The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of knowledge workers

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the impact of workplaces, which support concentration and communication, and self-management practices on individual and team productivity. The underlying hypothesis is that the impact of these variables on the two levels of productivity (individual and team) and the two dimensions of productivity (quantity and quality) may be different. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on survey data from 998 Finnish knowledge workers. Factor analysis was used to test the dimensions of the conceptual model. Insights into the impact of workplaces for concentration and communications and self-management practices on productivity were obtained by multiple-regression analyses. Findings The findings show that self-management practices have a larger impact on the quality and quantity of individual output and the quantity of team output than workplaces for communication and concentration. Improving self-management skills is key to increase all productivity dimensions and in particular the quality of the output. Practical implications This paper contributes to a better understanding of the impact of workplace characteristics and self-management practices on different levels and dimensions of productivity. It offers valuable lessons for managers, as they are able to recognize how productivity can be approached from several perspectives. Different dimensions can be enhanced using different workplace settings. For example, the quantitative output of employees can be increased by adding more space for concentration, while quantitative team productivity can be increased by providing appropriate space for collaboration. An important means to enhance a higher quality of the output is to improve self-management skills. The findings also suggest that collaboration between different disciplines – corporate management, corporate real estate management, human resource management and IT – is needed to optimize individual and team productivity. Originality/value This paper explores work environment experiences of Finnish office workers and connects both workplace appraisal and work practices to perceived productivity support, on individual level and team level. It also adds insights into the different impacts on quantity and quality.

Translating the impact of knowledge management into knowledge‐based innovation: The neglected and mediating role of knowledge‐worker satisfaction

“…Moreover, knowledge management also impacts the motivators or motivating factors. For examples, by providing the workers with following elements of motivating factors (e.g., Drucker, 1999;Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, & Reinholt, 2009;Liu, Wang, & Lin, 2017;Palvalin, 2017;Palvalin, van der Voordt, & Jylhä, 2017;Shujahat et al, 2017b; Turriago-Hoyos et al, 2016):…”

Training self-management in translation projects: a didactic aspect

“…Palvalin, van der Voordt and Jylhä laid the basic principles of self-management work. First of all, it is necessary for the employees to have all the knowledge and skills to make decisions that concern them; second, authority and control are entrusted to people, who are closely connected with the working process; third, authority is based on expertise and competence; fourth, the responsibility can be shared by people from different levels; fifth, the access to information is available and any change of information is transparent [17]. As Trahair writes, the theory of self-management follows the principles of psychodynamic approach and the reorganizing principles in sociotechnical lines by Eric Trist [18].…”

“…These three factors are changing the model of translation industry. It is getting less dependent on the traditional company pattern with head management, subordinated employees, legally fixed relations between the company members, and definite company policy [6]. The prevailing form of employment is self-managed teams of translators working on short-term tasks with rather loose organization and weak hierarchy.…”

Defining and measuring the productive office

“…Measuring the productive office Palvalin et al (2017) argued that an appropriate physical environment should facilitate different job activities, communication and concentration, informal and formal meetings and different moods such as being calm and relaxed or being stressed or excited. In so doing, they distinguished quantitative and qualitative worker output.…”