Work in the 21st Century

How Do I Log On?

Peter K. Ross, Susan Ressia, Elizabeth J. Sander, Emma Parry

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781787145788
• eBook ISBN: 9781787149823
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

The world of work is rapidly changing. What then do 21st century workplaces look like, and what factors are supporting these workplace changes? Globalisation, financial and labour market deregulation, and rapid technological advances have accelerated workplace change and skill requirements. Organisations, for example, need to increasingly manage geographically diverse and technologically-mediated workplace relationships. Advances in artificial intelligence and automation are further questioning the future and nature of work itself.  

This book identifies and examines the institutions, frameworks and technologies that are emerging to support these new work practices. It analyses changing work environments, entrepreneurial and self-employment strategies, global virtual labour markets and the impacts of data analytics and automation on work practices and skill sets. It is critical for governments, practitioners and academics to better understand how to harness the benefits and meet the challenges of these new organisational workplace practices. Further, it requires informed choices and decisions on the part of individuals, as they seek to log on to work in the 21st century.

SECTION 1

The Changing Work Environment

CHAPTER
1

Spatial Design, Worker Productivity, and Well-Being

In a letter to Felice Bauer in 1912, philosopher Franz Kafka lamented, “time is short, my strength is limited, the office is a horror, the apartment is noisy, and if a pleasant, straightforward life is not possible then one must try to wriggle through by subtle manoeuvres.” Much attention has been focused recently on the current state of office design. Research by Kim and de Dear (2013) on the negative effects of open-plan offices, for example, suggests increasing numbers of modern workers may well empathize with Kafka’s sentiments. It seems that many modern workplaces may not be delivering claimed worker productivity and well-being benefits.

The ways in which we work are changing (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012), with ubiquitous technology, changing demographics, the rise of the contingent workforce, and the distribution of work across an ever increasing range of environments. Some have proposed that the office will die out altogether, going so far as to suggest leisure is over as the office follows its employees everywhere thanks to the Cloud (Saval, 2014). Work is now often cited as being boundary-less, a result of technology that has enabled work to take place almost anywhere (Ituma & Simpson, 2010; Saval, 2014; Tremblay, 2003). The realm of the workplace now extends far beyond the traditional office, to the home, coworking spaces, incubators, meet-up groups, and all manner of versions of Oldenburg’s (1989) the “third place” such as coffee shops, and other spaces in the public realm (see Chapters 2 and 3).

Despite these predictions, the popularity of the office, that is, the physical environment where work is conducted, remains extremely relevant, with interest in this phenomenon evident across both industry and academia. Scholars have noted that face-to-face contact remains central to the coordination of the economy, despite the increase in technology (Waber, Magnolfi, & Lindsay, 2014). Billions of dollars are also spent annually on office design and implementation (Bland, 2015). Apple, for example, built a 60-hectare campus that holds 12,000 people, based on Steve Job’s experiences of the success of the workplace at Pixar in driving collaboration and innovation. Alphabet Inc. (formerly Google) has similarly built a US$1-billion headquarter in the United Kingdom (Goldhill, 2013). These investments in centralized physical infrastructure are operating in parallel with the much documented collapse in the boundaries of work (Ituma & Simpson, 2010; Saval, 2014; Tremblay, 2003).

Despite the increased focus on the physical work environment, estimates from the American Institute of Stress and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work indicate that stress results in the absence of 1 million workers every day in the United States, while employee productivity continues to decline (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). It is clear that organizational scholars and practitioners need to better understand how the physical work environment affects employee productivity and well-being if they are to achieve their aims of building positive work environments.

It is not merely organizations that are interested in creating environments that support productivity and well-being (Brand, 2008; De Croon, Sluiter, Kuijer, & Frings-Dresen, 2005), with cities and governments now undertaking initiatives to create physical environments that support not only productivity, but help brand the city, drive innovation, and increase the livability of a city or region (Florida, 2008) (see also the discussion in Chapter 3). The entire city is therefore viewed as a potential platform for work. The pressure on the physical environment where work occurs to support and deliver positive outcomes is greater than ever.

In this chapter, we review existing findings on the influence of different types of workplace spatial design on employee productivity and well-being. We begin by examining the current context of spatial design within the physical work environment, with a particular focus on changes within the past decade. Next we summarize research on the effects of workplace spatial design on employee productivity and well-being. Finally, we outline the ways in which changes to the design of the physical work environment can best be harnessed to support employee productivity and well-being.

1.1. The Physical Work Environment and Spatial Design

The physical work environment in organizations includes the nature and arrangement of all the material objects and stimuli that people encounter in their organizational life (Davis, 1984; Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011; Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Hedge, 1982; Sundstrom, Bell, Busby, & Asmus, 1996). As the physical work environment includes buildings, furnishings, equipment, and ambient conditions, such as lighting and air quality, it is thus distinct from other environments, such as the social environment (i.e., human social structures and norms), urban environments, community environments, and the purely natural environment (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007).

