Supporting Workers' Health and Safety via Workplace Design: Part 1
The first in a three-part series exploring how businesses can support workers' health, safety, and well-being via the design of the workplace
Introduction
Today, the way we work has significantly changed. The global COVID-19 pandemic (now endemic) drove a sharp increase in work design centred around working from home and, as the perceived ‘peak’ of the pandemic passed, workers around the globe transitioned to the widespread adoption of hybrid work.
In this context, the place of the physical workplace has been called into question, with businesses – and social scientists – seeking to understand how they can best support hybrid work, while keeping costs down. This is juxtaposed against calls for a return to the office, such as the one made in Aotearoa by current Finance Minister Nicola Willis in September.
Added to this mix is a greater appreciation for, and understanding of, mentally healthy work and the psychosocial work environment. A greater emphasis on this aspect of health and safety at work in some jurisdictions has led to more research seeking to understand how workers’ mental health can be protected and promoted at work.
Although the body of evidence in this area has been growing for 50 years, these various strands of the modern work environment converge on a desire to understand how best to design offices and workplaces to support both employers and employees alike.
Part one of this series explores workplace layout and design, and the so-called ‘flexible office designs’ that support modern ways of working.
A healthy workplace
Workplaces are complex environments. They need to balance a myriad of elements that interact to provide an environment that supports workers, helps meet organisational objectives, and meets legislative requirements.
A healthy workplace is one in which workers and managers collaborate to use a continual improvement process to protect and promote the health, safety and well-being of workers and the sustainability of the workplace by considering the following, based on identified needs:
health and safety concerns in the physical work environment
health, safety and well-being concerns in the psychosocial work environment including organization of work and workplace culture
personal health resources in the workplace; and
ways of participating in the community to improve the health of workers, their families and other members of the community.1
This definition of a healthy workplace from the World Health Organization highlights the design and layout of the physical work environment as an essential determinant of workplace health, safety, and well-being.
Our health and safety regulator – WorkSafe – appears to align itself with the WHO. In its discussion of the minimum requirements for workplaces and their associated facilities, WorkSafe notes that workplaces “must be clean, healthy, safe, accessible and well maintained so work can be carried out without risks to worker health and safety.” (WorkSafe, 2018, p.1)
The way an office is designed, then, can constitute a risk that may affect a worker’s health and, as a potential cause of stress, can be defined as a psychosocial hazard or risk, that is, “an adverse workplace interaction or condition of work that compromises a worker’s health and well-being”.2
Layout and design
Workplace layout can take different forms. One classification is that workplaces may be:
static, characterised by:
workers being ‘bound’ to the same place (e.g., a desk or office)
offices designed to be cellular or open plan; and
spaces that can be shared by multiple employees
untethered, characterised by:
open plan design
shared desk arrangements or hot-desking; and
workers being “required to find the best location to perform their task at hand”3 (that is, activity-based working (ABW)); and
adaptive, characterised by:
being able “to accommodate fluctuations in space demands, expanding or shrinking in size and shape from one day to another”4
allowing workers to alter a space in response to their needs at different points in time; and
consideration of “how the infrastructure can be adapted to be used by permanent and non-permanent residents…with the goal of maximising the use of the space and reactivating at the same time”5
Since the 1960s, organisations have increasingly favoured the latter two, primarily in response to changes in the design of work, advances in technology, and business’ desire to save money and reduce their environmental ‘footprint’. More recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic has seen the rise of hybrid work, leading to a more flexible, responsive approach to workplace design characterised by hot-desking and activity-based or task-responsive elements.
One model of workplace design suggests there are three elements that need to be considered:
physical comfort – the suitability of the space by way of legal and health and safety standards and requirements
functional comfort – how well a space is designed so that staff can undertake the tasks associated with their role(s) (e.g., appropriate environmental design, or providing the right work zones); and
psychological comfort – “the ability of a workplace setting to satisfy an individual’s needs such as the need for privacy and control, and the need for an individual to feel a sense of belongingness”6
While these three are sometimes treated hierarchically, they should be treated as a complete, holistic package that works together to support both workers and the wider business.
Furthermore, as our understanding of mentally healthy work and the psychosocial work environment grows, and in a post-pandemic world, it is becoming increasingly recognised that workers value their health, safety, and well-being as one of the most important considerations for remaining in a role. This shift further highlights the need for workplaces to consider what ‘appropriate design’ looks like for their business and, crucially, their staff.
Layout and workers’ health and well-being
The way a workplace is designed and laid-out is immensely important to the health, safety, and well-being of workers and, by extension, the health of the business or organisation. Scholars argue that internal design and layout shapes space-users’ behaviour, performance, well-being, emotional responses, and, by extension, social dynamics and “the social culture within an organisation”.7
To optimise employees’ well-being and avoid a situation where team/group dynamics and relationships are undermined, businesses should seek to provide an optimal workplace that is informed by evidence and the needs of those the office is intended to support.
