Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

The influence of office layout features on employee perception of

organizational culture
Sarah Zerella*, Kathryn von Treuer, Simon L. Albrecht
Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway Burwood, Victoria, 3125, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Office layout features and organizational culture have independently been shown to influence employee
Received 20 August 2016 job satisfaction; however, little is known about whether office layout influences organizational culture.
Received in revised form This study had two aims. The first was to investigate the association between office layout and orga-
19 June 2017
nizational culture. The second was to investigate whether organizational culture mediates the rela-
Accepted 27 August 2017
tionship between office layout and job satisfaction. A total of 202 Australian workers completed an online
Available online 30 August 2017
survey. Structural equation modelling revealed that office layout features were significantly and posi-
tively associated with ratings of organizational culture. Additionally, culture ratings were shown to
Keywords:
Organizational culture
mediate the relationship between the office layout features and job satisfaction. These findings suggest
Office layout that perceptions of office layout can influence employees’ perceptions of the organizational culture and
Architectural privacy important employee attitudes.
Physical proximity © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Workstation equality
Physical environment

1. Introduction
Research has established that employee behaviour is influenced
by office layout (e.g., Becker & Sims, 2001; Kraut, Fussell, Brennan,
& Siege, 2002; Mehrabian, 1978). Consequently, office layouts are
constantly being designed and redesigned to improve effectiveness
(Baldry & Barnes, 2012; Ferro n, Pattini, & Lara, 2011), aesthetic
appeal (Elsbach & Bechky, 2007; Ridoutt, Ball, & Killerby, 2002) and
work efficiency (Jahncke & Halin, 2012; Robertson, Huang, O'Neill,
& Schleifer, 2008). However, there is limited research that explores
the impact of office layout on organizational culture and employee
attitudes and behaviour.
1.1. Office layout features
Office layout refers to the physical office space and the way that
objects within it are arranged (Lee, 2010). Elements of office layout
include workstation positioning and the boundaries that are
created by physical barriers such as walls and objects. Much of the
research on office layout has focused on the differences between
closed-plan and alternative forms of open-plan office layouts
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sarah.zerella@live.com (S. Zerella), kathryn.vontreuer@
cairnmillar.org.au (K. von Treuer), simon.albrecht@deakin.edu.au (S.L. Albrecht).
(Maher & von Hippel, 2005; Oldham & Rotchford, 1983;
Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982; Zalesny & Farace, 1987).
Given that work spaces can be configured in multiple ways within
each office layout type, the office layouts features, such as levels of
privacy can also vary, and determining their influence on the
workplace culture is of interest.
Office layout is an element of the physical environment that can
act as a symbolic representation that can influence employees’ at-
titudes and behaviours (Ornstein, 1989). More specifically, organi-
zational culture has been shown to influence job satisfaction (Shiu
& Yu, 2010) and organizational performance (Goodman, Zammuto,
& Gifford, 2001). Given the reported influence of organizational
culture on performance, organizational culture has been recog-
nized as an important determinant of competitive advantage
(Goodman et al., 2001).
Previous research (e.g., Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Hatch, 1990;
Heerwagen, Kampschroer, Powell, & Loftness, 2004) has revealed
that the physical work environment can influence human interac-
tion and its symbolic function. Three key office layout features that
are frequently studied are ‘architectural privacy’, ‘visual access’ and
‘physical proximity’. Offices with fewer physical barriers and in-
ternal walls are described as being more open, with lower levels of
architectural privacy and higher levels of visual access and physical
proximity to other employees. Less studied is a fourth office layout
feature, ‘workstation equality’, which refers to similarities between

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.08.004
0272-4944/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
employee workstations. Workstation equality is often discussed in
terms of what it symbolises (Zhang & Spicer, 2014), as opposed to
its direct impact on behaviour. Employees within the same work-
place can differ in terms of the privacy and space offered by their
workstation, and this symbolically represents differences in status
between employees (Baldry, 1999; Duffy, 1997; Elsbach, 2003;
Zalesny & Farace, 1987; Zhang & Spicer, 2014). Status difference
can, in turn, affect the way people within the organization
communicate with one another (Welch, 1980). Along with archi-
tectural privacy, visual access, and physical proximity, workstation
equality and its effect on behaviour within the workplace is further
discussed below.
1.1.1. Architectural privacy
Privacy can be defined as a feature of the physical environment.
Often referred to as ‘architectural privacy’, it refers to ‘the visual and
acoustic isolation supplied by an environment’ (Sundstrom, Burt, &
Kamp, 1980, p. 102). Architectural privacy influences the extent to
which people are exposed to distractions and disturbances by
others (Kupritz, 2003; Sundstrom et al., 1980). The use of walls and
physical barriers create higher levels of architectural privacy; while
large, open office spaces with no physical barriers separating
workstations provide minimal privacy. Lower levels of architectural
privacy can lead to greater opportunity for interaction, communi-
cation and collaboration (Becker & Sims, 2001; Kim & de Dear,
2013; Stryker, 2004), all of which are valued within clan cultures
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). However, clan cultures also value re-
lationships (Cameron & Quinn, 2011) and low levels of architectural
privacy can also lead to undesirable outcomes such as distractions
and blurring of psychological boundaries (Sundstrom et al., 1980).
While low levels of architectural privacy can have both positive and
negative effects (Becker & Sims, 2001; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Stryker,
2004; Sundstrom et al., 1980), other research (Kupritz, 2005) sug-
gest that the effect of architectural privacy levels may be dependent
on other factors. Kupritz (2005), for example, found that individuals
weighted architectural privacy differently depending on their job
type. Offices with walls and a door were found to minimise dis-
tractions for business professionals, managers and technical pro-
fessionals, but not for administration support services.
Architectural privacy may also be perceived differently
depending on the extent to which human interactions (such as
communication and collaboration) are valued within the work-
place. For example, in organizations that value team communica-
tion, distractions and disturbances may not be viewed as negatively
as in organizations that do not value interaction as highly, or that
value hierarchical communication. As such, office layout may in-
fluence organizational culture. Architectural privacy could, for
example, influence the emergence and maintenance of ‘clan cul-
ture’, whereby teamwork and collaboration are valued cultural
practices (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). To date, no research has
focused on the effect of the level of architectural privacy on work-
place culture.
