Psychological_effects_of_work_space_layo

Psychological effects of office space layouts 0
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF OFFICE SPACE

LAYOUTS
A REVIEW BY
AFIFA
MES SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED FOR MES SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

ABSTRACT
An average man spends majority of his time in office space more than he spends in other places.
His conscious and subconscious perception of the work space can hence affect the way he thinks
and behaves. Therefore the environment in workplace becomes a critical factor that controls his
work place behavior and hence the productivity of the organization. An employee’s motivation
level, subsequent performance and productivity is greatly dependent on the quality of
workplace in which he spends time. This can also influence the employee’s error rate, level of
innovation and interaction with other employees, absenteeism and eventually how long he/ she
would stick on to the job. The current study is an effort to investigate the behavioral aspects of
work place layouts. Specifically, this study examines the psychological effects that office layout
has on its employees and it studies what an office building can do to those who use it. Lastly, I
discuss the ways in which the office layout can be manipulated to suit employees’ mind set and
there by foster productivity.

Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction: Psychological effects of workplace layout ....................................................................5
1.2 Aim .......................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Limitations................................................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Expected outcome .................................................................................................................... 7
2. Review of literature and theoretical foundation ...............................................................................8
2.1 Types of office layouts ............................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Face-to-face communication and interaction between employees ..............................................10
2.3 Privacy in office spaces:- ...........................................................................................................12
2.4 Territoriality ............................................................................................................................14
2.5 Control and Supervision ...........................................................................................................16
3. Methodology................................................................................................................................ 18
4. Case study, Results and Analysis .................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Interaction and Degree of collaboration between employees:- ...................................................19
4.1.1 Degree of openness and Interaction ...................................................................................19
4.1.2 Visibility and Degree of collaboration..................................................................................21
4.1.3 Accessibility and Communication........................................................................................22
4.1.4 Hot-desking and its effect on Interaction between employees .............................................23
4.1.5 Visibility and Awareness of surroundings ............................................................................24
4.1.6 Office layouts and after office activities ..............................................................................26
4.1.7 Circulation, Patterns of encounter and Collaboration between employees ............................26
4.1.8 Employee- Employee relationship in open and closed type offices ........................................28
4.1.9 Employee- Employer relationship in open office ..................................................................28
4.2 Effect of Spacial layout on Privacy in open plan type workspaces ................................................29
4.2.1 Visibility, Transparency of work and Privacy ........................................................................29
4.2.2 Physical barriers and Work privacy .....................................................................................32
4.2.3 Types of privacy requirements............................................................................................32
4.2.4 Concentration and Work distractions in open office layout ..................................................33
4.3 Territoriality in open plan office ................................................................................................34
4.3.1 Ways of establishing Territory ............................................................................................34

4.3.2 Psychological reasoning behind establishing Territory..........................................................35
4.3.3 Hot desking and Territoriality .............................................................................................36
4.3.4 Factors affecting Personalisation ........................................................................................37
4.3.5 Degree of autonomy in workspace .....................................................................................37
4.4 Recreation and Relaxation in office ...........................................................................................38
4.4.1 Spatial quality and relaxation .............................................................................................38
4.5 Flexibility of office space ..........................................................................................................40
4.5.1 Work culture and Flexibility ................................................................................................40
4.5.2 Flexibility and Hot-desking .................................................................................................41
5. Conclusion and Inference .............................................................................................................. 42
6. Reference and Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1............................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 2.2............................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 2.3...........................................................................................................................................10
Table 5.1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
(Source of all tables: Author)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1- Degree of collaboration in office space layout ....................................................................20
Figure 4. 2- Degree of collaboration in closed office setting .................................................................20
Figure 4.3- Visibility and communication between work groups ...........................................................21
Figure 4.4- Accessibility and communication between employees ........................................................22
Figure 4.5- Physical barriers and communication.................................................................................23
Figure 4.6- Hot desking and communication .......................................................................................24
Figure 4.7- Awareness of surroundings ...............................................................................................25
Figure 4.8- Patterns of encounter-1 ....................................................................................................27
Figure 4.9- Patterns of encounter 2 ....................................................................................................28
Figure 4.10-Seating positions in OFFICE ..............................................................................................30
Figure 4.11- Seating preference survey results ....................................................................................30
Figure 4.12- Visibility mapping of OFFICE workspace using space syntax technique ...............................31
Figure 4.13- Privacy and office layouts ................................................................................................32
Figure 4.14- Relevance of personalization of workspace ......................................................................36
Figure 4.15- Hot desking and territoriality ...........................................................................................37
Figure 4.16- Recreational spaces ........................................................................................................39
Figure 4.17- Work culture and flexibility survey ...................................................................................40
(Source of all figures: Author)
1. INTRODUCTION: PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE LAYOUT
The word ‘space’ makes us think big, both in terms of the tangible physical environment as well
as the much more abstract psychological aspect. Traditionally it has been conceived as a passive
host to its user activities. However, it can be observed that patterns of human interaction are
derived from the spatial configuration of the space in question. Human beings view space and
structure through the visual elements provided, which allows to experience a space. When a
designer creates or conceives the space in question the resulting user experience should be a
major consideration. Each space has a quality and character of its own. The spaces we inhabit
and each thing within them hold our extended sense of self. Also the spaces we occupy shape
who we are and how we behave. We live in relationship with the spaces we occupy. All
relationships are by definition two-sided and provide a forum within which we come to know
and direct ourselves. Our spaces – the places where we think and move about every day mean
the world to us. Subconsciously, space around us exerts a powerful effect on our behaviour and
we generally tend to function and think according to where we happen to be and what we are
exposed to.
The physical work environment has a significant impact on psychological well-being of the users,
mainly because it is one thing that people are continuously exposed to. This has serious
consequences on our psychological well-being and creativity in performance. Given that most of
us spend years working in the same office space, or even at the same desk, it makes perfect
sense to manipulate and optimize that space in the most favourable and beneficial ways
possible. It is therefore interesting to study how the space around us, especially the workspace,
impact the way we behave, the way we think and our productivity. We take in and process
information about our physical world through our five senses, so everything we see, feel, hear,
smell and taste actually has an impact on our psyche. Hence physical environments in relation to
lighting, air quality, noise, temperature, colours, space, surroundings and quality of office
furniture can all impact negatively on employee performance and mental health.
Buildings are “social objects” as referred to by Hillier and Hanson in ‘Social logic of space’
(1984). Every building can control the behavioral aspects of its inmates. This is because of the
psychological effects spaces can have on human minds. Design and people are hence
inextricably linked. Similarly workplace design and layouts can greatly influence the mood and
productivity of inmates by drawing upon psychological methods typically reserved for more
therapeutic settings, a sharp program can be tailored to design, solutions that match the
business agenda. This process can also involve watching behavior and manners in which space is
used and utilised, and then looking far across for precedents, not just to other workspaces but
relatable experiences, to explore the options. The outcomes of design are full of dynamism and
choice, allowing people to be introverted or extroverted, supporting concentration, innovation
and collaboration in spaces designed for those tasks. It’s not just about personalizing and
changing one’s desk to suit needs, but personalizing one’s own day and selecting the right places
to do the best work. These modern space planning techniques drives behaviour and supports
growth in the business. Designers from an economic perspective may reel at creating such
abundant environments, but they can be highly efficient. Questioning one-grey-desk-per-person
can save space, but challenging how people use space can impact the overall productivity and
operating costs eventually. This dissertation is an attempt to study the psychological factors that
affect human perception and subsequent use of space in work place environment.
1.2 AIM
The purpose of this research is to study the psychological and behavioral aspects of perception
of office space layout on employees
1.3 OBJECTIVES
 To study how layout or planning of office space can affect the space perception of
employees within it and how it affects their behavior 

 To study the factors of office planning that influence the following psychological or
behavioral aspects of employees:- 
- Interaction and degree of collaboration
- Privacy factors of work environment

- Territoriality in work space
- Recreation and Relaxation
- Flexibility of office space
 To study how the spatial factors below affect the above factors:- 
- Degree of openness
- Visibility and Accessibility
- Circulation
- Proximity
- Physical barriers
1.4 LIMITATIONS
 Psychological effects of workplace layout is a very subjective topic that can have
different opinions from different perspective 

 The study is done focusing more on open plan offices (An Architectural Design Studio,
Abudhabi). 

