Activity-based working: How the use of available workplace options increases perceived autonomy in the workplace

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

If companies are building offices, nowadays, they mostly realize activity-based concepts as a response to growing flexibility requirements of a digitalized society. Activity-based concepts provide multiple workplace options to employees. After moving to new workspaces, employees need to get used to the facilities and learn how to use the available workplace options.

OBJECTIVE:

The effectiveness of activity-based working relies on the workplace options and on employees’ autonomy to use them according to their current work tasks. The present study examined the change in the use of workplace options, task-environment fit, and autonomy in the workplace after the implementation of an activity-based working concept.

METHODS:

The study was longitudinal with two time points (Time 1 and Time 2) that were one year apart. Data were obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample consisted of 153 employees working in activity-based office environments in two organizations in Germany. The average age was 45 years (SD = 11); 44% were men; and 23% had leadership responsibilities.

RESULTS:

The increased use of available workplace options offered in activity-based working concepts was associated with better task-environment fit, which in turn led to an increase in perceived autonomy in the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results support the core idea of activity-based working and revealed how this office concept unfolds its effectiveness: Having different workplace options available and using them led to a higher perceived task-environment fit, which in turn, contributed to a higher perceived autonomy in the workplace.

Keywords

Control office concept office design task-environment fit

1 Introduction

During the last decades, work and workplaces have changed due to globalization and digitalization [1, 2]. Work tasks have become more complex, more time-critical, and working has become more flexible [3]. This flexibility relates to the location of work, working hours, work content, and work processes [4]. Employees are facing a variety of tasks in different work situations, which requires specific work settings: Some work tasks require employees to communicate with colleagues, while other work tasks require employees to concentrate [2]. For example, brain storming among colleagues on new product developments should take place in open spaces with space for many people and equipped with white boards, video projectors etc. On the contrary, software development requires a quiet place to enable concentration. Another example is a telephone box for undisturbed phone calls [5].

Such variety in task requirements such as exchange among colleagues or concentrated individual work, led many companies to adjust their office concepts. Nowadays, when building new offices companies often realize activity-based working concepts [6, 7]; thereby companies arrange their physical working environments to support a range of work activities. Such office concepts are often named activity-based flexible offices [8, 9]. Activity-based working is designed to accommodate different task requirements and provide diverse workspaces, in the hope of enabling employees to better accomplish their tasks [10, 11]. Employees are expected to select among different workspaces based on their current activities and needs [12]. Activity-based working has beneficial effects on health, namely reduced sedentary behavior, and lower back pain; in particular, an activity-based working environment allows participants to spend a larger proportion of their working day standing and walking and less time in sitting compared with working in open-plan office environments [13]. Moreover, activity-based working allows people to organize their work style and work location. Furthermore, Rolfö et al. [14] reported an increase in overall satisfaction with the physical work environment in activity-based working compared to open-plan offices. To sum up, activity-based working seems to have several advantages, but the question is: What makes this concept effective?

The effectiveness of activity-based working depends on the availability of workplace options and the actual use of these options by employees [5, 15]. Thereby, the availability of workplace options on its own does not include the actual use of these options. Especially after the introduction of activity-based working, employees have no experience with these options and have to learn over time how to work within activity-based concepts. Therefore, the present study examined the change in the use of workplace options in the context of an activity-based working concept, task-environment fit, and autonomy in the workplace. This study contributes to understanding the effectiveness of activity-based working by addressing two questions: (1) Do employees use the workplace options provided? (2) What does the use of the workplace options entail? We will answer these questions empirically by investigating companies that were in the process of implementing activity-based working. In a longitudinal study with two measurement points, we examined in the context of an activity-based office concept the actual use of available workplace options, the perceived fit between the task and workplace (i.e, task-environment fit), and perceived autonomy in the workplace.

1.1 Activity-based working and the use of workplace options

Activity-based working is a contemporary approach to working that aims at the matching of current work tasks with particular workplaces. This approach resembles approaches such as activity-based flexible offices, flexible offices, or non-territorial offices [16, 17]. A key component of activity-based working is that a variety of workplaces with different characteristics are available to employees. That way, employees can select a suitable workplace depending on the current task they perform, and thus, shape their work environment to meet task requirements [6, 8]. Activity-based working involves not only a single, individual workplace but offers employees several workplace options [10, 18]. Typical workplace options are areas in which employees can meet and interact, spaces dedicated to focused work, or telephone booths where employees can make calls in privacy. Moreover, employees have the opportunity to bury themselves in a work task by retreating to quiet cell offices. The provision of these cell offices counteracts the disadvantages of shared and open-plan office concepts, where employees are more frequently distracted than in individual offices [19]. In the context of activity-based working, Jahncke and Hallman [20] demonstrated the importance of quiet areas with few distractions for working on tasks that demand concentration. These different areas are separated from each other by using zoning and furniture, not through walls or partitions [21]. Activity-based working provides employees and empowers them with a variety of different work settings that meet the demands of different work tasks [6 , 23].

However, according to Hoendervanger et al. [24], fewer than 5% of employees change their workstations once or more per day. Kratzer [15] describes a company that offered employees between seven and eleven different work options, for instance, a meeting room, cell offices, and telephone rooms. On average, three of these options were used daily, mainly the personal workstation, meeting/conference rooms, and places for informal interaction such as staff kitchens. However, in some companies, many employees did not use any of the work options offered other than their desk [15].