1.1.2. Visual access
While the visual component of architectural privacy focuses on
being exposed to people from other destinations within the
working space, visual access refers to being able to see others
without leaving one's workstation or needing to stand up (Archea,
1977; Becker & Sims, 2001). Visual access between people can vary
depending on the level of the physical barriers within the space. A
number of advantages associated with visual access have been
identified through previous research. First, employees who are
seated at workstations that are highly visible to each other have
significantly higher communication (Stryker, 2004) and this visi-
bility can aid conversation, as well as resolve or even avoid conflict
with the use of non-verbal cues (Becker & Sims, 2001; Mehrabian,
1978).
Becker and Sims (2001) conducted an extensive study, collecting
survey, interview and observational data on eight American orga-
nizations from a number of different industries, surveying 229
employees, interviewing 347 and observing over 3000 interactions
over a total of 130 h. They found that people with high levels of
visual access to others were less likely to interrupt one another
because they could see if people were busy, prior to initiating
interaction. This also held true for managers initiating contact with
team members, which facilitated the development of quality re-
lationships. They concluded that high levels of visual access can
lead to more frequent face-to-face communication between man-
agers and subordinates, which can support mentoring and reduce
psychological distance between managers and staff. Overall, being
able to see others can have a significant positive effect on
communication and relationships at work (Becker & Sims, 2001;
Mehrabian, 1978; Stryker & Santoro, 2012; Stryker, 2004).
While Becker and Sims (2001) study revealed many behaviours
that were affected by visual access, the researchers predetermined
various categorical levels of visual access between groups, based on
the type of office layout (e.g., private, enclosed offices or open-plan
offices). Consequently, their results are not generalisable to differ-
ences within the same office layout type. This is important because
of the number of organizations that opt for an open-plan layout.
1.1.3. Physical proximity
Another office layout feature commonly investigated is physical
proximity. This refers to the physical distance between people,
measured in units, such as metres (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). A
large body of research has found that physical proximity increases
the frequency and quality of communication between people (Allen
& Gerstberger, 1973; Allen, 1977; Boutellier, Ullman, Schreiber, &
Naef, 2008; Kraut, Fish, Root, & Chalfonte, 1990). In turn, having
teammates in close proximity to one another can provide an
environment for the efficient information exchange that is neces-
sary for teamwork. While the use of information and communica-
tion technologies is increasing, face-to-face communication is more
effective than virtual communication methods for complex team
tasks (Santoro & Saparito, 2003), remaining important for organi-
zations that value teamwork and collaboration.
Physical proximity has also been shown to increase the level of
collaboration between employees (Kraut et al., 1990). Kraut et al.
(1990) investigated the impact of physical proximity on the prob-
ability of collaboration between 164 researchers within a large
telecommunications organization. Their results indicated a strong
positive relationship with a relatively large effect size. Further,
research has demonstrated that physical proximity can facilitate
the development of relationships between employees (Griffin &
Sparks, 1990; Homans, 1950) and that people feel closest to those
who are in close physical proximity (Allen, 2007; Festinger,
Schachter, & Back, 1950; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). Previous
research has suggested that physical proximity may be an impor-
tant feature of the physical work environment that can be modified
to increase the level of communication and collaboration (Allen,
1977, 2007; Kraut et al., 1990, 2002), as well as being a tool to
promote relationships between people (Griffin & Sparks, 1990).
1.1.4. Workstation equality
Some studies have found that differences in the levels of actual
or perceived levels of privacy and space offered by their worksta-
tion can symbolically represents differences in status between
employees (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007), and it can affect the way people
behave and interact (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Welch, 1980). In turn,
the present study operationally defined workstation equality as the
 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
adverse to differences in privacy and space, that is, perceived
similarities between employee workstations. As previous research
has demonstrated status differences can be represented through
space (Baldry, 1999; Duffy, 1997; Elsbach, 2003; Zalesny & Farace,
1987; Zhang & Spicer, 2014), and clan cultures value equality and
collaboration (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), the current study explored
whether perceived similarities in space and privacy levels was
related to clan culture ratings.
In a qualitative analysis on a large Chinese government orga-
nization, Zhang and Spicer (2014) found that spatial characteristics,
including office layout type (e.g., cubicles or private enclosed office)
and amount of space provided to each employee was related to
status differences between employees, with larger and more pri-
vate spaces allocated to higher ranked employees within the or-
ganization. They found that this reinforced hierarchy within the
organization. Their findings demonstrated the way differences in
employee workstations could symbolise status and power differ-
entials between employees within an organization.
While privacy levels and amount of space between employee
workstations increased as their rank within the organization
increased, Zhang and Spicer (2014) examined the physical envi-
ronment from a broad perspective, accounting for many differences
between employees’ work environments. This makes it difficult to
identify whether each status marker had equal impact on hierarchy.
1.2. Office layout and job satisfaction
While office layout can influence behaviour, in particular human
interactions (Becker & Sims, 2001; Hatch, 1990), it can also affect
job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been defined as ‘a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job
or job experiences' (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). There is an abundance of
research linking office layout with job satisfaction. However, the
findings are mixed, in particular with open-plan layouts, where the
strength and direction of the relationships are not clear (Oldham &
Brass, 1979; Wolfeld, 2010; Zhu & Zhu, 2013). Other research has
found that job satisfaction is positively related with being satisfied
with the physical environment (Veitch, Kelly, Farley, & Newsham,
2007) and that employees are most satisfied with the physical
environment if it supports their needs (Vischer, 2008). This sug-
gests that the relationship between job satisfaction and office
layout may depend on mediating factors, such as organizational
culture, which can differ between organizations.