 Test samples chosen for the surveys are small based upon the population status. 

1.5 SCOPE
The research is very relevant in the present scenario where organizations compete for better
performance, better work environment and productivity. Several psychological parameters and
spatial aspects were considered. The spatial aspects considered were Degree of openness,
Visibility and Accessibility, Circulation, Proximity, Physical barriers. The psychological aspects
considered for the study are limited to Interaction and degree of collaboration, Privacy factors
of work environment, Territoriality in work space, Recreation and Relaxation and Flexibility of
office space.
1.6 EXPECTED OUTCOME
Guidelines which will assist in designing office spaces which can affect the employees of various
age groups positively and hence increase productivity.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
It is a widely accepted theory that better work place environment produces better results and
increase productivity. Hence modern day approach to designing office spaces is that the spaces
are designed with employees and their respective nature of work in mind. The design of
workplace can affect the level of employee’s motivation, workspace comfort, subsequent
performance and productivity.
2.1 TYPES OF OFFICE LAYOUTS
There are several types of office layouts which can be broadly classified as following:-
2.1.1 OPEN-PLAN (FLEXIBLE LAYOUT)

In an open-plan layout employees from different departments often work in the same large
area. Notice the screens or dividers that separate parts of the room to give workers some
privacy.
What are the main features of an open-plan layout?
 Often more space for working than individual rooms 

 Easier to access and share equipment because it is in the same area 

 The office is usually more attractive e.g. good lighting, fitted furniture 

 Often less cluttered due to larger space 
2.1.2 CELLULAR (TRADITIONAL) LAYOUT

In the cellular layout a small number of employees work in smaller individual rooms.
The main features of a cellular office:-
 Employees work in a room of his/her own 

 Room is much smaller than open-plan 

 Can become cluttered due to lack of space. 
There are three aspects to organizational layout:-
 Spatial aspect 

 Relational aspect 
 Individual aspect 
Office layouts in relation to above parameters are as given below:-
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
2.2 FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES
Communication and group actions are unavoidable conditions to build good personal
relationship between employees. It builds trust, which is an indispensable prerequisite towards
more complex and riskier relationships. Face-to-face communication and mediated
communication, is distinguished and the unique social aspects of face-to-face communication
namely: touch, shared activities like eating and drinking together, as well as informal
interactions are described. It is argued that face-to-face communication is crucial for sustaining
the social relationships that make distributed communication and work possible. An impressive
body of research also demonstrates that face-to-face communication is the most information
rich way to establish personal relationships. Face-to-face communication may further be
classified into formal and informal face-to-face communication. Informal face-to-face
communication can be defined as relatively unstructured information exchanges that tend to
occur during face-to-face encounters. Previous researches have shown that seemingly
inconsequential informal face-to-face communication may serve critical functions such as
coordination, learning, innovation, and agility.
The effects of physical settings on face-to-face communication and interaction are well studied
in office literature, or more broadly in workplace literature. The spatial aspect should have a
positive effect on relationship between individuals as well as work groups. Increased distance
between working groups may reduce interaction leading to infrequent contacts and distorted
perception of each other
The physical setting of offices that can affect the quality of interaction in offices:-
 At the micro-level, the “sociopetal” and “sociofugal” aspects of a setting which

respectively has the tendency to bring people together, or to push them apart. Likewise,
an interaction across a desk involves greater psychological distance than an interaction
with no intervening barrier. 

 Locations and positions of people and activity areas 

 Walking or physical distance or proximity 

 The presence and absence of gathering spaces or spaces for group work 

 Spatial arrangement and the location of walls, partitions, furnishings, and other barriers 

 Visibility and accessibility 

 Spatial interconnectedness 

 The size and availability of meeting spaces.; small meeting rooms may promote a pattern
of small group meetings, even at stages when much larger group meetings would be
more appropriate. It is likely that large social events may not occur in a setting where 
there is no large gathering space
Evaluation studies of open plan offices may necessarily show the expected increase in
communication. It can some times turn out to be just a distraction instead of fostering
communication. It can turn out to be noisy and distracting if not properly planned.
Environmental stress caused by extreme ambient conditions such as noise and uncomfortable
heat can lead to insensitivity to social cues and negative reactions to inmates. Such
environmental stress may also create positive responses to other people in the same setting
through “shared stress”.
People with different personal, social and cultural backgrounds would react differently if their
needs for face to- face communication and interaction were not fulfilled in office settings. The
environmental perception greatly affects the quantity and quality of face-to-face

communication and interaction. Much researches and studies haven’t been conducted in this
direction however.
Studies show that increased face-to-face communication and interaction may lead to positive
outcomes in workplaces and/ or office settings. Studies also show that a lack of social
interaction and support may cause work stress in certain situations
These findings will have to be tactically incorporated in to office design without affecting the
privacy, autonomy, task identity and worker feedback. The office setting can be made flexible to
suit constantly changing need of organization to carry out face to-face communication despite
the fact that interaction needs of an organization change constantly.
2.3 PRIVACY IN OFFICE SPACES:-
The definition of privacy encompasses the idea of control over social contact and access to
information, seclusion, withdrawal, and avoidance of interaction; and one’s sense of being on
display. However, privacy is better understood as having three main functions: first, it ensures
personal autonomy; second, it provides an emotional outlet; and third, it allows self-evaluation,
synthesis of information, and decision-making. Oldham & Rotchford, 1983; Sundstrom et al.,
1980 presents one’s privacy in office space as two varieties; “psychological privacy” and
“architectural privacy”, where psychological privacy is related to social contact and access to
information, and architectural privacy is related to verbal and acoustic intrusions.
Sundstrom (1986) in his book ‘work places’ uses the term speech privacy referring to one’s
ability to hold a conversation without being overheard and visual privacy referring to one’s
ability to shield oneself from being seen by others. The need for privacy has several levels in
office settings. Once one level is satisfied, an individual would aspire to achieve the next level
consciously or subconsciously. The first level is the need to control access to workspace; the
second is the need to limit work distraction and interruption; and the third is the need to be
able to interact informally with others. People or groups may suffer from a lack of privacy if they
cannot control who meets them; or if they cannot prevent their conversations from being
overheard; or if they cannot prevent being observed by others.
Privacy is often considered more important than the area, temperature and ventilation,
furniture, lighting, view, and the general aesthetics of workspaces. The number of enclosed
sides and the height of enclosing panels of office may affect the employee’s sense of perceived
privacy. The lack of workspace enclosure may make privacy a major problem in an office.
However, the connection of physical enclosure with privacy may vary with job categories.
Addition of partitions to a previously open space may reduce perceived crowding and increase
privacy in offices. Speaking of architectural privacy; traditionally it was best characterized by
having a door to one’s workspace. In the absence of enclosing walls/partitions, privacy at work
can be obtained by the use of physical barriers, such as plants, dimmed lighting, or task/ambient
systems such as table lamps. Density of workspaces, response to privacy, and performance in
offices are related to one another. Most often mentioned problem with open office planning is a
lack of acoustic privacy
Employees in private spaces or private office rooms are less vulnerable to noise and distraction.
Consequently, people working on complex tasks are more satisfied in private settings than non-
private ones.
The flexibility offered by modular furniture may provide a good compromise between the
tension created by privacy and interaction. “Soft” rooms furnished with cushioned chairs, rugs,
wall decorations, and incandescent lighting may elicit more intimate self-disclosure than “hard”
rooms with bare floors and walls, and fluorescent lighting Differences in personality and social
and cultural factors may be related to privacy preferences. One cannot know for sure if a
person’s sense of privacy will be affected by the degree of friendliness of an office environment
even when the physical setting remains unchanged. Several studies look at the relationships
between privacy and individual performance and outcomes in offices and workplaces. From
various literature works it can be concluded that people generally show a greater degree of
satisfaction as the amount of privacy increases in offices, and loss of privacy results in decreased
opportunities for feedback and friendship formation and an overall decline in job satisfaction.
However, privacy may also detract from performance by shielding people from the motivating
effects of social facilitation or visibility to co-workers.
Privacy influences the relationship between task complexity and individual satisfaction. For
example, people working on more complex tasks are generally more satisfied in private offices
than in non-private ones, and more distractions are reported in the non-private offices for those
working on complex tasks than for those working on simple tasks. However, the effects of
privacy on the relationship between task complexity and individual performance are not very
clear. More controlled studies are necessary on the subject matter .
An increased sense of enclosure and visual privacy may reduce the pressure on individuals to
maintain appearance and change work habits and when an office has fewer barriers (walls or
partitions), withdrawal rates are higher . In contrast to a theory of adaptation that suggests that
any influence of the physical environment, which might include the level of architectural
privacy, would be short lived because of adaptation
Noise is another aspect of openness that hinders the performance of complex tasks more than it
hinders the performance of simple tasks, and when one of several tasks is more important,
noise tends to increase the effort expended on less important tasks. The effects of noise on
performance also depend on sex, age, and personality. However, any effect of noise on
performance should be interpreted with care in the context of privacy, because noise may not
always lead to a lack of acoustic privacy.
2.4 TERRITORIALITY
Territory often brings the abstract domains of ideas in the case of humans but is widely
conceived as a physical and bounded space. Territoriality can also be referred to as a sense of
personal space. How a territory holder responds to violation of his/her territory depend on the
intruder, the reason for doing so, the type, method, and context of intrusion, and the nature of
territory being invaded. Defense can be preventive, which include different physical features
(e.g., spatial markers and surveillance) and symbolic barriers (e.g., personalization); it can be a
reaction (e.g., forcefully pulling out the intruder from a territory); or it can be in the form of a
boundary that can be social-ritualistic or simply physical to separate wanted visitors from
unwanted ones. It is likely that violation or trespassing of the territory occurs mostly in the form
of violation of visual and acoustical privacy. In contrast, very few books have been written and
less research have been done on territoriality. Davis and Altman (1976) provide a territorial
typology for offices that include various levels of territoriality like public, general, group, and
individual territories. According to these authors, when at work individuals conform to the rules
and norms of territoriality, and adopt appropriate territorial behavior if they can identify the
signs and symbols of territoriality.
Spatial demarcation and adornment are ways of maintaining territoriality in office settings. A
worker may define personal territory with objects and furnishing if existing enclosure and
furnishings do not define it sufficiently. Personalization in workplace may be indicative of the
degree of territorial control an individual has over own workspace. The structure of territorial
partitions and the size of a territory may be indicative of the amount of control an individual
have within it. Bordens & Wollman have already established through scientific ways that
Negative reactions to potential territorial invasions can be predicted by the degree to which a
worker resists permanent workspace changes and the extent to which a worker shares own
workspace with others.
Also one’s sense of control over the physical environment and others’ behavior may be related
to one’s sense of territoriality in workplace. It is possible that one’s perception of territoriality is
affected by Personal factors, such as gender, personality type and intelligence, and physical and
mental competence. Social climate, class, status, competition of resources, ownership, and
event/task may also affect the same. The effects of these social factors on territoriality in office
setting are to be looked in to. Territoriality across cultures is different in some ways but is
similar in other ways. Though the empirical evidence for a cross-cultural comparison of
territoriality in offices is meager, many cultural observers have noted significant national
variations. For example, on average American office appear to be more physically subdivided
than Japanese offices. At Mitsubishi’s Japanese headquarters, even the chairperson of the board
sits at an open desk on a large office floor (Yoshino & Lifson, 1986). Scuri (1990) notes that
shared offices are more common in Italy than in the United States.
Territoriality is related to social interaction and group identity. It is also related to privacy, since
privacy affects the perception of territorial control. Additionally, being able to personalize one’s
territory has positive effects. Territoriality may serve to organize office behavior and reduce
conflicts. When an individual or a group has high degree of autonomy over the surroundings,
many behavioural aspects become ordered, including choice of activities and accessibility to
resources. Territoriality may also benefit office organizations by geographically fixing individuals.
As a result, organizations are better off in terms of time and effort spent in communication
because individuals are found at places where they are expected most. Small groups may
benefit because territoriality seems to generate expectations about how visitors and hosts
should behave. Individuals may benefit because they control social and resource management
aspects of the territory, and hence are better able to plan and anticipate future events.
Territoriality also provides individuals with the reliable access to needed contacts.
2.5 CONTROL AND SUPERVISION
Control is the level of direct or indirect influence by an individual or a group over the resources
of other individuals or groups including their space, ideas, and pace and content of work.
Supervision, on the other hand, is direct control in the form of critical watching and directing.
Typically, in organizational settings supervision is the activity carried out by supervisors to
oversee the productivity and progress of employees who report directly to them. In offices,
control is often related to the sources of interference and stimulation. Interference problems
allow our concentration to be interrupted without our being able to control the time and nature
of interruption. On the other hand, over- and under stimulation may reduce our ability to work
and think effectively. Most organizations use territoriality, privacy, status markers and symbols
for controlling the sources of interference and stimulation. As a result, most findings related to
control are reported in studies related to these other issues. In a more limited instrumental
sense, control is synonymous with “physical control” that describes the adjustability of different
physical and environmental systems, such as furnishings, HVAC, and lighting in a setting. There
are two ways to exert physical control in workspaces – directly by altering environmental
settings such as switching lights on and off, opening or closing doors and windows, and
changing workspace furnishings; and indirectly by leaving a less desirable workspace for a more
desirable one. The physical control of a setting is therefore dependent upon the availability of
and ability to use alternative settings and mechanism of control in the setting.
People prefer to have control over the physical aspects of their workspaces not only because
control augments a sense of status, but also because it comes with a sense of personal freedom.
One’s sense of control over the environment and others’ behavior may be related to one’s sense
of territoriality in workplace. An individual’s degree of control within an area can be influenced
by the nature of the individual’s relationship to the area, the physical characteristics of the area
(e.g., the location and orientation of the desk), and the individual’s status in the social
environment. For group work, control established by physical enclosure may facilitate the
development of cohesion within the group. In restrictive environments, the extent to which
spatial behaviors fail to correlate to the degree of interconnectedness of spaces may be a
function of control. A lack of control over the immediate environment can be an important
source of psychological and physiological strain in workplaces. If individuals believe that they
have control over the environment of their workspace, their satisfaction with the environment
is found to be greater through various studies . The findings of lower worker satisfaction in open
offices are often due to a perceived lack of control over input to and from the environment .
The ability to control communication is also a critical variable mediating the negative effects of
reduced privacy and crowding. In some organizations, an open plan setting may be used as an
opportunity to build new relations and contacts, and to open up the organization to the users;
while in others, the same may be used to establish control and supervision. Openness in the
latter cases may result in tensions and attrition of relations. In addition, there is no controlled
study on workers’ reaction to supervision in terms of behavioral processes and adaptive skills in
office settings. Nor is there a study reporting the effects of supervision on office outcomes at
the individual, group and organizational levels.
3. METHODOLOGY
4. CASE STUDY, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
An architectural design studio of Abudhabi was studied and analyzed during its working hours
for the purposes of this paper. The office space considered is not a complete building. It covers
just a floor of a building in Abu dhabi. This architectural firm is a major international,
interdisciplinary practice of architects, designers, engineers and urbanists. They experiment with
their office layouts frequently. Broadly speaking the office layout is closed type. Moreover the
experiences during architectural training in the same firm might be the best reference for the
dissertation. However an office space with closed layout had to be studied as well to reach
scientific conclusions. Hence another construction consulting firm was also studied. It had a
traditional closed layout of work space.
Study was conducted based on several psychological parameters on as how different spatial
aspects of work place could affect each of them there by positively affecting the behavioral
aspects of work place environment. Several methods were used to study the hypotheses formed
as a part of literature study.
4.1 INTERACTION AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES:-
Collaboration is perceived as a key to organizational effectiveness in an increasing number of

work contexts. Collaborative work spaces include not just the spaces identified or designed for
collaborative work, such as team rooms or conference/meeting spaces, but also spaces that
may potentially be used for collaborative work and casual/ informal interactions.
4.1.1 DEGREE OF OPENNESS AND INTERACTION
Hypothesis 1: Degree of openness of a work space greatly affects the work place interaction
between employees
METHOD OF STUDY: to study this hypothesis, a sample of 50 people from each type of office
layout (closed type of office and open type of office) was asked to answer a questionnaire on as
whether they communicate with all their coworkers on an average working day.
Results from study conducted in open office layout:-
DEGREE OF COLLABORATION IN
OPEN OFFICE
LAYOUT 0.02%
Yes
No
99.98%
Figure 4.1- Degree of collaboration in office space layout
Results from study conducted in closed office layout:-
Figure 4. 2- Degree of collaboration in closed office setting
From the study it was clear that only 0.02% of the employees of an open office layout felt that
they were not involved in interaction whereas 24% of employees of a closed office layout felt
that they were not involved in any kind of interaction with their coworkers. Hence hypothesis 1
was found to be true.
4.1.2 VISIBILITY AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION
Figure 4.3- Visibility and communication between work groups
Hypothesis 2: Visibility of spatial arrangement has impact on the communication between work
groups.
In the Figure 4.3- Visibility and communication between work groups, A, B and C marks three
work groups of employees in the office layout.
A and B are visually and physically connected
B and C are physically connected but not visually.
From the interviews and study conducted in THE ARCHITECTURAL STUDIO it was observed that
user group B interacted more with A than that with C though the proximity is more or less the
same.
On deep observation it was concluded that in case of A and B visibility can help them predict
whether the coworker is free to communicate while in case of B and C this visibility factor is
lacking hence reducing the interaction. Visibility helps in being aware of the situation of
coworker and hence if the situation is favourable it turns out to be a potential for interaction.
Hence from the above study it can be analysed that visibility or visual connection between
employees can have positive effects on the communication and degree of collaboration
between employees. Hence hypothesis 2 is true as per the observation
4.1.3 ACCESSIBILITY AND COMMUNICATION
Figure 4.4- Accessibility and communication between employees
Hypothesis 3: Physical barriers in work space can affect the communication between employees
even though they are visually connected.
In the Figure 4.4- Accessibility and communication between employees, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j

and k represents various employees of the studio. Here a and b are at two different ends of
table, where table being the physical barrier between a and b. The employee a and employee b
are
visually connected. a and l are not visually connected because they are seated facing back to
back. However they are easily accessible to each other
However from the observations carried out it was analysed that a interacted with l more
frequently than a did with b even when a, b and l worked on the same team. This was mainly
because of the physical barrier in the form of table, between a and b. the interviews conducted
among the employees also yielded the same result.
A survey was conducted among 50 employees working in open office plan in the studio. The
survey was conducted with the aid of photographs and drawings.
Which of the following employee of same team would you approach in case of doubts during
working hours?
employee who is
10%
physically easy to
access though
visually not
connected
employee whom u
can easily see but
relatively hard to
90%
access because of the
physical barrier
Figure 4.5- Physical barriers and communication
Hence from the survey it can be concluded that physical barriers in work spaces; be it a table or
a screen can affect the interaction or degree of collaboration between the employees, hence
proving that hypothesis 3 turned out to be true as well. Absence of physical barriers thus
enhances free movement and facilitates easy copresence.
4.1.4 HOT-DESKING AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERACTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES
Speaking of flexibility, Hot desking is a tool for facilitating flexibility of work positions. Hot
desking is a work space sharing model in which employees out number desks. In some such
environments each work station has its own computer and worker logs in to virtual desktop. In
other implementations workers have notebook computers that they bring to work with them or
store in a locker on the premises, along with any personal effects.
The studio has a system where there are several computers which has worker logs incorporated
in to their virtual desktop. In this case employees can use any system as per their comfort
during their working hours. Hot-desking has several psychological effects and can influence the
behavioral aspects of the employee in office.
Hypothesis 4: Hot-desking does not affect interaction between employees in a work space.
SURVEY RESULTS:
Did you get to know more people personally than before, after implementing Hot-desking?
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Yes No
Figure 4.6- Hot desking and communication
Hypothesis 4 hence proves to be false; implementing that hot-desking in office spaces has a
positive effect on interaction and degree of collaboration.
4.1.5 VISIBILITY AND AWARENESS OF SURROUNDINGS
An employee must always be aware of what is happening around him/her. This could either
be by visual connection or could be by auditory connection. Sense of what happens around
is a very important factor for the employees in order to blend in to the work environment.
In some cases this awareness helps them to understand the urgency or importance of the
work they do. Following figure showing how each type of seating arrangement in the studio
can
affect the awareness of surroundings in employees.
Figure 4.7- Awareness of surroundings
In Figure 4.7- Awareness of surroundings, the seating arrangements which have arrows
divergent from them are those seating positions with potential of providing maximum
awareness of surroundings to the one who uses it because of its great visual connection with
the surroundings. Whereas in the figure the seating positions with arrows convergent towards
them actually indicates the seating positions with no visual connection with the surroundings
but employees in those positions can know what happened around them through auditory
stimuli that reaches them
The employees of managing post and director post preferred the positions p and o because
from positions p and o they will be able to efficiently monitor the office activities as a whole.
However the work group in the team room would be relatively ignorant of what happens in the
main work space because of lack of visual connection and the physical barrier separating them
from the main work space.
4.1.6 OFFICE LAYOUTS AND AFTER OFFICE ACTIVITIES
Since almost everybody interacts with every other person and since every employee gets
chance to be seated with different coworkers for different projects they get to know each other
personally well and many of them become good friends even out of office. Hence they indulge
in activities after office hours and the bond between them gets stronger. Getting to know each
other well makes working together easier since they cope up with each other’s likes and
dislikes.
4.1.7 CIRCULATION, PATTERNS OF ENCOUNTER AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN

EMPLOYEES
In the Figure 4.8- Patterns of encounter-1 and Figure 4.9- Patterns of encounter 2 two types of
patterns of encounters are shown
Figure 8 shows patterns of informal encounter happening between the employers of team room
and other employees. This is possible because each time an employee from team room goes to
toilet or the pantry or meeting room, he/she passes by the employees of work space. There is
no other way to reach wash room and pantry. This planning hence ensures that every employee
has a glance of every other employee even if they are seated in team room because of the
circulation pattern which forces the employees of team room to pass by those seated in
common work space.
Figure 4.8- Patterns of encounter-1
Figure 9 shows the circulation pattern of work group B to pantry or toilet. As in the previous
case group B is also forced to pass by group A when one of them has to go to toilet or pantry.
This triggers informal conversations and encounters between employees. Moreover every
employee gets familiar with every other employee. And familiarity with the faces and
surroundings is a positive boost in work environment which makes employees feel at ease and
relaxed thus reducing work stress.
Figure 4.9- Patterns of encounter 2
4.1.8 EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN OPEN AND CLOSED TYPE OFFICES
Survey questionnaires on as ‘how well do you know your co worker’ was distributed among
employees of open office and closed office after pairing them up. A good percentage of
employees of open office layout showed above average performance than employees of closed
office layout. This indicated that employee- employee relationship is better in open office layout
than that of closed office layout.
4.1.9 EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP IN OPEN OFFICE
Relationship between employee and employer was observed and was found to be better in
open offices. This is because of the visibility factor and the fact that employees do not have to
arrange formal meetings or knock doors to meet their superiors, in case of open offices.
4.2 EFFECT OF SPACIAL LAYOUT ON PRIVACY IN OPEN PLAN TYPE WORKSPACES
Open office layouts are usually said to facilitate communication and interaction between
coworkers, promoting workplace satisfaction and team work. However they are also known for
lack of privacy and noisy distractions from work. In this scenario where experimentation is done
in spatial aspects of office spaces most employees demand for work privacy which is
hypothetically believed by employees to be vanishing with the advent of open offices. This
study is a search for ways to attain privacy in an open office setting by altering physical or
spatial characteristics of the office.
With a reduced degree of personal enclosure open office layout fails to isolate occupants from
unwanted sound (sound privacy) and unwanted observation (visual privacy), resulting in overall
feeling of loss of privacy and personal control over their work space. Hence privacy is a very
important factor as far as concentration on work is considered.
4.2.1 VISIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY OF WORK AND PRIVACY
Figure 10-Seating positions in the studio, shows 21 types of seating positions in the studio. In
the beginning of every project, the employees are allowed to be seated anywhere as per their
project requirements. As a result the choice preference of seating was reviewed by using
questionnaires.
Based on the visibility and transparency of work the seating positions could be divided in to
following groups
Seating group 1- u, s, t, r, q
Seating group 2- p, o, f, e, d, c, k
Seating group 3- g, h, I, j
Seating group 4- b, a, n
Hypothesis 5: The visibility or transparency of work caused by spatial aspects, affects the
privacy of employee in workspace
Figure 4.10-Seating positions in the studio
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Seating group 1 Seating group 2 Seating group 3 Seating group 4
Figure 4.11- Seating preference survey results
To provide a base for the above study the visibility mapping of the office was done based on
the space syntax technique:-
Figure 4.12- Visibility mapping of workspace using space syntax technique
The shades of grey get darker as the work transparency decreases.
The work stations g, h, I, j, l, m are most visible and transparent zone of work. Hence employees
prefer it the least since anyone who enters the office space can first see their monitor screens.
Whereas workstations b, a and n have partial privacy. In these positions insecurity is not
completely wiped away. The darkest zones are least observed zones which has appropriate
privacy since visibility factor is less.
From the graph, map and the survey the hypothesis turns out to be true. Most employees prefer
privacy of their work space and hence tend to choose work space with less work transparency.
The reason for this could be the insecure feeling one gets when being observed by a known or
unknown source. However from the survey it was found that employees in managerial or
administrative posts preferred p and o as their seating positions since that was the best position
in which one could notice the activities happening in the office. Hence the visibility factor and
transparency of work affects an employee’s work privacy and his/ her seating preference; thus
proving hypothesis 5 to be true.
4.2.2 PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND WORK PRIVACY

Hypothesis 6: Proper placing of physical barriers or screens in the space can affect the work
privacy in an office setting.
To test this hypothesis the following question was asked to 50 employees of the studio
Which of the following do you think will bring in ample amount of privacy without losing the
ease of communication?
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Enclosed private Enclosed shared Cubicles with high Cubicles with low
offices offices partitions partition
Figure 4.13- Privacy and office layouts
From the above survey it was easy to conclude that hypothesis 6 is true and hence physical
barriers or screens can bring in privacy to the space if properly used.
4.2.3 TYPES OF PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS
Based on interviews with employees belonging to different sectors, the privacy needs of
employees were classified as following
 Personal privacy 

 Work privacy 

 Legal privacy 
Personal privacy
This type of privacy refers to the privacy the employee requires as a person. For example a sad
employee wouldn’t want others to see him depressed. Similarly nobody would want others to
overhear their telephone conversations.
Work privacy
Work privacy refers to privacy related to the work employees do. Most employees stated in the
interview that they feel uncomfortable about the idea of their work being transparent to others.
Most of them did not want anyone to stare at their computer screens while working because it
makes them uncomfortable. This privacy is also required to keep their business ideas
confidential.
Legal privacy
This type of privacy is usually associated with client confidentiality; cases which have legal
dimension to it. In such cases privacy is unavoidable. To prevent such information from being
shared illegally work space must be planned in such a way that the design incorporates ample
privacy and are provided with safe lockers.
4.2.4 CONCENTRATION AND WORK DISTRACTIONS IN OPEN OFFICE LAYOUT

Based on the interviews conducted, some of the work distractions that can divert employees
attention and focus from work are listed below:
 A sad coworker could make employee feel obliged to console him or her which becomes
a work distraction until it’s done. 

 Fear of contagious diseases like cold and conjunctivitis could invoke tension in
employees mind and can turn out to be a major work distraction 

 Loud telephone conversations of colleague can be a disturbance and could affect the
work flow. 

