Optimizing the social workplace through consent-based decision-making: developing shared workplace guidelines for university support services during relocation Open Access

Universities face many forces affecting workplace culture. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift to multilocational work, transforming concentrated individual work from an office-centric model to a flexible framework that allows staff to choose their working location based on the task (Watermeyer et al., 2022). This shift has provided insightful perspectives on the changing needs of university members, sparking meaningful discussions on the future of campus environments (e.g. Tagliaro et al., 2022). As physical spaces evolve, the working culture is also changing, with universities increasingly adopting practices that promote inclusivity and collaboration (Watermeyer and Rowe, 2021).

Design thinking is a progressive problem-solving approach, promoting creativity, innovation and co-creation (Porcini, 2009). Recently, Elsbach and Stigliani (2018) called for research on how design thinking tools can fundamentally alter workplace cultures and maintain new ways of working. In response, our study examines how organizations, specifically within the academic realm, navigate the shift from traditional office environments to multilocational workspaces, using design thinking methodologies and exploring the implications for academic work culture.

We conducted an ethnographic field study at a Finnish university’s support services unit, exploring the transition from a traditional, private room-based workplace to an activity-based office (ABO). Our focus is on the role of a participatory method – in this case, a consent-based decision-making process inspired by the design thinking approach – in fostering employee involvement in this transition to ABO settings and evaluating its effects on social workplace dynamics. Our research question is:

The consent-based decision-making process refers to a facilitation method that allows participants to decide whether a proposal is “safe enough to try” until a review. This study investigates how such a process was used to support a university office relocation from private room-based offices to ABO and what effects it had on social workplace dynamics.

We start by reviewing prior literature on remote work and ABO in universities, followed by a description of the research design, methodology and findings, offering insights into the experiences and implications of multilocational work in the context of university support services. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, and the paper ends with conclusions.

ABOs (also called activity-based workplace, ABW) allow employees to choose their workplace based on the requirements of the current activity. ABO is often used in conjunction with multilocational and remote work, leading to significant changes in work culture (Sirola et al., 2021). The trend of knowledge workers adopting remote work predates the COVID-19 pandemic and has been a prominent focus of research (e.g. Allen et al., 2015). Another key characteristic of new work, alongside flexibility and innovative office designs, is agility (Pakos et al., 2021). Poutanen (2021) suggests that organizational spaces are distinct domains of material, social, experienced and digital space.

As modern knowledge work hinges upon effective knowledge sharing and collaboration, fostering community creation has become a core purpose of workplace design (Heerwagen et al., 2004). Therefore, achieving the right balance between collaborative and individual spaces in university settings is crucial (Tagliaro et al., 2022). Waber et al. (2014) highlight the significance of serendipitous interactions in offices, which can foster innovative ideas.

The recent popularity of ABO highlights its significance for the field of facility management (FM). A literature review by Nooij et al. (2023) found that ABW negatively affected higher education. Oseland (2009) identified increased hidden costs, inadequate change management and a misalignment with employees’ needs as hindrances to flex-office implementation, thus creating a major disconnect between the discourse on flex-offices and reality. Scrima et al. (2021) pointed out that management can modify work environments to better meet employee needs, and user participation can enhance satisfaction for both organizations and individuals. A collective sense of ownership is essential as users’ expectations can be met in a process of appropriation (Babapour et al., 2018), and user concerns should be integrated into the planning and reconfiguration of spaces (Nanayakkara et al., 2023).

Despite acknowledging user participation, the details of execution remain limited. Critical factors identified for successful implementation include employee empowerment, adequate allocation of time and financial resources and maintaining open communication (Rolfö, 2018). Sirola et al. (2021) called for genuine opportunities for participation in decision-making. Their research indicates that user participation could lead to false hopes and negative outcomes if the change process lacks sincere engagement, empowerment and adequate resources.The need for employee-created, explicit rules in ABO became clear in the study by Babapour Chafi and Rolfö (2019). When transitioning from private offices to ABO, extra care is needed (Sirola et al., 2021), especially concerning the availability of quiet rooms (Haapakangas et al., 2018).