The inconsistency in the literature and the arguments about
which style of office layout is superior may indicate that the right
questions are not being asked. An alternative approach could be to
consider whether organizations may benefit most from office lay-
outs with different levels of architectural privacy, visual access,
physical proximity and workstation equality, based on their orga-
nizational values and the organization's desired culture.
1.3. Organizational culture
Office layout features have been investigated to determine their
effect on employee behaviours and what it symbolically represents
(Allen & Gerstberger, 1973; Allen, 1977; Becker & Sims, 2001;
Boutellier et al., 2008; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Kraut et al., 1990;
Stryker, 2004; Zhang & Spicer, 2014). However, these features
have not been examined to determine their effect, if any, on orga-
nizational culture. Organizational culture refers to:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions that a given group has
invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its
problems of external adaption and internal integration and have
worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be
3
taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think,
and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 1984, p. 3).
As organizational culture assists employees' understand what
basic assumptions, values and behaviours are expected and
acceptable (Ofori & Sokro, 2010), it is important to understand the
range of factors that influence employee perceptions of culture. As
organizational culture assists employees’ understand what basic
assumptions, values and behaviours are expected and acceptable
(Ofori & Sokro, 2010), it is important to understand the range of
factors that influence employee perceptions of culture. The
Competing Values Framework (CVF) is a well-validated framework
for assessing organizational culture (Howard, 1998), that has been
applied across a range of cultural contexts (Al-Khalifa & Aspinwall,
2001; Deshpande  & Farley, 2004; Lamond, 2003).
The CVF consists of four organizational culture styles named
‘clan’, ‘adhocracy’, ‘hierarchy’ and ‘market’, with each style repre-
senting different values (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The four
competing styles are underpinned by two axes; one representing a
focus on the external or the internal, and the other representing a
focus on flexibility or stability. For example, and as shown in Fig. 1,
the clan culture has an internal and flexible focus and is demon-
strated in basic assumptions of human affiliation and values such as
collaboration and participation (Quinn & Kimberly, 1984). The clan
culture style is similar to a family organization, valuing communi-
cation, collaboration, relationships, commitment, participation,
group cohesion, support and trust. Leaders within clan-dominant
organizations often place value on teamwork and act as facilita-
tors and mentors. Since meta-analytic studies have shown that the
clan culture has a stronger positive relationship with job satisfac-
tion, compared to other culture styles (Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki,
2011), it is possible that clan culture may be a mediating factor
on the relationship between job satisfaction and office layout.
1.4. Organizational culture and office layout
Studies revealing relationships between the physical environ-
ment and organizational culture mainly focus on the influence of
the physical environment of non-office-based departments within
industries such as the military, hospitals and airlines (Higgins,
McAllaster, Certo, & Gilbert, 2006; Mallack, Lyth, Olson, Ulshafer,
& Sardone, 2003; van Wijk & Finchilescu, 2008). However, few
studies have focused on the relationship between the physical of-
fice environment (i.e., office layout) and organizational culture
(Brown, Efstratiou, Leontiadis, Quercia, & Mascolo, 2014; De Paoli,
Arge, & Blakstad, 2013; Hong, Easterby-Smith, & Snell, 2006;
McElroy & Morrow, 2010).
McElroy and Morrow (2010) conducted a pre- and post-
renovation study in a large financial services organization, using
an intervention group and a control group. They found that em-
ployees who moved from cubicles to an open-plan layout perceived
the organizational culture to be significantly less bureaucratic, less
formal and more innovative and autonomous than employees who
remained in the cubicle environment. Another study (Hong et al.,
2006) found that organizations that had employees, irrespective
of their rank, situated in open-plan layouts, with no physical bar-
riers separating their workstations, increased cross-departmental
collaboration and the development of a collective learning cul-
ture. These studies illustrate the way office layout can influence
employees’ perceptions of organizational culture and the way open
layouts may lead to behaviours valued within clan cultures.
These studies focused broadly on office layout types (e.g., open
plan and cubicles). However, little is known about which features
(e.g., physical proximity to others) within these office layouts
4 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
Fig. 1. Competing values framework of organizational culture. From Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (p. 39), by Cameron & Quinn, 2011, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
influence the perception of organizational culture. Understanding
the influence of office layout features may allow for comparison
between similar office layout types that have different configura-
tions. This is important, given the high dominance of open-plan
layout configurations (Brill, Weidemann, & BOSTI Associates,
2001). Few studies have investigated the relationship between of-
fice layout features and organizational culture. Given the impor-
tance of organizational culture, this means there is a gap in the
literature (Hartnell et al., 2011).
Architectural privacy, visual access, physical proximity and
workstation equality are related to behaviours valued within clan
culture styles, including communication, collaboration, teamwork,
relationships and non-hierarchical behaviour (Becker & Sims,
2001; Kraut et al., 2002; Stryker, 2004; Welch, 1980). Organiza-
tional culture may be affected by office layout, guiding employees’
behaviours and directing them to what is valued. Mixed findings on
the relationship between office layout and job satisfaction may be
due to the influence of mediators. It is possible that the clan culture
style is a mediator in the relationship between office layout and job
satisfaction.
1.5. Aims and hypotheses
The first aim of the study was to investigate whether office
layout is associated with organizational clan culture. It was
hypothesised that there will be a positive association between of-
fice layout features (sufficient architectural privacy, perceived
physical proximity, visual access and workstation equality) and clan
culture ratings.
The second aim of the study was to investigate whether orga-
nizational culture mediates the relationship between office layout
and job satisfaction. It was hypothesised that office layout features
(sufficient architectural privacy, perceived physical proximity, vi-
sual access and workstation equality) indirectly and positively
predict job satisfaction through clan culture ratings. The proposed
relationships are shown in Fig. 2.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
The participants in this study were 202 adults (61 males, 141
females) who worked in Australian offices with four or more em-
ployees. Potential participants were recruited to complete an online
survey through the researcher's social networks by using a snow-
balling technique, using email and social media platforms. The
majority of participants (63.4%) were aged between 25 and 34
years, with all other participants aged between 18 and 24 years or
65 and 74 years. Approximately half (51%) of participants had been
in their role for one to five years; 76.6% were general employees
with no supervisor or leadership roles. Participants were conve-
nience sampled from a range of different-sized organizations, with
the majority of respondents (43.6%) being from enterprises with
more than 500 employees and 29.7% from medium-sized busi-
nesses (20e199 employees).
2.2. Measures
The online survey comprised three sections: demographics, of-
fice layout and organizational culture.
2.2.1. Demographics
Demographic information was collected on both the individuals
(e.g., their age and length of employment) and the organizations
(e.g., the size and the industry of the organization). This section
consisted of 10 items.
 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
Fig. 2. The hypothesised relationships between sufficient architectural privacy, visual access, perceived physical proximity, workstation equality, clan culture and job satisfaction.
2.2.2. Office layout
Office layout was measured using 16 self-developed items about
the general office layout and office layout features. Office feature
items referred to four constructs: sufficient architectural privacy,
visual access, perceived physical proximity and workstation
equality. Due to the online nature of the study, perceived physical
proximity assessed perceived distance rather than an actual
measured distance. The participants responded to four statements
for each construct on a 7-point likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An example item was ‘I have suffi-
cient privacy at my workstation to have confidential conversations’.
As shown in the results section, the internal consistency for each
scale ranged from 0.58 to 0.86.
2.2.3. Clan culture
The items measuring clan culture were drawn from the Orga-
nizational Climate Measure (OCM) (Patterson et al., 2005) and the
cohesion subscale items from the Organizational Climate Ques-
tionnaire (OCQ) (Koys & DeCotiis, 1991). Patterson et al. (2005)
reported strong support for the face, concurrent and discriminant
validity of the measure. The clan culture sub-scales ‘autonomy’,
‘integration’, ‘involvement’, ‘supervisor support’, ‘training and
welfare’, were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sub-scale internal consis-
tencies for the present study ranged from 0.67 to 0.91, mostly
exceeding the generally accepted criterion of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).
The exception was for autonomy (a ¼ 0.67, p < 0.001). Intra-class
correlations ranged from 0.79 to 0.95.
2.2.4. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction items were drawn from Yang, Mossholder, and
Peng (2009), adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1975). The
scale consisted of three statements anchored on a 7-point likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An
example statement was ‘All things considered, I am satisfied with
my job’. This measure of global job satisfaction had good internal
consistency (a ¼ 0.83) in this current study.
3. Results
3.1. Data screening
The data file was initially assessed for out-of-range responses
5
and missing values. Using SPSS, Little's MCAR test (Little, 1988)
revealed that five of the 13 cases with missing values were not
missing at random. These five cases were deleted. Given that the
proposed structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS requires
complete cases, the remaining missing data were replaced using
Expectation Maximisation (EM) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A total
of 202 cases were retained for the analyses.
Assumption testing revealed that the data were not fully uni-
variate or multivariate normally distributed. Transformations were
not deemed necessary, as model estimation in SEM is widely
regarded as robust to non-normality (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 1998). To
protect power, the analyses were therefore conducted with the
complete data. Additionally, the use of bootstrapping procedures in
the present analyses to estimate proposed direct and indirect pa-
rameters also mitigated concerns with respect to non-normality
(Enders, 2002).
3.2. Analysis
3.2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
Given that the measures of office layout had been developed for
the present research purposes, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
was conducted to identify whether the items loaded on their
intended constructs. The Kiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (KMO) value of 0.748 exceeded the commonly accepted
value of 0.5 (Kaiser, 1970), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was
significant (c2 (120) ¼ 1526.89, p < 0.001), thereby suggesting the
requisite factorability of the data. An initial EFA using maximum
likelihood estimation and oblimin rotation (Costello & Osborne,
2005) yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 and
explaining 64.76% of the total variance. The architectural privacy
items and workstation equality items loaded onto their proposed
factors. Two of the visual access and physical proximity items did
not load on their intended factor, three items cross-loaded over
three factors, and one item did not load onto any factor. The non-
loading item was removed and a second EFA yielded three clean
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 27.36%, 18.53%
and 15.31% of the variance, respectively. Table 1 shows that the
architectural privacy items and workstation equality items loaded
onto their intended factors. The visual access and physical prox-
imity items loaded on one factor. The factor was renamed
‘perceived proximity’, incorporating both visible and physical
proximity.
6 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10

Table 1 IFI ¼ 0.930, NFI ¼ 0.818, CFI ¼ 0.929, RMSEA ¼ 0.05 (LO: 0.044, HI:
Factor analysis after factor reduction of office layout characteristics. 0.056). As such, all indices, except for GFI and NFI, met their
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 threshold criteria. It is noteworthy that the use of GFI as a fit index
Privacy_Confidential 0.861
has been criticised due to its sensitivity to sample size (Sharma,
Privacy_NoiseDisturb 0.930 Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005). Moreover, the standardised
Privacy_VisDisturb 0.702 loadings for all items within the respecified model were between
Privacy_Screen 0.617 0.43 and 0.95, and the Average Variance Extracted at 0.49 was very
Proximity_Team 0.641
close to the accepted criterion value of 0.5 or above (Fornell &
Proximity_Report 0.565
Proximity_TooFar 0.424 Larcker, 1981).
Visual_Team 0.832 Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, internal con-
Visual_Report 0.682 sistency reliabilities and correlations for all variables within the
Visual_TooFar 0.741
respecified model. All scales had alpha reliabilities clearly
Visual_WorkContributors 0.801
WorkEqual_SimPrivacy 0.915
exceeding the recommended criteria of 0.70 (George & Mallery,
WorkEqual_Space 0.937 2011), with all but one having good to excellent internal reli-
WorkEqual_SimFree 0.507 ability. The correlations, as shown in Table 2, provided some pre-
WorkEqual_DifRank 0.453 liminary support for the proposed model. As such, sufficient
Note: N ¼ 202. architectural privacy, perceived proximity and workstation equality
were positively associated with clan culture and clan culture was
significantly and positively associated with job satisfaction.
3.2.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In line with Anderson and Gerbing (1988) two-step approach to 3.2.3. Structural model
model testing, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted
Having established a defensible measurement model, the pro-
prior to testing the structural model (see Fig. 3). CFA provides a posed structural model was tested using SEM (see Fig. 4). The SEM
more rigorous test than EFA of the convergent and discriminant
model yielded acceptable fit: c2 ¼ 1092.57, df ¼ 726, c2/df ¼ 1.505,
validity of the measures proposed (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As GFI ¼ 0.791, TLI ¼ 0.924, IFI ¼ 0.930, NFI ¼ 0.818, CFI ¼ 0.930,
recommended (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) the CFA model was
RMSEA ¼ 0.050 (LO: 0.044, HI: 0.056). All fit indices were within
assessed using a number of alternative fit indices. The goodness of acceptable criteria, with the exceptions of GFI and NFI. Fig. 4 shows
fit index (GFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI)
that architectural privacy, perceived proximity, and workstation
and normed fit index (NFI) are generally recommended to be above equality had direct positive effects on clan culture, and clan culture
0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Acceptable comparative fit index (CFI)
had direct positive effects on job satisfaction. The model explained
values have variously been recommended to be above 0.93 or above 17% of variance in clan culture and 53% of variance in job satisfac-
0.95 (Byrne, 1994; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Root mean square error of
tion. Of note, an alternative model showing clan culture having a
approximation (RMSEA) point estimates are generally recom- direct positive effect on architectural privacy, perceived proximity,
mended to be below 0.05, and the c2/df ratio is recommended to be
and workstation equality; and the three office layout features being
below 2 (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). positively associated with job satisfaction yielded less acceptable fit
CFA of the three-factor model derived from the EFA resulted in a
(c2 ¼ 1201.70, df ¼ 727, c2/df ¼ 1.653, GFI ¼ 0.778, TLI ¼ 0.902,
less-than-acceptable fit: c2 ¼ 2299.467, df ¼ 1159, c2/df ¼ 1.984, IFI ¼ 0.910, NFI ¼ 0.799, CFI ¼ 0.909, RMSEA ¼ 0.057 (LO: 0.051, HI:
GFI ¼ 0.705, TLI ¼ 0.828, IFI ¼ 0.839, TLI ¼ 0.828, NFI ¼ 0.721,
0.063)).
CFI ¼ 0.838, RMSEA ¼ 0.070 (LO: 0.066, HI: 0.074). Anderson and To determine whether clan culture mediated the relationships
Gerbing (1988) argued that a proposed measurement model
between office layout features and job satisfaction, biased corrected
would rarely fit without subsequent modification. With reference bootstrapping procedures were conducted. Architectural privacy
to the modification indices and loadings, and given that three items was found to have a significant and positive indirect effect on job
are sufficient to define a construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), one satisfaction through clan culture (b ¼ 0.156, p < 0.01, CI90% ¼ 0.075-
perceived proximity item and 10 organizational culture items were 0.295). Similarly, perceived proximity and workstation equality had
deleted. The respecified model resulted in acceptable fit: significant and positive indirect effects on job satisfaction through
c2 ¼ 1091.45, df ¼ 723, c2/df ¼ 1.410, GFI ¼ 0.792, TLI ¼ 0.924, clan culture (b ¼ 0.153, p < 0.05, CI90% ¼ 0.046-0.244; b ¼ 0.180,

Fig. 3. The respecified proposed model for the relationships between sufficient architectural privacy, perceived proximity, workstation equality, Clan culture and job satisfaction.
 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
Table 2
Scale means, scale standard deviations, correlations between variables and alpha coefficients.
Mean
1. Clan culture 4.71
2. Sufficient architectural privacy 2.83
3. Perceived proximity 4.45
4. Workstation equality 4.27
5. Job satisfaction 5.52
Note: N ¼ 202. Correlations calculated using SPSS; Alpha coefficient reliabilities appear in italics; **Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (two-tailed); ***Correlation is
significant at p < 0.001 level (two-tailed).
Fig. 4. Structural model for the relationship between sufficient architectural privacy, perceived proximity, workstation equality, clan culture and job satisfaction.
p < 0.05, CI90% ¼ 0.093-0.295 respectively).
4. Discussion
This study had two aims. The first aim was to identify whether
office layout features predicted employee perception of organiza-
tional culture. The second aim sought to determine whether
organizational culture mediated the relationship between office
layout features and job satisfaction. Each of these hypotheses and
their related results are discussed next.
4.1. The relationship between office layout and clan culture
The hypothesis that the office layout features sufficient archi-
tectural privacy, physical proximity, visual access and workstation
equality would positively predict clan culture ratings was sup-
ported. This finding was consistent with research by McElroy and
Morrow (2010) and Hong et al. (2006), who also found that office
layout affected organizational culture. These previous studies
focused on office layout types, investigating the way a change in
layout (e.g., from cubicles to open plan) affected an organization's
culture (Hong et al., 2006; McElroy & Morrow, 2010). Two office
layout features, visual access and physical proximity, are commonly
found in open-plan office layouts. The findings of this present study
were consistent with previous research, which has shown that
open-plan layouts can lead to organizational cultures similar to
clan cultures. For example, McElroy and Morrow (2010) found that
a move to an open-plan layout led to a more collaborative, less
bureaucratic and less formal culture. The present study design
enhanced these previous findings because it eliminated the con-
founding variables that can be present in pre- and post-office
layout change studies (such as the office layout change itself
affecting the organizational culture) and used a wide range of
participants from different organizations.
While previous research has linked organizational culture with
office layout, no previous research has focused on the features
7
SD 1 2 3 4 5
0.03 0.94
0.61 0.211** 0.86
0.17 0.221** -0.118 0.86
0.61 0.319*** -0.004 0.191** 0.77
0.41 0.621*** 0.113 202** 299*** 94
within the office layout and the way they can influence organiza-
tional culture. However, studies have demonstrated some relevant
findings by identifying the way clan-related behaviours are related
to office layout features (Allen, 2007; Becker & Sims, 2001; Kiesler
& Cummings, 2002; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Kraut et al., 2002; Stryker
& Santoro, 2012; Stryker, 2004; Zalesny & Farace, 1987; Zhang &
Spicer, 2014).