“Focusing on optimal workspace… includes configuring space to foster serendipitous interactions, collaborative working and social interactions, thus ensuring that the space supports team and organisational-level productivity. It also includes configuring space in a way that facilitates acoustic and visual privacy, enabling focused work and private conversations. This means that building design considerations should include practical interior design elements, such as locating quiet zones away from social zones, and allowing employees the flexibility to choose their workspace for collaboration with colleagues.”8
Ironically, over the decades, despite business’ preference for ‘flexible’ designs (such as ABW), research has highlighted dedicated offices as the most effective design type, both in terms of workers’ health and well-being and business productivity / efficiency.
“While open-plan offices may be justified by direct control or cost containment, they often come at the expense of productivity and well-being for many employees. Despite scholarly work highlighting the drawbacks of open-plan offices and hot desking, these physical work environments remain prevalent and disliked by employees.”9
The continued side-stepping of empirical evidence that highlights the key elements of workplace design that supports – rather than harms – staff members’ health and well-being highlights the issue of worker engagement.10
In an environment in which businesses and managers are keen to see their workforce return to the office or – at the very least – adopt hybrid rather than full WFH models, the layout and design of the physical workspace cannot be ignored.
“Noisy working environments, visual distractions, poor lighting, poor access to amenities such as toilets or kitchen, inability to control room temperatures, and lack of space are factors making several participants' home a more compelling than the office space to work from.”11
As the above quote illustrates, recent evidence suggests that workers’ negative experiences of open-plan and hot-desking environments is part of the rationale of encouraging employees to actively pursue hybrid and working from home (WFH) working arrangements.
Space
Regardless of the design or layout used, a key consideration is providing enough space for workers to undertake the tasks required of them.
Employees’ productivity can be undermined by not having enough space to work from or – in ABW environments – enough of the right kind of spaces and zones. Noise is highlighted as a key issue in open-plan and ABW workplaces, and the common response is to encourage staff to use quiet zones to combat this. However, if a business has not provided enough quiet zones, this can make noise exposure more stressful for employees.
Providing enough space in the workplace influences workers’ proximity to each other. If staff feel ‘on top of each other’ at work, this can significantly harm individuals – especially neurodivergent individuals’ – well-being. Somewhat obviously, reducing the actual distance between staff has the potential to increase their exposure to noise, distractions, and reduced privacy, leading to flow-on consequences.
One perspective in this regard highlights the role of distance in the way people think and behave:
“When an individual is spatially distant from a situation, they think and behave more abstractly. Their actions and words might then also be more abstract and general, which could then dictate the tone of their interactions with colleagues.”12
Considering individuals’ needs is also important here. Some have advocated for an approach “to make workstation or office assignments that are mindful of the personal space needs of those with mental health problems, balancing the needs for social interaction, social support, territoriality and privacy”.13
In addition, space can act as a signifier with “the amount of space provided to individuals [showing] a difference in employee status” demonstrating how workplace design “can symbolise status and power”.14
Echoing the purported benefit of open-plan offices’ ability to respond to changing needs, some authors highlight the importance of ensuring layouts and designs are “allowed to evolve to…reflect the proportions of spaces the workstyles/teams [in that location] need.”15 This flexibility and adaptability in design aligns with a universal design approach intended to support the needs and preferences of all workers, including those who identify as disabled.
‘Modern’ Layouts and Designs
Open-plan design
Open-plan workplaces– “usually characterized by large office spaces filled with multiple desks in various arrangements and [with] a lack of physical barriers”16 – exploded in popularity in the second half of the 20th century. This was largely influenced by changes in work-type, technological advancements, and cost.
Principally, the approach became popular due to cost savings; the design provides economic benefits in terms of reducing space requirements, facilitating the ability to respond to changing needs within a given site, and being cheaper to build and maintain.
Some studies point to positive outcomes associated with open-plan office design, but the converse has also been reported, with research indicating “generally poorer outcomes in relation to wellbeing [sic], environmental satisfaction and productivity”17. In addition, studies note that, in general, workers prefer private offices to open-plan designs, with employees widely reported to dislike open-plan offices because of the range of negative effects.
Positive effects
One of the main benefits attributed to open-plan or shared office design is that associated with reduced costs. Various researchers have pointed to economic benefits such as reducing space requirements, being able to more easily respond to changing needs at a given site, and the fact they can be cheaper to build and maintain.
Although research results are mixed, various studies have identified other positive effects, including:
improved physical well-being outcomes for staff
increased productivity among workers
increased job satisfaction
Negative effects
Equally, however, studies have also identified issues associated with the use of open-plan offices. Research findings have often found “generally poorer outcomes in relation to wellbeing [sic], environmental satisfaction and productivity”.18
Open-plan designs are often touted as being an effective way of improving communication and collaboration among workers. Despite this claim, there is little empirical evidence that supports it.
Increased noise, more distractions, and reduced privacy are all cited as key negative aspects of open-plan office designs. These can have varying negative effects on workers, introducing additional demands that reduce their ability to concentrate and focus, increase stress levels, reduce the quality of relationships, increase fatigue, and reduce job satisfaction, productivity, and morale.
