

Harrison

R. V.

(1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In Cooper

C. L.

Payne

(Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 175-205). New York, NY: John Wiley.

49.

Harrison

R. V.

(1985). The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress. In Beehr

T. A.

Bhagat

R. S.

(Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 23-55). New York, NY: John Wiley.

50.

Haynes

B. P.

(2008a). An evaluation of the impact of the office environment on productivity. Facilities, 26, 178-195. doi:10.1108/02632770810864970

51.

Haynes

B. P.

(2008b). Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10, 286-302. doi:10.1108/14630010810925145

52.

Heerwagen

J. H.

Kampschroer

Powell

K. M.

Loftness

(2004). Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32, 510-528. doi:10.1080/09613210412331313025

53.

Hertel

Rauschenbach

Thielgen

M. M.

Krumm

(2015). Are older workers more active copers? Longitudinal effects of age-contingent coping on strain at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 514-537. doi:10.1002/job.1995

54.

Hirst

(2011). Settlers, vagrants and mutual indifference: Unintended consequences of hot-desking. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 767-788. doi:10.1108/09534811111175742

55.

Hoendervanger

J. G.

De Been

Van Yperen

N. W.

Mobach

M. P.

Albers

C. J.

(2016). Flexibility in use. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18, 48-62. doi:10.1108/JCRE-10-2015-0033

56.

Kim

Candido

Thomas

de Dear

(2016). Desk ownership in the workplace: The effect of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Building and Environment, 103, 203-214. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.015

57.

Kim

de Dear

(2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007

58.

Kirton

(1980). Adaptors and innovators in organizations. Human Relations, 33, 213-224. doi:10.1177/001872678003300401

59.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

60.

Lane

Bachmann

(1996). The social constitution of trust: Supplier relations in Britain and Germany. Organization Studies, 17, 365-395. doi:10.1177/017084069601700302

61.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, coping and adaptation. New York, NY: Springer.

62.

Leder

Newsham

G. R.

Veitch

J. A.

Mancini

Charles

K. E.

(2016). Effects of office environment on employee satisfaction: A new analysis. Building Research & Information, 44, 34-50. doi:10.1080/09613218.2014.1003176

63.

Lee

S. Y.

Brand

J. L.

(2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53, 324-335. doi:10.1080/00140130903389019

64.

Locke

E. A.

(1969). What is job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.

65.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

66.

Luhmann

(1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

67.

May

D. R.

Oldham

G. R.

Rathert

(2005). Employee affective and behavioral reactions to the spatial density of physical work environments. Human Resource Management, 44, 21-33. doi:10.1002/hrm.20038

68.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123

69.

McEvily

Tortoriello

(2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1, 23-63. doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424

70.

McKnight

D. H.

Chervany

N. L.

(2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time In R. Falcone, M. Singh, and Y.-H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in cyber-societies (pp. 27-54). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

71.

Michaelis

Stegmaier

Sonntag

(2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: The role of charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9, 399-417. doi:10.1080/14697010903360608

72.

Millward

L. J.

Haslam

S. A.

Postmes

(2007). Putting employees in their place: The impact of hot desking on organizational and team identification. Organization Science, 18, 547-559. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0265

73.

Mowday

R. T.

(1996). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

Bigley

(Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 8-33). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

74.

Nagy

M. S.

(2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77-86. doi:10.1348/096317902167658

75.

Oldham

G. R.

(1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 253-258. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.73.2.253

76.

Oreg

(2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680

77.

Oreg

(2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101. doi:10.1080/13594320500451247

78.

Peponis

Bafna

Bajaj

Bromberg

Congdon

Rashid

. . . Zimring

(2007). Designing space to support knowledge work. Environment and Behavior, 39, 815-840. doi:10.1177/0013916506297216

79.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

80.

Pullen

W. R.

(2014). Age, office type, job satisfaction and performance. Work&Place, 3(2), 18-22.

81.

Ryan

R. M.

Frederick

(1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x

82.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471

83.

Seddigh

Berntson

Bodin Danielsson

Westerlund

. (2014). Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167-174. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009

84.

Shanock

L. R.

Baran

B. E.

Gentry

W. A.

Pattison

S. C.

Heggestad

E. D.

(2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 543-554. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4

85.

Sundstrom

Burt

R. E.

Kamp

(1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 101-117. doi:10.2307/255498

86.

Thielgen

M. M.

Krumm

Hertel

(2015). When being old pays off: Age mitigates adverse effects of low implicit-explicit motive congruency on work motivation. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 459-480. doi:10.1177/1069072714547613

87.

van Meel

. (2000). The European office: Office design and national context. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: 010 Publishers.

88.

Wanous

J. P.

Hudy

M. J.

(2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361-375. doi:10.1177/109442810144003

89.

Wanous

J. P.

Reichers

A. E.

Hudy

M. J.

(1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247

90.

Wohlers

Hertel

(2017). Choosing where to work at work—Towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60, 467-486. doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220

91.

Zalesny

Farace

(1987). Traditional versus open offices: A comparison of sociotechnical, social relations, and symbolic meaning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 240-259.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB