The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

F
32,13/14
The changing nature of
workplace culture
Raymond J. Cole
School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture,
786 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Amy Oliver
Faculté de l’aménagement, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada, and
Aiste Blaviesciunaite
Azbil Corporation, Facility Management Sales Department,
Building Systems Company, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine how the unprecedented developments in
information and communications technologies now permit a variety of forms of remote working and the
subsequent shifting of spatial and temporal boundaries between home, office and city. It examines the
changing context within which knowledge-based work is conducted with the specific objective of
understanding how the blurring of the distinction between the domains of “work” and “leisure” is
influencing the notion of workplace culture. It offers a framework that organizes the key issues in a
legible form.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on concepts, theories and ideas in workplace,
information and communications technology and green building literature and restructures them to
formulate an emerging set of key issues, trends and relationships.
Findings – The paper identifies possible implications for both the changing nature of the workplace in
current green building practice and understanding the notion of workplace within different national
cultural contexts. It outlines implications for employees, employers and facilities managers.
Research limitations/implications – The work represents an initial attempt to bridge across
issues not immediately evident in several bodies of literature. While several other issues may also have
bearing on the work, the findings with regards to the blurring of work and leisure have significant
theoretical and practical implications.
Practical implications – As the “workplace” now embraces a wide range of possibilities that extend
beyond the domain of the “office” to the home and to a host of “hot-spots” in public venues available
within the city, the broader framing has significant consequence for comfort provisioning and other
services in the office buildings and facilities management.
Originality/value – The paper’s originality derives from emphasizing the potential positive and
negative consequences for employers, employees and facilities managers associated with the blurring
of work and leisure.
Keywords Information technology, Culture, Employee attitudes, Workplace, Knowledge workers,
Teleworking
Paper type Research paper
Facilities
Vol. 32 No. 13/14, 2014
pp. 786-800 1. Introduction
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited We live at a time where we enjoy and expect greater choices and freedoms permitted by
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-02-2013-0018 an unprecedented communications capability. While this is evident in almost every
human endeavour, how, what and where knowledge-based work is conducted is being Changing nature
radically transformed. Knowledge-based work is understood as that concerned with the
production and exchange of knowledge and information and which is “a more creative
of workplace
way of working and, as such, it requires a more flexible design approach to facilities” culture
(Greene and Myerson, 2011, p. 19). In this new context, decentralized networks replace
vertically integrated hierarchies, and time and space are celebrated, rather than
neutralized. (Thackara, 2001) In Canada, for example, the knowledge-based work force 787
almost doubled from 14 per cent in 1971 to 25 per cent in 2001, most of these in business
services, finance and insurance (Statistics Canada, 2003). Similarly, the 2011 American
Community Service data reveal that three million US employees (not counting those
self-employed or volunteers) work from home (Global Workplace Analytics, 2012).
Global Workplace Analytics (2012) estimate that between 20 and 30 million Americans
work from home at least one day of the week; the home being the most common location
for telework.
Whereas past changes to the nature of the workplace have been largely about
flexibility and reconfiguration of interior systems in response to changes in
organizational requirements, the current nature of the office “workplace” is qualitatively
different. Developments in information and communications technologies (ICTs) permit
a variety of forms of remote working; the practices of teleworking and hot-desking are
increasingly commonplace (Cole et al., 2012). Moreover, the “workplace” now embraces
a wide range of possibilities that extend beyond the domain of the “office” to the home
and to a host of “hot-spots” in public venues available within the city. Work can now be
undertaken in transit between different venues, e.g. planes, trains and boats, which are
increasingly being outfitted with personal access plugs and access to Internet to support
travelling knowledge-workers. Mobile technologies have not only allowed for increased
mobility and flexibility in the workplace, but have permitted knowledge-workers to
combine work and leisure applications in a variety of locations, from the office, to the
home, to the public realm in the city. Moreover:
[w]hile information technology has enabled greater distribution, it has also created a situation
where the mechanisms employed for communication, coordination and awareness differ from
those employed in a face-to-face setting […] (Doherty et al., 2012, p. 2).
The once fairly static workplace is now fluid and mobile (Harrison, 2001), and the
conventional boundaries clearly differentiating “work” from “non-work” are becoming
more and more permeable. Both inside and outside of the workplace, the conventional
understanding of work is now challenged by the expectations of workers being
productive in a so-called “creative economy […] [where] it isn’t just about math and
science anymore, [but] about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation”
(Nussbaum, 2005 in Oseland et al., 2011). Within this transformation, workplace
personalization and workplace culture are continually being redefined. This shift also
brings a host of consequences for building owners, facilities managers and building
inhabitants related to comfort provisioning, personalization of the workplace, space-use
efficiency, etc.
In addition to employees, who are often passively submitted to the dominant
organizational culture, and employers, who are responsible for mostly externally
oriented strategic decisions, facility managers are increasingly contributing to the
overall creation and management of the office “well-being”. Although there is little
F agreement on the definition of the role of a facilities manager (Howard, 2002 in Drion
et al., 2012), it encompasses multiple and wide-ranging activities that are non-core
32,13/14 business of an organization. Facilities management is therefore “organization- and
expectations”-specific, and as Alexander (2003) in Amaratunga et al. (2005) observes,
such services are “the integration of [those] multi-disciplinary activities […] and the
management of their impact upon people and the workplace”. This means that by
788 ensuring stable operation of mostly internally oriented functions and providing
continuous support to mostly externally oriented core business, facility managers are
likely to become key actors in actual implementation and facilitation of organizational
culture. Other researchers and key leading facilities management organizations observe
that the importance of such services lies in their ability to “support and sustain the
operational strategy of an organization over time” (Nutt, 2004 in Pathirage et al., 2006),
“contribute to achieving its [organization’s] strategic objectives” (BIFM, 2001 in
Amaratunga et al., 2005), “plan, deliver and sustain excellent support services” (Center
for FM, 2002 in Amaratunga et al., 2005) and “coordinate the physical workplace with
the people and work of the organization […] [by integrating] the principles of business
administration, architecture, and the behavioral and engineering sciences” (IFMA,
2013). Further, Jensen et al. (2012) recognize the changing nature of added value of the
facility managers, concluding that:
[…] more focus [is placed on] the strategic aspects of FM […] [and emphasizing a shift] from
economical value towards a more holistic value concept […] [which is] multi-dimensional […]
subjectively perceived […] [and involves] relationship management.
Of consequence to this paper is the changing relationship between work and leisure
resulting from advances and deployment of ICTs and its consequence for individual
knowledge-based workers, organizations that employ them and facility managers who
provide services for enabling positive outcomes within those organizations. The paper
is concerned with the changing context within which knowledge-based work is
conducted with the specific objective of understanding how the blurring of the
distinction between the domains of “work” and “leisure” is influencing the notion of
workplace culture. While the notion of the blurring of “work” and “leisure” is not new
(Lewis, 2010; Bittman et al., 2009), much of the literature is focused on the consequences
for the home and domestic/family life. This paper, by contrast, contributes to the
discussion by exploring the consequences this blurring has for the use and management
of the “traditional” office workplace.
The methodology of this paper is primarily based on linking theories, concepts and
ideas from a range of different theoretical branches of literature using abductive
reasoning (Levin-Rozalis, 2004) as a research technique. Following the abduction logic,
different phenomena are carefully analysed, and the best explanation is inferred to
understand how these phenomena are connected and what the potential implications
are. The paper thus weaves together several emerging interrelated trends –
unprecedented communications capability, increased mobility, changing organizational
hierarchies – that bear directly and indirectly on reshaping how knowledge-based work
is considered and how it is conducted.
The literature review is structured in four main sections:
(1) Workplace culture provides a conventional definition of workplace culture as the
starting point for the subsequent arguments developed in the paper.
 (2) Blurring of work and leisure presents the traditional distinctions regarding work Changing nature
and leisure.
of workplace
(3) Workplace culture and green building examines the potential implications of
work and leisure for green buildings – particularly in providing a counterpoint
culture
to the current technical framing of the debate.
(4) Global context examines recognition of potential differences in different national
cultural contexts. 789
In addition to offering several key implications from the various sections, the paper
presents a conceptual framework illustrating the positive and negative consequences of
the blurring of work and leisure for employees, employers and facilities managers. It
must be emphasized that the paper relates primarily to knowledge-intensive work
practices in North America, Europe, some major Asian and Australian cities, and, as
such, the trends and ideas presented here should be understood as only being valid in
these and similar contexts.

2. Workplace culture
Although the notions of workplace culture, organizational culture and corporate
culture are often used interchangeably to characterize “a company’s prevailing
values, attitudes, beliefs, artifacts and behaviors that contribute to its sense of order,
continuity and commitment” (Haworth, 2006); for consistency, this paper uses the
term “workplace culture” throughout. Here, the three essential components to
workplace culture are understood as:
(1) it involves a shared meaning;
(2) it is a social construct shaped by the environment; and
(3) it has many symbolic and cognitive layers and resides at all levels within a
company (Haworth, 2006).

By affording or constraining creative opportunities and accelerating or slowing down

the work process, workplace culture can both enhance and obstruct workers’
performance and determine how individuals experience and perform in workplace
interactions (Sanchez-Burks et al., 2009). Newman and Nollen (1996, p. 755) conclude
that a conflict is created “if the institution is based on a different set of values and
assumptions [and] management practices are applied within cultures other than those in
which such practices were derived” that can result in employees feeling “dissatisfied,
distracted, uncomfortable and uncommitted”. Further, social integration may well
require that the foundations of the cultural models or schemas be largely taken for
granted, and that their propositions be transparent or “go without saying” (Holland and
Quinn in Markus and Kitayama, 1994, p. 344).
The traditional notion of workplace culture is still largely understood as being set
within conventional office environments. Here, it is both shaped by a host of contextual
factors and itself subsequently directly and indirectly shapes freedoms and constraints
on how work is performed. Moreover, workplace culture does not exist in isolation of a
host of other broader cultural influences. Different facets of knowledge-based work
engage in local, national and international links, exchanges and collaborations and the
notion of workplace culture now, itself, nested within and influenced to varying degrees
F by “national culture” and “global” culture. While national traits are evidenced in
workplace culture, distinctions emerge from one institutional context to another, e.g.
32,13/14 between government, private sector organizations and academic settings.
Workplace culture is most directly influenced by its organizational context and the
physical environment within which it sits. It directly and indirectly influences practices
such as dress code, personalization of the workplace (van der Voordt and van Meel, 2002;
790 Brunia and Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009; Burke (2011) and shared environmental ethic and
behaviours. Moreover, organizational structures – whether pyramidal/horizontal
structures – directly and indirectly influence spatial layouts within the workplace, e.g.
cellular/open office configurations, the value placed on proximity to the window, the
knowledge and access that individuals have of the environmental controls and their
ability to make changes.
Organizational structures continually evolve in response to the changing nature of
work, communications technologies. Emerging trends suggest (GSA, 2009):
• Flatter organizations: More decentralized decision-making is replacing
hierarchical structures.
• Blurred boundaries: Silos are breaking down so the organization learns to work
more effectively together, e.g. more blurring between departments and job
categories.
• Increased flexibility: Organizations are more agile and receptive to change than
ever before.

Although not made explicit in the existing literature on workplace culture, these are, in
part, both drivers for and consequences of the increasing blurring of work and leisure,
suggesting that the possibility to choose how, where and when one works redefines the
relationship between individuals and organizations. A key question is how this
changing relationship affects the way the inhabitants think of, and interact with, their
workplace setting. Another key question is how these emerging trends affect facilities
management.

3. Blurring of work and leisure

“Work” is often defined in terms of “obligated time, whether paid or unpaid” (Lewis,
2010, p. 344), and “leisure” is often “constructed as the antithesis of work, that is
non-obligated time, activities which are perceived as freely chosen, intrinsically
motivated” (Iso-Ahola, 1997 in Lewis, 2010, p. 345). Ubiquitous ICTs are transforming
spatial boundaries and blurring traditional notions of work and leisure, e.g. the
workplace has become increasingly domesticized and the home increasingly “officized”.
The key proposition of this paper is that this blurring is creating different expectations
of the office workplace and its culture, with both positive and negative consequences for
organizations, their employees and facility managers.

3.1 Flexibilities and freedoms

The key consequence of the new information and communications capabilities lies in
new flexibilities and freedoms they permit. Increasing freedoms and choices in the
workplace (in terms of time and space) contribute to a situation in which work is
becoming indistinguishable from leisure (Lewis, 2010, p. 344). The blurring between
“work” and “leisure” is most apparent for knowledge-based workers, who “have
increasingly more permeable boundaries between their work and the rest of life, Changing nature
although they are also likely to have more personal control over these boundaries than
other workers” (Lewis, 2010, p. 346). These knowledge-workers, though permitted much
of workplace
more work–leisure flexibility tend to use this flexibility to work more intensely and for culture
longer hours (Lewis, 2010, p. 347). What is more, Bittman et al. (2009) argue that the
increase in work and intensity of work is especially prominent among knowledge-based
workers who rely heavily on “work extending technologies”. With the use of mobile 791
devices, knowledge-workers can now Skype or check Facebook at the office on the one
hand, and check work emails in the home during what used to be classified as “leisure
hours”. Moreover, the workplace nap – further evidence of the blurring between work
and leisure is also becoming a more common practice (Baxter and Kroll-Smith, 2005).
Bittman et al. (2009, p. 687) argue that the:
[…] ability of employees to stay in touch with office staff from remote locations and the
increasing ability to make discretionary decisions, may increase the engagement of employees,
resulting in an increase in effort per hour of work.
While this will be viewed by managers as increased productivity, they suggest that
“workers are likely to experience more work, at an intense pace, under greater time
pressure with more stress and heavier use of the mobile phone, as a single package”
(Bittman et al., 2009, p. 687). Kelliher and Anderson (2009) argue that while worker
mobility enabling the freedom and flexibility to do their work at any time and anywhere
increases both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, it also leads to “work
intensification”, as workers exert additional effort in exchange for the benefit of
flexibility given to them by their employer.

3.2 Changing office environment

Expectations from knowledge workers while at the office are also changing. The focus
is increasingly being placed more on dynamic and interactive working practices as a
way to foster creativity and innovation. Oseland et al. (2011, p. 52) emphasize that:
[…] through a combination of collaboration, sharing of knowledge, and through personal
reflection and insight, new ideas may then be created which go beyond existing knowledge
[…] [and] implemented to make a radical change in thinking, or develop a new product or
process.
Martens (2011) summarized different ways of supporting creative interactions, thinking
and insight, referring to literature and results of interviews with ten creative leaders.
Aspects such as proximity, visibility (Martens, 2011), higher density in combination
with additional places for informal communication (Stryker and Farris, 2004 in Martens,
2011), multispace, contained open workplaces with meeting and support space
(Martens, 2011), cognitively and perceptually stimulating work environments (Amabile,
1996 in Martens, 2011), beautiful setting, walking as opposed to sitting
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 in Martens, 2011), and an integration of freedom, security and
control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 in Martens, 2011), were mentioned as contributing to
positively affecting office workers’ creativity and innovativeness (Martens, 2011). For
example, a successful attempt to create such working environment is Valve Corporation,
intended to be “a place […] designed to foster […] greatness […] where incredibly
talented individuals are empowered to put their best work into the hands of millions
people” […] (Valve Corporation, 2012).
F 4. Workplace culture and green buildings
The previous sections of this paper have outlined the changing nature of the workplace,
32,13/14 the growth of teleworking and their consequences for the employee. But what
consequences does teleworking have on the traditional office building? And how, for
instance, does teleworking advance the green building agenda?
While a significant literature and experience exists on the design, operations and
792 management practices that affect environmental performance of buildings, the ways and
extent that changing patterns of work and workplace culture are evidenced in these practices
are less well-understood. And equally less understood is the relationship between green and
intelligent buildings and the blurring of “work” and “leisure” in workplace culture. Clearly, to
meet increasingly demanding environmental objectives and targets, technical progress
alone is not enough and human factors and values are especially important in combining
various sides of workspace qualities (Himanen, 2003).
The current emphasis in green building lies primarily in the provision of technical
solutions to meet and support users’ requirements. By contrast, Cole et al. (2008) have
suggested a shift is required from conceptualizing the occupant as a passive recipient of a set
of indoor conditions, to the inhabitant who may play a more active role in the maintenance
and performance of their building. Wood (1999) is more pointed in his suggestions:
• Firstly, in pursuit of technological wizardry, it is easy to lose sight of the human
dimension and to fail to maintain an attitude of care for the relationship between
the building and its users.
• Secondly, while technological advances have facilitated intelligent buildings,
insufficient attention to human aspects has tended to leave much potential
unrealized. Moreover, as green buildings need green occupants, the success of
green buildings relies heavily on workplace culture (Deuble and de Dear, 2010).

Because workers are becoming more mobile, they are becoming less attached to the
office workplace and are less likely to become actively involved in the environmental
systems and controls of the building (Cole, Bild, and Oliver, p.193). Further research is
required regarding the role of wireless sensor devices and mobile environmental
applications that can save the mobile worker’s preferences as he/she moves from office
to coffee shop to city. Similarly, the blurring between “work” and “leisure” will also open
up new questions for research and design practice. Will, for example, office workplaces
be driven towards accommodating environmental/leisure hybrid spaces such as rooftop
gardens, mini-golf, greenhouse cafes, etc?
Green buildings also have the potential to shape and reinforce workplace culture,
through imbuing values and beliefs around the human connection to nature and
sustainable patterns of living, offering greater personal control and responsibility to
occupants to shape their immediate environment and fostering a collective sense of
responsibility and pride for the organization and building (Cole et al., 2008). Brown
et al.’s (2010) exploration of the role of workplace culture in shaping and design and
operation decisions raised several relevant questions, including:
• How much of the performance improvements attributed to green building are
actually green building-related, versus those due to workplace culture/workplace
design?
 • Are certain workplace culture/workplace models more suited to green building Changing nature
design than others?
of workplace
• What are the potential performance gains to be made from better integrating green
building design with workplace design and workplace culture at the outset of
culture
design?

5. A global context 793

Clearly, the proliferation of ICTs has consequences at multiple scales and presents a
complex network within which both work and leisure now coexist. The complex and
dynamic nature of work as a process combines blurred boundaries both locally and
globally with unique characteristics pertinent to the specific cultural contexts.
Moreover, many companies now operate globally creating a complex set of conditions
and relationships wherein their buildings and organizational cultures and practices
operate within qualitatively different cultural contexts and where migrating workers
similarly operate within foreign institutional and workplace cultures. In a similar
manner, building environmental assessment methods are increasing imported and
exported to cultural context dissimilar from that in which they were created, and their
developers are wrestling with these differences.
Despite increased globalization, national traits and distinctions remain a significant
cultural context affecting norms and conventions regarding both work and leisure.
National culture embraces the cultural institutions, representations and symbols with
which people can identify and which, in turn, manifests in recognizable national traits
and characteristics that give a country and its people distinction. For example, despite a
similar wide range of geographical regional differences in both Canada and Japan
(Blaviesciunaite and Cole, 2011), democratic and individualistic expectations are
defining characteristics of North American society, while in Japan, a predetermined set
of rules and group-conscious interdependency are valued. While Japan has remarkably
sophisticated information and communications networks, the office workplace remains
dominant and the freedoms and flexibilities of when and where one works are much
more tightly constrained than in Canada. Contrary to Canada, where more flexible
schedules allow bringing work into one’s leisurely activities (rest at home, coffee in the
city, etc.), leisure opportunities are increasingly being integrated into the work
environment in Japan. The Japanese building environmental assessment system,
CASBEE[1], for example, has a unique evaluation category “Quality of Service”, under
which the credits are awarded for:
• a refreshment space of the designated size area and amenities like drinks, etc., in
order to “generate new vitality in occupants […] [by providing] the ability to go for
relaxation and refreshment [which is] essential for comfortable office life”; and
• décor planning with an aim to create “attractive and pleasant spaces […] [where]
the interior is perceived as living space […] [with] natural and ecological
materials” (JSBC, 2010, pp. 118-119).

Moreover, the most recent effort of the Japanese researchers is focused towards
understanding how different building elements (refreshment/green/meeting spaces,
cafeteria/café/lobby), qualities (openness and spaciousness, thermal and lighting
environment) and positioning (contribution to local culture, securing biodiversity) affect
work efficiency, knowledge-creation, communicative behaviour, motivation changes
F and workers’ loyalty (MLIT, 2009). Collectively, these aspects are referred to as
“intellectual productivity” and are currently under consideration of being integrated in
32,13/14 CASBEE. This emerging area of research reveals that the blurring of work and leisure
can be observed in Japan as well; however, it is of a different nature.

6. Implications
794 This paper has examined the ways that ICTs, changing organizational hierarchies and
increased mobility are blurring the traditional distinctions between work and leisure.
The work has a variety of consequences for knowledge-based workers and their
employers and hence of direct interest for facilities managers.
The notion of work– home “conflict” arises from the perspective of how greater the work
freedoms permitted by ICTs are potentially adversely affecting home-life. A significant
literature exists on the work–family conflict due to the blurring of the boundary between
work and home life associated with teleworking (Othman et al., 2009; Albertsen et al., 2010).
Within this literature, those ideas that relate to the fact that knowledge-based workers are
faced with continually negotiating the “boundary” between the “domains” of home and work
are of direct relevance to the ambition of this paper. Structuring work in time (working at
specific times) and space (working at specific places within the home) has been proposed as
approaches to minimize the problem of blurring boundaries (Ahrentzen, 1990; Salazar, 2001),
although such boundaries can be easily eroded due to unexpected events. Clark (2000),
Matthews (2007) and others discuss the notion of a contraction or expansion of the boundary
depending on the demands of either the work or family domain, and the degree to which an
individual is willing and able to move between them to meet their respective demands.
Work–family balance, therefore, depends to a large extent on the flexibility of this boundary
and the ways and extent that knowledge-based workers can successfully manage it.
This paper is concerned with how the freedom to work at home, hotspots within the
city and transit systems are changing expectations for those times when
knowledge-based workers are within their main workplace setting. While Nippert-Eng
(1996) considered the way knowledge-based workers deal with differences between the
domains of work and home on a continuum, with “integration” at on one end and
“segmentation” on the other, extending the scope of workplaces simultaneously requires
a broader framing of a continuum and the notions of integration and segmentation.
While workers have specific tasks and responsibilities, they now navigate through
multiple physical and social settings and boundaries in fulfilling them – the personal
nature of the home and home life, the public realm of the café and the constraints of
transit. Cole et al. (2012) examined the multiple scales – from the home to the city –
within which the knowledge-based workplace currently exists. It is this broader context
that has consequence for changing engagement with and therefore expectations of the
more conventional workplace setting, especially in the case of the office.
Within the office workplace, other forms of hierarchy exist – the knowledge-based
worker within the organization through various layers of management, the physical
workplace within spatial realm of the building and the workplace culture within the
organizational setting. In the same manner that the freedoms permitted by ICTs can
have a variety of consequences for home life, the blurring of work and leisure invariably
brings positive and negative consequences in the workplace and these are different for
individual knowledge-based workers, the organization that employs them and the
facility managers responsible for ensuring accurate and timely response to the changing
organizational vision and client requirements. Table I shows these four domains Changing nature
populated with the key consequences drawn from the literature. The emphasis of the
issues presented in this table relates to how the primary workplace – the office – is
of workplace
viewed as a result of having employees engaging in work in other work settings – the culture
unconventional office environments that permit both leisurely and focused activities,
the home, the café, the train, etc.
Within Table I, the issues are organized in a series of subcategories – time-related, 795
inter-acting with others, travelling between locations, accessing information, cost and
identity. Of interest here is the circumstance that these consequences bring supporting
or conflicting consequences of each constituency and the kind of adjustments that they
must make to create positive outcomes afforded by new work practices. There are, of
course, other more general issues that do not fall easily into these categories and which
relate to the adjustments that employees, employers and facility managers must make
within the broader framing of the workplace. For the employee, these include, for
example, the need for greater time management, willingness to work harder and to
manage changes in stress levels. For the employer, there is the need to accommodate a
wider range of working styles, accepting the idea of workplace napping, eating and
appearance of seemingly less productivity and the need for more effective training
programmes. For the facility managers, new issues emerge with the increase of
teleworking, such as security issues, ICT accessibility, monitoring and maintenance of
recreational spaces and potential for greater responsibilities and profit.

7. Conclusions
This paper has outlined how the shift in the workplace to include alternative modes of
working has consequences for the traditional office building, and by consequence, on its
inhabitants – employees, employers and facilities managers – and, in particular, how
these trends may shape facilities management in the future. The paper has suggested
that facilities management is shifting with the changing nature of the workplace and
will likely continue to evolve. The literature and ideas presented in the paper relate
primarily to knowledge-intensive work practices in North America, Europe and some
major Asian and Australian cities, where the described trends are more evident and, as
such, Table I should be understood as only being valid in these and similar contexts.
While the “office” – the conventional physical home of the knowledge-based
workplace – will clearly remain a necessary and desirable requirement for the
foreseeable future, the freedoms permitted by an increasingly ICT capability will
profoundly influence worker’s habits and expectations. This development will have
significant consequences for knowledge-based organizations in how they ascertain their
office accommodation needs. These ideas are consistent with a number of other shifts. In
institutions of higher education, for example, there is increasing interest in non-formal
learning environments – the cafeteria, campus residences, etc. – as a complement to the
dominant formal learning spaces such as classrooms, or in current green building
design discussions wherein the “individual” building is being reconsidered as the
appropriate scale to address environmental goals. In a similar manner, organizations
will need to recognize a broader spatial and temporal bounding of the “workplace” and
accommodate the increasingly fluidity within each.