It cannot be assumed that activity-based working concepts work immediately after their realization. Employees need to become familiar with the concept, that is, they have to learn how to work in an activity-based manner after the concept has been introduced [5, 10]. In other words, employees might need time to try out the different workplaces and to find out which of these workplaces are suitable for different tasks [23]. Through their increased use of different workplace options individuals may discover the benefits and realize that the choice of the workplace increases their autonomy in the workplace.

1.2 Use of workplace options, task-environment fit, and autonomy in the workplace

Activity-based working provides different work options, which allows an adaptation to the requirements of a specific work task, and thus, should enhance task-environment fit [8, 22], which in turn results in positive outcomes such as satisfaction and performance [25]. However, the mere availability of such workplace options might not be sufficient. Activity-based working needs to be learned [5]; in particular, employees need to learn to select an appropriate workplace for a task at hand. The more employees use different workplace options, the more they accumulate knowledge and experiences about these options and are better able to choose the best option. Therefore, we assumed that in activity-based offices, the increasing use of workplace options improves task-environment fit.

Hypothesis 1: An increase in the use of workplace options enhances task-environment fit.

Autonomy is perhaps the most studied work characteristic, being central in many models on work motivation [26 –28]. Autonomy reflects the extent to which a job allows freedom, independence and discretion to schedule work, make decisions and choose the methods to execute tasks [29 –31]. Babapour and Rolfö [32] found positive effects of activity-based flexible offices, especially an increase in autonomy [33]. The core objective of activity-based working is to offer employees different workplace options to support them in carrying out their activities. Thus, this concept expands employees’ autonomy in the workplace, as they can select a suitable workplace for the task at hand. Solely switching to another workstation that does not offer a better task-environment fit would expand employees’ autonomy only in a quantitative way but not in a qualitative way. The introduction of activity-based working enriches employees’ autonomy in the workplace, especially if they experience an improved fit between the work task and the workplace.

Hypothesis 2: An increase in task-environment fit enhances perceived autonomy in the workplace.

In hitherto hypotheses we assumed that the growing use of workplace options increases task-environment fit between the task and workplace (i.e., environment), which in turn raises the perceived autonomy in the workplace. Putting these pieces together, we expect the chain of cause-effect to be as follows:

Hypothesis 3: An increased use of workplace options enhances autonomy in the workplace through increased task-environment fit.

2 Materials and method

2.1 Participants and study design

The sample was comprised of employees who work in activity-based office environments in two organizations in Germany. The organizations were medium to large and belonged to different sectors: textile industry and public services. All organizations were anonymised by request. The office environments of these two organizations had been (re)designed within the last five years and followed an activity-based working approach with different workplace options: open-floor plan, muted colors, flooded with light through glass walls or floor-to-ceiling windows, modern office furniture and equipment, and central printing stations. The office design of the first organization consisted of an open space office with fewer than 50 workstations on one floor, whereas the second organization had a mix of cell offices, shared offices and open space offices on multiple floors. The office use was identical in both organizations: no spelled-out rules for office behaviour, only a few working options were used on a daily basis, employees spend most of their working hours in the office with rare work from home, personalization of workstations was allowed (e.g., flowers).

The data were collected within the framework of a larger field study with the focus on physical and mental health in “new” working environments (i.e., activity-based offices). The study at hand was longitudinal with two time points (Time 1 and Time 2). The study involved the following steps: First, employees of the two organizations were invited to fill out a first questionnaire (Time 1). Second, one year later, the same employees were invited to participate in the second wave of the study (Time 2). Data were collected online. In each of the two surveys participants submitted an anonymous code, which allowed us to match the persons across the two waves without violating their anonymity. All data were obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2017 and 2019. The sample of this article consisted of 153 employees who participated at both Time 1 and Time 2. The average age was 44.82 years (SD = 10.83); 44% were men, and 23% had leadership responsibilities. The participants needed approximately 15 minutes to answer each of the two surveys.

The redesign of the office spaces took place before Time 1, while in Time 1 and Time 2 participants occupied the same office space [34]. The respondents and organizations were informed about the purpose of the study and the fact that the data would be used for research. The participants gave their written consent to the data being used anonymously for scientific purposes. The organizations and participants did not receive a monetary reward; participation was voluntary. There were no specific selection criteria for the partipation; all those affected by the new work concept were invited to take part in the study.

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 Use of workplace options

We presented a list of available workplace options (e.g., personal desks, telephone boxes, lounges, hot desks) to the participants and asked them to indicate which of these optional workplaces they made actual use of. The list of available workplace options was specific for each company and comprised eight options or eleven options, respectively (Table 1). The list of available workplace options was drawn up by the research team in collaboration with the organizations and therefore represents an objectively measured variable. Finally, we summed up the number of used workplaces as reported by the participants as an indicator of the use of workplace options.