ABO will likely require a novel approach from facilities management: how to achieve a sufficient usage rate and how to support encounters, interaction and collaboration within the community (Poutanen et al., 2021).

Other methods for workplace decision-making have been suggested; for example, Tagliaro (2023) proposed the use of the Delphi method, and charrette was described by van Meel and Størdal (2017). However, neither of these methods focuses specifically on user concerns.

Design thinking methods and practices are increasingly embraced as useful for driving complex organizational change initiatives. For example, Elsbach and Stigliani (2018) discovered that experimentation tools for design thinking can benefit organizational cultures by fostering a higher experimentation orientation. Continuous use of design thinking tools may enhance collective cognition and lead to greater empathy and compassion, launching the process of sensemaking in organizations (Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018).

Sensemaking is the process of understanding new, unpredictable or unclear events. Maitlis et al. (2013) describe sensemaking as an arduous, cognitively demanding and even socially costly process. In their model, moderate emotions facilitate sensemaking, while strong emotions can hinder cognitive thinking. Negative emotions tend to encourage critical sensemaking, while positive emotions and empowerment foster a creative process (Maitlis et al., 2013).

Advocating for a comprehensive approach, agile methodologies provide a participative method perspective that emphasizes not only engaging stakeholders in proposing changes but also empowering them to experiment with different solutions (Bushe and Lewis, 2023). This kind of co-commitment gathers a wide range of stakeholders together as decision-makers, resulting in a deeper understanding of the issue for all participants (Ninnemann et al., 2020). Leaders must frame the issue and identify constraints for acceptable solutions but should then allow experimentation, aiming to “learn as you go” (Bushe and Lewis, 2023).

One participatory framework is the Sociocracy 3.0 (Sociocracy 3.0, 2024), which is a collection of patterns for organizational development. It builds on earlier descriptions of sociocratic governance (Owen and Buck, 2020) and presents a specific consent decision-making process, where concerns and objections are actively invited in response to a proposal. The details of the process are available as open source (Sociocracy 3.0, 2024), and only the main process is shown here (see Figure 1). To be qualified as an objection, an argument must reveal an unacceptable consequence or risk in implementing a proposal or present a worthwhile way to improve it. Unlike a majority vote, a single qualified objection suffices to amend the proposal (Sociocracy 3.0, 2024).

Thus, the importance of employee participation in ABO has been noted, but not much is known about the exact methods.

This explorative case study used a mixed-methods approach (Figure 2), gathering qualitative data of a sociocratic process in a workplace change initiative within a university service unit during 2022, 2023 and spring 2024. The data included interviews, observations and document analyses. Two of the authors were affiliated with the unit under study, with one serving as a participant observer.

The case study examines a relocation project within a university service unit (consisting of 162 employees), supporting the transition to a new ABO environment. In August 2022, the unit relocated from small, designated office rooms to an 11,000 square meter office area over two floors. The unit’s board empowered staff to make decisions regarding principles of hybrid work and practices in the new office. The Consent Decision-Making process from the Sociocracy 3.0 method was selected to suit the project’s needs, with facilitators aiding the co-creation of workplace change. This was also suitable for research due to its open-source nature (Sociocracy 3.0, 2024). Prior to adopting this method, traditional participation approaches included dedicated meetings with employee representatives, management and HR.

In Phase 1 of data collection, observation data were collected from the launch of the relocation process that engaged the entire unit in the decision-making process. Information about the process was shared using staff meetings, staff emails, monthly news, instant messaging channels and short introductory videos. Teams elected representatives to participate in the workshops.

Twelve online workshops, each with 23–33 participants, took place in spring 2022. During the initial eight workshops, participants expressed a total of 87 worries, and volunteers drafted several proposals based on them. Data from previous surveys and furniture design workshops in 2021 were also used to draft policy suggestions. In the concluding four workshops in June 2022, participants established 36 policy decisions, all set for experimentation with designated checkpoints for evaluation.

Phase 2 focused on post-relocation observations and feedback, collected through workshops and surveys in autumn 2022 and spring 2023. This involved two workshops and two asynchronous consent decision-making processes, complemented by discussions online and in person across various organizational levels.

