Title: Workplace territorial behaviors: A conceptual model of the impact of employees’

territorial behaviors on conflict and outcomes in diverse teams

Authors:

Ayoko, Oluremi; University of Queensland

Ashkanasy, Neal; University of Queensland

Jehn, Karen; University of Leiden

Presented at the

22nd Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference

Kyoto, Japan

June 15 – 18, 2009

Abstract: Workplace territoriality, while a subject of on-going inquiry in environmental

psychology, has been relatively ignored in conflict research. For example, we know that

contemporary organizations spend millions redesigning workspaces, and incur more

millions in damage as a result of the need to manage conflict, negative emotions, and

counterproductive behaviors caused by workplace territoriality. This issue can be especially

acute in an open-plan office (e.g., no physical barriers such as walls or doors to create a

transparent fluid space), especially when the workforce is diverse. We address this issue in

a conceptual model of the impact of office design on conflict and its effects on outcomes in

diverse teams over time. Specifically, our model depicts features of the office space (e.g.,

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484772

layout, noise) as leading to employees’ territorial behaviors, conflict, and outcomes. We

also propose that these effects can be ameliorated by specific moderators such as conflict

training that is especially focused on managing territorial behaviors. Implications for

theory, research and practice discussed.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484772

 Workplace territorial behaviors: A conceptual model of the impact of employees’

territorial behaviors on conflict and outcomes in diverse teams

Abstract

Workplace territoriality, while a subject of on-going inquiry in environmental

psychology, has been relatively ignored in conflict research. For example, we know that

contemporary organizations spend millions redesigning workspaces, and incur more

millions in damage as a result of the need to manage conflict, negative emotions, and

counterproductive behaviors caused by workplace territoriality. This issue can be especially

acute in an open-plan office (e.g., no physical barriers such as walls or doors to create a

transparent fluid space), especially when the workforce is diverse. We address this issue in

a conceptual model of the impact of office design on conflict and its effects on outcomes in

diverse teams over time. Specifically, our model depicts features of the office space (e.g.,

layout, noise) as leading to employees’ territorial behaviors, conflict, and outcomes. We

also propose that these effects can be ameliorated by specific moderators such as conflict

training that is especially focused on managing territorial behaviors. Implications for

theory, research and practice discussed.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484772

 Workplace territorial behaviors: A conceptual model of the impact of employees’

territorial behaviors on conflict and outcomes in diverse teams

An employee became angry in an open-plan office after a colleague interrupted her

and told her what to say to clients on the phone. When asked why she became angry

she responded, “I was violated ... my territory, my whole profession was violated …

it was not right. I felt terrible … so, I resigned” (Ayoko & Härtel, 2003, pg 405).

Many organizations are today redesigning their workspaces from the traditional

enclosed office to a more transparent and interactive open-plan office (Chigot, 2003;

Fisher, 1997). Open-plan offices are designed to eliminate physical barriers to

communication such as doors and walls in order to create a transparent, fluid space where

little prevents the circulation of information (Fisher, 1997). Specifically, organizations

spend millions of dollars in designing and redesigning work space. For example, Australia

spends about AU$3.6 billion per annum on redesigning and reconstructing the physical

environment of work (FMA, 2002) that includes internal relocation, furniture, cabling,

complete redesign refit, and relocation to new premises. This investment would seem to be

justified given that over 70% of the working population in the UK and the USA is based in

offices (Craig, 1981; Kleeman, 1981) while the majority of the adult population will spend

a significant proportion of their daily life in offices (Donald, 1994). In spite of all these

investments, however, we know that organizations incur more millions in damage as a

result of the need to manage conflict, negative emotions, and counterproductive behaviors

that are related to workplace territoriality, which is exacerbated in open-plan office layouts

(Ayoko & Härtel, 2003; Hoel, Einarsen and Cooper, 2003; Regoeczi, 2003). Nevertheless

in organizational studies, research on the connection between office space, feelings,

2
attitudes, and acts have not as yet been forthcoming (Yanow, 1998).

Our spotlight is on employee territoriality. We are aware that both animals and

humans interact with their space (Lorenz, 1966; Taylor, 1988). For example, animals and

humans have innate capacities to own and to defend their physical space and territories

(Brown, 1987; Lorenz, 1966; Taylor, 1988). Consequently, we argue that an employee’s

tendency to own and defend her or his space (territoriality) is a feature of organizational

life. As indicated by our opening vignette, we believe that territorial behaviors have a

significant impact on individual, team, and organizational functioning. Studies are lacking,

however, on the interplay between the physical office plan, employee territorial behaviors,

and especially the emotions employees experience as a result. In this conceptual paper, we

aim to bridge this gap by developing a model that depicts the effects of employees’

territorial behaviors (prompted by the physical features of the office space) on conflict,

employees’ negative emotions, and outcomes.