Table 1
Workplace options in the two organizations

Organization Workplace options

1 — Personal office workstations

— Small cells for private work in the central zone (temporary workplaces)

— Rooms for confidential discussions (e.g., consultation room, retreat area)

— Meeting room and conference center (e.g., project rooms, meeting zones for larger groups)

— Dedicated places for casual and informal exchange (e.g., meeting points, cafeteria)

— Workplaces for short stays (e.g., high tables and meeting tables in the central zone)

— Spaces for active creative work (e.g., sofa in the central zone)

— Other (e.g., outdoor space)

2 — Personal office workstations

— Small cells for private group work (e.g., think tank, silent room, thinker cell)

— Rooms for confidential discussions

— Rooms for telephone conferences (e.g., telephone boxes)

— Meeting and project rooms, conference areas for larger groups

— Dedicated places for relaxed and informal exchange (e.g., lounges, tea kitchens, meeting points, cafeteria)

— Workplaces for short stays (e.g., hot spots, hot desk)

— Spaces for active creative work

— Recreational opportunities (e.g., relaxation and rest rooms)

— Rooms for active breaks (e.g., fitness room, table football)

— Other (e.g., park, café)

Organization	Workplace options
1	— Personal office workstations
	— Small cells for private work in the central zone (temporary workplaces)
	— Rooms for confidential discussions (e.g., consultation room, retreat area)
	— Meeting room and conference center (e.g., project rooms, meeting zones for larger groups)
	— Dedicated places for casual and informal exchange (e.g., meeting points, cafeteria)
	— Workplaces for short stays (e.g., high tables and meeting tables in the central zone)
	— Spaces for active creative work (e.g., sofa in the central zone)
	— Other (e.g., outdoor space)
2	— Personal office workstations
	— Small cells for private group work (e.g., think tank, silent room, thinker cell)
	— Rooms for confidential discussions
	— Rooms for telephone conferences (e.g., telephone boxes)
	— Meeting and project rooms, conference areas for larger groups
	— Dedicated places for relaxed and informal exchange (e.g., lounges, tea kitchens, meeting points, cafeteria)
	— Workplaces for short stays (e.g., hot spots, hot desk)
	— Spaces for active creative work
	— Recreational opportunities (e.g., relaxation and rest rooms)
	— Rooms for active breaks (e.g., fitness room, table football)
	— Other (e.g., park, café)

2.2.2 Task-environment fit

This was assessed with four self-constructed items. The four items reflect the fit with the personal tasks: (1) “My office environment supports me in completing my work task”, the fit with the organizational culture: (2) “My office environment and corporate culture go very well together”, the fit with the employee personally: (3) “My office environment suits me well”, and the fit with the way of working of the employees: (4) “The design and organization of the office space corresponds to my way of working”. The participants rated the items using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.

2.2.3 Autonomy in the workplace

Autonomy was measured using three items from the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ, [26]; German version [35]). The items capture the motivational characteristics of a job, particularly the characteristics of tasks. One item was taken from each autonomy subscale: work scheduling autonomy (“The job allows me to decide on the order in which I do things“), decision-making autonomy (“The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own“), and work methods autonomy (“The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my work“). These items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77.

2.2.4 Control variables

As variables that may play a role in activity-based working, we took into account gender, age, and supervisory position [8]. Gender was dummy-coded with 1 (male) and 0 (female). Age was assessed in years, and supervisory position was dummy-coded with 1 (yes) and 0 (no). Additionally, we included the number of available workplace options provided by the respective company.

The items used in the questionnaire and coding of responses are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Items used in the questionnaire

Measure Items Coding of responses

Use of workplace options Which work spaces and work options do you use? Number of selected workplace options (see Table 1)

Task-environment fit (1) My office environment supports me in completing my work task.(2) My office environment and corporate culture go very well together.(3) My office environment suits me well.(4) The design and organization of the office space corresponds to my way of working. 1 (strongly disagree)2 (disagree)3 (neither agree nor disagree)4 (agree)5 (strongly agree)

Autonomy in the workplace (1) The job allows me to decide on the order in which I do things.(2) The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.(3) The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my work. 1 (strongly disagree)2 (disagree)3 (neither agree nor disagree)4 (agree)5 (strongly agree)

Gender Gender 1 (male)0 (female)

Age Age Age in years

Supervisory position Do you have management responsibility? (Are you in charge of others at work, i.e., people work according to your instructions?) 1 (yes)0 (no)

Measure	Items	Coding of responses
Use of workplace options	Which work spaces and work options do you use?	Number of selected workplace options (see Table 1)
Task-environment fit	(1) My office environment supports me in completing my work task.(2) My office environment and corporate culture go very well together.(3) My office environment suits me well.(4) The design and organization of the office space corresponds to my way of working.	1 (strongly disagree)2 (disagree)3 (neither agree nor disagree)4 (agree)5 (strongly agree)
Autonomy in the workplace	(1) The job allows me to decide on the order in which I do things.(2) The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.(3) The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my work.	1 (strongly disagree)2 (disagree)3 (neither agree nor disagree)4 (agree)5 (strongly agree)
Gender	Gender	1 (male)0 (female)
Age	Age	Age in years
Supervisory position	Do you have management responsibility? (Are you in charge of others at work, i.e., people work according to your instructions?)	1 (yes)0 (no)

2.3 Data analysis

Analyses were conducted using R 4.0.4 [36]. We computed linear regression models and checked for violations of the assumptions of linear regression with the R-package performance [37]. The models met the assumptions (i.e., linearity, homogeneity of variance, collinearity, influential observations, and normality of residuals). To test the hypotheses, we conducted regression analyses predicting task-environment fit at Time 2 while controlling for task-environment fit at Time 1. This approach controls for between-subject effects of task-environment fit at Time 1 and, accordingly, the regressions predict the change in task-environment fit throughout the study. The same procedure was applied to autonomy in the workplace. The predictors were included separately for both measurement times in the regressions. For example, in predicting task-environment fit, the effect of the use of workplace options at Time 1 represents the baseline measurement, while the effect at Time 2 indicates the influence of the change in the use of workplace options since Time 1 on task-environment fit at Time 2. For testing the hypotheses, the effect of the use of workplace options at Time 2 is particularly important, since this predictor represents a within-subject effect and allows conclusions about causality [38]. To test for indirect effects, we conducted a causal mediation analysis following Imai et al. [39].