 Insecure feeling when your work is being monitored by some one else unnecessarily. 

 Coworker’s doubts about work might be interrupting the employee’s work at that
moment and can affect the work flow. 

 Addictions like cigarette smoking which cannot be fulfilled from work space. 
4.3 TERRITORIALITY IN OPEN PLAN OFFICE
Proxemics is a branch of environmental psychology that studies about the amount of space
people feel necessary to have between themselves and others. In this field of study the
phenomenon of territoriality is demonstrated continuously through unwritten indices and
behaviours, which communicate, the conscious or subconscious notions of personal space and
territoriality. This phenomenon is seen, for example, through the use of public seating and the
empty seats on a crowded bus or train. As mentioned by Evans and Wener (2007) in Journal of
environmental psychology," Crowding occurs when the regulation of social interaction is
unsuccessful and our desires for social interaction are exceeded by the actual amount of social
interaction experienced.". Studies observing social behaviours and psychology have indicated,
such as in the case for commuters that people will seek to maximise personal space whether
standing or sitting. Territoriality in work place is establishing psychological ownership over a
certain space. It is a virtual representation of the control an employee has in that territory.
Observations of the office interior in relation to the behavior of the people in it were made and
written down thickly. This was done by looking and experiencing how the office was designed,
how people acted in it and if this matches with the intentions behind the design, a look through
the outside eyes and noticing things that were taken-for-granted in the organization was first
step to study about territoriality in office space. Being at the organization for six months, made
it possible to become more familiar with the situation and the people in it as well. Final step was
to see and hear the difference between what was said and what was done, talking with the
users of the building gave insight in their experiences and motivations.
4.3.1 WAYS OF ESTABLISHING TERRITORY
Territoriality is done for several reasons which could be to establish identity, status, ownership
and control over a space, or could be just for one’s own comfort. In many cases employees try
to establish territory in open office plans in order to make themselves familiar with the work
station.
Territory is marked in several ways. Some observed ways are as given below:-
 Display of things which varied from photographs of children, family and friends, coffee
mugs, plants, baskets with personal items and paperwork, personal keyboards and
trophies won on social days of the organization. 

 Second, the personalization of objects, like cleaning the desk before doing any work, and
spaces, like changing the position of the desk the way you prefer and hanging calendars
at the walls. 

 A third distinction in personalization can be found in temporarily and permanent
personalization. Temporarily in the way that items were removed at the end of the day,
permanent in the way that items or adjustments stayed left behind. 

 Fourth distinction is the adjustments of the coffee corners or decorations on a wall,
which seemed to be permanent. Individual personalization only seemed permanent
when someone had his or her own fixed place, which was the case for the top
management of the organization and some employees with physical or psychological
limitations that hindered the flexible way of working. 

 A fifth distinction can be made in personal and work-related personalization. Most Items
were personal and said something about the owner. But, for example, adjustments to
desks or the spreading of paperwork around the workplace were Work-related. 

 A sixth and last way of personalization noticed was a more mental way of personalization
through social contacts, to make the environment comfortable and familiar. 
4.3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONING BEHIND ESTABLISHING TERRITORY
Employees tend to preserve their territoriality or personalize the space around them for several
psychological reasons. Some of them are as follows:
 To bring in a sense of belonging to the space 

 To express one’s identity 

 Personalization puts across non-verbal communications with coworkers about one’s
personal interests, emotions and life outside work which helps coworkers to know them
better. 
 It helps the employees to cope with their work stress and tension because when they
are in their personalized work station they feel a sense of belonging for the work space
and hence gets a homely feeling. 
SURVEY RESULTS:-
RELEVANCE OF PERSONALISATION OF
WORKSPACE
15%
Personalisation of work
space would bring
satisfaction
Personalisation of work
station is irrelevant
85%
Figure 4.14- Relevance of personalization of workspace
4.3.3 HOT DESKING AND TERRITORIALITY
From interviews and discussion with employees it was clear that people did not prefer having
hot-desking on a daily basis. Hot desking could adversely affect the territoriality.
Many employees think that it would be difficult for them to work in a different position every
other day because it is difficult for them to get used to the new work space. Changing work
space on a daily basis would actually affect their work flow.
When a person has a fixed workplace it would make him accustomed to that place and its
settings. He/she would have a way with placing things in their work station and change in the
workspace would ruin this convenience. People tend to lose track of where things are placed
when the work position is being changed on a daily basis which makes the employee frustrated.
Moreover hot desking implemented to adjacent work positions could adversely affect the
territorial behaviors of coworker. See Figure 4.15- Hot desking and territoriality
4.3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING PERSONALISATION
Some factors that affect the ways of personalization is:
 Gender: female employees usually personalized their space with photographs of their
family or some personal items that express their identity and that can improve the feel
of workspace. Male employees usually personalized their work space in such a way so as
to show their status within company and to show off their talents and abilities. 

 Access to customers and visitors: the workspaces that are accessible to visitors,
outsiders or clients are not as personalized as done for other spaces. In such cases
personalization is done to give the observer an image that the organization wants to
project. 

 Type of work being done by the employee affects the mode of pesonalisation adopted
by him/ her. 
Does hot desking adversely affect the territorial

behaviours of coworkers?
8%
Yes
No
92%
Figure 4.15- Hot desking and territoriality
4.3.5 DEGREE OF AUTONOMY IN WORKSPACE
Degree of autonomy in work place relates to the degree of control one has over the
environmental comfort factors like lighting, temperature, etc as per personal preference. This is
hard to achieve in an open office plan. Since there are no separation between workstations
comfort factors would be common for everyone. Therefore employees will have to live with
what majority wants and will not be able to adjust comfort factors as per personal
requirements. However comfort through flexibility of furniture is possible even in open type
plans.
4.4 RECREATION AND RELAXATION IN OFFICE
Recreation or relaxation in workspace plays an important role in boosting employees ‘positive

energy which can eliminate negative thoughts and bad feelings.
Relaxation in office spaces are achieved in several ways:-
 There could be a dedicated space for recreation or informal talks. 

 Relaxation could be integrated to the work space itself by having some element that can
trigger group work 

 Relaxation can also be achieved by trivial elements or views that can give a relaxed feel
to the one who observes it. 
In the studio people usually go to the pantry or breakout area to relax. Also majority of the
employees in the studio are smokers and they relax by means of smoking. Since smoking is not
allowed within office as it negatively affects the rest of non smoking employees, the smoking
group managed to find a place in emergency stair case landing to smoke.
4.4.1 SPATIAL QUALITY AND RELAXATION
On careful observation and analysis of employee behavior in office space, it was found that the
only time employees relax are when they have personal phone calls or when they have coffee
or tea. These leisure activities of the employees were carefully observed to study about the kind
of spaces they use for relaxing and those spaces are marked in the following plan.
Figure 4.16- Recreational spaces
From Figure 4.16- Recreational spaces it can be noticed that people tend to look through
windows with uninterrupted view. There are other windows in the office space but people tend
to choose windows with uninterrupted view to relax their mind. The other windows do not
provide unending views. Hence from this observation it is clear that views to outside play a
major role in relaxing mind.
From the interviews conducted among employees of different firms it was observed that the
visibility of the dedicated recreational areas in office spaces from employer’s work station, had
a negative impact on the efficient use of that recreational space. This was because most
employees did not want their employers to think that they are working less to get more leisure
time. However visibility from employer’s workstation had no effect on the use of space if the
space was not just dedicated for recreation and if it was a multi-purpose which could be used as
a work station as well. Hence it’s better to create flexible spaces which can be used for both
work and recreation for relaxation. If dedicated recreational spaces are created, then they must
be designed in such a way that those spaces are not visible from employer’s work station.
4.5 FLEXIBILITY OF OFFICE SPACE
Many organizations are turning to flexible work environments to cost-effectively address the
needs of employees. In doing so, workplace flexibility is often tied to organizational goals such
as increased profitability, quality, and performance. This study explored the notion of flexibility
from the individual's perspective to determine if individual needs for flexibility relate to
common organizational goals. Flexibility of an office setting can be utilized to incorporate
privacy, territoriality, and environmental comfort to the office space. Hence it is an important
aspect as far as employee comfort is concerned.
4.5.1 WORK CULTURE AND FLEXIBILITY
Hypothesis 7: Work culture has no relation with flexibility of an office setting.
Based upon the results of an online survey of 170 participants, this study revealed a significant
relationships between flexibility and common organizational goals, which organizational leaders
should consider when planning a flexible work environment.
WORK CULTURE AND FLEXIBILITY

