Guest editorial

Scholarly interest as to how workers might improve their efficiency and productivity can be traced back to Taylorism (Taylor, 1911). The “Taylorism era” was associated with a 19th-century model of work (Duffy, 1999) where employees were brought together in a specific location and at a specific time to be supervised (Vischer, 2008) in line with their employer's economic objectives. Ayoko and Ashkanasy (2020a, b) argue that an unspoken backdrop to Taylorism has always been the physical context of employees' work. Indeed, the link between the physical context of work and employee productivity was a key research question for the Hawthorne study team 90 years ago (Roethlisberger et al., 1939), which found that human relations factors were the main drivers of employee performance (Jones, 1990).

More recent evidence (e.g. see Vischer, 2008) suggests that physical environments of work (PEW), such as buildings, furnishings, equipment, lighting and air quality (as well as the arrangements of these objects), constitute essential determinants of social interactions, including territoriality (Monaghan and Ayoko, 2019), productivity and well-being in the workplace. Additionally, contemporary researchers such as Lee and Brand (2005) have shown that the physical environment of work encompasses workspaces and work patterns, while Johns (2006, 2018) has called for organizational behavior (OB) researchers to pay more heed to work contexts generally. Altogether, Franke and Kaul (1978) established that the physical environment of work might even be important enough to provide an alternative explanation for the outcomes of Hawthorne studies – notwithstanding the role of human relationships.

The physical work environment includes the workspaces or workstations where employees perform tasks critical for organizational (and national) economic survival. Indeed, organizations spend millions of dollars on the physical environment of work annually, to the extent that office work environments comprise the second largest financial overhead for most organizations after personnel costs (McCoy, 2005).

In view of this, contemporary employers are increasingly opting to accommodate their office staff members in open-plan offices (OPOs). For example, employees of Australia's largest communications company, Telstra, recently moved into an (“activity-based workplace,” where employees can choose their workstation according to the work activity carried out at any one time (Keeling et al., 2015; Hoendervanger et al., 2016) featuring extensive use of OPO architecture. More recently, organizations have added workspaces such as “agile” workspaces (see Keeling et al., 2015) and “co-working” spaces where small ventures and start-up companies share workspaces and resources in return for a monthly or weekly fee (DeGuzman and Tang, 2011). Additionally, Ayoko and Ashkanasy (2020a, b) reported that companies like UMA, Gofore, Fishburners, Tank Lab and City Lab are already providing co-working spaces for such smaller firms. In line with these developments, they suggest that the workspace of the future will continue to be more fluid, flexible, mobile, agile and technologically informed; and will therefore require new ways of working, organizing, managing and leading.

The physical environment of work is intrinsically interwoven with the way employees behave and perform at work in that it enables or constrains employee behaviors, attitudes, emotions, productivity and well-being (Ayoko and Ashkanasy, 2019a, b; Ayoko et al., 2014). Employee behaviors, in turn, shape the usage and perception of the physical environment of work (Hernes et al., 2006). In this regard, the physical environment of an organization also includes spatial configurations such as desk layout and workplace design, including material artifacts such as machines, technologies and office supplies (van den Ende et al., 2020). Furthermore, and as Johns (2006, 2018) argues, context matters in OB research, especially in view of the effects of context on individual, group and organizational processes and outcomes. In addition, the physical environment of work encompasses illumination, temperature and odor factors – that have the potential to impact social perceptions, behaviors and ethical decision-making (Zhong and House, 2012). Ultimately, the work environment is critical for understanding OB and how behaviors can be changed, transformed and/or modified (e.g. see van Marrewijk and van den Ende, 2018, for an example of how OPOs are transforming academic work practices).

Despite the volume of research demonstrating that the physical environment of work impacts the fabric of social relations and behaviors in organizations (Dale and Burrell, 2010), research on the PEW appears nonetheless disjointed. In this regard, Brown et al. (2005) argue that research into the physical environment of work is insular and confined to limited domains like architecture, environmental psychology, environmental behavior, facilities management or education. In summary, while the topic of PEW is important, it is often an overlooked aspect of organizing (Pratt, 2020) and organization behavior (Ayoko et al., 2014). Yet, as Pratt (2020) points out, it is physical environment that makes organizing possible.

The physical environment of work – and especially OPO layouts – came into the limelight in organizational research following publication of Elsbach and Pratt (2007). In this article, the authors argue that the move of contemporary organizations to adopt OPOs is paradoxical and contradictory. Subsequent research outcomes have buttressed this proposition. For example, on the one hand, OPOs have been linked with cost effectiveness (Oommen et al., 2008), increased communication, interaction, and creativity; knowledge sharing and idea generation (Marmot and Eley, 2000). On the other hand, OPOs have also been shown to relate to insurmountable noise and an increased level of distractions and loss of identity and privacy (Bodin Danielsson and Bodin, 2009; Kim and de Dear, 2013). These facilitate cognitive overload (De Croon et al., 2005), intragroup conflict (Ayoko and Härtel, 2003), negative emotions (Ashkanasy et al., 2014) and decreased motivation (Evans and Johnson, 2000). These challenges in turn have the capability to create ambiguity over ownership of objects and space (Kimmons and Austin, 2012) and territorial behaviors (Monaghan and Ayoko, 2019).

In summary, these contradictory and paradoxical research outcomes represent a continuing conundrum in this area of research. Research is warranted to elucidate the paradox and contradictions surrounding the physical environment of work and even OPOs. We trust that the articles in this special issue will provide additional pathways to unravel this puzzle while deepening our understanding of the physical environment of work. As such, we believe they have the potential to advance theory-driven, evidence-based constructive debate that might shape employees' interactions attitudes, emotions, territoriality behaviors, and productivity and at work.

The collection of articles in this special issue focuses on different aspects of workspaces, and provides us with a deeper understanding of how workspaces impact OB. In them, the authors reflect a broad range of issues that include the quality of workspaces, links between activity-based workspaces and employee well-being, notions of networking in workspaces, transitions to shared office space, socio-spatial ideas from the perspective of the architecture of different office settings and the challenges posed by noise in open-office environments.

In the first article, authors Kameron M. Carter, David M. Harman, Sheryl L. Walter and Thomas S. Gruca outline a field survey study to test a model, based in Blau's (1964) social exchange theory and Florida's environmental quality theory (Florida et al., 2011), linking environmental workplace quality and immediate workplace satisfaction with employees' organizational citizenship behavior via employees' perceived organizational support and work engagement. To test their model, the authors collected survey data from two samples of 603 participants employed in Southeast USA. They used the first sample to calibrate their model, which included a new 11-item measure of workplace quality (the EWQ) and the second sample to text their model. Results confirmed their hypotheses and therefore reinforce the idea that a high-quality work environment links to positive work behaviors. Although the authors' findings are limited insofar as they collected their data using a single-administration survey (suggesting presence of common method bias, see Podsakoff et al., 2012), this pattern of results adds to the growing consensus in the literature concerning the positive benefits of high-quality office environments.

This idea is reinforced in the following article, where authors Susanne Colenberg, Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Natalia Romero Herrera and David Keyson analyze interview data collected from Dutch public sector employees who had recently moved to a new large (1,000 workstation) open-office activity-based workplace. Colenberg and her colleagues were interested in how the move to an activity-based worksite would affect employees' social well-being, which Fisher (2014) defined in terms of short- and long-term reactions to others in the work environment. The authors used concept mapping (Trochim, 1989) to analyze 182 employee statements about their new workplace, and identified 14 broad concepts, that they categorized in three dimensions: (1) perceived self-needs, (2) perceptions of coworkers' social (and antisocial) behavior and (3) perceived social affordances (i.e. properties of the environment that help or hinder social interactions, Gibson, 2014). They found, contrary to conventional thought (e.g. Fisher, 2014), that social well-being is context-bound and includes both short-term hedonic and long-term eudaimonic well-being. Colenberg and her coauthors conclude that, in designing present day's (post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)) workplace, employers need to provide workplaces that address the personal and social needs of their workers if they expect to their employees to be satisfied and productive.

The notion of social networking in transitions to open-office environments is the subject of the third article in this issue, authored by Sarah Bankins, Maria Tomprou and ByeongJo Kim. Across two studies, these authors examined the role of person–environment fit (Kristof-Brown and Guay, 2011), operationalized in terms of the dimensions of Elsbach and Pratt's (2007) four dimensions of the workplace environment. In the first study, Bankins and her associates developed and tested a new 18-item scale based on the Elsbach and Pratt dimensions of (1) instrumental, (2) collaboration, (3) aesthetic and (4) identity fit; and tested it on a sample of 180 working adults. In Study 2, they conducted a quasi-experimental study involving 37 employees moving from a closed to an open office environment. Results demonstrated that the participants reported experiencing reduced perceptions of spaciousness and task privacy. In addition, they reported a decrease in their work–environment fit (as measured with the new scale), and a degradation of their social networks caused by the dissolution of existing social ties. The authors conclude that, although the move to an open office resulted in a decrease in social ties, employees also can experience positive outcomes when they perceive that the move fits their personal needs for space.