Table I.
consequences for
facilities managers
Positive and negative
employees, employers and
For employee
Positive consequences
Time Lower stress, despite longer hours
Flexible schedule and greater freedoms
lead to higher satisfaction
Interacting Increased sense of belonging in
industries where social collaboration is
favoured
Potentially less work – family conflict
Leisure time encourages interaction
and increases work productivity
Travelling Flexibility of travel time to suit daily
wants and needs
Reduced tiredness and stress by
reducing daily commutes
Better employment opportunities for
employees in remote communities
Accessing Access to information and internal
education
Cost Savings on travel
Identity Increased autonomy
Potentially enhanced leadership,
creativity and motivation
For employer
Flexible schedules lead to greater employee
loyalty and commitment
Focus on results/deliverables, rather than
on time commitments
Potential contact with employees 24/7
Power relationships are less relevant
Reduced employee relocation needs
(consistent interaction)
Retention of well-rested and loyal
employees
Potential to spread company influence
further geographically, with employees
everywhere
ICTs enable wider networking locally and
globally
Fewer workplaces need to be provided/less
space required
Savings on rent and parking
Potentially enhanced reputation as a
positive workplace
Positive corporate brand image
Attraction and retention of talented
employees
Shared sense of identity
F
796
32,13/14
For facilities managers (FMs)
Opportunities to expand scope of
services ensuring 24/7 support
Potentially more trustworthy
relationships with employees, as
FMs become the main point of
contact
Partnership and rapport-building
with the client (employer) to
ensure high-service-level delivery
Potential for globalized facilities
management
Opportunities for business
expansion using central remote
monitoring and control provided
for many clients (employees) and
sites from a single location
Expectation of FMs to ensure
access to ICTs
Potential monetary rewards are
effective; initiatives are proposed
and implemented
Potentially larger revenues due
to increased responsibilities
n/a
(continued)
 For employee
Negative consequences
Interacting Potentially greater work–family
conflicts
Being “always on” leaves less time for
family and leisure
Potential decreased social interactions
at workplace and colleague support
Space/environment Lack of personal space can weaken
interest and responsibility
Less control and engagement with
environmental controls
Time Result-driven workplaces make it
difficult to work only limited hours per
day
Typically, longer hours
Less time spent engaging in physical
activity
Cost n/a
Security Responsibility of carrying company
security and confidentiality outside of
the office
Table I.
For employer
Less control over, and interaction with,
employees
Difficult to coordinate group tasks
Need to accommodate a wider range of
working styles and forms of interaction
Need to create, maintain and monitor
recreational spaces
Dependence on wireless devices for
reachability; need to create conference
rooms and/or other virtual communication
spaces
Difficult to track whether workers are
engaging in work or leisure
More investment is required to ensure
accessibility (equipment upgrades and
redundancy, emergency measures, etc.)
Concern for security and confidentiality
when employees do not work from the
office
For facilities managers (FMs)
Potential necessity to coordinate
workers and monitor/be
responsive to their activities over
several sites and locations
Need to create, maintain and
monitor recreational spaces
Tenants may take less good care
of the facilities, as they feel less
ownership
Liability, cleaning and
maintenance issues
Work facilities potentially open
longer hours, creating new
security, staffing, building
operation and equipment
maintenance issues
Increased risk (security,
accessibility assurance, etc.) and
(as a result) potential increase in
monetary penalties
Concern for security in the office
building with much more flexible
comings and goings around the
clock
797
culture
of workplace
Changing nature
F Note
1. Comprehensive assessment system for building environmental efficiency.
32,13/14
References
Ahrentzen, S. (1990), “Managing conflict by managing boundaries: how professional homeworkers
cope with multiple roles at home”, Environment & Behaviour, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 723-752.
798
Albertsen, K., Persson, R., Garde, A.H. and Rugulies, R. (2010), “Psychosocial determinants to
work-to-family conflict among knowledge-workers with boundaryless work”, Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 160-181.
Amaratunga, D., Kulatunga, U. and Baldry, D. (2005), “Performance measurement application in
facilities management: an investigation into the future directions”, 11th Joint CIB
International Symposium – Combining Forces, 13-16 June, Helsinki, available at: http://
usir.salford.ac.uk/9924/1/performance_measurement.pdf (accessed 15 April 2013).
Baxter, V. and Kroll-Smith, S. (2005), “Normalizing the workplace nap: blurring the boundaries
between and private space and time”, Current Sociology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Bittman, M., Brown, J.E. and Wajcman, J. (2009), “The mobile phone, perceptual contact and time
pressure”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 673-691.
Blaviesciunaite, A. and Cole, R.J. (2011), “The cultural values embedded in building environmental
assessment methods: a comparison of LEED® and CASBEE”, Proceedings of Sustainable
Building 2011 World Conference, 25-28th October, Helsinki.
Brown, Z., Cole, R.J., Robinson, J. and Dowlatabadi, H. (2010), “Evaluating user experience in green
buildings in relation to workplace culture and context”, Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 225-238.
Brunia, S. and Hartjes-Gosselink, A. (2009), “Personalization in non-territorial offices: a study of a
human need”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 169-182.
Burke, K. (2011), “Get out of my space: office hot desking”, available at: www.stuff.co.nz/business/
small-business/5205643/Get-out-of-my-space-office-hot-desking (accessed 15 June 2013).
Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 747-770.
Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z. and O’Shea, M. (2008), “Re-contextualizing the notion of
comfort”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 323-336.
Cole, R.J., Bild, A. and Oliver, A. (2012), “The changing context of knowledge-based work:
consequences for comfort, satisfaction & productivity”, Intelligent Buildings International,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 182-196.
Deuble, M. and de Dear, R. (2010), “Green occupants for green buildings: the missing link?”,
Proceedings of Conference: Adapting to Change: New Thinking on Comfort Cumberland
Lodge, 9-11 April, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, Windsor, London.
Doherty, G., Karamanis, N. and Luz, S. (2012), “Collaboration in translation: the impact of
increased reach on cross-organisational work”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW), available at: www.springerlink.com/content/e03g75n7967q4713/ (accessed 10
February 2013).
