ArticlePDF Available

Personalization in non-territorial offices: A study of a human need

Authors:
  • Center for People and Buildings, Netherlands, Delft
  • Center for People and Buildings, Delft

Abstract and Figures

Purpose Personalization and the non‐territorial office seem to be contradicting concepts. It is generally accepted that it is not possible to personalize workplaces in environments where no fixed individual workplaces are allocated. However, people seem to have a human need of personalization. Personalization can be done in different ways and for different reasons. Based on a literature review and a qualitative case study at a Dutch governmental organization, the purpose of this paper is to explain why and how personalization occurs in environments where non‐territorial office concepts are introduced. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative interpretative research design, in which literature study, document analysis, observations and talking, and interviews are combined, to understand the actor's perspective and behavior in the non‐territorial office of organization X. Findings Conclusions of the study indicate personalization to be a relevant factor for consideration when implementing a non‐territorial office design: when objects are prohibited to personalize your work environment, people seek several additional ways to make the environment familiar and comfortable for them and to mark their identity in the organization. Research limitations/implications Access to organization X went via top management, which makes it possible that the position of the independent researcher was not clear to people. The research took place in three months, but not full time. Missing important behaviors is amongst possible consequences for the findings. Since this is one case study, further research is recommended. Practical implications Balanced decisions and rules between organizational policy and human needs help the acceptance of own workplace lost in non‐territorial offices. Originality/value Personalization is a well‐researched subject; as applied in non‐territorial offices, it is not well researched yet. This research paper suggests that aspects of emotion and psychological need should be considered as well in the development of a non‐territorial office.
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Personalization in non-territorial
offices: a study of a human need
Sandra Brunia and Anca Hartjes-Gosselink
Center for People and Buildings, Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose Personalization and the non-territorial office seem to be contradicting concepts. It is
generally accepted that it is not possible to personalize workplaces in environments where no fixed
individual workplaces are allocated. However, people seem to have a human need of personalization.
Personalization can be done in different ways and for different reasons. Based on a literature review
and a qualitative case study at a Dutch governmental organization, the purpose of this paper is to
explain why and how personalization occurs in environments where non-territorial office concepts are
introduced.
Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative interpretative research design, in which literature
study, document analysis, observations and talking, and interviews are combined, to understand the
actor’s perspective and behavior in the non-territorial office of organization X.
Findings Conclusions of the study indicate personalization to be a relevant factor for consideration
when implementing a non-territorial office design: when objects are prohibited to personalize your
work environment, people seek several additional ways to make the environment familiar and
comfortable for them and to mark their identity in the organization.
Research limitations/implications Access to organization X went via top management, which
makes it possible that the position of the independent researcher was not clear to people. The research
took place in three months, but not full time. Missing important behaviors is amongst possible
consequences for the findings. Since this is one case study, further research is recommended.
Practical implications – Balanced decisions and rules between organizational policy and human
needs help the acceptance of own workplace lost in non-territorial offices.
Originality/value Personalization is a well-researched subject; as applied in non-territorial offices,
it is not well researched yet. This research paper suggests that aspects of emotion and psychological
need should be considered as well in the development of a non-territorial office.
Keywords Workplace, Work identity, Office layout, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the development of new workplace concepts as non-territorial offices, a lot of
different issues are to be researched and decided. Most of the time, cost reduction or
work processes are leading for the conceptual development. Labor productivity,
satisfaction, costs, change management, and participation are main issues in the field
of workplace change. Evaluation of these concepts focus frequently on satisfaction,
distraction, privacy, arousal, disturbance or other aspects which managers relate to
labor productivity. Aspects of emotions and psychological needs are often missed as
relevant for creating diversified work settings. Often, management avoids subject
matters that has been labeled as “soft” issues. In this paper, we recommend that
“the soft issues” need really to be addressed in work place change management.
This research project aimed to find out more about the way of, the reason for and
(symbolic) meaning of personalization of the workplace in a non-territorial office design.
Why do people personalize? Because of identity, status, place-ownership, comfort,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
169
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Vol. 11 No. 3, 2009
pp. 169-182
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-001X
DOI 10.1108/14630010910985922
control or culture? And if people cannot express concepts like identity and status by
space and objects, how then? This paper gives a short literature review concerning
personalization, followed by the method and findings of the research project at
organization X and a discussion, in which the implications of the research results for the
scientific debate and for practice are presented.