“The distractions and lack of privacy in office spaces impose additional demands on employees, resulting in them spending extra energy, cognitive resources and time to complete work, thereby impeding job satisfaction, health and wellbeing [sic].”19
Other issues associated with open-plan design identified in research include:
increased stress levels
reduced well-being
a loss of both visual and auditory privacy
reduced productivity
increased exposure to noise and distractions
higher rates of absenteeism
poorer physical health resulting from more easily spread infectious disease
reductions in interactions between staff
a reduction in the quality of collaboration caused by changes in who staff interact with
negative effects on relationships between managers and staff and on interpersonal relationships more broadly
reduced psychological well-being because of feeling under greater scrutiny and supervision
Activity-based Working
Activity-based Working (ABW) has been developed as a more modern approach to open-plan office design. In recent years, ABW has been held up as a design that effectively supports hybrid work models in a post-pandemic world.
This approach involves designing and laying-out offices to reflect a task-based philosophy, with different parts of a workplace including dedicated spaces for specific activities. This includes spaces for collaboration, teamwork, and small and large group discussions, quiet spaces for work that requires focus or concentration, private areas for phone calls or sensitive discussions, and shared areas, such as lounges or kitchens.
In an ABW environment, it’s expected staff will use the area or ‘zone’ that matches the task or activity they need to undertake. This means that all areas – including individual desks – are shared among those working in an office.
Alongside this design, an ABW workplace needs “appropriate technology and behaviour etiquettes”20 supported by staff and enforced by those in authority to ensure the design works.
In Aotearoa, while not labelled as ABW, the approach is required of Government departments and similar bodies, with design requirements set by the Government Property Group.
While popular among businesses and organisations, and although the approach has been assumed to deliver benefits in the form of increased productivity, improved communication and collaboration, and – let’s not forget – cost-savings, the research looking into its effectiveness has delivered, at best, mixed results.
Positive effects
Some research suggests ABW is superior to traditional open-plan design, while some studies suggest it is better than both open-plan and individual ‘cell’ offices in supporting workers’ mahi and health and safety.
Improvements in collaboration and communication are often cited as a key benefit of ABW. The way these offices are designed, it’s argued, provide opportunities for increased collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and spontaneous interactions.
[Employees’] proximity and the visibility of open-plan space may facilitate communication by encouraging more approaches than the closed door, and overhearing conversations may entice employees to participate in them.21
Opportunities for collaboration apply to both formal and informal interactions, allowing staff to mix with a wider range of colleagues. Some, however, suggest this “is mainly related to incidental communication with colleagues”.22
The inclusion of quiet spaces is also pointed to as a key benefit of ABW design, with benefits including:
providing workers the opportunity to “avoid unwanted social interaction when necessary”23; and
acting as a mediator for staff, particularly when their satisfaction with the environment is negatively affected by noise exposure and/or lack of privacy.
Findings from various studies have pointed to other benefits associated with ABW. These include:
facilitating workers’ autonomy by giving workers opportunities to choose where in an office they work
supporting physical health (via the need to move between work zones)
increased productivity among workers, primarily because of efficiencies associated with choosing to work in a zone that best-suits work tasks
positively affecting workers’ job satisfaction
increasing workers’ affinity with an organisation
strengthening business’s learning culture; and
improved team and organisational culture, and social bonding, when ABW designs produce improved communication and collaboration.
Negative effects
It’s fair to say the benefits listed above have not been unequivocally supported in research.
Two negative features of open-plan offices – noise and distractions – have been shown to be strongly felt in ABW workplaces. The open, transitional nature of ABW leads to an increase in noise and distractions for workers that acts as a stressor or additional demand for staff, placing their health and well-being at risk. One notable outcome is that more noise and/or distractions, decreases workers’ ability to concentrate, affecting their satisfaction, motivation, productivity, fatigue levels, and overall health and well-being.
Studies have shown that workers placed in this situation are put under greater cognitive strain; they need to work harder to focus and concentrate to compensate for the negative effects of ABW. This is especially marked for employees for whom concentration is important in their day-to-day mahi. Research also indicates this increased pressure may cause staff to withdraw from others as a coping mechanism, undermining one of the key aims of this approach.
Another key ‘con’ of ABW is emotional and psychological strain placed on workers. Compared with other office designs, ABW was shown to have “the highest dehumanisation levels”24. Studies repeatedly highlight the negative effect of ABW on workers’ sense of belonging, placing further psychological pressure on staff in these environments.
Other negative effects highlighted in the literature include:
increased stress associated with the unpredictable nature of ABW
This is caused by workers not knowing where they are going to be working, where they can find colleagues, supervisors, or managers, and/or not knowing who they will be working next to.
reduced autonomy for workers, evidenced by:
being forced to work in specific zones to undertake specific types of work
workers not being able to personalise or ‘own’ work areas; and
not being able to control the number of interactions with others or the amount of exposure to noise from others’ interactions (even in quiet zones)
reductions in interactions between workers (after moving from individual or small group offices to ABW), especially with other teams and departments
this is sometimes linked to a reduced sense of belonging
a lack of social cohesion and sense of community, and increased social distance and feelings of isolation
long-term negative effects on workers’ satisfaction with communication, sometimes caused by:
increased instances of conflict between workers; and/or
a decrease in the quality of interactions between employees
increased territorial behaviours associated with an unwillingness to switch between work zones, resulting in increased tension, inequality within the office, and reduced job satisfaction
acting as a barrier to creativity and innovation
reduced productivity, caused by
overstimulation within the environment
an increased reliance on electronic communication
increased workload; and
reduced job satisfaction.