Our theoretical model makes five significant contributions. First, we extend the

concepts of Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Wright &

Cropanzano, 1998; Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002) to workplace territoriality to track the

processes over time by which territoriality in open-plan offices evokes affective events at

work. Our model is the first to apply AET to the study of territoriality and conflictful events

at work. Second, we further the work of Ayoko and Hartel (2003) on diverse groups which

suggests that differing perceptions and use of space are connected with conflict and

negative emotions. We argue specifically that conflict and emotions are exaggerated in

teams that are diverse in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity. Third, we extend the work of

Jehn and Chatman (2000) and Jehn, Rupert, and Nauta (2006) to incorporate the notion of

3
asymmetric perceptions to the study of conflictful events at work. Fourth, we know that, at

present, most managers are unaware of the connection between territorial behaviors,

affective events and outcomes (Brown, et al., 2005). We argue that team members and

leaders can be trained in managing employees’ territoriality behaviors and its associated

conflict, negative emotions, and counterproductive behaviors that may change over time.

Fifth, studies of employees’ territoriality usually focus on the individual (rather than the

team) properties. Specifically, we propose that an individual’s territorial behavior may have

an impact on the whole team, rather than just on individuals team members. As such, and

consistent with Ashkanasy (2003), we argue that territoriality is a multi-level issue (see

Figure 1).

----------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here --------------------------

Theoretical Framework

In Affective Event Theory, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) propose that certain

situations or events in the work environment are likely to be the immediate cause of the

way people behave and perform at work. Specifically, these authors posit that workplace

circumstances stimulate distinctive “affective events”. We argue that situations and events

at work are immediate cause of conflict (e.g verbal conflict behavior); therefore we propose

that conflict is an affective event. Furthermore, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) theorize that

these affective events may lead to “affective states”, such as moods and emotions (e.g.,

conflict leads to negative emotions such as anger). In this respect, emotions are intense

relatively short-term reactions to a given environmental stimulus, such as anger, fear, joy,

or sadness (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). Moods, on the other hand, are less intense, diffuse

and may not be stimulated by a specific object or event but provoked by several and related

4
insignificant event (Barsde & Gibson; Fridja, 1986). Research suggests that both emotions

and moods (i.e., the different forms of affect) are connected with employees’ actions and

behaviors such as conflict and aggression (Altman & Chemers, 1980). These emotions and

moods in turn lead to affect-driven behaviors such as conflict which, in turn, can determine

counter-productive workplace behaviors, as well as the productivity and well-being of

individuals. In the present instance, we argue a micro-mediational change (see Figure 1)

that circumstances in the open-plan office (e.g., furniture layout, noise) may serve to trigger

employees’ territorial behaviors (e.g. defensiveness), which in turn may stimulate affective

behavioral events (e.g conflict), resulting in emotional reactions (e.g., anger). These

emotional responses and behaviors then impact work outcomes.

Research findings from Affective Event Theory have demonstrated that the buildup

of emotions over time has a direct link to work attitudes such as job satisfaction (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996) which, in turn, affects outcomes such as commitment (Jordan,

Ashkanasy & Härtel, 2002), and performance (Ashkanasy, et al., 2002). Similarly, research

findings suggest that diversity is connected with emotions (Ayoko & Härtel, 2002). The

model developed here extends the application of AET to employee territorial and conflict

behaviors. Our model (Figure 1) suggests that certain features of open-plan offices can

stimulate territoriality that arouses affective behaviors such as conflict (Ayoko & Härtel,

2003). Affective behaviors are depicted as culminating into individual/team emotional

responses capable of influencing outcomes. The model also indicates the role of team

diversity, asymmetry perceptions and training on employees’ territorial and affective

outcomes.

5
Workplace Territoriality

Workplace territoriality is a derivative of human territoriality which Bell, Greene,

Fisher, and Baum (2001) define as a set of behaviors and cognitions that a person or group

of people exhibit based on their perceived ownership of a given physical space. In the work

context, Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson (2005) define territoriality as “an individual’s

behavioral expression of his or her feelings of ownership toward a physical or social

object” (p. 578) and comprises behaviors for constructing, communicating, maintaining,

and restoring territories around the objects for which an individual would claim ownership.

Also, according to territory theory, territoriality involves a perceived sense of ownership

and exclusivity over a given physical or social object regardless of length of time. It is used

to designate a place, or a geographical area occupied by a person or by a group of people

who use it in a given way as their own property permitting exchange, work, or retreat

(Altman, 1975). It is about personalization of space, using markers, (e.g., a name of the

door, a property sign).

Territory therefore refers to the existence of interpersonal barriers, where instruction

provokes various defensive reactions such as aggression, warning discomfort and anxiety.

As such, territoriality is a fundamental mechanism for regulating boundaries between

employees, and signifies the personalization and demarcation of space (Altman & Chemers,

1980). Moreover, based on Altman (1975) and Fredrickson and Anderson (1999), it appears

that territorial behaviors are also linked with controlled access and an affective response to

the environment. As such, territoriality might be manifested as a place attachment or bond

with physical objects and/or environment (see also Stokols, 1990).

Territorial behaviors that represent ownership, bonding and defensiveness are

6
exhibited in various settings. For example, prior studies indicate that human territoriality is

demonstrated at video arcades (Werner, Brown, & Damron, 1981), libraries (Becker, 1973),

cafeterias (Sommer & Becker, 1969), bars (Shaffer & Sadowski, 1975), neighborhoods

(Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974), classrooms (Haber, 1980), water fountains (Ruback & Snow,

1993), pay phones (Ruback, Pape, & Doriot, 1989) and car parks (Ruback & Juieng, 1997).