The physical work environment is a vitally important part of organizational life, one that conveys meaning through cues that influence beliefs about oneself, coworkers, and the organization (Bitner, 1992). These environmental influences are important, as we know that even subtle environmental cues can influence our self-concept and our behavior (Alter, 2013; Güsewell & Ruch, 2012). Scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that the physical work environment can evoke significant cognitive, affective, and relational responses among employees (Aries, Veitch, & Newsham, 2010; Dul & Ceylan, 2011; Knight & Baer, 2014; Zhong & House, 2012).

Many organizations are therefore experimenting with workplace design, as they explore ways of using the physical environment to support performance and innovation. (Morrow, McElroy, & Scheibe, 2012; Spinuzzi, 2012). As discussed in further detail below, this includes some organizations designing workplaces to resemble the layout of cities, with major avenues, a town square, and a variety of zones to motivate employees to move around the office and share information (Zax, 2013). Further, organizations are beginning to realize the need to balance collaborative public spaces with more private areas that provide employees with a place to focus and concentrate (Ferro, 2015). Other organizations have also focused on making work a fun place, with the inclusion of gaming spaces and relaxation areas (Turner & Myerson, 1998).

Academic attention has mirrored this practical interest, with research examining many aspects of the physical work environment, including the effects of spatial layout (Backhouse & Drew, 1992; Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002), building materials (McCoy & Evans, 2002), decorations (Bringslimark, Hartig, & Patil, 2009), windows (Aries et al., 2010), privacy (Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980), noise (Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994), lighting (Zhong & House, 2012), and opportunities for personalization (Elsbach, 2004).

Unfortunately, despite this significant investment of money and time, some researchers argue that we currently know little more about how the physical work environment influences performance than nineteenth-century physicians knew about disease transference prior to epidemiology (Becker, 2014; Duffy, 2007). The mixed practical results, and the diversity of research studies reflect the fact that there is currently no common theoretical framework or measure for assessing reactions to the physical work environment. There is a clear need therefore to develop a cohesive way to better understand the ways in which employees react to the physical environment at work. By understanding how employees react to the physical work environment, managers and organizations will be better able to address the cognitive, affective, and relational needs of their employees. They will also be able to better understand how those reactions influence collaboration and employee engagement.

Research suggests that despite increasing numbers of large organizations posting images of attractive and happy workplaces, many of today’s workplaces are not well-designed (Kim & de Dear, 2013). Poor workplace design leads to increased conflict and stress, which reduces performance and leads to employees resigning. The physical work environment is also impacted by financial constraints, including the need to cut costs. The workspace is the second largest overhead for most organizations and can influence productivity by up to 20%. Critical drivers behind changing workplace spatial designs therefore include pressures to reduce real estate costs and efforts to increase employee collaboration and engagement.

1.1.1. THE OPEN-PLAN WORKPLACE

Looking back at changes in office design over the past 30 years, it is easy to see why some employees feel as if they have been subjects in a giant ongoing experiment. For decades this has included shifts from private offices to open-plan workplaces (Davis et al., 2011). As outlined below, more recently this has included shifts towards no permanent desks for employees at all (Davis et al., 2011). While these workplace designs may have reduced real estate costs, the potential negative impacts of these changes, such as the introduction of open-plan offices, on employees have now been well-documented (Davis et al., 2011; Kim & de Dear, 2013).

Research, for example, suggests that employees are far less productive in open-plan office designs due to noise and increased worker distractions, which makes it more difficult for employees to concentrate (Kim & de Dear, 2013). The reduction in privacy also prevents workers from holding private conversations. When people cannot focus, they are less effective at learning, building relationships, and at collaborating. Being able to concentrate is also a vital precursor to cognition in the workplace. A global study of 5,500 office workers by the commercial real estate company CBRE (2014) showed that the ability to think and concentrate was important across all generational worker cohorts, including millennials, gen X, and baby boomers.

A report by Gensler (2013) on US knowledge workers also found that attempting to combine collaborative workplace strategies with organizational cost cutting, including the introduction of open space offices, often did not work well. Workers reported that getting work done was difficult, with over half of the surveyed employees stating that they found it hard to concentrate in open-plan offices. While the Gensler report did not dismiss open-plan workplaces out of hand, it did recommend a “balanced” workplace environment that allowed for both individual- and collaborative-focused work (Gensler, 2013, p. 11).

Given this evidence, it is perhaps unsurprising that a recent study by Oxford Economics found that the potential negative impacts of open-plan office designs were far greater than most executives realized. The negative impacts outlined in the report included decreases in employee productivity and peace of mind, similar to the issues outlined above. Although there appeared to be a growing realization of these negative effects, the results showed that few companies had effective strategies in place to resolve these problems.