Having sufficient levels of architectural privacy positively
impacted on clan culture ratings reflective of a change in clan
culture. This was an important finding, theoretically, as most
studies have focused on identifying what specific levels of archi-
tectural privacy are important within organizations (Becker & Sims,
2001; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Stryker, 2004; Sundstrom et al., 1980,
1982). Both high (Becker & Sims, 2001; Kim & de Dear, 2013;
Stryker, 2004) and low (Sundstrom et al., 1980) levels of architec-
tural privacy have been linked to behaviours valued within clan
cultures, and the findings of this current study suggested that
ensuring employees feel they have enough architectural privacy is
important, irrespective of the actual levels. These findings builds on
research by Kupritz (2005), who found that job type influenced the
level of weight that employees put on having architectural privacy.
This study supports previous research suggesting that to develop a
clan culture style, levels of architectural privacy may need to be
modified to meet employee’ needs.
Clan cultures value equality and oppose hierarchy (Cameron &
Quinn, 2011). The finding of this current study that workstation
equality positively affected clan culture ratings was consistent with
previous research that has shown that differences between
employee workspaces are related to status differences and solidi-
fied organizational hierarchy (Baldry, 1999; Duffy, 1997; Elsbach,
2003; Zalesny & Farace, 1987; Zhang & Spicer, 2014). As no previ-
ous research has focused on workstations in isolation from other
characteristics of the physical environment, the results of this
present study have provided tangible findings that can be inte-
grated into office design plans. This study also focused on similar-
ities between employee workstations and linked this to employee
8 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
perception of clan cultures, which value equality. This has provided
a different lens from previous research, which has focused on the
way physical environment differentiations (as opposed to work-
space similarities) lead to power and status differences between
employees (Baldry, 1999; Duffy, 1997; Elsbach, 2003; Zalesny &
Farace, 1987; Zhang & Spicer, 2014).
Initially, the effects of perceived physical proximity and visual
access were hypothesised as separate constructs. Due to these two
factors collapsing into one within the data analysis, they were
assessed together as perceived proximity and the hypothesis was
modified accordingly. The findings supported the hypothesis that
perceived proximity would positively influence clan culture. This
finding was consistent with previous research that has found that
physical proximity and visual access, as separate variables, have
positive effects on relationship quality and development (Allen,
2007; Becker & Sims, 2001; Festinger et al., 1950; Homans, 1950;
Kiesler & Cummings, 2002), as well as frequency of team
communication (Stryker & Santoro, 2012), behaviours that are
often found within clan cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
The current study's findings suggested that employees' per-
ceptions of how close they are seated to others, and how visible
others are within an office layout, may be perceived similarly. This
may have important theoretical implications, as employee
perception of these two features may potentially fall under an
overarching concept of perceived proximity. An alternative expla-
nation is that one feature could affect the other significantly. While
further definition is required, the findings of this study suggest that
perceiving others to be close (whether based on distance or visi-
bility) increases employees' perceptions of a clan culture style,
further emphasising the importance of office layout design within
organizations.
Despite finding that each office layout feature significantly and
positively correlated with clan culture ratings, these effects were
weak to moderate, with workstation equality being the highest and
closest to a moderate strength.
4.2. The mediation model
The hypothesis that clan culture can indirectly and positively
mediate the relationship between the office layout features and job
satisfaction was supported. This finding was unique, as no research
has investigated organizational culture as a mediating factor be-
tween office layout and job satisfaction. Given the inconsistency in
previous findings regarding the impact of office layout on job
satisfaction (Oldham & Brass, 1979; Wolfeld, 2010; Zhu & Zhu,
2013), the present study's findings provide a possible explanation
for the inconsistency and suggest directions for future research in
the area.
Consistent with Hartnell et al. (2011), the present study found
that clan culture ratings had a positive and significant impact on job
satisfaction. This was the strongest effect within the structural
model, with clan culture accounting for 53% of variance in job
satisfaction. This finding signifies the importance of understanding
what can effect employees' perceptions of clan culture, highlighting
the importance of the present study's findings. This result provides
a unique contribution to job satisfaction research and identifies an
additional consideration for improving employee job satisfaction.
4.3. Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this study was that the
snowballing sampling method can potentially produce a biased
sample. This method led to non-random sampling, as it relied on
the researcher's social systems, putting randomisation out of the
researcher's control. These issues with the sampling technique may
have restricted the generalisability of the results by leading to a
narrow participant age range, with the majority of participants
(79.8%) being under the age of 34. This may be a very important
differentiation that may have significant theoretical importance. A
critical difference between younger and older workers is that older
workers are more likely to have been exposed to other office layout
styles, due to changes in office design over time. These workers,
therefore, can compare modern office spaces and older styles, such
as private office layouts and cubicle settings. Having been predis-
posed to other working spaces, these employees may have atti-
tudes and behaviours that are different from those of younger
generations, which may affect the way they perceive the values
portrayed through the office layout. Recruiting a sample using
stratified random sampling may have yielded different results.
However, the findings may be particularly relevant to younger
workers.
A second limitation was that the study design was cross-
sectional in nature, which makes the results only relevant to the
present time. This study design also precludes making causal in-
ferences. Another limitation is that there were non-normal data
within the sample, which may have lead to errors in the results.
Ideally, a larger sample size may have assisted in having normally
distributed data, which could then increase assurance of the reli-
ability of the results.
Another limitation was the reliability of the survey items
developed to assess perceived physical proximity and visual access.
The initial reliability coefficient for the perceived physical prox-
imity scale was 0.58, suggesting poor reliability of the scale (George
& Mallery, 2011). During EFA, perceived physical proximity and
visual access were combined into a single factor. It is unclear
whether these variables were perceived as one due to true relations
between the factors or whether there was an error with the survey
construction. Construction of alternative items may have differen-
tiated between the two initial variables.