Shared desk arrangements
Commonly known as hot-desking, shared desk arrangements are a feature of ABW and, sometimes, open-plan offices. This approach removes individual ownership of desks or workstations, requiring staff to use whichever desk is available when they arrive at the workplace, effectively making them a ‘first come, first serve’ resource.
While the introduction of hot-desking was sparked by the same drivers as those that saw the rise of open-plan design (e.g., technological changes), the primary rationale is economical. Hot-desking is viewed by business owners as a way of responding to under-utilisation of workplaces – particularly alongside the rise of hybrid and remote work arrangements – and reducing business’ physical ‘footprint’.
This approach, it is argued, saves businesses money, while also offering a degree of spatial flexibility.
Positive effects
Alongside economic benefits, in some studies, hot-desking has been shown to facilitate communication and collaboration between workers. This takes the form of:
providing opportunities for networking with a wider range of colleagues, and strengthening collaboration as a result
facilitating knowledge-sharing between staff; and
supporting the development of less experienced or new staff.
In addition, for some staff at least, hot-desking has also been shown to support workers’ job satisfaction.
Negative effects
Research into hot-desking as a feature of office design has, unfortunately (given its widespread use), highlighted several negative effects associated with shared desk arrangements.
Multiple studies have pointed to hot-desking as a psychosocial hazard for workplaces. With this approach, workers feel:
isolated
dispossessed
disconnected; and
following a switch from dedicated to shared desks, a sense of loss.
In turn, these negative feelings have a downstream negative effect on collaboration, productivity, job satisfaction, and a loss of identity in the work environment.
One of the outcomes of shared desk arrangements is that is prevents staff from being able to permanently personalising their workstation (and, in some instances, the wider work area). Personalisation of work areas serves several key functions, including:
providing an avenue for expressing identity
creating a workplace identity
decreasing anonymity
developing a sense of belonging
strengthening workers’ sense of control at work
building a sense of cohesion in the work group
creating a safe territory for workers; and
making sense of space at work and attributing meaning to the work environment.
The ability to personalise the work environment acts as a job resource “supporting fundamental psychological needs, thereby buffering the impact of job demands and strain”.25
Hot-desking – and the prohibition on permanently personalising the workspace associated with it – acts as a barrier to achieving these functions. This results in a situation whereby staff members’ psychological/psychosocial well-being is significantly undermined; it has been described as a “violation of [workers] psychological needs”26 and as an approach that works “against something fundamentally human”.27
Shared desk arrangements have been shown to have other negative effects:
undermining workers’ ability to develop a positive team culture
stratification of work groups (dividing workers into ‘settlers’ and ‘mobile workers’)
reducing workers’ sense of commitment to the organisation
reducing workers’ sense of autonomy (and, by extension, decreased sense of security and privacy)
increasing the risk of emotional exhaustion
exposure to increased conflict, subversive behaviours, and apathy at work
reducing productivity (for example, workers in shared desk environments can spend nearly two weeks a year looking for a desk to work at)
reducing staff morale
negatively affecting workers’ recall and retention
undermining workers’ sense of belonging
negatively affecting workers physical health, including increased:
exposure to physical discomfort and pain in the shoulder, lower back, and wrist/hand associated with lacking access to a permanent, individually designed ergonomic set up; and
risk of exposure to infectious disease.
Individual differences
In addition to the effects of different ‘modern’ approaches, research highlights several individual differences related to workplace design, and that “individual preferences play an important role in workspace suitability”.28
workplace design affects people differently according to their personal characteristics and the type of work they do... [and that] a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not suffice29
This is especially important when considering that employees for whom the office design does not fit are likely to experience greater stress at work, resulting in a situation where these workers are pushed “toward the negative side of the burnout-engagement continuum”.30
Gender
In terms of the physical aspects of how workplaces are designed, research highlights some key differences between male and female workers.
Women are typically more sensitive to environmental stimuli, particularly noise, than men, and are “generally more dissatisfied with the indoor climate”31
Female employees attach greater significance to personalisation of workspaces.
There is a significant correlation between increased absenteeism and higher noise levels, especially for women “with high job complexity”.32
The “office type’s impact on sick leave is stronger for female employees”.33
Female employees report feeling “more observed”34 in open-plan designs.
Women are less satisfied with the benefits of workplace design on the work environment.
Men show a higher degree of sensitivity to crowding (resulting in lower satisfaction with hot-desking and shared ‘cell’ offices).
Traditional open-plan offices are the source of more conflict for men, while ABW offices result in a higher incidence of conflict among women.
Women experience higher levels of emotional exhaustion in open-plan offices.
While these findings may not be able to generalised across the entire working population, they offer important considerations for businesses and leaders when they are looking at the design and layout of their respective workplaces.