3 Results

Table 3 shows the descriptives and correlations among all study variables. The mere number of workplace options provided by the company was neither related to the perceived task-environment fit nor to the perceived autonomy in the workplace at Time 1 and 2. The actual use of available workplace options at Time 1 was not significantly related to task-environment fit, r = 0.14, p = 0.074, or autonomy in the workplace, r < –0.01, p = 0.998. However, at Time 2 the actual use of workplace options was positively related to task-environment fit, r = 0.26, p = 0.001, but not to autonomy in the workplace, r = 0.07, p = 0.370. Task-environment fit was associated with autonomy in the workplace at both measurement points, r = 0.18, p = 0.024, respectively, r = 0.20, p = 0.014.

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Gender^a 0.44 0.50

2 Age 44.82 10.83 0.08

3 Supervisory position 0.23 0.42 0.05 0.20^*

4 Number of available workplace options 8.25 0.84 0.27^*** 0.05 0.11

5 Use of workplace options (Time 1) 2.84 1.32 0.02 –0.09 0.20^* –0.14

6 Use of workplace options (Time 2) 2.97 1.27 0.11 –0.05 0.11 –0.04 0.47^***

7 Task-environment fit (Time 1) 2.99 1.14 –0.18^* 0.15 0.20^* –0.11 0.14 0.16

8 Task-environment fit (Time 2) 3.04 1.13 –0.11 0.23^** 0.18^* –0.07 0.15 0.26^ 0.76^*

9 Autonomy in the workplace (Time 1) 3.76 0.67 –0.09 0.07 0.18^* –0.03 –0.00 0.14 0.18^* 0.14

10 Autonomy in the workplace (Time 2) 3.69 0.69 0.10 0.19^* 0.20^* 0.07 –0.02 0.07 0.09 0.20^* 0.58^***

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	Gender^a	0.44	0.50
2	Age	44.82	10.83	0.08
3	Supervisory position	0.23	0.42	0.05	0.20^*
4	Number of available workplace options	8.25	0.84	0.27^***	0.05	0.11
5	Use of workplace options (Time 1)	2.84	1.32	0.02	–0.09	0.20^*	–0.14
6	Use of workplace options (Time 2)	2.97	1.27	0.11	–0.05	0.11	–0.04	0.47^***
7	Task-environment fit (Time 1)	2.99	1.14	–0.18^*	0.15	0.20^*	–0.11	0.14	0.16
8	Task-environment fit (Time 2)	3.04	1.13	–0.11	0.23^**	0.18^*	–0.07	0.15	0.26^**	0.76^***
9	Autonomy in the workplace (Time 1)	3.76	0.67	–0.09	0.07	0.18^*	–0.03	–0.00	0.14	0.18^*	0.14
10	Autonomy in the workplace (Time 2)	3.69	0.69	0.10	0.19^*	0.20^*	0.07	–0.02	0.07	0.09	0.20^*	0.58^***

Notes. N = 153; ^aGender is dummy-coded with 0 (female) and 1 (male); ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

3.1 Activity-based working and task-environment fit

Hypothesis 1 assumed that increased use of workplace options enhances task-environment fit. To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis predicting task-environment fit at Time 2 (Table 4). In Model 1a we included the control variables and task-environment fit at Time 1. Since we regressed task-environment fit at Time 2 on task-environment fit at Time 1, the regression analysis predicted the change in task-environment fit. Indicating temporal stability, task-environment fit at Time 1 predicted task-environment fit at Time 2, b = 0.73, p < 0.001. In Model 1b, we included the number of available workplace options and the use of workplace options at Time 1 and Time 2. Model 1b indicates that the mere number of available workplace options had no influence on perceived fit, b = –0.02, p = 0.816. Concerning the use of workplace options, we were especially interested in the effect of the used workplace options at Time 2, which indicates the change of use in workplace options between the two assessment times. Model 1b indicates that the use of workplace options at Time 2 was positively related to task-environment fit at Time 2, b = 0.15, p = 0.007. Thus, an increase in the use of workplace options resulted in an increase of task-environment fit, which supported Hypothesis 1.

Table 4
Effects of workplace options on perceived task-environment fit at Time 2

Variables Model 1a Model 1b

b S.E. β b S.E. β

(Intercept) 0.31 0.29 0.11 0.68

Gender^a 0.02 0.12 0.01 –0.04 0.13 –0.02

Age 0.01^* 0.01 0.11 0.01^* 0.01 0.13

Supervisory position 0.02 0.15 0.01 –0.01 0.15 –0.01

Task-environment fit (Time 1) 0.73^* 0.06 0.74 0.71^* 0.06 0.71

Number of available workplace options –0.02 0.07 –0.01

Use of workplace options (Time 1) –0.02 0.05 –0.02

Use of workplace options (Time 2) 0.15^** 0.05 0.16

R² 0.583 0.607

Δ R² 0.023^*

Variables	Model 1a	Model 1b
(Intercept)	0.31	0.29	0.11	0.68
Gender^a	0.02	0.12	0.01	–0.04	0.13	–0.02
Age	0.01^*	0.01	0.11	0.01^*	0.01	0.13
Supervisory position	0.02	0.15	0.01	–0.01	0.15	–0.01
Task-environment fit (Time 1)	0.73^***	0.06	0.74	0.71^***	0.06	0.71
Number of available workplace options				–0.02	0.07	–0.01
Use of workplace options (Time 1)				–0.02	0.05	–0.02
Use of workplace options (Time 2)				0.15^**	0.05	0.16
R²		0.583			0.607
Δ R²					0.023^*