Drion, B., Melissen, F. and Wood, R. (2012), “Facilities management: lost, or regained?”, Facilities,
Vol. 30 Nos 5/6, pp. 254-261.
Global Workplace Analytics (2012), “Latest Telecommuting statistics”, October, available at:
www.globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics
Greene, C. and Myerson, J. (2011), “Space for thought: designing for knowledge workers”,
Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-30.
GSA (2009), The New Federal Workplace – A Report on the Performance of Six Workplace 20-20 Changing nature
Projects, US General Services Administration, Public Building Service, Washington, DC.
Harrison, A. (2001), “The city is the office”, ECIFFO 38, available at: www.eciffo.jp/en/issue/38/
of workplace
fromeciffo38 –2_e.html (accessed 31 March 2001). culture
Haworth (2006), The Meaning and Value or Organizational Culture, available at: www.
meadowsoffice.com/resources/The_Meaning_and_Value_of_Organizational_
Culture.pdf 799
Himanen, M. (2003), “The intelligence of intelligent buildings: the feasibility of the intelligent
building concept in office buildings”, Technical Research Center of Finland, available at:
www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2003/P492.pdf (accessed 2 December 2011).
IFMA (International Facility Management Association) (2013), “What is FM?”, available at:
www.ifmaoc.org/about/what_is_FM.shtml (accessed 20 June 2013).
Jensen, P.A., Voordt, T., Coenen, C., von Felten, D., Lidholm, A., Nielsen, S.B., Riratanaphong, C.
and Pfenninger, M. (2012), “In search for the added value of FM: what we know and what we
need to learn”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 5/6, pp. 199-217.
JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium), (2010), “CASBEE (NC) Technical Manual”,
available at: http://ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/download.htm (accessed 1 January 2012).
Kelliher, C. and Anderson, D. (2010), “Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the
intensification of work”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 83-106.
Levin-Rozalis, M. (2004), “Searching for the unknowable: a process of detection – abductive
research generated by projective techniques”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
Vol. 3 No. 2, available at: www.ualberta.ca/⬃iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/rozalis.pdf (accessed
1 October 2013).
Lewis, S. (2010), “The integration of paid work and the rest of life. Is post-industrial work the new
leisure?”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 343-355.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1994), “The cultural shaping of emotion: a conceptual
framework”, in Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R. (Eds), Emotion and culture: Empirical
Studies of Mutual Influence, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 339-351.
Martens, Y. (2011), “Creative workplace: instrumental and symbolic support for creativity”,
Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 63-79.
Matthews, R.A. (2007), “Work-family boundary management practices in a dyadic context:
crossover effect of work-family conflict”, Unpublished PhD, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT.
MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) (2009), “Intellectual productivity
research committee report”, available at: www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/torikumi/
chiteki/dai4kai/100325_shiryou14.pdf (accessed 15 October 2012).
Newman and Nollen (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices and
national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, (4th Qtr.), pp. 753-779.
Nippert-Eng, C.E. (1996), Home and Work, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Oseland, N., Marmot, A., Swaffer, F. and Ceneda, S. (2011), “Environments for successful
interaction”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 50-62.
Othman, N., Yusof, S.A.M. and Mohd, S.A. (2009), “A conflict between Professional vs. Domestic
Life? Understanding the use of ICT in teleworking for balance in work and family units”,
Computer and Information Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 3-15.
F Pathirage, C., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R. and Baldry, D. (2006), “Key knowledge variables for
facilities management organisational effectiveness”, CIB W89 International Conference on
32,13/14 Building Education and Research (BEAR), 12 April, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong, available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/9890/1/214_Pathirage_
CP_et_al_KEY_KNOWLEDGE_VARIABLES_FOR_FACILITIES_MANAGEMENT_
BEAR_2006.pdf (accessed 15 June 2013).
Salazar, C. (2001), “Building Boundaries and Negotiating Work at Home”, Proceedings of the 2001
800 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Boulder, CO,
pp. 162-170.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Bartel, S. and Blount, S. (2009), “Fluidity and performance in intercultural
workplace interactions: the role of behavioral mirroring and social sensitivity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 216-223.
Statistics Canada (2003), “Study: knowledge workers in Canada’s workforce”, The Daily, 30
October, available at: www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/031030/dq031030a-eng.htm
(accessed 10 June 2013).
Thackara, J. (2001), “The design challenge of pervasive computing”, Interactions, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 46-52.
Valve Corporation (2012), Valve: Handbook for New Employees, Valve Corporation, Washington,
DC, p. 4.
van der Voordt, D.J.M. and van Meel, J.J. (2002), Psychologische aspecten van kantoorinnovatie:
Faculteit Bouwkunde, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft.
Wood, B. (1999), “Intelligent building care”, Facilities, Vol. 17 Nos 5/6, p. 189.

Further reading
CABA, (2008), Bright Green Buildings Convergence of Green and Intelligent Buildings Research
Report, Continental Automated Buildings Association, Ottawa.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M. and Williams, I.J. (2000), “Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56
No. 2, pp. 249-276.
Chelsey, N. (2005), “Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress,
and family satisfaction”, Journal of marriage and Family, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 1237-1248.
Cole, R.J. and Brown, Z. (2009), “Reconciling human and automated intelligence in the provision of
occupant comfort”, Intelligent Buildings International, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-55.
Crandall, W.R. and Gao, L. (2005), “An update on telecommuting: review and prospect for
emerging issues”, S. A. M Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 30-37.
Davis, S.M. (1984), Managing Corporate Culture, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Hall, D.T. and Richter, J. (1998), “Balancing work life and home life: what can organization do to
help?”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 213-223.
Heathfield, S.M., Dress Code (2013), available at: http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryd/
g/work_dress_code.htm (accessed 15 February 2013).

Corresponding author
Raymond J. Cole is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: rcole@sala.ubc.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.