Literature on personalization
Personalization
According to Sundstrom (1986, p. 218), the term personalization comes from
environmental psychology: “It describes the display of personal or work-related items
or the arrangement of the workspace to distinguish the occupant from others.” van der
Voordt and van Meel (2002, p. 39) state that personalization does not only refer to
distinguishing oneself, but that the term also refers to making oneself familiar with a
place, both at home and in the organization, although at the organization in less extent
than at home.
Several authors (Wells et al., 2007; Wells, 2000; van der Voordt and van Meel, 2002)
state that personalization is associated to psychological well being. van der Voordt and
van Meel (2002) discuss several psychological factors that are relevant in an innovative
office like the non-territorial one. They wondered what the tension is between flexible
working and universal human needs as personalization, territory, social interaction
and privacy. van der Voordt and van Meel (2002, p. 40) mention four, both personal and
work-related reasons for personalization at the office: practical, marking one’s
territory, creating recognition, and expression of identity.
Identity and emotion
From literature, it seems as if personal space is needed to express one’s identity. Elsbach
(2003) explored the identity threat by the non-territorial office design. She says that
non-territorial work arrangements remove most physical markers of status and
functional group boundaries. Since the workspaces are meant to be interchangeable,
employees lose the ability to personalize and mark the boundaries of their surroundings,
which is mostly an emotional aspect of people’s workplace, the workplace identity.
“Workplace identity refers to the distinctiveness and status self-categorizations used by
an individual to signal his or her identity in a specific workplace” (Elsbach, 2003, p. 623).
Workplace personalization helps employees to develop a workplace identity. When
there is no real possibility to do so, Elsbach (2003, p. 627) suggests that employees may
devise substitutes or “proxies” for lost identity markers as a means of affirming their
workplace identities. According to de Heer (2003, p. 32), people attach value to their
identity and by personalizing their environment; they can have non-verbal
communication of that identity to colleagues. It says something about interests,
emotions, and someone’s life outside of work. van Riel (in de Heer (2003, p. 33)) states that
identity at the workplace can be created by behaviour, communication and symbolism.
These help the individual to distinguish oneself from others and to decrease the amount
of anonymity in the non-territorial environment.
Another psychological factor in personalization at the office is emotion. Scheiberg
(1990, p. 334) states that emotions play a vital role. He says that personalization is used
as an unconscious outlet of emotions and to provide specific and concrete stimuli.
It acts as reflexive communication and as indication of individuals and their
JCRE
11,3
170
relationship with the organization, of their organizational identity. Scheiberg (1990,
p. 336) says that: “There seems to be a connection between the emotions regarding the
workplace, job satisfaction and job performance.” Blom (2000, p. 313) states that
personalization can be motivated by the need to express individual identity, but also by
expressing a social identity of the group one associates with. It can give a feeling of
belonging. Wells (2000, p. 246) shows that the reason for personalization tends to be
different among men and women. Women would personalize more to express identity
and to improve the feel of the workplace, they personalize more esthetical, while men
personalize more to show status within the company. According to Barber (2000, p. 3),
research showed that 73 percent of office workers said that personalizing their space to
their individual work style would make them more productive and more satisfied;
a good feeling about the workplace can help people to feel better about their jobs
(Barber, 2000, p. 2). Blom (2000, p. 313) mentions work-related motivations to
personalize too, like personalizing to accommodate work goals or to enable access to
information content, but he also mentions to accommodate individual differences and
to elicit emotional responses.
Personalization as form of identity is to distinguish oneself from others and is about
marking work related and personal issues. This can be status, (group) boundaries,
satisfaction, job performance, interests, and someone’s life outside work.
Control, territoriality, and sense making of space
A regularly mentioned motivation for personalization is the feeling of control and
creating a territory. People can feel a psychological ownership over a certain space or
workplace (Spicer and Taylor, 2006, p. 4). Sundstrom (1986, p. 225) says:
[...] personalization may represent a demonstration to co-workers and visitors (and the
occupant) that the workspace is, in fact, that person’s zone of control. If so, personalization is
a central component of territoriality in the workplace.
Others are expected to accept this territory.
Also Wells (2000, p. 240), Koppejan and Edelkoort (2002, p. 38) and van der Voordt
and van Meel (2002, p. 44) mention that a feeling of personal control is an important
motivation for personalization. Baldry (1999, p. 539) relates this extent of control to
someone’s identity; by personalizing their space they tell something about them as
people. Wells (2000, p. 241) adds that personalization can be used to feel like an
individual rather than a “cog in a machine,” to cope with stress by relaxing and
inspiring, to reminding of lives outside the office and to enhance a person’s attachment
to the environment. Personalization is used to make sense of space.
People struggle with and make sense of space to cope with tensions between
individual, private and team-based collaborative work areas (Haynes, 2007, p. 158).
According to Spicer and Taylor (2006, p. 11), the:
[...] most immediate and widespread struggles that occupants are engaged in involve
small-scale intervention into the organizational spaces that their daily routines take place in.
This encompasses activities from where an employee sits to the pace they move about in a
building to how they arrange personal items on their desk.
Baldry (1999, p. 544) adds to this: “Although apparently trivial, this is an important
way of saying this is where I work and this is the sort of person I am.” On the collective
level of struggling with space, Baldry (1999, p. 544) found:
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
171
[...] frequent accounts of the deliberate breaking rules, written or unofficial, about how space
is to be used and workers using space for purposes other than intended, in order to by-pass
prescribed organizational structures.
The importance of personalization can differ for people per organization or department.
Wells et al. (2007) say that the primary predictors of personalization are organizational
rather than personal, for example, the company policy on personalization, the
possibility for personalization by having an assigned workplace and the accessibility
of space for customers and visitors. Donald (in Elsbach (2004, p. 101)) found that “the
organizations’ strong stance against office personalization led to conflict, subversive
personalization of workspace, and apathy among employees all leading to decreased
productivity.” In a non-territorial office, it is common that personalization is limited, if
not prohibited. Sharing a desk with your colleagues will not be possible if personal
items mark it as your own.
Scheiberg (1990, p. 332) mentions the aspect of accessibility of a space for customers
or visitors. In an area that is only accessible for employees the extent of personalization
is usually higher than in a space that is accessible for visitors as well. In these areas,
“public persona” standardization and uniformity are most wanted. Personalization is
only used then to project the desired image, while personalization in a closed area
is used more to brighten up the place.
In summary
According to the existing body of literature, personalization helps to place oneself in an
organization and can be linked to identity, emotion, job satisfaction, work productivity,
control, territoriality, status, and organizational factors like company policy, having
assigned workplaces and functional group boundaries. It is clear that there seems to be
a tension between the non-territorial office concept and the concept of personalization.
Organizations can perceive personalization as office clutter, while the individual can
perceive personalization as a way of establishing his or her identity in the workplace
(Haynes, 2007, p. 161). Nathan and Doyle (in Haynes (2007, p. 162)) reiterate the tension
that can exist between individual requirements for privacy and territory, and the
organizational requirements for open-plan collaborative workspace: “The challenge
facing organizations is to create offices, and cultures, that enable both activities to
coexist.” This tension between the individual and organizational needs were basis for
the case study at organization X described in the following sections.
Context
Organization X is a regional office of a Dutch governmental organization. In June 2007,
organization X moved into a new building with a non-territorial workplace concept
with a modern design, of which an impression is shown in Plate 1.
After working in a traditionally designed cellular office building for many years,
with fixed workstations and long corridors, the employees of the organization had to
adapt to a new and non-territorial office environment. Here, no fixed individual
workplaces are allocated and a clean-desk policy is the reality of the day. Employees
are placed at different floors of the building, related to their functions. The different
workplace settings support different activities and people should use them as intended.
The change from a traditional to a non-territorial office had some consequences for
the employees. First of all, they lost their own fixed workplace, which they had for
JCRE
11,3
172
many years. Second, by losing that own workplace they also lost the ability to
personalize their space. Third, they had to get used to clean desk behavior, which
meant that they have to leave the desk they used behind they way they found it: clean
and empty. This way other employees could use the desk as well.
Based on this situation, the research project is executed at the organization in
question. The hypothesis was that people have a need to make somehow a personal
space or place in an office where no official own space is allocated. This would mean
that the actual behavior of the people working in the organization does not match with
some of the intentions of the office design, that the individual needs do not match with
the organizational ones. This personalization could appear in different forms, from
having a personal screensaver to making sure of working at the same desk every time
if possible. The research project presented in this paper aimed to find out more about
the way of, the reason for and (symbolic) meaning of personalization of the workplace
in a non-territorial office design.
Methodology
This research project was executed from an anthropological approach with an
interpretative perspective. The methods of understanding focus on the point of view of
Plate 1.