In this instance, we argue that territoriality is prevalent at work and that such territorial

behaviors are likely to be triggered by the design and layout of an office space, especially

the open-plan office. Specifically, we propose that employees in open-plan offices are

likely to create personal territorial boundaries as a means of dealing with the real or

imagined presence of others. In this respect, Altman and Chermers (1980) note that

employees set up boundaries in order to respond to environmental characteristics and to

satisfy their safety and emotional needs.

In this paper, therefore, we focus on employees’ territorial conflict behaviors,

provoked by “marking” and “defending” of territories (Altman & Chemers, 1980). An

example of such behavior could be an employee telling another person to “Get out of my

space, you idiot!” Brown and colleagues describe “marking” as individual’s territorial

behaviors whereby employees draw boundaries (territories) around given objects. An

example includes a manager who positions her desk in a shared office to differentiate

between her “own” space and that of others (Brown et al., 2005) or putting up a cardboard

to designate one’s space in a shared office. In contrast, “defending” involves employees’

behaviors that are in anticipation or a defense of intrusion to their territory (e.g. locking

drawers in a shared open-plan office; password on files and documents on computers or

screaming and raising of voices to show discomfort as a response to violated territory).

7
Overall, we believe that differing employees’ interpretations of ownership of territory (e.g.,

around physical objects in the open-plan offices); has a high possibility for evoking conflict

as suggested by asymmetrical conflict theory (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2009).

Conceptual Model: Territoriality, Conflict and Short- and Long-Term Consequences

As previously established, the open-plan office can serve to promote or inhibit

workplace interactions. It can be both productive (e.g., by stimulating new ideas) and at the

same time destructive through the presence of unwanted noise and distractions (Kearns,

2007). In particular, research indicates that, after moving from a traditional to an open-plan

office, employees often report reductions in efficiency caused by increased noise, visual

distraction, and loss of privacy (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; Ettorre, 1995; Tim & Davis,

1984). Additionally, Hygge and Knez (2001) found in an experiential study that the

interaction between noise and light was linked with the free recall of negative emotional

words. Similarly, Ayoko and Härtel (2003) found that both physical and psychological

workspace served to trigger conflict. In this respect, Altman and Chermers (1980) explain

that in the context of open-plan office space, conflict is triggered by employees’ attempt to

prevent intrusion to their personal space especially by engaging in territorial behaviors.

These behaviors are known to exacerbate defensive reactions such as aggressiveness,

discomfort and anxiety (Altman & Chermers, 1980).

The question then is what to make of this paradox? How can managers make best

use of the open-plan office to realize its potential without at the same time generating

excessive territoriality behavior, resulting in conflict, negative emotions, and consequent

loss of productivity? In the next section, we address this concern by addressing specifically

the short- and long-term consequences of territoriality in open-plan offices, and develop a

8
set of testable propositions.

We know from the work of Ortony, Clore, and Collins (1988) that individual goals

are subjective and context-specific, and that a variety of workplace issues can stimulate an

affective event so employees perceive that such issues are capable of influencing their

ability to achieve (or interfere with) their goals at work. Such workplace issues include

physical objects, settings, and team processes (Brief & Weiss, 2002). In fact, Bechky

(2003) indicates that physical objects and artifacts (e.g., engineering drawings & machines)

are representations of knowledge, authority and legitimacy which are used both to construct

and to reflect occupational jurisdictions. Similarly, Rafaeli and Vilnai-Yavetz (2004) argue

that exposure to workplace artifacts are inherently affective events. In this instance, Rafaeli

and Vilnai-Yavetz demonstrated that such artifacts were connected with emotions which, in

turn, were associated with attitudes towards the organization. Furthermore, Wasserman,

Rafaeli and Kluger (2000) reported that workplace physical esthetic features affect

employees’ mood. Specifically, Wasserman and her colleagues found that employees

exposed to photographs of eclectic and visually stimulating interior design reported positive

affective states, while those exposed to a dull interior design were more negative. Similarly,

research on the impact of unwanted and distracting noise show that these heighten anxiety

and stress (Bouscein & Ottmann, 1996; Gilbert, Meliska & Plath, 1997). Thus, while some

aspects of the workplace environment have been studied to date, and shown to have

emotional consequences, we have not located any research that has examined territorial

behaviors in connection with conflict in teams. Nonetheless, given what we know from

research into the effects of office environment, it seems reasonable to conclude that the

physical environment of the open plan office is likely to have an impact on employees’

9
affective states and subsequent conflict, attitudes, and behaviors.