Age
Differences are also seen across generations/ages, with research findings indicating:
older employees:
place a higher value on private, quiet work areas
prefer more office space
feel the negative effects of noise exposure more acutely; and
“become less concerned with what others think and feel less need to conform”35.
younger workers:
have been shown to be more satisfied with lighting and noise levels of open-plan offices
view office designs that facilitate teamwork and socialisation more favourably; and
are both more used and amenable to open-plan and flexible designs.
As with research underscoring differences based on (a traditional) binary gender split, such findings should be taken into account when businesses are reviewing how their workplaces are designed.
Personality
While the evidence is somewhat mixed, researchers suggest that individuals’ personality can have a key role in workers’ level of satisfaction with the work environment. Studies often use the five-factor model of personality – comprised of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness – to examine the relationship between workplace design and personality.
Workers who score high on extraversion or who can be characterised as extroverts are better suited to and/or more satisfied with:
open-plan office designs; and
hot-desking or desk sharing arrangements.
Workers high in agreeableness:
have a greater need for personalisation and, consequently, more space
experience higher levels of distraction in open-plan offices; and
are better suited to ABW environments.
Workers high in conscientiousness:
experience higher levels of job satisfaction in private offices (compared with open plan); and
are better suited to ABW environments.
Given the mixed evidence in this regard, considerations of personality add an interesting dimension to decision-making that should not, it appears, be dismissed out of hand by businesses and leaders.
Disabilities
One key element that needs to be considered in the context of individuals’ needs and preferences is that of disability.
In Aotearoa, workplaces are legislatively required to provide a workplace that takes account of both the “number and composition of the workers” and “the views of workers”36 – this includes workers with a disability. At the same time, employers are required to provide ‘reasonable accommodation’; providing “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments”37 to ensure those with a disability have equitable access to various aspects of work as their non-disabled peers.
While legislation provides some protections, critics of this approach suggest it is a negative, ‘add on’ approach that serves to strengthen the concept of ‘them’ (disabled workers) and ‘us’ (non-disabled workers). Instead, adopting an approach that supports the universal design of workspaces and workplaces helps combat stigma.
“[Work] space can also serve as a catalyst for the inclusion of people with disabilities. This potential arises from the profound impact of space on shaping people's attitudes toward others; thus, space design is a potent instrument for promoting ‘wide inclusion’.”38
It is well understood that how a space is laid-out and designed can produce barriers for those living with a disability, including those with a so-called ‘hidden’ disability, such as mental illness. Some research has identified a link between the type of workplace design and the risk of early retirement because of disability, with the use of an open-plan office demonstrating an increased risk, compared with cellular offices.
While individuals may require additional specific accommodations (for example, audiovisual applications to support staff with low vision), businesses should look to universal design principles to provide an accessible, inclusive workplace.
Best practice design means creating environments that suit a diverse range of users. It is flexible enough to accommodate people with disability, including those who have a non-visible disability or others who choose not to share that information at work.39
Taking this approach to workplace design aligns with a more ethical philosophy that challenges the power and status dynamics inherent in office layout and design. Starting with a default position of equitably taking all workers’ needs and preferences into account will challenge an historical ableist approach to design. This traditional viewpoint approaches workplace design from the perspective of an ‘ideal body’ that can function in any environment, which results in the stigmatisation of anyone who does not align with that ideal.
From a [universal design] perspective, disregarding the needs of specific individuals and compelling them to encounter situations that do not suit them cannot be regarded as a harmless oversight. Rather, it is a political choice.40
While individual differences in how workplace design affects workers do exist, to protect the health and well-being of all employees, businesses are encouraged to use resources such as MBIE’s Building for Everyone: Designing for Access and Usability to help guide their decision-making.
At the same time, businesses would do well to take heed of the advice that “[no] one is stigmatized [sic] when everyone’s individual needs are, so far as possible, taken into account in the design, assignment, and operation of the workplace.”41
Role-types
Research points to an alignment between role-types and office design, particularly ABW environments; “different kinds of work activities depend and require different types of support from the environment”.42
Studies suggest:
open-plan and ABW environments are best suited for:
roles that spend a lot of time off-site (for example, advisory roles)
senior roles that include collaboration and engagement as a key feature of their mahi
roles where less complex tasks feature and/or which require less concentration
open-plan and ABW environments are poorly suited for workers:
whose role does not include collaborative work as a key feature of their role
spend more time on tasks that require concentration
for whom privacy or confidentiality is a key concern
special attention should be paid to which work types, work styles, and work methods are represented in a team. In practice, it has been repeatedly found that performance and team climate improve significantly when these points are taken into account and incorporated into the implementation of the new working environment.43
Recent years have seen a massive shift in the way work is carried out across Aotearoa and, indeed, the world. In the context of a swing back to businesses looking to have their employees return to the physical office, leaders need to carefully consider how the design of the workplace affects workers’ health, safety, and well-being.
Business owners, managers, and health and safety professionals need to be cognisant of the evidence surrounding the use of open-plan and ABW designs, alongside the significantly negative effects of hot-desking. At the same time, taking individual staff members’ differences into account is equally important, as this can have significant consequences for employees and, in turn, the wider business.