Notes. N = 153; ^aGender is dummy-coded with 0 (female) and 1 (male); ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

3.2 Activity-based working and autonomy in the workplace

Hypothesis 2 assumed that an increase in task-environment fit enhances autonomy in the workplace. Table 5 shows the results of several hierarchical regression analyses predicting autonomy in the workplace. Again, we regressed autonomy in the workplace at Time 2 on autonomy at Time 1, thus, predicting the change in autonomy in the workplace between the two measurements. Model 2a included the control variables. Autonomy in the workplace at Time 1 had a significant influence on autonomy in the workplace at Time 2, b = 0.59, p < 0.001, indicating temporal stability. Model 2b included the number of available workplace options and the use of workplace options at Time 1 and 2. Neither the number of available workplace options nor the actual use of workplace options had a significant effect on autonomy in the workplace. In Model 2c, we additionally included task-environment fit. The results indicated that task-environment fit at Time 2 positively contributed to autonomy in the workplace at Time 2, b = 0.18, p = 0.006. Thus, Hypothesis 2 received support.

Table 5
Effects of the use of workplace options and task-environment fit on autonomy in the workplace at Time 2

Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c

Variables b S.E. β b S.E. β b S.E. β

(Intercept) 1.02^** 0.31 –0.00 1.30^* 0.57 –0.00 1.27^* 0.56 –0.00

Gender^a 0.19^* 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.13

Age 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.09

Supervisory position 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.06

Autonomy in the workplace (Time 1) 0.59^* 0.07 0.57 0.59^* 0.07 0.57 0.60^*** 0.07 0.58

Number of available workplace options –0.03 0.06 –0.03 –0.02 0.06 –0.03

Use of workplace options (Time 1) –0.01 0.04 –0.01 –0.00 0.04 –0.00

Use of workplace options (Time 2) –0.01 0.04 –0.02 –0.03 0.04 –0.06

Task-environment fit (Time 1) –0.14^* 0.06 –0.22

Task-environment fit (Time 2) 0.18^** 0.06 0.29

R² 0.378 0.380 0.412

Δ R² 0.002 0.032^*

	Model 2a	Model 2b	Model 2c
(Intercept)	1.02^**	0.31	–0.00	1.30^*	0.57	–0.00	1.27^*	0.56	–0.00
Gender^a	0.19^*	0.09	0.13	0.18	0.10	0.13	0.18	0.10	0.13
Age	0.01	0.00	0.13	0.01	0.00	0.13	0.01	0.00	0.09
Supervisory position	0.10	0.11	0.06	0.10	0.12	0.06	0.10	0.11	0.06
Autonomy in the workplace (Time 1)	0.59^***	0.07	0.57	0.59^***	0.07	0.57	0.60^***	0.07	0.58
Number of available workplace options				–0.03	0.06	–0.03	–0.02	0.06	–0.03
Use of workplace options (Time 1)				–0.01	0.04	–0.01	–0.00	0.04	–0.00
Use of workplace options (Time 2)				–0.01	0.04	–0.02	–0.03	0.04	–0.06
Task-environment fit (Time 1)							–0.14^*	0.06	–0.22
Task-environment fit (Time 2)							0.18^**	0.06	0.29
R²		0.378			0.380			0.412
Δ R²					0.002			0.032^*

Notes. N = 153; ^aGender is dummy-coded with 0 (female) and 1 (male); ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

Hypothesis 3 assumed that increased use of workplace options enhances autonomy in the workplace through an increased task-environment fit. To test Hypothesis 3, we conducted a causal mediation analysis following Imai et al. [39]. The analysis was based on Model 1b and 2c, and thus, included the control variables, as reported in Tables 4 and 5. The results supported an indirect effect, b = 0.03, p = 0.018, CI95 [0.004; 0.054], which confirmed Hypothesis 3. Overall, increased use of workplace options led to an increase in task-environment fit, which, in turn, enhances perceived autonomy in the workplace. Figure 1 summarizes the results of the test for indirect effects.

Fig. 1

Indirect effect of use of workplace options on autonomy in the workplace through task-environment fit.

4 Discussion

Activity-based working is a response to accelerated dynamics and growing flexibility requirements of a digitalized society [6, 7]. A tenet of activity-based working is to offer different workplaces to enable employees to choose a workplace according to the requirements of their current task [12]. In doing so, the use of different workplace options should increase the fit between work tasks and work locations [23]. So far, empirical studies on the effects of activity-based working have been rare and mainly cross-sectional. One of the few longitudinal studies [10], showed that a fit of individual work environment needs and resources strengthens the positive connection between an activity-based working concept and job satisfaction.