So what are the likely consequences of workplace territoriality? Like the research

on the effects of open-plan office layouts, findings in respect of the consequences of

workers’ territoriality are paradoxical (Altman, 1975; Chigot, 2003; Nemecek &

Grandjean, 1983). On the one hand, numerous reports have indicated that territoriality is

deleterious. Altman and Chemers (1980), for example, found that leads to increased

conflict, while Patterson and Sechrest (1970) reported an association with aggression. More

recently, Bell, Deffenbacher, and Troup (2008) showed that territoriality was significantly

correlated with both attachment and aggression, and the results of a study by Ayoko and

Härtel (2003) indicate that a violation of a worker’s territory evoked conflict, anger and

eventual turnover. Similarly, in the specific context of open-plan office research, Altman

(1975) found that frustration arose as a result of decreasing environmental resources, such

as sharing a printer in the open-plan office environment. Finally, studies in environmental

psychology suggest that frustrations and crowding tend to foster a more impersonal

atmosphere and increase exposure to deviant role models; these conditions then evoke

aggression in individuals and provide increased targets for aggression (Booth, Welch &

Johnson, 1976).

On the other hand, there is another stream of research that suggests that territoriality

(e.g., in the open-plan office) may actually be beneficial (Chigot, 2003; Nemecek &

Grandjean, 1983; Lewis, 1979). It seems the consequences of territoriality can promote or

inhibit positive attitudes, affective events and behaviors in the workplace. We suggest that

this may be a function of the team’s development. Thus, in the forming stage of group

development, members may be inclined to fight over resources. In the norming and

10
performing stages, however, the existence of clear boundaries is likely to be beneficial for

group performance, since each member knows the others’ particular territorial

requirements. The question here, of course, then becomes, at what point (e.g. in the life

cycle of a team) does employee territoriality become beneficial leading, for example to

achievement, productivity and wellbeing. On the other hand, if team members fail to agree

on their boundaries, the existence of ill-defined territorial boundaries might become

detrimental, leading to conflict and decreased achievement, productivity and wellbeing..

Physical Environment in Organizations; The (Mis) use of Space Over Time

We know that different forms of work require different forms of space (Haynes &

Price, 2004). In order for organizations to achieve increased organizational performance

and competitive advantage, however, work is increasingly becoming a series of formal and

informal projects requiring collaborations between groupings of individuals for limited and

variable periods of time (Haynes & Price, 2004). In view of this, our spotlight is on open-

plan offices (rather than traditional offices) where such collaborative interactions between

teams (in public & private sector organizations) are possible and maximized. Traditional

enclosed offices are usually private offices (12’ x 12’, with one worker, one desk, and a

door that closed off from the corridor) or shared with another worker (e.g. 20’x 20’ with

two workers, two separate desks, no partitions between them and a door; see Brennan,

Chugh & Kline, 2002). Such designs are premised on the assumption that an individual’s

conception of activity gives seclusion and protection from intrusion and permits physical

and psychological control over his/her environment.

In contrast, the open-plan office design is currently enjoying considerable

popularity (Brookes & Kaplan, 1972, Steele, 1973). Although there is a variety of open-

11
plan office, it is usually distinguished by the absence of interior walls and rooms (Oldham

and Brass, 1979; Fisher, 1997). Advocates of the open-plan office such as Chilton and

Baldry (2002), argue that the open-plan office reduces costs and also facilitates interactions

among organizational members, improves communication flow, and fosters closer working

relationships; all of which should culminate in increased efficiency and productivity

(Ettorrre, 1995; Chigot, 2003).

Additionally, researchers in the area of environmental psychology have examined

aspects of physical environment including office size (Canter, 1972), status (Steele, 1986a),

privacy (Sundstrom, 1986b), structure and evaluation of office experience (Donald, 1994),

employee reactions to new open-plan office (Ettorre, 1995; Tim & Davis, 1984) and

individual outcomes (Sutton & Rafaeli, 1987). Similarly, prior findings in this area suggest

that features of the open plan office are linked with employee behaviors such as conflict

(Ayoko & Härtel, 2003), reactions (e.g. anxiety; See Altman & Chemers, 1980), attitudes

and impressions (Ornstein, 1989) as well as performance and job satisfaction (Olson,

2002). What we do not understand, however, is the process by which open plan office

stimulate employee territoriality, affective behaviors, and outcomes at work.

Moreover, Lewin (1951) suggested that space is not only a material function, but

also a medium for social values. In fact, Garling (1998) indicates that space controls the

strength and directness of communication and conveys a message about the style of living

and values of the occupants. Through appropriation (i.e. interactions that are based on

occupation or a particular use of space and provides individuals with self-affirmation with

respect to the environment), individuals apply physical and psychological control over their

space. Consequently, spaces such as around the water cooler or in the corridors can

12
promote different forms of encounters while serving as a way of avoiding others (Fisher,

1997). We argue therefore that the open-plan office has a potential to promote or to inhibit

certain forms of interactions that may evoke productive or counterproductive behaviors and

outcomes at work.

In sum, it appears that time may be a critical factor in dissociating between the

beneficial and detrimental consequences of workplace territoriality. To this conundrum, we

borrow the concept of “time” from group development literature, which suggests that time

is a key variable in the life of a group; transforming a group from the forming through to

the performing stage (Tuckman, 1965; Gersick, 1988.). According to Tuckman (1965)

groups go through four stages of development (Tuckman, 1965): Forming, storming,

norming and performing. The first two stages (Forming & Storming) are characterized by

uncertainty, disagreements while members struggle for position, identity and influence.