1.1.2. ACTIVITY-BASED WORKING: FREE ADDRESSING/HOT DESKING

Open-plan offices are also linked to large-scale shifts towards activity-based working, where employees do not have a permanent desk. This strategy often goes under the terms “free addressing” or “hot desking.” The concept arose in part as a response to the increasingly mobile and virtual nature of work (see also the discussions in Chapters 2 and 3). Designing workplaces where employees have no fixed desks also lets firms fit up to 20% more people into a building, which allows organizations to save on accommodation costs (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, 2011), a primary driver of workplace design change as discussed above.

Not surprisingly, research on free addressing has identified issues and limitations similar to those found in open offices, including growing concerns in relation to staff well-being and productivity. This includes employees complaining about interruptions, noise distractions, and not having enough space in which to work (Kim, Candido, Thomas, & de Dear, 2016). The clean desk policy required by free addressing/hot desking also means that workers need to remove all of their work and belongings at the end of each day. Aside from the added burden of this chore, studies have shown that messy desks can increase creative thinking and lead to serendipitous discoveries (Vohs, Redden, & Rahinel, 2013)!

1.1.3. THE SEGMENTED OFFICE?

In response to these issues, organizations have been experimenting with ways to better design and segment workplaces to overcome these problems. Articles on new office design are peppered with concepts such as caves, campfires, town squares, and city zones (Zax, 2013). The segmented office is based on the idea that different spaces are needed to support different tasks and different personalities. Sleep pods, library spaces, mobile-free zones, and cafes are becoming standard features of new office designs (Sander, forthcoming).

Employees are encouraged to move between the different areas based on what they are doing at that time. Tasks such as taking a phone call, holding a meeting, doing work that requires individual focus and quiet, or work that needs collaboration with others, are all allocated separate areas. While some employees see this as a positive move (Sander, forthcoming), the changes often do not go far enough to allow concentrated, productive work. Many employees report that having to find a space to work each morning is tiring, while others resent having to move around to do different tasks (Sander, forthcoming). The practicality of moving to different spaces while carrying laptops, power cords, and other documents and materials needed to complete work can be tiresome at best and impractical at worst. Employees report the inability to find coworkers when needed in free addressing environments due to the lack of a permanent location. In addition, some employees opt out of IT-based location identification systems in order not to be interrupted (Sander, forthcoming).

Sander (forthcoming) found that the number of phone booths and meeting rooms in these workplace designs was also often limited. Employees reported that finding private places to converse in such situations was challenging and it was common to be told to “book a room” or “go to a coffee shop.” This resulted in wasted time and frustration trying to find somewhere to meet and/or take a call. Furthermore, the need to conduct confidential conversations, such as an urgent family phone call, often has to be dealt with immediately.

Because workplace designs are often the result of a trade off with costs, Sander found that the overall office size in Australia was often relatively small, reflecting relatively high real estate cost considerations. As a result, offices being designed to embrace the segmented idea sometimes ended up with having gyms, rowing machines, and cafe space within meters of the open-plan desk area. This of course then created extra noise and staff distractions.

1.1.4. THIRD PLACES/PUBLIC REALM

Since Ray Oldenburg officially coined the term “third place” in 1989, our drive to find accessible, social, technologically enabled, and welcoming places to work within the urban environment continues unabated. A ground-breaking project in New York City in 2009 was one of the first to formally experiment with ways to activate multiple urban public spaces as worksites (Forlano, 2009). The project called Breakout! aimed to draw on the platforms of mobile technology and location-aware social networks to support cross-organizational and interdisciplinary collaborations. Despite the technology underpinning the project, its key aim was to increase serendipitous face-to-face connection. The experiment further highlighted the challenges of working outdoors, with issues such as access to power in public spaces and unsuitable furniture limiting outcomes.

Fast forward to 2015, and an increasing number of urban planners and furniture designers are making the outdoor workspace a design priority. The time when we will be able to work effectively in the actual outdoors may not to be too far off. Designers such as Jonathan Olivares and Buzzispace, for example, have created prototype outdoor working solutions that include a range of ergonomic, sheltered, powered, and customizable furniture arrangements.

A pop-up tree office in London is the latest expression of a growing movement to take work out of the office into the landscape of the city. Designed as an installation for a London Festival of Architecture, the tree-house coworking space was equipped with power and Wi-Fi and was available to hire for several months. The project was part of the Park Hack project led by Hackney Council. Profits from the space will be reinvested into parks and green spaces in the area (Metcalfe, 2015). The tree office workspace continues the appetite for the pop-up urbanism movement....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Section 1 The Changing Work Environment
• Section 2 Entrepreneurship: Self-employment in Globally Competitive Product and Labor Markets
• Section 3 Global Virtual Labour Markets and the Rise of the Machines
• References
• About the Authors
• Index