The theme of studying transitions to shared office space is taken a step further in the fourth contribution to this special issue, authored by Rachel Lopes Morrison and Philip Stahlmann-Brown. In this article, the authors report on the results of another quasi-experimental study of a move from a closed to open office environment – this time among knowledge workers based in New Zealand. Theorizing from Bakker and Demerouti's (2007) job demands-resources (JD-R) model, the authors hypothesized and found in a panel study (involving 185 workers of whom 17.8% remained in their private offices, 47.6% remained in a shared office setting and 34.6% transitioned from private offices to a shared office) that perceptions of privacy and collaboration declined among workers who transitioned from a private to a shared office, which also resulted in decreased productivity among these workers. Uniquely, the study design allowed control of “Hawthorne effects” (Adair, 1984), whereby results might derive artifactually from the experimental manipulation, rather than being an effect of the studies variables. In this regard, the authors report that it was the office type, and not the participants' experience of moving that accounted for the differences they found. The authors conclude that their findings add to the accumulating research evidence that open-office settings may not be generating the positive results many organizations hope for.

In the next article, authors Kerstin Sailer and Matt Thomas apply a “socio-spatial approach” to analyze three different office designs. Using data derived from semi-structured interviews and publicly available information, the authors compared employees' spatial and conceptual closeness across three organizations in the UK, one featuring cellular offices (an educational institute) and two using OPO designs (a law firm and a technology company). They based their study on Hillier and Hanson's (1984) concept of correspondence between spatial and social relations. In this view, spatial closeness does not necessarily imply conceptual or social closeness. The authors sought therefore to study if the spatial office design in each organization provided an adequate fit for employee's needs for social and conceptual closeness. Paradoxically, they found that open plan organizations seemed to provide less correspondence than the cell office organization, where employees reported more opportunities for chance encounters with colleagues (cf. Irving et al., 2020). The authors conclude nonetheless that, while high correspondence facilitates office efficiency, low correspondents may be the optimal setting when innovation is required.

The final two articles included in this issue deal explicitly with the issue of noise. In the first, authors Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Sven Steps, Remy Wenmaekers and Theo Arentze utilize Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) stimulus-response theory of coping (SRTC) to understand how employees perceive and deal with noise in OPOs. The authors collected data from 150 employees working in three Dutch firms who were asked to report their perceptions of noise sources; and to outline how they sought to deal with the noise when it started to interfere with their work. Consistent with the SRTC, employees reported one of two types of behavior: approach (e.g. “Discuss the noise problem with colleagues.”) or avoidance (e.g. “Make an even greater effort to get work done.”), despite pessimism that either approach would lead to improved productivity. Overall however, employees preferred avoidance over approach behaviors. The authors also collected personal data (personality and gender). These showed that, while personal factors did not affect perceptions of noise, there were effects on coping behavior choices for specific kinds of noise. Appel-Meulenbroek concludes that the data indicate that employers need to take more account of the adverse effects of noise in open office settings.

In the second noise-focused study (and the last in this issue), authors Tobias Otterbring, Christina Bodin Danielsson and Jörg Pareigis compare employees' reports of their subjective well-being across four different office layout configurations: (1) cellular, (2) shared room, (3) small (3–9 people) open-plan and (4) medium (10–20 people) open-plan. Referring to Ursin and Erikson's (2004) cognitive activation theory of stress, Otterbring and his colleagues hypothesized that employees in OPOs would experience higher levels of office noise, and therefore report lower levels of cognitive and affective well-being. To test their hypotheses, the authors collected survey report data from 271 employees working in Swedish organizations (N = 76, 45, 113 and 37, respectively, for each configuration style). Results supported differences in cognitive evaluations of well-being, but not affective evaluations. Employees working in the medium OPOs reported the worst cognitive evaluations, while those working in cellular offices reported the best. Importantly, the results supported the idea that perceived office noise mediates the effects of office layout on cognitive evaluations. Otterbring and his coauthors conclude that their results support the idea that, to ensure the well-being of their employees, managers considering a transition from cellular to open office settings must consider how they can minimize noise and distractions in the planned open office layout.

The articles included in this special issue investigate the nexus between the physical work environment, OPO and OB. While they are by no means exhaustive, they nevertheless help to stimulate our thinking about what is yet to be explored in this space. In this regard, COVID-19 has accelerated what can be expected in the workplaces of tomorrow and this provides food for thought for future research agenda in the connection between the physical environment and OB. We argue that the articles in the current issue raise several issues that are pertinent for future research, which we discuss under three broad topics: (1) noise distraction and conflict, (2) interpersonal processes and teams and (3) person–environment fit.