Given time, however, group members enter into the third and fourth stages of their

development and sort out their internal structures. For example, they might develop some

conflict management norms to minimize disagreements and build trust for increased

performance (Mannix & Jehn, 2004). Specifically, we anticipate that, in the early stages of

group formation (T1, characterized by storming & norming), employees (in open-plan

offices) will be more likely to engage in the territorial behaviors of marking.

Additionally, Bodtker and Jameson (2001) and Jehn, Greer, Levine, and Szulanski

(2008) have demonstrated that conflict is usually accompanied by emotions. Specifically,

Lovelace, Shapiro, and Weingart (2001) found that conflict has potential to stimulate

powerful negative emotions (e.g. anger) as well as powerful positive emotions (e.g.,

excitement) that, respectively, might either increase team members’ achievement or might

13
be harmful to team members’ relationship, efficiency, and productivity. In the present

research, we focus on traditional newly formed teams in open-plan offices where to a large

extent, team members’ activities are directed by the leader (De Souza and Klein, 1995).

Since territorial behaviors are likely to stimulate increased affective events (conflict &

aggression), we anticipate that such affective events will then trigger discrete emotions (e.g.

increased anger) in the short term especially in newly formed teams operating in open-plan

offices. Consequently we propose:

P1a: In the short term, open-plan office territorial behaviors (marking/defending) will be

associated with increased conflict and aggression.

P1b: In the short term, increased conflict and aggression will be associated with

increased negative emotional reactions (anger) and decreased positive emotions

(excitement).

P1c: In the short term, increased negative emotional reactions (anger) and decreased

positive emotions (excitement) will result in decreased (a) achievement (b)

productivity and (c) well-being

In the longer term (T2), however, as the group moves into the latter stages of

development, we expect that the same territorial behaviors (e.g. marking) that would have

been the cause of conflict at the initial stages of team life and may now serve to reduce

conflict (Freedman, 1979). Besides, Jehn and Mannix (2001) show that conflict is dynamic

in nature and project teams experience of conflict differ considerably from time to time in

the project life. Given the above, and with regards to territoriality, we expect that at T2,

team members begin to clarify and to respect territorial boundaries. In fact, the very

14
conditions that are likely to be so conducive to conflict in an open-plan office (e.g.,

employees have access to one another), are likely to facilitate understanding and

cooperation when team members respect their territorial boundaries. Such understanding

should then help to reduce the negative impact of territoriality on employees’ behaviors and

eventually promote cooperation. Based on the foregoing discussions, we propose:

P2a: In the long term (T2), open-plan office territorial behaviors (marking/defending)

will be associated with decreased conflict and aggression.

P2b: In the long term (T2), decreased conflict and aggression will be associated with

decreased negative emotional reactions (anger) and increased positive emotions

(excitement).

P2c: In the long term (T2), decreased negative emotional reactions (anger) and

increased positive emotions (excitement) will result in increased (a) achievement,

(b) productivity, and (c) wellbeing.

Workplace Territoriality, Team Diversity and Conflict

A further dimension of our model relates to the role of diversity. Given today’s

changes in workforce demography (Heneman, Judge & Heneman, 1999; Offerman &

Gowing, 1990), we know that work teams now tend to be diverse in terms of age, gender,

and ethnicity. Research into team diversity suggests that, given the operation of cultural

prejudices, biases and stereotypes as well as value differences (Harrison, Price & Bell,

1998), diversity has a significant impact on team processes such as conflict (e.g. Jackson,

Joshi & Erhardt, 2003; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004). In this case, it is reasonable to conclude

that diversity should serve to exacerbate the conflict associated with employee work space

15
behaviors and territoriality. As such, in a conflicted workplace occasioned by an open-plan

office environment, diversity leads to increased conflict and aggression, leading to

detrimental effects on individual and team outcomes. In this regard, and consistent with

Ayoko and Härtel (2003), an explanation may be found in the different viewpoints likely to

be generated in a heterogeneous workplace regarding the use of workspace. In the open-

plan environment, this is complicated by an inability of employees to retreat from exposure

to others from different demographic groups in an open-plan office environment.

Moreover, studies on gender and ethnicity suggest that team members’ demographic

attributes may invoke feelings of antagonism towards other team members (Jehn et al.,

1997, Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). With regards to territoriality and individual

differences, existing research demonstrates that workers who differ (e.g., in gender, age,

and ethnicity) use physical space differently, and react to events differently (Coluccia &

Louse, 2004, Jones, Taylor, Dick, Singh & Cook, 2007). In particular, Carmen, Hidalgo

and Hernandez (2001) found in a field study that women show greater place attachment

than men and that attachment to places increases with age. Likewise, Brookes and Kaplan

(1972) found that women perceive themselves as needing less “quietness” in a more

“spacious” surrounding than men. In another study, Kaya and Weber (2003) reported that

American and Turkish students were significantly different in their desired privacy levels:

the Americans had higher needs for privacy than the Turks in their residence hall rooms.

The authors explained the difference in the desired level of privacy by the cultural

background in which individuals are raised.

