"This study examined the independent and joint influences of stimulus screening, inhibitory ability, perceived privacy and task complexity on the satisfaction and performance of employees working in open-plan offices."
"The goal of this study was to identify the moderating effects of inhibitory ability, stimulus screening, perceived privacy, and task complexity on the satisfaction and performance of employees working in open-plan work environments."
This studies work found inconsistencies in their results of job satisfaction relevance to the inhibitory ability, stimulus screening, perceived privacy and task complexity evaluators. the basic results were as followed (based on my interpretations of the findings, which is like reading advanced statics). Seems that individuals that have a hard time concentrating against outside stimulus, like the distractions occurring in open-plan offices, found their jobs less satisfying. The study showed that sound distractions could be worse than visual ones to these individuals with limited stimulus screening abilities. Basically stating that employees react negatively to open-plan office environments.
"In conclusion, this study has identified the importance of employee perceptions, task characteristics, and the ability to inhibit distractions in enabling an individual to cope with the overstimulation inherit to the open-plan workplace. Inhibitory processes are acknowledged as playing a fundamental role in an individual's ability to effectively function in their environment, and appear to influence employee' affective response to their workplace."
Why is this important?
The open-plan office has been one of many studies since its development and incorporation into the American workplace in the 1970's. It started as a way to fit as many people into one large space as possible, spending as little as possible. Then people noticed that productivity was going down. Well the open-plan "systems furniture manufacturers started spending money on how to improve their products to increase productivity. This research, biased of course, sought ways to provide subtle changes of neutral color palettes, "acoustical" privacy panels, and other added features. Did anyone ever think of finding another alternative? Of course, but then the large furniture manufacturers would push that research side to continue selling their products that increases the number of people in a space, while minimizing costs of operations. We need more research on the true costs these open-plan offices really cost when factoring in human and even ecological factors.
Why is this important to me?
Two of my former jobs were office furniture dealerships (Steelcase, Knoll / Kimball). My job was to layout the systems furniture for the client. I was always butting heads with sales people, and clients due to some issues involving stupid things life life safety codes and ADA (being sarcastic here). I was always having to step forward with questions about the users' choices. It was to the point that I was just another arm of the machine that placed people in these rows and rows of boring, dreaded cubicles. The problem was I had other answers, and could use the systems furniture to produce designs that would work for the users. Yet, the might dollar and the one paying always had final say. Great design for offices will never happen as long as the purse string is carried only by a select few. That is my two cents on the matter.
Spend it wisely.
Author(s): Alena Maher and Courtney von Hippel, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Article Title:Individual Differences in Employee Reactions to Open-Plan Offices
Publisher: Elsevier Science
Publication: Journal of Environmental Psychology
Publication Type: Refereed Journal
Date of Publication: 2005
ISSN: 0272-4944
Volume: 25
Issue: 5
Pages: 219-229
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In the next 6 months I'll be put into some sort of cubicle...it will be custom built and designed by an architect-imposter whose only real concerns are aesthetics and cost- not what is going to make the people sitting in those spaces happy. I wonder if this will be better or worse then being crammed in a 10 x 12 office with 2 other people.
Tommy,
The article seems to call for capturing intangible costs, such as human perceptions of open office systems. This dilemma lies at the heart of much of how interior design is perceived. That is, we are often at the mercy of the attitude "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Bottom-line costing will always be insufficient as long as we struggle to put a dollar figure on things like 'happiness', 'satisfaction', and 'contentment'. It's difficult to untangle why people feel this way, of course. Personally, I wish that our culture could grow to be more accepting of the unmeasurable, as I'm not sure how far the evidence-based design rationale will ultimately take us.
Tommy,
I think you nailed by saying "the one paying" gets the final say. When will that person actually care about what is best for the employee? Are they just not being given enough low-cost options? I think the ideal would be to design an office work space for a person the day they are hired that fits their personal needs. I equate this to outfitting a person that works outside (construction worker, for example) with the proper safety equipment they need to get the job done (hard hat, saftey glasses, harnesses if they are on a roof, etc). Why shouldn't a person in an office environment get exactly what they need to work successfully?
Post a Comment