2% Architectural and engineering
1%
4% Bussiness and financial
3%
4% Computer and information
30% technology
8% Education
Arts, media and communication
10% Sales
Community and social service
Legal
18% 20%
Life, physical and social science
Other
Figure 4.17- Work culture and flexibility survey

From the above survey result hypothesis 7 is proved to be false. It can be seen that there is a
pattern formed among types of organizations in relation to their need of flexibility. Employees
of creative fields call for more flexibility than that of others. Legal firms or employees of most
organized work culture prefer least flexibility being incorporated to their office spaces because
flexibility tends to affects the organized arrangement of documents in the office as far as such
firms are concerned.
4.5.2 FLEXIBILITY AND HOT-DESKING
Advantages of Hot-desking from flexibility point of view based on the interviews conducted
among employees:-
 Nobody will get stuck with a workstation near a coworker whom he hates or doesn’t get
along well with. 

 One wouldn’t have to remain in a seating position he/she hates since it keeps changing
every day and employees have freedom of choice. 

 Can save a lot of space. 
When the territoriality aspects of office layouts are considered hot desking comes out as a bad
option. But implementing hot desking with proper planning could make it successful and may
produce a good result. When hot desking was tried in the studio on a daily basis, it was
observed that employees were dissatisfied. Hence the flexibility plan was altered in such a way
that everybody could choose any work position they wished, in the beginning of every project
and will have to stick to the same until the project is complete. This solution was found to be
favorable to employees.
5. CONCLUSION AND INFERENCE
A strong foundation for research methodology was laid by reviewing the books, journals,
articles, research reports and all kinds of literature resources available. The study was
conducted with reference to the studio alone because this studio was one of the best examples
of open offices that could possibly be studied. The studio’s experimentation with their office
layouts makes it the best choice for the study. Several methods were used for the study which
included interviewing architects, Psychologists and employees of the studio. Several surveys
were conducted as per requirements. Scientific means of observations were also conducted in
the studio for the study. Different types of time slots were used for taking observations in the
studio so as to make the study effective.
The initial hypotheses which were solved by the end of studies conducted, has been concluded
in the following table.
HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT STATUS
H1 Degree of openness of a work space greatly affects the Agree
work place interaction between employees
H2 Visibility of spatial arrangement has impact on the Agree
communication between work groups.
H3 Physical barriers in work space can affect the Agree
communication between employees even though they
are visually connected
H4 Hot-desking does not affect interaction between Disagree
employees in a work space.
H5 The visibility and transparency of work caused by spatial Agree
aspects, affects the privacy of employee in workspace
H6 Proper placing of physical barriers or screens in the space Agree

can affect the work privacy in an office setting
H7 Work culture has no relation with flexibility of an office Disagree

setting.
Table 5.1
The studies were conducted based on following behavioral aspects of workspace:-

 Interaction and collaboration 

 Privacy 
 Territoriality 

 Recreation and relaxation 

 Flexibility 
Interaction and degree of collaboration:-
 The degree of openness of work stations in an office layout has a positive effect on the
interaction between employees. 

 More the visibility and visual connections, more is the chances of encounter and hence
communication 

 Similarly visibility can make the employees more aware of their surroundings and will
have a better sense of what is going on around them. 

 Accessibility or proximity between work stations and interaction in office spaces are
directly related. The easier the accessibility more is the communication. 

 Hot-desking can have a positive impact on work space collaboration. 

 Better visual connections can have positive effect on relationship between employees
which can even lead good personal relationship between employees. 

 Circulation can directly affect the patterns of encounter in a work space layout hence
affecting the communication between employees. 

 Employee- employee relationships and employer- employee relationships are much
better in open office layouts than in closed office layouts. 
Privacy in open offices

 Visibility and transparency of work can have a negative effect on work privacy 

 Appropriate use of physical barriers in work spaces can boost privacy of employees. 

 There are several levels of privacy experiences in a work place environment namely;
personal privacy, work privacy and legal privacy. 
Territoriality in open offices

 Territory establishment is in different forms and it differs from person to person. 

 There are several psychological aspects that lead to territoriality. 
 Hot-desking doesn’t work well as far as territoriality is concerned. 


 Degree of autonomy is less in open office plans as compared to closed office plans 
Recreation and relaxation
 Uninterrupted window views from interior can relax minds. Hence use of such windows
in office spaces can be stress-busters. 

 The employees tend to use spaces that are multifunctional for recreational purposes
rather than spaces that are solely dedicated for recreation. 

 The proximity of break out areas from employer’s work station had a negative effect on
the effective utilization of the space by employees. 
Flexibility of office spaces
 The need for flexibility depends a lot on the work culture and the nature of work being
done in the workspace. 

 Hot-desking is a good practice as far as flexibility of work space is considered 
6. REFERENCE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology
Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory
and Research
Altman, I. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior.
Altman, I. 1976. Privacy: a conceptual analysis
Archea, J. 1977. The place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of
privacy Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the Individual and the Organization.
Bates, A. 1964. Privacy – a useful concept? Social Forces
Baum, A. & Koman, S. 1976. Differential response to anticipated crowding: psychological effects
of social and spatial density. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology
Bechtel, R. B. 1976. Enclosing Behavior
Becker, F. D. 1973. Studies of spatial markers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Becker, F. D. 1981. Workspace: Creating Environments in Organizations
Becker, F. D., & Coniglio, C. 1975. Environmental messages Personalization and
territory Becker, F. D., & Mayo, C. 1971. Delineating personaldistance and territoriality
Becker, F. D., Gield, B., Gaylin, K., & Sayer, S. 1983. Office design in a community college: effect
on work and communication patterns
Block, L. K., & Stokes, G. S. 1989. Performance and satisfaction in private versus non-
private worksetting
Bobele, H. K. & Buchanan, P. J. 1979, January. Building a more productive environment
Bordens, K. S., & Wollman, N. 1985, March. Territoriality in the workplace: Personality
and environmental correlates
BOSTI - Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation. 1981. The impact of office
environment on productivity and quality of working life: comprehensive findings.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. 2002. Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal
field study.
Brookes, M. J. & Kaplan, A. 1972. The office environment: space planning and affective behavior
Campbell, D. E. 1980. Professors and their offices: A Survey of person-behavior-environment

relationships.
Campbell, D. E. A new look at informal communication: the role of the physical environment
Cangelosi, V. E., & Lemoine, L. F. 1988. Effects of open versus closed physical environment
on employee perception and attitude.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French. J. R. P. Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. Jr. 1975. Job
demands and worker health.
Chaikin, A. L., Derlega, V. J., & Miller, S. J. 1976. Effects of room environment on self-
disclosure in a counseling analogue.
Clark H., & Brennan, S. 1991. Grounding in communication.
Cohen, S., & Lezak, A. 1977. Noise and inattentiveness to social cues
Daft, R., & Lengel, R. 1984. Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and
organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior
Davis, T. M. R. 1984. The Influence of the physical environment in offices
DuVall-Early, K. & Benedict, J. O. 1992. The relationships between privacy and different
components of job satisfaction
Edney, J. J. 1976. Human territories: comment on functional Properties Environment and