In sum, we expect that team diversity will impact the relationship between

employee territoriality and the types of affective events that are likely to emerge in open-

16
plan offices. This is because an optimal workplace design for one person or group may not

be so optimal for another (Bitner, 1992). Finally, we expect that this will apply only in the

early stages of group formation, where we predict that territoriality is likely to have a

deleterious effect on emotions and performance outcomes. This leads to our next

proposition:

P3a: In the short-term, team diversity will moderate the relationship between employees’

territorial behaviors and affective events such that teams that are more diverse will

be linked with increased negative affective events (conflict and aggression) than

teams that are more homogenous in terms of (a) age, (b) gender, and (c) ethnicity.

However, diversity research also suggests that the effect of diversity especially surface

level diversity (e.g age, gender ethnicity) (Milliken and Martin, 1996) on outcomes is

reduced over time (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). Similarly, Mohammed and Angell

(2004) demonstrate that time is critical in the effect of deep-level diversity (e.g. values) on

conflict. For example, in the Time 2 of their study, their study shows a significant absence

of conflict effects on both surface and deep-level. Besides, research also indicates that

different type of diversity may be crucial for different stage of the group development. For

instance, Amir, (1969) suggests that the tendency to categories and stereotype based on

surface level demographic attributes decreases as members get to know each other.

Additionally, Harrison and colleagues (1998) also show that given time, more frequent

communication and meaningful interactions among team members, the effect of the initial

negative influence of surface level diversity is decreased. In contrast, the impact of deep-

level diversity (e.g overall satisfaction) improves as group tenure increases. In the same

vein, Pelled (1999) also show that the impact of demographic diversity on group conflict

17
weakens with group tenure. Therefore with respect to territoriality, we argue territorial

behaviors may be exaggerated because of surface level diversity and the oeprationalisation

of stereotypes and prejudices leading to conflict in the short time. However, in the later

stages of teams’ life (especially those working in open-plan offices), we expect that the

operation of stereotypes will abate leading to more acceptances of territorial markings and

defenses. Therefore , we propose that:

P3b: In the long-term, team diversity will moderate the relationship between employees’

territorial behaviors and affective events such that teams that are more diverse will

be linked with decreased negative affective events (conflict and aggression) than

teams that are more homogenous in terms of (a) age, (b) gender, and (c) ethnicity.

Workplace territoriality, team diversity, conflict, and asymmetric perceptions

In general, most team research is based on an assumption that perceptions are

commonly shared by members rather than acknowledging that team properties reflect the

differences of dispersion in attitudes and perception among team members (see Chan,

1998). Studies in the area of asymmetric perception, for example, show that individuals

differ in their perception of workplace events. In this respect, Jehn and her colleagues (Jehn

& Chatman, 2000; Jehn, Rupert & Nauta, 2006) found that the way conflict is perceived

differs among individuals. Jehn and Chatman defined conflict asymmetry as the degree to

which members of a workgroup differ in their perception of conflict within the group. The

concept is based on the notion of perceptual conflict composition, and is the extent to which

an individual perceives that a conflict is present compared to the other conflicting parties in

the group. Prior research in the area suggests that the disproportion in the way group

members perceive conflict (conflict asymmetry) impacts team performance (Jehn &

18
Chatman) and negatively affects employees’ satisfaction (Jehn et al., 2006; Jehn et al.,

2008).

Also given the work of Elfenbein and Ambady (2002), emotions falls under the

category of emotional behaviour i.e. the outward expressions and actions that accompany

emotional experience (e.g. conflict). We propose in this research that the outward

expression (emotional response) and actions that accompany an emotional experience such

as conflict will significantly impact group outcomes of achievement, productivity and

wellbeing. In the present research, we extend the concepts of emotional response and

asymmetry to the study of territoriality and affective episodes such as conflict and

aggression. Because we know different viewpoints regarding the use of space and the

inability to retreat from exposure to others, privacy invasion and distractions are major

triggers of conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups (Ayoko and Härtel, 2003); we

argue that in the short term (i.e., the early stages of group formation), diversity (age, gender

and ethnicity) will have an impact on the team members’ different perceptions of conflict

and aggression. Therefore, we propose that:

P4a: In the short term, conflict asymmetry in teams will moderate the relationship

between affective events and individual emotional responses such that teams with

higher conflict asymmetry will be linked with increased negative emotions (anger).

P4b: In the short term, aggression asymmetry in teams will moderate the relationship

between affective events and individual emotional responses such that teams with

higher aggression asymmetry will be linked with increased negative emotions

(anger).

P4c: In the short term, support asymmetry in teams will moderate the relationship

19
 between affective events and individual emotional responses such that teams with

higher support asymmetry will be linked with decreased negative emotions (anger)

and increased positive emotions (excitement).