If they are truly invested in protecting and promoting workers’ health, safety, and well-being, businesses need to heed the lessons from research.
Part 2 of this three-part series will explore environmental elements of workplace design, while Part 3 will look at recommendations for implementation and best practice.
Bibliography
Abdul Rasid, M. F., Mohd Aris, M. A., Nik Hamdi, N. H. Q., & Ramli, S. (2024). Examining Factors Influencing Employee Job Satisfaction in a Hybrid Work Setting: A Case Study of an Oil & Gas Company. e-Academia Journal of UiTM Cawangan Terengganu, 13(1), 61-75.
Alsarraj, H. A. (2019, July). Open-plan Office and its Impact on Interpersonal Relationships [Master’s Thesis]. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology.
Andrews, D. C. (2016). A Space for Place in Business Communication Research. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(3), 325-336. doi:10.1177/2329488416675842
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Voordt, T., Aussems, R., Arentze, T., & Le Blanc, P. (2020). Impact of Activity-based Workplaces on Burnout and Engagement Dimensions. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 22(4), 279-296. doi:10.1108/JCRE-09-2019-0041
Ayoko, O. B., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2020). The Physical Environment of Office Work: Future Open Plan Offices. Australian Journal of Management, 45(3), 488-506. doi:10.1177/0312896220921913
Babapour, M. (2019). The Quest for the Room of Requirement: Why some Activity-based Flexible Offices Work While Others Do Not [Doctoral Thesis]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
Bergefurt, L., Weijs-Perrée, M., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., & Arentze, T. (2022). The Physical Office Workplace as a Resource for Mental Health – A Systematic Scoping Review. Building and Environment, 207, 108505.
Bernstein, E., & Turban, S. (2018). The Impact of the 'Open' Workspace on Human Collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1753), 20170239.
Birkeland Nielsen, M., Shahid Emberland, J., & Knardahl, S. (2021). Office design as a risk factor for disability retirement: A prospective registry study of Norwegian employees. Scand J Work Environ Health, 47(1), 22-32. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3907
Bodin Danielsson, C., & Theorell, R. (2024). Office Design’s Impact on Psychosocial Work Environment and Emotional Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 21, 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21040438
Buick, F., Williamson, S., Weeratunga, V., & Taylor, H. (2024). Adopting a Purposeful Approach to Hybrid Working integrating notions of place, space and time. Policy Quarterly, 20. 40-49. 10.26686/pq.v20i1.9051.
Budie, B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Kemperman, A., & Weijs-Perree, M. (2019). Employee Satisfaction with the Physical Work Environment: The Importance of a Need-based Approach. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 23(1), 36-49. doi:10.3846/ijspm.2019.6372
Burton, J. (2010). WHO Healthy Workplace Framework and Model: Background and Supporting Literature and Practice. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland.
Candido, C., Gocer, O., Marzban, S., Gocer, K., Thomas, L., Zhang, F., & ...Tjondronegoro, D. (2021). Occupants' Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity in Open-plan Offices Designed to Support Activity-based Working: Findings from Different Industry Sectors. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 23(2), 106-129. doi:10.1108/JCRE-06-2020- 0027
Candido, C., Marzban, S., Haddad, S., Mackey, M., & Loder, A. (2020). Designing Healthy Workspaces: Results from Australian Certified Open-plan Offices. Facilities, 39(5/6), 411-433. doi:10.1108/F-02-2020-0018
Candido, C., Avazpour, B., & Durakovic, I. (2024). Office Design. In C. Candido, I. Durakovic, & S. Marzban (Eds), Routledge Handbook of High-performance Workplaces, pp.3-12. Routledge: London. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003328728
Colenberg, S., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Romero Herrera, N., & Keyson, D. (2021). Conceptualizing Social Well-being in Activity-based Offices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 36(4), 327-343. doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2019-0529
Colenberg, S., Jylhӓ, T., & Akesteijn, M. (2021). The Relationship Between Interior Office Space and Employee Health and Well-being - A Literature Review. Building Research and Information, 49(3), 352-366. doi:10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098
Cu, A. (2024). Does space matter? An exploratory study of the effects of workplace settings on the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Thesis in partial fulfilment for the degree of Master of Arts (Psychology)). Auckland University of Technology.
Doussard, C., Garbe, E., Morales, J., & Billion, J. (2024). Universal Design for the workplace: Ethical considerations regarding the inclusion of workers with disabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 194, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05582-y
Engels-Schwarzpaul, T. (2012). Globalised Desktop Skirmishes? Reporting from the Colonies. My Desk is My Castle, 211-228. (U. B. Erlhoff, Ed.) Berlin, Germany: Birkhӓuser. doi:10.1515/9783034610421.211
Forooraghi, M., Cobaleda-Cordero, A., & Babapour Chafi, M. (2022). A Healthy Office and Healthy Employees: A Longitudinal Case Study with a Salutogenic Perspective in the Context of the Physical Office Environment. Building Research and Information, 50(1- 2), 134-151.