Noise remains one of the most challenging issues for employees in the OPOs. Banbury and Berry (2005) note that noise is the most frequent complaint from those workers in shared and OPOs with 90% of their sample reporting impairment of their concentration and focus. Noise in office settings can arise from ringing telephones and conversations from other employees in the vicinity. Studies have also shown that continued exposure to noise is linked with a reduction in task motivation (Evans and Johnson, 2000) and a loss of personal control over workspaces (Bodin Danielsson and Theorell, 2019). In the current special issue, Tobias and his associates show that noise in medium OPOs links with increased cognitive evaluations and acts is a mediator of office layout and employees' cognitive evaluations. Similarly, Appel-Meulenbroek and colleagues also show the adverse effect of noise in the OPO. While we are aware that some interactions are needed to facilitate collaboration in the OPO and that this may perhaps involve some degree of noise, research about what kind of noise and what degree of noise that may encourage or inhibit collaboration is still needed it seems.

Additionally, Ayoko and Härtel (2003) demonstrate that noise and lack of privacy are prevalent in OPOs, and infringements of employees' privacy and space are connected with conflict. Observational studies of the process of how privacy invasion may trigger conflict and how conflict is managed in an OPO is warranted. In this regard, Ayoko and Ashkanasy (2019a, b) suggest that noise can be managed by addressing office design from the design and construction stages using sound masking to minimize the impact of noise (see also Venetjoki et al., 2006). Breakout rooms have also been encouraged in many organizations. Despite this work, however, we are yet to know the full impact of breakout rooms in minimizing office noise and enabling collaboration and productive work. Research is therefore clearly still warranted in this area.

Three other key drivers of a move to OPOs are (1) promotion of interpersonal interactions communication, (2) collaboration (cf. Bernstein and Turban, 2018) and (3) teamwork (Boutellier et al., 2008). Research on whether the OPO promotes collaboration is paradoxical. While some scholars (e.g. Kim and de Dear, 2013) have found that OPOs facilitate interactions and collaborations (Becker and Sims, 2001) others (e.g. Irving et al., 2019) report findings that workers in a building specifically designed for collaboration avoided collaboration. Moreover, Ayoko and Ashkanasy (2019a, b) argue that, given the proliferation of technological platforms such as Zoom®, more research is needed to track the effectiveness of these platforms. Furthermore, we are also aware that COVID-19 has accelerated the use of technological platforms for interactions and teamwork. In the current issue, Bankins and her associates move the discussion of interactions in the workplace forward and have shown that social network and ties are also minimized when the fit between workers and the environment is not aligned. Similarly, Sailer and her colleagues extended this topic in this issue and found surprisingly that OPOs also provided less correspondence than cell offices. Altogether, interpersonal interactions are still an important topic for future research agenda. We clearly need studies that will tease out the employee interactions in the physical and virtual environment and the impact on employee well-being and productivity.

Another issue addressed by Bankins and her team is the idea of “person and environment fit”. While this concept is not new (e.g. see Chatman, 1989; Soriano et al., 2015, 2020; Kaplan, 1983; Stockols, 1977), the authors' application in the context of office environment research is relatively new. As far back as 1983, Kaplan argued that purposive action (i.e. what is what a person is trying to do) must be a critical driver in the analysis of the human–environment interface. Core to this argument is the notion of behavior–environment optimization (Stockols, 1977), which relates to the maximum fulfillments of needs and accomplishment of individuals' goals and plans. In this regard, the fit of the environment and the needs of the individual becomes a primary concern. For example, Soriano et al. (2015) argue that work in office settings can be characterized by the degree of complexity and interactions with others at work; this, in turn gives rise to different work patterns that can have specific environmental requirements such as adequate (or inadequate) office types.

While we already know that open offices differ in size (Bodin Danielsson and Bodin, 2009) and that different office spaces may be appropriate for different types of work (Soriano et al., 2015), Soriano and her colleagues take this line a step further. They argue that, given the theoretical considerations of person–environment fit (Kaplan, 1983) and person–organization fit (Chatman, 1989), the effects of fit between the office environment and the type of work might explain the spurious results in some OPO research. Furthermore, the degree of fit between JD-R (e.g. office types) affects the relationship between workers' well-being and performance (Carlson, 1969). Soriano and colleagues also report that in their study that nearly 50% of the workers in their sample reported that their workspace was unsuitable for their work tasks.

This finding suggests a need for ongoing research in this area, especially to identify which office layout is most suitable for a particular kind of task. The opportunity to study the impact of the (mis)fit between office type and work patterns should allow researchers to identify the things companies must do to design offices that promote employees' well-being and performance (cf. Soriano et al., 2020), which is currently an important challenge in the area of office design (World Green Building Council, 2014).