Workplace Territoriality Training

Researchers such as Goldstein (1981) and Schneider (1991) have pointed out that

training is an effective means to improve social skills. Additionally, both formal and

informal training have been shown to positively influence difficult situations at work. For

example, Likert (1967) listed training along with motivation, decision making, and

communication as causal variables of organizational performance. Taking aggression as

example, Baron and Richardson (1994) argued that individuals who become repeatedly

involved in aggression often lack social skills such as emotional sensitivity. Thus, formal

training might be necessary to provide employees with the skills necessary to neutralize,

manage, and react to aggression. Similarly, Rahim (1983), and Huesmann (1994) have

demonstrated that social skills training such as conflict management, interpersonal

communication, and stress management results in a reduction of aggression at work. We

extend the same notion to territorial behavior management and expect that training in

managing territorial behaviors will influence territoriality behavior and its antecedents and

consequences. Specifically, we anticipate that individuals trained in managing territorial

behaviors will be positively linked with motivation and trust more quickly. Based on the

above, we propose that:

P5: Territorial behavior management training will moderate the relationship between

individual emotional responses and outcomes such that individuals exposed to

training in managing territorial behaviors will be more linked to increase positive

20
 outcomes (e.g. achievement, productivity and wellbeing).

Discussion

Our purpose in this paper is to theorize about the impact of employees’ territoriality

on affective events, individual emotional responses as well as outcomes in diverse teams.

We have argued that the physical features of an open-plan office, such as noise and

furniture layout, will give rise to employees’ territorial behaviors of appropriation that

include marking and defending of territories. Such behaviors, we argue, are related to

employees’ affective interactions and events (e.g. conflict and aggression) as well as

negative emotions of anger and fear in the short run. In the long run, however, we propose

that territorial behaviors will elicit positive affective events (e.g. support and achievement)

and individual response of excitement and challenge. Additionally, we propose that team

diversity will moderate the relationship between employee territorial behaviors and

affective events. Besides, asymmetry perceptions are depicted as moderating the

relationship between affective events such as conflict and individual emotional responses of

challenge, fear or anger. Overall, we depict a training intervention as a moderator of the

relationship between individual emotional response and individual outcomes of

achievement, productivity and wellbeing. Finally, we propose that territorial behaviors will

be linked with motivation, trust, productivity and well-being. Our proposed model has

some interesting and potentially important implications for theory and practice.

Implications for Theory and Research

The most immediate need is to conduct empirical tests of the model we have

proposed in this paper, to assess the validity of the depicted links. Observation work will be

needed to track the process by which employees engage in territorial behaviors. Similarly,
21
it will be necessary to conduct surveys and conduct longitudinal studies to track the

changes in employee’s territorial behaviors over time and their impact on affective events,

individual emotional responses and outcomes. In the present research, we have focused on

the open-plan office and a few affective events and emotional responses. Future research

should examine more affective events and emotional responses.

Limitations and Boundary Conditions

Our conceptual model depicts the interplay between employees’ territoriality, affective

events and outcomes in diverse teams. However, the model has some limitations. First, the

utility of model may be limited to western world where work is organized in open-plan

offices. Secondly, our model is restricted to newly formed teams in an open -office

environment and does not take into consideration teams moving from a closed-office to an

open-office. Nevertheless, we believe that the strengths of our model more than compensate

for the above limitations.

Implications for Practice

Our model has significant implications for practice. At present, managers appear to

be unaware of the connection between territorial behaviors, affective events and outcomes.

We propose that team members and leaders can be trained in managing employees’

territoriality behaviors and its associated conflict, negative emotions and counterproductive

behaviors. Especially, managers need to be aware of the effects of office space and

territorial behaviors on employees’ attitudes, emotions and outcomes.

Conclusions

Organizational behavior researchers have largely ignored research on the

22
connection between organizational space and employees’ attitudes, processes, behaviors

and outcomes especially in diverse teams. In this paper, we have proposed a model

intended to shed some light on the processes by which the physical features of the open-

plan offices can elicit employee territorial behaviors that, in turn, might lead to affective

events and emotional responses and outcomes from employees. We believe our model

contributes to the literature on open-office plans and workplace territorialism by including

the effect of affect, and effect of team diversity on the link between employee territorialism

on affective events such as aggression and conflict at both an individual and team levels.

References

Altman, I. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Altman, I, & Chemers, M. 1980. Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for

managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 76-86.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multilevel perspective. In F.

Dansereau and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, volume 2:

Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy (pp. 9-54). Oxford, UK:

Elsevier/JAI Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe & Härtel, C.E.J. 2002. Managing emotions in a changing

workplace. In N.M. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe & C.E.J. Hartel (Eds.) Managing Emotions

in the workplace. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

23
Ayoko, O. B. & Härtel, C. E. J. 2002. The role of emotion and emotion management in

destructive and productive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. In N. M.

Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe, (Eds.), Managing Emotions in the

Workplace: 77-97. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.

Ayoko, O. B & Härtel, C. E. J. (2003). The role of space as both a conflict trigger and a

conflict control mechanism in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 52, 383-412

Baron, R. A. & Richardson, D.R. 1994. Human Aggression. New York: Plenum.

Barsade, S. G. & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group Emotion: A View from Top and Bottom. In

D. Gruenfeld, M. Neale, & E. Mannix (eds.), Research on managing in groups and

teams (vol 1, pp. 81-102). Westport, CT: JAI Press.

Bechky, B.A. 2003. Object Lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational

jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720-752.

Bitner, M. J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and

employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.

Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., & Kline, T. 2002. Traditional versus open office design: A

longitudinal study. Environment & Behavior, 34, 279-299.