The present study examined the change in the use of workplace options, task-environment fit, and autonomy in the workplace after the implementation of an activity-based working concept. We examined the implementation of activity-based working in two organizations in a longitudinal study. This follows the call by Haapakangas et al. [11] who pointed to the need for longitudinal studies on the consequences of moving into activity-based offices from other office types. All three hypotheses received support: An increase in the use of workplace options resulted in an increase of task-environment fit. The enhancement of task-environment fit positively contributed to an increase in autonomy in the workplace. Overall, the increased use of workplace options led to an increase in task-environment fit, which, in turn, enhanced perceived autonomy in the workplace. Thus, the spatial flexibilization of workplaces (i.e., when employees can decide for themselves at which workspace they work at a given time) contributed to an expansion of autonomy in the workplace. Interestingly, the results did not show a direct effect of use of workplace options on autonomy in the workplace. Thus, the effect of use of workplace options on autonomy in the workplace is completely mediated by task-environment fit. This points out that available workplace options have to be used in an appropriate manner, that is, they should fit to the respective task at hand to enhance perceived autonomy in the workplace.

From a broader perspective, the provision of different workspaces could be seen as a work resource that allows employees to adapt the workplace to their current tasks. Of note, the mere number of workplace options provided by the company was not related to either task-environment fit or autonomy in the workplace. Our results revealed that activity-based working is effective not because of the mere availability of workplace options but because of the increased use of these workplace options. Furthermore, only those employees benefit from activity-based offices who make use of available options in a meaningful way, that is, if the particular workplace option fits the task at hand [25]. Thus, organizations both need to provide various options that suit different task requirements and they should support their employees in learning how to choose a suitable option. Thereby, the implementation of activity-based working is a process characterized by ongoing learning and adaptation. After moving to new workspaces, employees need to get used to the new facilities and learn how to use these new work options.

Alipour et al. [40] assumed that working from home as triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic could have lasting effects on the way of working. Even before the pandemic, the increasing importance of the work from home for the new world of work became visible. A study carried out before the pandemic showed that work from home should always be a work option that employees should use flexibly [15]. The option to work from home gives employees increased flexibility and autonomy as well as greater freedom of action in terms of planning and organizing their work [41 –43]. Grunau et al. [42] found that employees who work from home at least occasionally during working hours are, on average, more satisfied than other employees. Working from home can help to meet needs for flexible work design and thus improve work satisfaction among employees [44].

But also after the pandemic, the use of activity-based working will stay in the focus. The office is a “hub and home” [6, 15], and therefore adequate learning of using the opportunities of different workplaces is essential. Thereby, working from home can be seen as an additional option complementing the office on the premises of the employer. Thus, employees might strive for a hybrid form of work comprising both the work from home as an option for concentrated work and the office as a meeting place with other employees. At the least, whenever there is a lack of retreat areas in organizations, especially those with activity-based working concepts, or when meeting rooms are permanently occupied, the possibility of using the additional option “working from home” becomes even more important [23].

5 Limitations

Our study has some limitations. One limitation concerns the different designs of the activity-based working spaces in the two organizations. However, as every office environment and organization is unique, this limitation applies to all studies that investigate office concepts [34]. For example, the satisfaction with activity-based working environments may differ [7, 25], not only between but also within organizations [24, 45]. Although the design of activity-based working spaces differs, the principles of activity-based working remain the same. The focus is on the use of suitable workplaces, which is the core principle of activity-based working, regardless of the specific implementation in different organizations and departments. However, future studies should take into account some of these differences in activity-based working implementations. Jahncke and Hallmann [20] reported that instead of addressing the average performance or productivity for the whole activity-based concept, research should aim for a more detailed analysis to understand which areas are suitable for concentration-intense work and how much performance differs between these work areas [23].

Another limitation of the present research is the partial use of self-reports, which may influence the relationship between variables. Whereas the list of available workplace options was based on third-party reports and not influenced by the perception of participants, the actual use of these options as well as task-environment fit and perceived autonomy were self-reported by participants. In the future, some self-reports could be supplemented by more objective measures like archival data (e.g., sickness leave, performance measures) or third-party reports (e.g., supervisor or customer ratings) [34].

Finally, the study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the idea of using different workplace options needs to be transferred to new scenarios with many people working and collaborating remotely. The role and necessity of brick-and-mortar offices on the employer’s premises should be looked at more closely.

6 Conclusion and future directions

In the context of an activity-based office concept, we examined the actual use of available workplace options, the perceived fit between the task and workplace (i.e, task-environment fit), and perceived autonomy in the workplace. The results of this longitudinal investigation with two measurement points provided evidence that an increase in the use of workplace options led to an increase in task-environment fit, which in turn, enhanced autonomy in the workplace. As a result, it is not the sheer number of available workplace options that is important, but rather how those options are used: A more targeted use of the workplace options led to a better fit between workplace and task, and thereafter, to perceived autonomy in the workplace. To sum up, through the increased use of different workplace options employees may have discovered the benefits of different workplace options for particular tasks, resulting in the perception of more autonomy in their workplace.

This longitudinal investigation provides a contribution in the implementation of activity-based working concepts and their effective use. After moving into an activity-based flexible office, the employees need to get used to the new work environment and learn to use it in a meaningful way. This process might be supported by interventions on how to use available workspaces effectively, which might also improve employees’ attitudes towards the new working concept. The concept of activity-based working requires not only making workplace options available but also stimulating learning and reflection processes in how to find the adequate workplace that fits the current work task [15]. Organizations should facilitate the use of different workplace options and encourage employees to create a better fit between work tasks and workplaces [25].