Phase 3 occurred in 2024 and involved interviewing a theoretically sampled group of nine participants, representing diverse perspectives. Selection criteria included differing levels of worry about the move and varying attitudes toward the present situation. The dual role of the interviewer as both a unit member and a researcher was clarified to each interviewee to maintain transparency regarding confidentiality. Interviews were conducted online, recorded and transcribed verbatim using Microsoft Stream AI (Artificial Intelligence). All quotations were translated from Finnish to English.

Following the guidelines of Gioia et al. (2013), data analysis involved coding and analysis during data collection. Initially, 157 first-level codes were identified. These codes were aggregated into 17 second-level codes, which were arranged into a diagram representing themes. Aggregate dimensions were created. These three levels of codes formed a comprehensive data structure, illustrated in Figure 3. The iterative analysis was conducted three times to ensure depth and accuracy. The diagram illustrates the second-level codes and aggregate dimensions that evolved throughout the analysis. Finally, theorizing with previous theoretical concepts completed the model of Consent Decision-Making of Workplace Practices, illustrated in Figure 4.

To complement qualitative findings, supportive data were collected through two larger surveys conducted at the university and one within the case study unit. The multilocational work survey conducted in September 2022 coincided with the relocation, possibly impacting results with a 30% response rate from the unit. The survey included 33 questions about multilocational work. Statistical comparisons were made between the unit and broader university data.

A biennial workplace wellbeing survey provided longitudinal well-being data for the university. The response rate was 80% for the study unit. The online survey included nearly 100 five-point Likert scale statements. Another well-being survey was conducted specifically within the unit to gather deeper insight into the organizational culture. A total of 108 persons (52%) answered at least one part of the two-part survey, and 74 persons (35%) answered both parts.

Our analysis offered insightful responses to our research question: “How does a participatory method influence social workplace dynamics, including employee participation and the process of appropriation, in the transition to a new work environment?” Based on our findings, a model of consent-decision-making of workplace practices was developed, as depicted in Figure 4. This model illustrates the relationships between aggregate dimensions that emerged from the data, detailing how consent-based decision-making processes affect employee involvement and the overall transition experience. These dimensions, outlined below, encapsulate the core findings and contribute to understanding the consent-based approach as a sensemaking process that can facilitate organizational change.

The dimension of “Worries” encompasses the range of concerns employees expressed from the onset of relocation discussions. Management acknowledged some worries yet struggled to resolve them despite numerous traditional participation opportunities. These concerns varied widely according to individual work types, personalities, health conditions and commuting distances. A common fear was losing quiet working conditions. An interviewee stated:

In the interviews, informants revealed some previously unarticulated worries, especially health-related concerns, suggesting inadequate progression through the later stages of worry recognition and negotiation. As one interviewee observed, “It takes some self-esteem to go in front of 100 people telling [details about one’s health]”.. However, many employees felt empowered to voice their concerns, indicating a level of openness within established communication channels.

The consent decision-making process is a facilitation method (Sociocracy 3.0, 2024) with rigorous demands for both the facilitator and participants. Many informants valued the structured dialogue for the clarity it offered. An interviewee noted, “I felt proud […] to have been able to make decisions as a community.” Although experienced facilitators received positive feedback from many interviewees, one interviewee mentioned, “At some point, the facilitator may have pushed that discussion in a certain direction,” which raised questions about neutrality. “The good thing about the process is that we try this […] not having to make decisions for the rest of our lives,” noted another interviewee, emphasizing the value of continuous improvement.

The “Place for Expressing Worries” dimension captures how the decision-making process created a legitimate place for people to voice concerns. This place was socially co-created during and between workshops, in both online and face-to-face discussions, using collaboration tools like intranet pages and virtual whiteboards for recording worries, draft proposals and other material. One interviewee noted the “fear of not being taken seriously,” which others echoed: “It was also a safe process not to have […] a rambling discussion, but to go by the process, to have a place for you to disagree […] and it’s accepted.” According to several interviewees, the structured approach for being heard fostered trust.