Brookes, M.J. & Kaplan, A.1972. The office environment: Space planning and affective

behavior. Human Factors, 14 (5), 373-391.

Brown, G. (In press). Claiming a corner at work: measuring employee territoriality in their

work place, Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Brown, G., Lawrence, T., & Robinson, S.L. 2005. Territoriality in organizations. Academy

of Management Review, 30, 577-594.

24
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at

different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 234-246.

Chigot, P. 2003. Controlled transparency in workplace design: Balancing visual and

acoustic interaction in office environments. Journal of Facilities Management, 2, 2,

121-130.

Coluccia E. & Louse, G. 2004. Gender Differences in spatial orientation: A review.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 239-340.

Ettorre, B. 1995. When the wall came tumbling down. Management Review, 33-37.

Fisher, G. N. 1997. Individuals and Environment: A psychological approach to workspace.

New York: Walter de Gruyte.

FMA (Facility and Management Association of Australia. (2002). Office Churn research

Report http://www.fma.com.au/cms/index.php. visited on the 20th of Jan, 2009.

Fridja, N.H. 1986. Emotions, Cambridge. UK. Cambridge University Press.

Garling, T. 1998. Introduction-Conceptualisations of human environments. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 18, 69-73.

Goldstein, A.P. 1981. Social skills training. In A. P. Goldstein, E.G., Carr, W.S., Davidson

II & P. Wehr (Eds.) In response to aggression : methods of control and prosocial

alternatives . pp 159-218. New York: Pergamon.

Greer, L. & Jehn, K. (2007). The pivotal role of emotion in intragroup process conflict. In

M. Neale, E., Mannix, & C. Anderson (Eds.), Red on Managing Groups and Teams

(pp. 23-45). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

25
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H. & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time

and effects of surface and deep-level diversity on workgroup cohesion. Academy of

Management Journal, 41, 96-107.

Haynes, B., & Price, I., 2004. Quantifying the complex adaptive workplace, Facilities, 22,

1(2): 8-18.

Huesmann, L.R. 1994. Aggression: Current perspectives s. New York: Plenum.

Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational

diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 801-830.

Jehn, K. A. & Chatman, J. A. 2000. The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict

composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,

11(1):56-73.

Jehn, K., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types,

dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and

Negotiation, 17, 465-495.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: field study of

diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,

741-763

Jehn, K., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. (2009). Do you hear what I hear? The effects of conflict

asymmetry on workgroup and individual outcomes mediated by emergent states and social

processes. Academy of Management Journal.

Jehn, K.A., Rupert, J. & Nauta, A. (2006). The effects of conflict asymmetry on mediation

outcomes: Satisfaction, work motivation and absenteeism. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 17, 96-109

26
Jones, R.M.,Taylor, D.E, Dick, A.J., Singh, A., & Cook, J. L. (2007). Bedroom design and

decoration: Gender differences in preferences and activity. Adolescence, 42, 539-553.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a

moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of

Management Review, 27, 361-372

Likert, R. 1967. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mannix, E. & Jehn, K.A. 2004. Let’s norm and storm, but not right now: Integrating

models of group development and performance. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & S.

Blount (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams (pp.11-37). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Ornstein, S. 1989. The hidden influences of office design. Academy of Management

Executive, 3(2), 144-147.

Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New

York: CUP

Patterson, M.L. & Sechrest, L.B. (1970). Interpersonal distance and impression formation.

Journal of Personality, 38, 160-165.

Rahim. M.A. 1992. Managing Conflict in organizations. Westport, C.T: Praeger.

Schneider, B.H. 1991. A comparison of skill-building and desensitization strategies for

intervention with aggressive children . Aggressive Behavior , 17: 301-311.

Thatcher, S.M.B., Jehn, K.A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). “Cracks in diversity research: The

effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance.” Group Decision and

Negotiation, 12: 217-241

27
Weiss, H.M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.

Yanow, D (1998). Space Stories: Studying Museum Buildings as Organizational Spaces

while reflecting on interpretative methods and their narration. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 7, 3, 215- 239.

28
Figure 1: A model of territoriality, conflict and emotions in diverse teams

Team Diversity Asymmetry Training

(a) Gender (a) Conflict Territorial

(b) Age (b) Aggression behaviours
(c) Ethnicity (c) Support
P3 P4 P5

Time 1 Outcomes:
Office physical
space features
Employee Time 1 Time 1 Team:
Territoriality Affective Events Emotional Response Low achievement
Open-office:
Furniture P1a P1b P1c
Marking Conflict Increased anger Individual:
Noise Defending Aggression Decreased excitement Low productivity
Artefacts
Low wellbeing
Aesthetics

Time 1 (Forming, Storming)

Time 2 (Norming, Performing)

Time 2 Outcomes:

Time 2 Time 2 Team:

P2a Affective Events P2b Emotional Response P2c High achievement

Understanding Decreased anger Individual:

Cooperation Increased excitement High productivity
High wellbeing

P3 P4 P5

Team Diversity Asymmetry Training

(a) Gender (a) Conflict Territorial

(b) Age (b) Aggression behaviours
(c) Ethnicity (c) Support

29