Activity-based offices aim to accommodate a range of work tasks and thereby affect well-established structures and routines at work such as territoriality, autonomy, proximity, and visibility of employees [9, 46]. With the introduction of activity-based working not only should employees be enabled to effectively use available workplace options but policies and rules in activity-based offices should get established [32]. Rules might be crucial in activity-based working, as explicit and unambiguous rules likely contribute to achieving the intended benefits such as increased decision latitude for choosing different workstations, increased inter-team interaction, quick exchange of information, and preventing loud conversations in work spaces dedicated to retreatment [32].

Thereby, employees’ participation in the change process seems essential. Haapakangas et al. [11] reported that employees should be supported in their coping during the adaptation period, during which the perceived workload may increase particularly among those who previously worked in private offices. This might be achieved, for example, by employee participation when the office concept is designed, and by offering training in adopting activity-based working. Another factor in facilitating the appropriate use of activity-based working, is leadership [22]. Bergsten et al. [47] showed the importance of a change-oriented leadership while implementing activity-based working to prevent productivity loss.

Overall, the effectiveness of activity-based working concepts depends on their implementation in the organization and employees’ ability to take advantage of different workplace options. Only when employees and companies have internalized an appropriate use of workplace options, activity-based offices and their flexible working environment can unfold their potential.

Funding

Data collection and the preparation of the manuscript were conducted during the PRAEGEWELT project. This research and development project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the program “Innovations for Tomorrow’s Production, Services, and Work” (funding number 02L14A101) and managed by the Project Management Agency Karlsruhe (PTKA). The authors are responsible for the contents of this publication.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participating organizations and members of the PRAEGEWELT project for their time and effort.

Ethics statement

During the funding procedure, several review authorities (university intramural and extramural) approved the study’s outline, design, method, and procedure. Therefore, no additional approval from an institutional review board was necessary.

Data availability

The data analysed in this study were gathered as part of the following data collection effort: Lütke Lanfer, S. S., Becker, C. and Göritz, A. S. (2021). Well-being in open space offices: The role of office features and psychosocial working conditions. WORK, 68(2), 317–332. .

Lütke Lanfer, Becker and Göritz (2021) explored the concurrent influences of objective features of the open space office/activity-based offices (i.e., office size, desk-sharing, openness, number of working options used), subjective features of the open space office/activity-based offices (i.e., satisfaction with office environment), and demands and resources as classical working conditions (i.e., workload, control, social support, supportive leadership, resilience) on irritation and subjective well-being using cross-sectional and longitudinal data stemming from four organizations. In the manuscript at hand we picked out one of the resources, namely autonomy (control), and related it to the use of workplace options.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Cascio

, Montealegre

. How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2016;3:349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352

Davis

, Leach

, Clegg

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

, Ford

, editors. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. pp. 193. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119992592.ch6

Thörel

, Pauls

, Göritz

. Antezedenzien und Wirkmechanismen arbeitsbezogener erweiterter Erreichbarkeit – Wenn die Arbeitszeit nicht ausreicht. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie. 2020;51:37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-020-00496-z

Hessenmöller

, Pangert

, Pieper

, Schiml

, Schröer

, Schüpbach

. iga. Barometer 4. Welle 2013: Die Arbeitssituation in Unternehmen. Eine repräsentative Befragung der Erwerbsbevölkerung in Deutschland. Flexibilität, Life-Domain-Balance und Gesundheit; Auswirkungen von Erwerbslosigkeitserfahrungen. 2013. Available from: https://www.iga-info.de/fileadmin/redakteur/Veroeffentlichungen/iga_Reporte/Dokumenteiga-Report_27_Barometer_Flexibilitaetsanforderungen_Erwerbslosigkeitserfahrungen.pdf

Becker

, Lütke Lanfer

, Kratzer

. Neue Arbeitswelten: Wahrnehmung und Wirkung von Open-Space-Büros. Arbeit. 2019;28:263. https://doi.org/10.1515/arbeit-2019-0017

Kratzer

, editor. Open Space. Oder was? Wandel der Büroarbeit. München: ISF München; 2017.

Rolfö

. Relocation to an activity-based flexible office – Design processes and outcomes. Applied Ergonomics. 2018;73:141–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.017

Wohlers

, Hertel

. Choosing where to work at work – Towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity based flexible offices. Ergonomics. 2017;60:467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1188220

Wohlers

, Hertel

. Longitudinal Effects of Activity-Based Flexible Office Design on Teamwork. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02016

10.

Gerdenitsch

, Korunka

, Hertel

. Need– supply fit in an activity based flexible office: A longitudinal study during relocation. Environment and Behavior. 2018;50:273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517697766

11.

Haapakangas

, Hallman

, Mathiassen

, Jahncke

. The effects of moving into an activity-based office on communication, social relations and work demands – A controlled intervention with repeated follow-up. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2019;66:101341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv2019.101341

12.

Appel-Meulenbroek

, Groenen

, Janssen

. An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 2011;13:122. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630011111136830

13.

Foley

, Engelen

, Gale

, Bauman

, Mackey

. Sedentary Behavior and Musculoskeletal Discomfort Are Reduced When Office Workers Trial an Activity-Based Work Environment. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 2016;58(9):924. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000000828

14.

Rolfö

, Eklund

, Jahncke

. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics. 2017;61(5):644. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1398844

15.