The dimension of “Recognizing and Negotiating Worries” examines the process following the initial expression of worries, where the facilitators and participants collaboratively identified and classified the statements as either concerns or validated objections. Validated objections prompted amendments to proposals, leading to the revision of four out of 28 decisions in June 2022. An interviewee recalled: “[A proposal] was modified as such: OK, shoes will be allowed, and then it suited this person [who had objected before].” Concerns were recorded and used as success criteria in a follow-up survey evaluating the implementation.

Many interviewees expressed surprise at the diversity and manifold nature of concerns reported, noting the respectful and inclusive atmosphere of the discussions. This environment underscored everyone’s right to voice their issues, emphasizing the necessity of accommodating diverse needs. An interviewee remarked,” I haven’t […] heard anyone grumbling about some idea […] not happening like they wanted to.” Notably, there was no evidence of shaming; laughter, when it occurred, was never directed at individuals sharing their concerns, thus preserving a respectful dialogue. The importance of understanding and legitimizing each person’s worries was a recurrent theme, reinforcing the community’s commitment to collectively addressing these concerns.

The use of Zoom for the workshops played a significant role in maintaining decorum by enabling participants to hide their immediate reactions and focus attention on the shared content and the facilitator’s guidance. This fostered a respectful atmosphere even during emotional discussions, as the virtual whiteboard emphasized the written word. An interviewee highlighted the procedural integrity of the process, affirming that worries, irrespective of others’ perceptions, were given due consideration and integrated into the decision-making framework. This approach preserved a respectful atmosphere and empowered participants by ensuring their concerns were acknowledged and addressed.

Comprehending in the context of our study represented a significant undertaking, requiring time and effort to address each concern raised. The process was structured to allow participants ample opportunity for reflection and manageable engagement with others’ worries instead of overwhelming them. Despite these intentions, some participants found it too time-consuming, opting out either due to the perceived lengthiness or simply believing that their absence would not affect the process. To alleviate this burden, representatives were elected to share the workload, yet some still voiced concerns over the process being overly burdensome.

At this pivotal stage, the possibility of a collective understanding started to emerge. When the various concerns and objections had been addressed, the proposals transformed into agreements that everyone was expected to commit to. Rather than imposed rules, participants could grasp the rationale behind each decision, fostering ownership and accountability. One interviewee said the opportunity to influence the decision made acceptance easier. The process also emphasized understanding others’ sensitive issues, suggesting that the extensive effort invested in it enhanced mutual empathy and connection among participants, enabling them to relate to one another more readily than previously.

The “Consent Decision-Making” dimension encompasses the previous three, reflecting the essential change they facilitated. Throughout the study, interviewees reported a wide array of emotions, often intense, including both positive and negative expectations. There were even threats of resignation, which were unusual, during traditional participatory meetings but before the consent decision-making process. This alarmed unit leaders and triggered a transformation project. As consent decision-making progressed, worries shifted from broad fears of work becoming disturbed to specific concerns regarding the new practices’ functionality. This shift suggests successful navigation through complex issues, at least temporarily. One interviewee remarked:

Another stated, “When we made that decision, I didn’t feel that people had unfinished business left”.

Artful participation was essential for this process. Some interviewees pondered whether they or others could have participated more skillfully. Employees were trained through videos and other resources, while the workshops themselves served as a learning platform, facilitating a smoother process as participants familiarized themselves with the methodology. Thus, artful participation fostered a constructive and efficient decision-making environment.

The consent decision-making process culminated in the establishment of definitive rules and guidelines for the workplace. When all objections were resolved, each proposal passed as an agreement, which was recorded on the unit’s intranet for all members to see. All agreements were experimental and subject to a reevaluation on a pre-set date.

Change occurs only when new rules are implemented. In the case study, this occurred in August 2022 with the unit’s relocation to new premises. Most interviewees noted changes in workplace practices due to differences in ABO from previous offices. While some employees appreciated the increased opportunities for interaction and serendipitous encounters brought by the new social practices, others were less enthusiastic.