Frankó, L., Erdélyi, A., & Dúll, A. (2022). Transformation of the Office: Territorial Behaviour and Place Attachment in Shared Desk Design. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 25(3), 229-245.
Gauer, S., & Ilic, L. (2023). Leadership in Multi-space Offices: Realizing the Potential of Modern and Flexible Workplace Concepts. IntechOpen, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.106887
Gerlitz, A., & Hülsbeck, M. (2023). The Productivity Tax of New Office Concepts: A Comparative Review of Open-plan Offices, Activity-based Working, and Single-office Concepts. Management Review Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00316-2
Gillespie, K. (2019, April 11). Open-plan, Hot-desking...The Fast-track to Poor Well-being and Performance.
Government Property Group. (2020, April 28). Workplace Design Guidelines: Principles for Office Design.
Haapakangas, A., Hallman, D. M., & Bergsten, E. L. (2023). Office design and occupational health–has research been left behind? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 49(1), 1.
Healey, N. (2020, February 17). Hot-desking Was Meant to Save Us All Time and Money. It Hasn't.
Hirst, A. (2011). Settlers, Vagrants, and Mutual Indifference: Unintended Consequences of Hot-desking. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(6), 455-473. doi:10.1108/09534811111175742
Hodzic, S., Kubicek, B., Uhlig, L., & Korunka, C. (2021). Activity-based Flexible Offices: Effects on Work-related Outcomes in a Longitudinal Study. Ergonomics, 64(4), 455-473. doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1850882
James, O., Delfabbro, P., & King, D. L. (2021). A Comparison of Psychological and Work Outcomes in Open-plan and Cellular Office Designs: A Systematic Review. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-13. doi:10.1177/2158244020988869
Kim, J., Candido, C., Thomas, L., & de Dear, R. (2017, July). Desk Ownership in the Workplace: The Effect of Non-territorial Working on Employee Workplace Satisfaction, Perceived Productivity, and Health. Building and Environment, 103(July), 203-214. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.015
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace Satisfaction: The Privacy-communication Trade-off in Open-plan Offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18-26.
La Brijn, D., Houtveen, S., & Schlangen, J. A. (2022, September). The Role of Cohesion and Connection within the ABW Framework: A Critical Elaboration. Paper presented at the 3rd Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Langer, J. (2021, June). The Impact of the Physical Office Environment on Occupant Wellbeing. [Doctoral Thesis]. Cardiff, Wales: School of Psychology, Cardiff University.
Langer, J., Smith, A., & Taylour, J. (2019). Occupant Psychological Wellbeing and Environmental Satisfaction After an Open-plan Office Redesign. In R. Charles, & D. Golightly, Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors (pp. 223-233). Warwickshire, UK: Chartered Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors.
Le Bransky, G., O’Loughlin, A., Fishwick, S., Rossini, N., Umback, A., Heath, T., Warren, M., & Reynolds, H. (2021). The Accessible Office Design Framework. NSW Public Service Commission: Sydney.
Lindberg, P., & Vingård, E. (2012). Indicators of Healthy Work Environments - A Systematic Review. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 3032-3038.
Lovelock, K. (2019, April). Psychosocial Hazards in Work Environments and Effective Approaches for Managing Them. Wellington, New Zealand: WorkSafe New Zealand.
Mache, S., Servaty, R., & Harth, V. (2020). Flexible Work Arrangements in Open Workspaces and Relations to Occupational Stress, Need for Recovery, and Psychological Detachment from Work. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 15(1), 1- 11.
Marzban, S., Candido, C., Mackey, M., Engelen, L., Zhang, F., & Tjondronegoro, D. (2023). A review of research in activity-based working over the last ten years: Lessons for the post-COVID workplace. Journal of Facilities Management, 21(3), 313-333.
Ministry of Social Development (2020, November 12). Reasonable Accommodation.
Morrison, R. L., & Macky, K. A. (2017, April). The Demands and Resources Arising from Shared Office Spaces. Applied Ergonomics, 60(April, 2017), 103-115. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.11.007
Nanayakkara, H. L. K. T. (2019). Understanding the Influence of Changes in Physical Office Layouts on the Organisational Culture of Larger Organisations (Doctoral Dissertation for a Doctor of Philosophy in Built Environmental). University of Technology Sydney: Sydney, Australia.
Nguyen, N. N., Varsani, K. V., Avgoulas, M., Carey, C. L., Drakopoulos, E. & Carey, L. B. (2020). The Effects of ‘Hot-Desking’ on Staff Morale: An Exploratory Literature Scoping Review. Melbourne: School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University. https://doi.org/10.26181/26877511
Nielsen, M. B., & Knardahl, S. (2020). The Impact of Office Design on Medically Certified Sickness Absence. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 46(3), 330- 334.
Plimmer, G., & Cleave, E. (2017). Modern Office Design: Friend or Foe - Reviewing the Research. Wellington, NZ: Centre for Labour, Employment, and Work.
Plimmer, G., Nguyen, D., Franken, E., & Teo, S. (2020, June 29). In Praise of the Office: Let's Learn from COVID-19 and Make the Traditional Workplace Better.