4.4. Future research
The present study was the first that investigated whether fea-
tures of office layout related to organizational culture. Further
research is required to understand fully the effect of office layout on
employee perception of organizational culture. Future research
should aim to recruit balanced samples from all age ranges and
identify whether age moderates the relationship between office
layout features and organizational culture. Further, the present
research uncovered some theoretical implications about the
perception of physical proximity and visual access. Future research
could investigate this further by using both subjective measures as
well as objective, quantitative measure to understand the nature of
these variables. Additionally, future research could assess work-
station equality from both an objective and subjective perspectives
in order to understand what characteristics of the physical envi-
ronment influence its relationship with organizational factors, such
as workplace culture. To understand fully the way office layout may
affect the whole organizational culture, future research could
include all four styles within the CVF.
4.5. Conclusion
This study revealed that office layout features had a positive
effect on employee perception of a clan culture style and that
employee perception of a clan culture style mediated the rela-
tionship between these office layout features and job satisfaction.
The findings supported the theory that office layout is a predictor of
organizational culture, which can guide employee’ behaviour,
particularly in terms of the way people interact. Nevertheless,
 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
further research is required in this area to achieve a better under-
standing of the way organizations can design office layouts for use
as a competitive tool and reach their desired organizational culture.
References
Al-Khalifa, K. N., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2001). Using the competing values framework
to investigate the culture of Qatar industries. Total Quality Management, 12(4),
417e428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544120120066037.
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, T. (2007). Architecture and communication among product development
engineers. California Management Review, 49(2), 23e41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/EMS.2000.872493.
Allen, T. J., & Gerstberger, P. J. (1973). A field experiment to improve communica-
tions in a product engineering department: The non-territorial office. Human
Factors, 15(5), 487e498. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1721/1866.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411e423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Archea, J. (1977). The place of architecture factors in behavioral theories of privacy.
Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 116e137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1977.tb01886.x.
Baldry, C. (1999). Space e the final frontier. Sociology, 33(3), 535e553. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/S0038038599000346.
Baldry, C., & Barnes, A. (2012). The open-plan academy: Space, control and the
undermining of professional identity. Work Employment And Society, 26(2),
228e245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950017011432917.
Becker, F., & Sims, W. (2001). Offices that work: Balancing cost, flexibility, and
communication. New York: Cornell University International Workplace Studies
Program (IWSP).
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J., & Naef, R. (2008). Impact of office layout on
communication in a science-driven business. R&D Management, 38(4),
372e391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00524.x.
Brill, M., Weidemann, S., & Associates, B. O. S. T. I. (2001). Disproving widespread
myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International.
Brown, C., Efstratiou, C., Leontiadis, I., Quercia, D., & Mascolo, C. (2014, 10/14).
Tracking serendipitous interactions: How individual cultures shape the office.
In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work
and social computing. New York: ACM Press.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture
: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:
Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1e9. doi: 10.1.1.110.9154.
De Paoli, D., Arge, K., & Blakstad, S. H. (2013). Creating business value with open
space flexible offices. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(3), 181e193. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-11-2012-0028.
Deshpande , R., & Farley, J. U. (2004). Organizational culture, market orientation,
innovativeness, and firm performance: An international research odyssey. In-
ternational Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 3e22. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.04.002.
Duffy, F. (1997). The new office. London: Conran Octopus.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Iden-
tity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 48(4), 622e654. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556639.
Elsbach, K. D., & Bechky, B. A. (2007). It's more than a desk: Working smarter
through leveraged office design. California Management Review, 49(2), 80e101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1225/CMR359.
Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations.
Academy Of Management Annals, 1(1), 181e234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
078559809.
Enders, C. K. (2002). Applying the BolleneStine bootstrap for goodness-of-fit
measures to structural equation models with missing data. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 37(3), 359e377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327
906MBR3703_3.
Ferron, L., Pattini, A., & Lara, M.A. (2011). Use of low-cost daylighting system:
Custom design and application consequences in an office environment. Inter-
national Journal of Low Carbon Technologies, 6(3), 149e155. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/ijlct/ctq051.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A
study of human factors in housing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal Of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference 18.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values
framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality
of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 58e68. Retrieved from
9
http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.proquest.com/docview/
197988769?accountid¼197910445.
Griffin, E., & Sparks, G. G. (1990). Friends forever: A longitudinal explanation of
intimacy in same-sex friends and platonic peers. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 7, 29e46. Retrieved from http://simplelink.library.utoronto.ca/url.
cfm/484179.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job design diagnostic
survey. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159e170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0076546.
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organiza-
tional effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values
Framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 96(4),
677e694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021987.
Hatch, M. J. (1990). The symbolics of office design: An empirical exploration. In
P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp.
129e146). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Heerwagen, J. H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K. M., & Loftness, V. (2004). Collaborative
knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32(6),
510e528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210412331313025.
Higgins, J. M., McAllaster, C., Certo, S. C., & Gilbert, J. P. (2006). Using cultural arti-
facts to change and perpetuate strategy. Journal of Change Management, 6(4),
397e415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010601087057.
Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Hong, J. F. L., Easterby-Smith, M., & Snell, R. S. (2006). Transferring organizational
learning systems to Japanese subsidiaries in China. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(5), 1027e1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00628.
Howard, L. W. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a representation of
organizational culture. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3),
231e250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028886.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1e55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Jahncke, H., & Halin, N. (2012). Performance, fatigue and stress in open-plan offices:
The effects of noise and restoration on hearing impaired and normal hearing
individuals. Noise & Health, 14(60), 260e272. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-
1741.102966.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401e415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance
in work groups? A legacy of research’ in Distributed work. In P. J. Hinds, &
S. Kielser (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57e82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication
trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18e25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
Koys, D. J., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate.
Human Relations, 44(3), 265e285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679
104400304.