Impression of the design
at organization X
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
173
the actor in the given situation; they have a perspective “from within”. During the
ethnographic fieldwork the researcher wanted to find out about how people called
things, what things meant to them, and how place and space were used.
To execute this research project, several qualitative methods were used to explain
why and how people personalize in non-territorial offices. In addition to the literature
review, a period of fieldwork of three months came along, in which a triangulation of
methods is used to understand the situation and behaviors, from the actor’s
perspectives: document analysis, observations and talking.
First, an analysis of organizational documents was made to understand the change
process, from the traditional to the non-territorial office design, and the history of
the organization. Second, observations of the building and its interior in relation to the
behavior of the people in it were made and written down thickly. By looking and
experiencing how the building was designed, how people acted in it and if this matches
with the intentions behind the design, a look through the eyes of a stranger and
noticing things that were taken-for-granted in the organization were possible. But,
observing from a distance was not enough. Being at the organization for three months,
made it possible to become more familiar with the situation and the people in it as well.
Third, 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. While chatting in coffee corners, near the copying machine and in the
different office spaces, people expressed their experiences with the environment to
the researcher. The more formal conversations, of which transcripts were made, went
from this experience to the actual use of space and place in the organization.
Case study findings
The data from this research project at organization X suggest that personalization is
important for most people and is used to make sense of the environment and give
meaning to the (variable) workplace. Personalization is officially prohibited. However,
as long as expression of personalization is gone at the end of the day and nobody is
bothered with it, it is allowed.
Distinctions in personalization
Different types of personalization can be distinguished. First of all, the display of items,
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 (Plate 2). 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. Especially,
collective personalization, a fourth distinction, like the adjustments of the coffee
corners or decorations on a wall, 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.
JCRE
11,3
174
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.
Extent of personalization
The extent of personalization differed between different floors, departments or groups.
The extent of personalization seemed to be influenced by occupation of the workplace,
by the work style of departments and floors, but also by personal factors like gender.
This is mostly the case for personalization through personal items and decoration
of spaces. It seemed to be the case that mostly women used more esthetical ways of
personalization like photographs of family and decorations, while men seemed to
personalize more through social contacts.
Plate 2.
Individual
personalization
with items
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
175
Another aspect of space that seemed to influence the extent of personalization is the
accessibility for customers and visitors. In the waiting area and cubicles of customer’s
service, no expression of personalization was to be seen. But, backstage the situation
differed. Although personalization is prohibited, even in the area that is inaccessible for
customers and visitors, it did happen anyway. Maybe, this was because of old habits
and because of being used to having an own place for a long time.
One last factor that could have influenced the extent of personalization is the
satisfaction about the non-territorial office concept. Employees that liked the office
concept and were satisfied about the arrangements and (the design of the) spaces,
tended to personalize less, if they personalized at all. People that were unsatisfied and
complained about the office concept and the space, tended to personalize much more.
Meanings of personalization
But, why do the people personalize their work environment, both materialistic and
mentally? What does this mean for them? During the fieldwork different meanings
were discovered, which can be divided in several categories. Although these categories
are related to each other, they will be described separately to clarify each.
Comfortable and familiar environment. Many employees complained about the bare
white walls and the sterile and business-like atmosphere of the office space.
Personalization seemed to have the function of improving the feel of the environment,
although this seemed to be more important among the women in the organization than
among the men. Making oneself comfortable, by items, but also by social contacts, and
creating a sociable and pleasant environment was one of the most mentioned meanings
of personalization, often expressed in almost the same words by different respondents.
It should give more pleasure at work, improve the satisfaction with the workplace and
enable to work better and easier (especially the work-related personalization).
Related to an environment one feels comfortable in is the meaning of familiarity. People
seemed to be attached to a familiar environment, in which one knows who sits where
and how to recognize colleagues or the “own” workplace.
Status and achievements. Personalization to express status or achievements is not
something people explicitly mentioned often, but that was more visible in the actual
behavior and chats. Only a few people told that one should be able to show
achievements of successful cases, like photographs or trophies. Trophies, however, did
have their places in the building and they did not disappear at the end of the day.
For most employees, it seemed that having an assigned office space, like the top
management, is the most important expression of status in the organization.
Territoriality. Although territoriality was almost never mentioned directly, the
actual behaviour showed that it was an important aspect that needs to be considered in
the non-territorial office concept of organization X. This seems to be a paradox, but the
data showed that the several employees created little territories by personalizing and
claiming space. For example, by sitting at the same desk every day if possible or by
hanging a jacket on the coat rack, even if someone is not at the office, by adjusting the
monitor by putting it on a pink painted box or by giving personal characteristics to a
desk. This way people showed that they used that workplace often, if not always. At all
floors were (un)spoken agreements between colleagues about who sat at which desk.