The period between the initial decisions and subsequent checkpoints allowed for an evaluation of the new agreements’ effectiveness. In autumn 2022, the unit conducted a survey to gather feedback, revealing that while some concerns had materialized, as noted by several respondents, most had not. This feedback loop informed a second iteration of decision-making in November 2022, giving the community a chance to review new proposals and improvements to the June 2022 agreements.

Notable changes were made to the flexi zones. During the initial planning in spring 2022, concerns about noise in ABO led to a conservative approach, designating numerous quiet zones. However, open-mindedness to future adjustments based on actual use proved prudent. Anonymized network traffic data showed a greater need for co-working spaces and less demand for silent areas. Consequently, some quiet zones were converted to co-working spaces. In addition, refinements to zone etiquette streamlined rules to enhance compliance and overall workspace functionality.

The university well-being surveys provide longitudinal data on trends in employees’ ability to concentrate from 2017 to 2023. The question “I am able to concentrate on my job without excessive disturbances” (rated 1–5) shows an increase in mean responses within the case unit: 3.2 in 2017, 3.4 in 2019, 3.96 in 2021, and 3.87 in 2023. The score in 2023, within the ABO environment, suggests improved concentration compared to the previous private room setup. The shift to hybrid work practices in 2023, permitting remote work, likely contributed to this trend, especially following the remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.

The multilocational work survey data supports these findings. Most respondents in the case unit felt they could influence multilocational work practices (fully or tend to agree). This sentiment was consistent across the university, though the case unit was more critical of the university’s remote work guidelines and less inclined to view multilocational work as a natural part of their job compared to the university average.

During spring 2023, four interviews were conducted to validate responses to the statement in the multilocational work survey: “I can influence the practices used by my work community in multilocational work.” The interviews explored individual influencing, HR practices and new workplace patterns. One interviewee expressed dissatisfaction about the ABO and the new premises, criticizing the timing of the sociocratic process as it began after the decision to relocate to ABO. However, two interviewees stated they would have responded more positively had the question been about the sociocratic process.

The well-being survey revealed increases in the job satisfaction index (4.26 in 2023 / 4.13 in 2021), workplace culture index (4.23 / 4.22) and interpersonal resources in the unit (4.31 / 4.24), all surpassing the university average. In another survey, the study unit outperformed others in needs satisfaction, which included mastery (5.6 in the study unit/5.4 in others), perceived autonomy (5.3 / 4.9) and relatedness (5.4 / 5.3).

Our findings reveal that initial apprehensions about transitioning to ABO can be mitigated following the adoption of consent-based decision-making and the co-created rules within the ABO setting. Survey results signaled general satisfaction with the premises, suggesting that most concerns raised initially did not necessitate further action but remained individual apprehensions. This sentiment is echoed in the positive feedback from both well-being surveys, suggesting that the transition effectively maintained the unit’s work culture, with new premises fulfilling their purpose at a satisfactory level.

This research contributes to the literature on workplace relocation by highlighting the importance of participatory approaches in enhancing satisfaction with ABO settings. Prior studies have underscored the significance of participation (Scrima et al., 2021; Rolfö, 2018; Babapour Chafi and Rolfö, 2019; Babapour et al., 2018; Nanayakkara et al., 2023) but lacked a concrete methodology for engagement. Our findings extend this discourse by demonstrating the effectiveness of consent-based decision-making as a detailed participatory approach. It provides a concrete framework for involving users in establishing office rules for facilities management during ABO implementation.

In the post-COVID-19 landscape, multilocational work has surged, requiring employees to plan their workdays and select suitable workspaces for specific activities (Appel-Meulerbroek et al., 2022). Our findings highlight the importance of clear rules for social activity within workplaces, as seen in the necessity for more co-working zones than initially anticipated and the value of serendipitous interactions. Therefore, the facilities management agenda should incorporate ABO office rules.

Our findings on “Consent Decision-Making” indicate that the participative method helped transform general worries and negative feelings into specific, work-related issues that were easier to resolve. While this approach shifted concerns from emotions to concrete requirements, further research is needed to determine if this outcome was unique or attributable to the method itself.