Kraut, R. E., Fish, R. S., Root, R. W., & Chalfonte, B.,L. (1990). Informal communication
in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In I. S. Oskamp, & S. Spacapan
(Eds.), Human reactions to technology: The claremont symposium on applies social
psychology (pp. 145e199). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. S., & Siege, J. (2002). Understanding effects of
proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote
collaborative work. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp.
137e162). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kupritz, V. (2003). Accommodating privacy to facilitate new ways of working.
Journal Of Architectural And Planning Research, 20(2), 122e135. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct¼true&db¼edswss&AN¼000183587700003&site¼eds-
live&scope¼site.
Kupritz, V. W. (2005). Ethnographic assessment of individual and group privacy needs:
Phase I and II studies. Holland, MI: Haworth Inc.
Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinn's competing values model in an Australian
context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 46e59. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/02683940310459583.
Lee, Y. S. (2010). Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in
LEED-certified buildings. Building and Environment, 45(7), 1594e1600.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data
with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404),
1198e1202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297e1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Maher, A., & von Hippel, C. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to
open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 219e229. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.05.002.
Mallack, L. A., Lyth, D. M., Olson, S. D., Ulshafer, S. M., & Sardone, F. J. (2003). Culture,
the built environment and healthcare organizational performance. Managing
Service Quality, 13(1), 27e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520310456690.
McElroy, J. C., & Morrow, P. C. (2010). Employee reactions to office redesign: A
naturally occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting.
Human Relations, 63(5), 609e636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872670
10 S. Zerella et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 54 (2017) 1e10
9342932.
Mehrabian, A. (1978). Public places and private spaces: The psychology of work, play
and living environments. New York: Basic Books.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ofori, D. F., & Sokro, E. (2010). Examining the impact of organisational values on
corporate performance in selected ghanaian. Global Management Journal, 2(1),
52e65. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true&db¼bth&AN¼51300693&site¼eds-
live&scope¼site.
Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employees reactions to an open-plan office: A
naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
267e284.
Oldham, G. R., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Relationships between office characteristics
and employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28(4), 542e556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393008.
Ornstein, S. (1989). The hidden Influences of office design. Academy of Management
Executive, 3(2), 144e147. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1989.4274765. Retrieved
from http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct¼true&db¼bth&AN¼4009890&site¼eds-live&scope¼site.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
et al. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to mana-
gerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 379e408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.312.
Quinn, R. E., & Kimberly, J. R. (1984). Paradox, planning, and perseverance: Guide-
lines for managerial practice. In J. R. Kimberly, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), New futures:
The challenge of managing corporate transitions (pp. 295e313). Homewood, IL:
Dow JoneseIrwin.
Ridoutt, B. G., Ball, R. D., & Killerby, S. K. (2002). Wood in the interior office envi-
ronment: Effect on interpersonal perception. Forest Products Journal, 52(9), 23.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct¼true&db¼bth&AN¼7509351&site¼eds-live&scope
¼site.
Robertson, M., Huang, Y., O'Neill, M., & Schleifer, L. (2008). Flexible workspace
design and ergonomics training: Impacts on the psychosocial work environ-
ment, musculoskeletal health, and work effectiveness among knowledge
workers. Applied Ergonomics, 39(4), 482e494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apergo.2008.02.022.
Santoro, M. D., & Saparito, P. A. (2003). The firm's trust in its university partner as a
key mediator in advancing knowledge and new technologies. Engineering
Management, 50(3), 362e373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2003.817287.
Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan
Management Review, 25, 3e16. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/
login?url¼http://search.proquest.com/docview/61058282?
accountid¼61010445.
Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The
Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323e337. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
JOER.99.6.323-338.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to
investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance
structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935e943. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007.
Shiu, Y.-M., & Yu, T.-W. (2010). Internal marketing, organisational culture, job
satisfaction, and organisational performance in non-life insurance. Service In-
dustries Journal, 30(6), 793e809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026420607
01849840.
Stryker, J. B. (2004). Designing the workplace to promote communication: The effect of
collaboration opportunity on face-to-face communication in R&D project teams.
doctoral dissertation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Stryker, J. B., & Santoro, M. D. (2012). Facilitating face-to-face communication in
high-tech teams. Research Technology Management, 55(1), 51. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5437/08956308X5501013.
Sundstrom, E., Burt, R. E., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural corre-
lates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal,
23(1), 101e117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255498.
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R. K., & Brown, D. W. (1982). Privacy and communication in
an open-plan office: A case study. Environment And Behavior, 14(3), 379e392.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916582143007.
Tabachnick, B. L., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Veitch, J. A., Kelly, K. E., Farley, K. M. J., & Newsham, G. R. (2007). A model of
satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field finding. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 177e189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.
2007.04.002.
Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How
people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review,
51(2), 97e108. http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5114.
Welch, R. L. (1980). Vertical and horizontal communication in economic processes.
Review of Economic Studies, 47(4), 733. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2296939.
van Wijk, C. H., & Finchilescu, G. (2008). Symbols of organisational culture:
Describing and prescribing gender integration of navy ships. Journal of Gender
Studies, 17(3), 237e249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589230802204266.
Wolfeld, L. R. (2010). Effects of office layout on job satisfaction, productivity and
organizational commitment as transmitted through face-to-face interactions.
Colonial Academic Alliance Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(8), 1e15. Retrieved
from http://publish.wm.edu/caaurj/vol11/iss11/18.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice
effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 143e154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.009.
Zalesny, M. D., & Farace, R. V. (1987). Traditional versus open offices: A comparison
of sociotechnical, social relations, and symbolic meaning perspectives. Academy
of Management Journal, 30(2), 240e259. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256272.
Zhang, Z., & Spicer, A. (2014). ‘Leader, you first’: The everyday production of hier-
archical space in a Chinese bureaucracy. Human Relations, 67(6), 739e762.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726713503021.
Zhu, L., & Zhu, L. (2013). The physical office environment in technical services in ARL
libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 37(3), 124e137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2013.11.003.