Behavior
Eysenck, M. W., & Graydon, J. 1989. Susceptibility to distraction as a function of personality
Farbstein, J. D. 1975. Organization, space and activity: The relationship of task and status to
the allocation and use of space in certain organizations
Ferguson, G. S. 1983. Employee satisfaction with the office environment: Evaluation of a causal
model.
Ferguson, G., & Weisman, G. 1986. Alternative approaches to the assessment of

employee satisfaction with the office environment.
Gifford, R. 1997. Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice
Greenbaum, P. E., & Greenbaum, S. D. 1981. Territorial personalization: group identity and
social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood.
Griffitt, W., & Veitch, R. 1971. Hot and crowded: Influences of population density and
temperature on interpersonal affective behavior.
Gulian, E. & Thomas, J. R. 1986. The effects of noise, cognitive set and gender on
mental arithmetic performance.
Gullahorn, J. T. 1952. Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix
Haber, G. B. 1980. Territorial invasion in the classroom: invadee response
Hallowell, E. M. 1999, January-February. The human moment at work. Harvard Business Review
Handbook of Environmental Psychology
Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the Virtual Organization. Harvard Business

Review Harvard business review
Hedge, A. 1982. The open-plan office: a systematic investigation of employee reactions to their
work environment. Environment and Behavior
Jacqueline C. Vischer, 2008. Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People

are affected by Environments for Work
Nardi, B. & Whittaker, S. 2002. The place of face-to-face Communication in distributed

work. Pamela hinds & sara keisler, communication across boundaries: work, structure and
use of communication technologies in a large organization
R. R. Stough & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Optimizing Environments: Research, Practice and Policy
Samuel D. Gosling, Sei Jin Ko & Thomas Mannarelli, A Room With a Cue: Personality Judgments
Based on Offices and Bedrooms
Sommer, R. 1967. Small group ecology
Sommer, R. 1967. Sociofugal spaces
Standing, L., Lynn, D., & Moxness, K. 1990. Effects of noise upon introvert and extroverts.
Steele, F. 1971. Physical settings and organization development
Sundstrom, E. 1986. Workplaces: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and
factories
Sundstrom, E. 1987. Work environments: Offices and Factories
Walker, C. R., & Guest, R. H. 1952. The man on the assembly line
Weiss, J. M. 1972. Psychological factors in stress and disease
Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., & Daly-Jones, O. 1994. Informal Workplace Communication: What is
it Like and How Might We Support It?
Wineman, J. D. (Ed.). 1982. Environment and Behavior: Office Design and
Evaluation Wineman, J. D. 1982. The office environment as a source of stress.

Psychological_effects_of_work_space_layo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological_effects_of_work_space_layo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological effects of office space layouts 0

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF OFFICE SPACE

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED FOR MES SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

level, subsequent performance and productivity is greatly dependent on the quality of

there by foster productivity.

4.3.1 Ways of establishing Territory ............................................................................................34

1. INTRODUCTION: PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF WORKPLACE LAYOUT

- Privacy factors of work environment

1.6 EXPECTED OUTCOME

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

2.1 TYPES OF OFFICE LAYOUTS

2.1.1 OPEN-PLAN (FLEXIBLE LAYOUT)

2.1.2 CELLULAR (TRADITIONAL) LAYOUT

2.2 FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES

 At the micro-level, the “sociopetal” and “sociofugal” aspects of a setting which

environmental perception greatly affects the quantity and quality of face-to-face

2.3 PRIVACY IN OFFICE SPACES:-

2.5 CONTROL AND SUPERVISION

4. CASE STUDY, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 INTERACTION AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES:-

Collaboration is perceived as a key to organizational effectiveness in an increasing number of

4.1.1 DEGREE OF OPENNESS AND INTERACTION

Results from study conducted in open office layout:-

Figure 4.1- Degree of collaboration in office space layout

Results from study conducted in closed office layout:-

Figure 4. 2- Degree of collaboration in closed office setting

4.1.2 VISIBILITY AND DEGREE OF COLLABORATION

Figure 4.3- Visibility and communication between work groups

4.1.3 ACCESSIBILITY AND COMMUNICATION

Figure 4.4- Accessibility and communication between employees

In the Figure 4.4- Accessibility and communication between employees, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j

Figure 4.5- Physical barriers and communication

4.1.4 HOT-DESKING AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERACTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES

Figure 4.6- Hot desking and communication

Figure 4.7- Awareness of surroundings

4.1.6 OFFICE LAYOUTS AND AFTER OFFICE ACTIVITIES

4.1.7 CIRCULATION, PATTERNS OF ENCOUNTER AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN

Figure 4.8- Patterns of encounter-1

Figure 4.9- Patterns of encounter 2

4.1.8 EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN OPEN AND CLOSED TYPE OFFICES

4.1.9 EMPLOYEE- EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP IN OPEN OFFICE

4.2 EFFECT OF SPACIAL LAYOUT ON PRIVACY IN OPEN PLAN TYPE WORKSPACES

4.2.1 VISIBILITY, TRANSPARENCY OF WORK AND PRIVACY

Figure 4.10-Seating positions in the studio

Figure 4.11- Seating preference survey results

Figure 4.12- Visibility mapping of workspace using space syntax technique

The shades of grey get darker as the work transparency decreases.

4.2.2 PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND WORK PRIVACY

Figure 4.13- Privacy and office layouts

4.2.4 CONCENTRATION AND WORK DISTRACTIONS IN OPEN OFFICE LAYOUT

4.3 TERRITORIALITY IN OPEN PLAN OFFICE

4.3.1 WAYS OF ESTABLISHING TERRITORY

4.3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONING BEHIND ESTABLISHING TERRITORY

Figure 4.14- Relevance of personalization of workspace

4.3.3 HOT DESKING AND TERRITORIALITY

4.3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING PERSONALISATION

Some factors that affect the ways of personalization is:

Does hot desking adversely affect the territorial

Figure 4.15- Hot desking and territoriality

4.3.5 DEGREE OF AUTONOMY IN WORKSPACE

4.4 RECREATION AND RELAXATION IN OFFICE

Recreation or relaxation in workspace plays an important role in boosting employees ‘positive

4.4.1 SPATIAL QUALITY AND RELAXATION

Figure 4.16- Recreational spaces