A comparison between existing understanding of hot desking and our implications
| Dimension | Existing understanding | Our implications |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Predominantly phenomenon-driven, focusing on “what happens” (e.g. cost-saving vs dissatisfaction) with no particular adoption of theoretical foundations | Theoretically anchored in technology affordance and constraints theory (TACT) to explain “why” these outcomes manifest |
| Conceptualization | Viewed as a simple office policy, real estate strategy or physical layout | Conceptualized as a digitally mediated socio-spatial work arrangement |
| Drivers of adoption | Often attributed to simple organizational goals like resource optimization or cost reduction | Driven by a combination of external factors (digital tool proliferation) and internal factors (financial concerns and FOMO) |
| Individual experience | Focuses on surface-level symptoms like “dark sides” or general well-being/identity issues | Identifies that organizational affordances (space efficiency) are directly experienced by individuals as structural constraints (spatial insecurity and resource deprivation) |
| Workplace behavior | Viewed as individual misbehavior or lack of professional etiquette | Reframed as a socio-material design problem where hot-desking acts as a potential structural antecedent to workplace bullying and resource-based conflict |
| Cultural context | Often limited to Western, individualistic contexts | Provides exploratory insights on an “East-meets-West” perspective, showing how cultural differences moderate the dynamics of privacy and territoriality |
| Practical solution | Focuses on better policy enforcement or improved booking technology | Argues for active governance and need-based/risk-informed allocation to manage the tension between flexibility and psychological safety |
| Dimension | Existing understanding | Our implications |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Predominantly phenomenon-driven, focusing on “what happens” (e.g. cost-saving vs dissatisfaction) with no particular adoption of theoretical foundations | Theoretically anchored in technology affordance and constraints theory (TACT) to explain “why” these outcomes manifest |
| Conceptualization | Viewed as a simple office policy, real estate strategy or physical layout | Conceptualized as a digitally mediated socio-spatial work arrangement |
| Drivers of adoption | Often attributed to simple organizational goals like resource optimization or cost reduction | Driven by a combination of external factors (digital tool proliferation) and internal factors (financial concerns and FOMO) |
| Individual experience | Focuses on surface-level symptoms like “dark sides” or general well-being/identity issues | Identifies that organizational affordances (space efficiency) are directly experienced by individuals as structural constraints (spatial insecurity and resource deprivation) |
| Workplace behavior | Viewed as individual misbehavior or lack of professional etiquette | Reframed as a socio-material design problem where hot-desking acts as a potential structural antecedent to workplace bullying and resource-based conflict |
| Cultural context | Often limited to Western, individualistic contexts | Provides exploratory insights on an “East-meets-West” perspective, showing how cultural differences moderate the dynamics of privacy and territoriality |
| Practical solution | Focuses on better policy enforcement or improved booking technology | Argues for active governance and need-based/risk-informed allocation to manage the tension between flexibility and psychological safety |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.