Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices

Abstract

Although there is a trend in today's organisations to implement activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs), only a few studies examine consequences of this new office type. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms why A-FOs might lead to different consequences as compared to cellular and open-plan offices are still unclear. This paper introduces a theoretical framework explaining benefits and risks of A-FOs based on theories from work and organisational psychology. After deriving working conditions specific for A-FOs (territoriality, autonomy, privacy, proximity and visibility), differences in working conditions between A-FOs and alternative office types are proposed. Further, we suggest how these differences in working conditions might affect work-related consequences such as well-being, satisfaction, motivation and performance on the individual, the team and the organisational level. Finally, we consider task-related (e.g. task variety), person-related (e.g. personality) and organisational (e.g. leadership) moderators. Based on this model, future research directions as well as practical implications are discussed. Practitioner Summary: Activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs) are popular in today's organisations. This article presents a theoretical model explaining why and when working in an A-FO evokes benefits and risks for individuals, teams and organisations. According to the model, A-FOs are beneficial when management encourages employees to use the environment appropriately and supports teams.

Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office

“…To avoid these problems employees nested, which exacerbated the problem of finding available and suitable workstations. The fact that a high people-to-workstation ratio lowers support for work processes and reduces satisfaction and performance is in line with the findings of Wohlers and Hertel (2016) and Appel-Meulenbroek et al (2015).…”

“…• G: 1 lounge of rooms occupied by four people or more (Danielsson and Bodin 2008), ABWs commonly involve open-plan settings (Wohlers and Hertel 2016). Thus similar disadvantages of privacy may arise for the ABW as for the OPO.…”

“…However, few studies have examined whether this concept actually promotes these positive work condition consequences (van der Voordt 2004) and the results are inconsistent (de Been and Beijer 2014;Gorgievski et al 2010;Nijp et al 2016). Furthermore, there is a lack of longitudinal case studies following relocation from OPOs to ABWs with pre-and post-measures of work conditions, satisfaction and performance (Wohlers and Hertel 2016). Despite this, many companies implement ABWs (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen 2011;Brunia, de Been, and van der Voordt 2016;van Koetsveld and Kamperman 2011;Toivanen 2015;Vos and van der Voordt 2002).…”

Appropriation of an Activity-based Flexible Office in daily work

“…In other words, switching workstations for the dwellers would not provide them with a more fitting workstation. The ability to choose a quiet workspace is regarded as one of the main benefits of A-FOs (Wohlers & Hertel, 2016). Better zoning in this case (sufficient enclosed and/or open quiet workspaces with quiet speech policies) may have encouraged the dwellers to follow the desk-sharing policy.…”

Smart and Sustainable Offices (SSO): Presentación de un enfoque holístico para implementar la próxima generación de oficinas

“…Hence, it is considered the second highest companies' operational cost (11). As one of the consequences, desks clustering in open-plan office designs has been widely adopted and replicated as the solution that densifies occupancy (12). This approach often pays less attention to organisational cultural particularities, i.e.…”