Kratzer

, editor. Open Space. Besser machen. Eine Praxisbroschüre des Projekts PRÄGEWELT – “Prävention-sorientierte Gestaltung neuer Open-Space-Arbeitswelten”. München: ISF München; 2020.

16.

Babapour

. From fading novelty effects to emergent appreciation of Activity based Flexible Offices: Comparing the individual, organisational and spatial adaptations in two case organisations. Applied Ergonomics. 2019;81:102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102877

17.

Brunia

, Hartjes-Gosselink

. Personalization in Non-Territorial Offices: A Study of a Human Need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 2009;11(3):169–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010910985922

18.

Bodin Danielsson

, Bodin

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

19.

Seddigh

, Berntson

, Bodin Danielson

, Westerlund

. Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2014;38:167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv2014.01.009

20.

Jahncke

, Hallman

. Objective measures of cognitive performance in activity based workplaces and traditional office types. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020;72:101503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv2020.101503

21.

Stadler

. Open Space Büros: Eine Studie über die Machbarkeit und Umsetzung von offenen Bürostrukturen. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung; 2011. Available from: https://www.boeckler.de/pdf_fof/97337.pdf

22.

Wohlers

, Hartner-Tiefenthaler

, Hertel

. The relation between activity based work environments and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Environment and Behavior. 2017;51:167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738078

23.

Becker

, Soucek

, Gunkel

, Lütke Lanfer

, Göritz

. Tagebuchstudie zu Activity-Based Flexible Offices: Wie das Zusammenspiel von Arbeitsaufgabe und Arbeitsort das psychische Wohlbefinden fördert. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O. 2021;65:153-164. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000359

24.

Hoendervanger

, Ernst

, Albers

, Mobach

, Van Yperen

. Individual differences in satisfaction with activity-based work environments. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0193878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193878

25.

Hoendervanger

, Van Yperen

, Mobach

, Albers

. Perceived fit in activity-based work environments and its impact on satisfaction and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2019;65:101339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv2019.101339

26.

Morgeson

, Humphrey

. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006;91(6):1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

27.

Campion

. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology.. 1988;73(3):467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.467

28.

Hackman

, Oldham

. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1976;16:250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

29.

Breaugh

. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations. 1985;38:551. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800604

30.

Wall

, Jackson

, Davids

. Operator work design and robotics system performance: A serendipitous field study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77(3):353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.353

31.

Wall

, Jackson

, Mullarkey

. Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1995;16(5):431. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160505

32.

Babapour

, Rolfö

. Policies in Activity-Based Flexible Offices -‘I Am Sloppy with Clean-Desking. We Don’t Really Know the Rules.’. Ergonomics. 2019;62(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1516805

33.

Vos

, van der Voordt

. Tomorrow’s Offices through Today’s Eyes: effects of Innovation in the Working Environment. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 2002;4(1):48–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010210811778

34.

Lütke Lanfer

, Becker

, Göritz

. Well-being in open space offices: The role of office features and psychosocial working conditions. WORK . 2021;68(2):317. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203378

35.

Stegmann

, van Dick

, Ullrich

, Charalambous

, Menzel

, Egold

, Tai-Chi Wu

. Der Work Design Questionnaire. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O. 2010;54(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000002

36.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2021Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

37.

Lüdecke

, Ben Shachar

, Patil

, Waggoner

, Makowski

. performance: An R Package for Assessment,Comparison and Testing of Statistical Models. Journal of Open Source Software. 2021;6(60):3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139

38.

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

, Aiken

. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 2003.

39.

Imai

, Keele

, Tingley

. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods. 2010;15(4):309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761

40.

Alipour

, Falck

, Schüller

. Homeoffice während der Pandemie und die Implikationen für eine Zeit nach der Krise. Ifo Schnelldienst. 2020; 73 Nr. 07, 30–36.

41.

Gajendran

, Harrison

. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(6):1524–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

42.

Grunau

, Ruf

, Steffes

, Wolter

. Mobile Arbeitsformen aus Sicht von Betrieben und Beschäftigten: Homeoffice bietet Vorteile, hat aber auch Tücken. Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. 2019. Available from: https://doku.iab.de/kurzber/2019/kb1119.pdf

43.

Wöhrmann

, Backhaus

, Tisch

, Michel

. BAuA-Arbeitszeitbefragung: Pendeln, Telearbeit, Dienstreisen, wechselnde und mobile Arbeitsorte. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. 2020Available from: https://doi.org/10.21934/baua:bericht20200713

44.

Bonin

, Eichhorst

, Kaczynska

, Kümmerling

, Rinne

, Scholten

, Steffes

. Verbreitung und Auswirkungen von mobiler Arbeit und Homeoffice: Kurzexpertise. (Forschungsbericht / Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, FB549). Berlin: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales; Universität Duisburg-Essen Campus Duisburg, Fak. für Gesellschaftswissenschaften, Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation (IAQ); Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) GmbH; Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). 2020. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-70079-5

45.

Leesman, The rise and rise of activity based working [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.leesmanindex.com/The_Rise_and_Rise_of_Activity_Based_Working_Research_book.pdf

46.

Bernstein

, Turban

. The impact of the “open” workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences [Internet]. The Royal Society; 2018;373(1753):20170239. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239

47.

Bergsten

, Haapakangas

, Larsson

, Jahncke

, Hallman

. Effects of relocation to activity-based workplaces on perceived productivity: Importance of change-oriented leadership. Applied Ergonomics. 2021;9(3):103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103348