However, the timing of introducing consent-based decision-making is crucial; its late implementation led to perceptions of insincerity among some employees. This was apparent in multilocational work survey results and validated by the corresponding interviews. Thus, even high-quality participation is suboptimal unless timed appropriately. Sirola et al. (2021) caution that without genuine decision-making power for employees, there is a risk of false hopes and negative outcomes. In our study, the decision-making power was authentic, had clear boundaries and was valued by many.

Tagliaro et al. (2022) emphasize the balance between collaborative and individual spaces. In our case study, the iterative and experimental nature of the consent decision-making process made it possible to adjust flexi spaces, e.g. to allocate more rooms for collaboration when needed. This dynamic process alleviated some initial worries about finding a quiet workspace. Creating a safe place for experimentation was crucial. Sociocracy 3.0 (2024) captures this with the motto, “Safe enough to try.” These findings are relevant for facilities and especially workplace management.

Several interviewees stressed the ability to raise worries in a safe place. Notably, recurring worries such as the need for a quiet workplace did not materialize in the unit’s survey. Conversely, previously unvoiced worries emerged during interviews, some of which impacted working conditions. This indicates that even with a structured process, greater focus is needed on encouraging the expression of worries, and the facilities management role could be significant in planning such processes.

Emotional aspects of expressing worries were notable, with some interviewees feeling that emotions might have impeded thinking and thus the expression of a worry. This supports Maitlis et al’s. (2013) observation that highly emotional situations can potentially impede sensemaking due to cognitive ability suffering. These findings suggest that addressing worries is complex and requires further research. During interviews, informants often laughed at themselves, realizing that some of the worries stated by others were unfamiliar to them. This laughter may indicate a shift to another perspective, marking a pivotal moment in sensemaking. Cheng et al. (2019) demonstrated that laughter could help alleviate mental discomfort.

Our findings align with Elsbach and Stigliani’s (2018) suggestion that design thinking methods foster empathy through empathetic interactions. Empathetic listening is a crucial step in the consent decision-making process (see step 4 in Figure 4). Several interviewees emphasized the importance of taking co-workers’ worries seriously. Ninnemann et al. (2020) highlight that:

Interview feedback suggests that facilitating consent-based decision-making requires skilled facilitators, underscoring the need for high-quality facilitation competencies, as advocated by Sirola et al. (2021). For consent-based decisions, open-source resources from Sociocracy 3.0 provide valuable guidance but must be complemented by a solid foundation in facilitation.

Although the study focused on a single organizational unit, limiting comparative analysis, it provides a detailed exploration of the nuances of participatory decision-making and its implications for workplace culture and practices. Triangulation was used to ensure the quality of the research by comparing interviews and participant observation data with archival data, which corresponded to interviewees’ narratives. In addition, various surveys confirmed that the overall work environment and culture within the unit are above average.

This research aimed to explore the consent-based decision-making process in influencing employee participation in transitioning to a new work environment. While the importance of engaging users in the co-design of workplace development is well-established, our study introduces the sociocratic method as a novel approach to co-creating work practices amidst workplace change. Specifically, it describes a concrete way to make sustainable and participatory decisions in an organization, placing a greater emphasis on the social place. This focus is particularly relevant considering the increased adoption of multilocational work. Individual concentrative work has changed from an office-based context to a wider multilocational context, as remote or office-based work can be chosen based on activity.

Our findings suggest that consent decision-making positively influences work culture, extending existing literature on academic workplace development by offering insights into methods for the co-creation of flexible workplaces. The significance of the social context in the workplace emerged as a critical factor.

Facilities management in various sectors faces new challenges as it responds to the requirements of multilocational work. The consent decision-making process enables the creation of shared meanings and provides a place for sensemaking. However, this process is not a panacea; it sets the stage for collaborative work without executing it directly. Therefore, its application should be reserved for situations where the benefits justify the additional effort required. Others’ concerns and objections will, on some level, influence those who participate. They will need to engage in sensemaking and see the other person’s points of view. This demands considerable effort. For those prepared to embark on this journey, our research offers valuable guidelines for navigating the complexities of co-creating a supportive and flexible work environment.