Richardson, A., Potter, J., Paterson, M., Harding, T., Tyler-Merrick, G., Kirk, R., & ...McChesney, J. (2017, December). Office Design and Health: A Systematic Review. New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1467).
Roskams, M. J., & Haynes, B. P. (2021). Testing the Relationship Between Objective Indoor Environment Quality and Subjective Experiences of Comfort. Building Research and Information, 49(4), 387-398. doi:10.1080/09613218.2020.1775065
Samani, S. A. (2015). The Impact of Personal Control Over Office Workspace on Environmental Satisfaction and Performance. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(3), 163-172.
Sander, L. (2017, April 12). The Research on Hot-desking and Activity-based Work isn't so Positive.
Satumane, A. D. (2024) Influence of Environmental Design Factors on Perception and Performance of Indoor Occupants (Thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture)). University of Oregon.
Scrima, F., Mura, A. L., Nonnis, M., & Fornara, F. (2021). The relation between workplace attachment style, design satisfaction, privacy and exhaustion in office employees: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101693.
Skountridaki, L., Victoria Lee, W., & Rouhani, L. (2024). Missing voices: Office space discontent as a driving force in employee hybrid work preferences. Ind. Relat., 55, 54-77. DOI: 10.1111/irj.12415
Smollan, R. K., & Morrison, R. L. (2019). Office Design and Organizational Change: The Influence of Communication and Organizational Culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(4), 426-440. doi:10.1108/JOCM-03-2018-0076
Stacy, J. (2019, January 15). Psychological Impact of Hot Desking. Open Sourced Workplace.
Te Kahui Tika Tangata/Human Rights Commission (2023, February 27). Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines.
Tokumura, T., Akiyama, Y., Takahashi, H., Kuwayama, K., Wada, K., Kuroki, T., ... & Tanabe, S. I. (2023). Impacts of implementing activity‐based working on environmental satisfaction and workplace productivity during renovation of research facilities. Japan Architectural Review, 6(1), e12345.
van der Voordt, T., & Jensen, P. A. (2021, November). The Impact of Healthy Workplaces on Employee Satisfaction, Productivity, and Costs. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, (Ahead of Print.) doi:10.1108/JCRE-03-2021-0012
Veitch, J. A. (2011). Workplace Design Contributions to Mental Health and Well-being. Healthcare Papers, 11(Special Issue), 38-46.
Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for Work. Architectural Science Review, 51(2), 97-108.
Williams, S. E., Ford, J. H., & Kensinger, E. A. (2022). The Power of Negative and Positive Episodic Memories. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 22(5), 869-903, doi: 10.3758/s13415-022-01013-z
Williamson, S., Pearce, A., Dickinson, H., Weeratunga, V., & Bucknall, F. (2021). Future of Work Literature Review: Emerging Trends and Issues. Canberra, AUS: Public Service Research Group, UNSW.
Worek, M., Venegas, B. C., & Thury, S. (2019). Mind Your Space! Desk Sharing Working Environments and Employee Commitment in Austria. European Journal of Business Science and Technology, 5(1), 83-97. doi:10.11118/ejobsat.v5i1.159
WorkSafe (2018, August). Workplace and Facilities Requirements. WorkSafe New Zealand: Wellington, NZ.
WorkSafe (2019, February). Interpretive Guidelines: General Risk and Workplace Management. Wellington, New Zealand: WorkSafe New Zealand.
Burton (2010, p.82).
Lovelock (2019, p.11).
Candido et al., (2024, p.5).
Ibid, p.6.
Ibid.
Cu (2024, p.18).
Ibid, p.13.
Buick et al, (2024, p.44).
Skountridaki et al, (2024, p.55).
The importance of ensuring employees’ voices are heard and, crucially, listened to when making decisions regarding layout and design will be explored in Part 3 of this series.
Skountridaki et al, (2024, p.62).
Cu (2024, p.15).
Veitch, (2011, p.40).
Alsarraj, (2019, p.24).
Candido et al., (2024, p.4).
James, Delfabbro, and King (2021, p. 2).
Langer, (2021, p. 19).
Ibid.
Buick et al., (2024, p.43).
Candido et al. (2021, p.2).
Smollan & Morrison, (2019, p. 428).
Marzban et al, (2022, p.320).
Sander, (2017, p.2).
Taskin et al, (2019 in Langer, 2021, p.30).
Roskams and Haynes, (2021, p.10).
Budie et al. (2019, p.37).
Morrison & Macky, (2017, p.7).
Satumane, (2024, p.133).
Richardson et al., (2017, p.46).
Appel-Meulenbroek et al., (2020, p. 280).
Budie et al., (2019, p.39).
Danielsson, (2024, p.4).
Ibid.
Langer, (2021, p. 76).
Cu, (2024, p.77).
WorkSafe, (2019, p. 11).
Ministry of Social Development (2020).
Doussard et al., (2024, p.287).
Le Bransky et al., (2021, p.8).
Doussard et al., (2024, p.292).
Veitch, (2011, p.43).
Samani, (2015, p. 167).
Gauer and Ilic, (2023, p.11).