Even if employees did not feel the need to personalize, almost everyone mentioned that
they preferred a place of their own.
JCRE
11,3
176
Control. Another meaning that is related to territoriality is control. Employees
seemed to dislike the aspect, of the non-territorial office design, of not having control
over the environment, for example being able to close the door of your office when you
need silence or no disturbance. People were depending on solidarity and the behaviour
of good colleagues, instead of being able to choose for themselves where to sit and how
to decorate their environment.
Recognition, clarity, certainty, and rest. Meanings given to personalization that are
related to this (lack of) feeling of control and to the specific culture of the organization
are clarity, certainty and rest. Values that seemed to be important in the organizational
culture were clarity and certainty. By personalizing the work environment, people
tended to create a recognizable and familiar environment, as described before. This
recognizable workplace or little territory at the office, helped people to be rather certain
that they could work on the desk they preferred. It gave clarity about who sat where
and tranquility of the minds of those employees that were attached to that workplace.
Identity. At organization X, it seemed to be the case that personalization is used to
decrease the anonymity in the non-territorial office. Identity did have some expression
through the display of portable items and artifacts, like photographs and trophies.
Also, recognition of persons and places, creating a pleasant environment, which is
different for everybody, and memories were all part of identity. More group identity
was recognized by the stories that employees and management created about the new
workplace. Different individuals talked often in almost the same words and with the
same arguments about their new work environment.
A more important way of expressing identity at organization X lies closer to a tactic
mentioned by Elsbach (2003, p. 624), namely the display of salient behaviour. Many
employees told that they felt that the non-territorial office did not threaten their
identity. Their identity was more related to their specific tasks, that no one else could
do, and in the many people they knew and who knew them. Most employees worked at
the organization for 25 years or longer. Working at the organization for such a long
time helped them in being an individual instead of just “cog in the machine.”
Dehumanization. Another meaning of personalization, in any way, that was given
many times was dehumanization. Many changes in the recent history of the
organization, both on the level of laws and tasks and on the level of rearrangements in
the old building, and the most recent change to the non-territorial office, felt for many
employees as a decrease of humanization in the organization. It felt like it is all about
business in the organization. The bare white walls and the prohibition to decorate the
space, to hang something familiar for everyone, gave people the feeling that the human
being did not matter anymore. Personalization helped them to give the environment a
more human feeling, in which people would feel comfortable and “home” again.
Conclusion
The above meanings of personalization show that both materialistic and mental ways of
personalization are important for many of the employees. van der Voordt and van Meel
(2001, p. 1) distinguish three kinds of needs, based on the need-satisfaction theory of
Maslow, which seemed to be the case at organization X as well. First, the physiological
needs, like comfort and physical well-being. The bare walls and the prohibition on
decorating and personalization seemed to be in contrast with these physiological needs.
Second, social needs like interaction with others. Interaction with others and make
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
177
a general story around the workplace setting seemed to be another way of making
oneself comfortable at the workplace. Third, psychological needs, like respect,
appreciation, acknowledgement and recognition, and identity. At organization X,
especially the need for recognition and acknowledgement of the individual was named
as a meaning of personalization.
Another need that can be distinguished is the need of emotional expression. The data
have shown that personalization may have both instrumental and expressive components.
Instrumental in the way of making work easier or more pleasant, and expressive in the
way of showing emotions, showing something of oneself, creating other group bindings
and decreasing the anonymity in the overall organization.
In addition to the relations between personalization and identity, emotion, job
satisfaction, work productivity, control, territoriality, status, and organizational factors,
mentioned in the literature review, this research project suggests that personalization can
also be linked to recognition, clarity, certainty, tranquility of mind and create new stories
that bind. But, most of all, the data of this research project indicate that personalization can
be related with humanization of work and the workplace. Personalizing the work
environment to give it a more human feeling can be seen as a counterforce for the
business-focused approach of organization X.
Discussion and implications
A lot of employees complained about the non-territorial office concept of
organizations X. The research for meanings of and motivations for personalization got
a warm welcome to expand complaints. However, mostof the time, employees complained
more about the loss of their own desk than about the lack of personalization itself. There
are several factors that can have influence this complaints like the organizational setting
and cultural aspects.
Organizational setting
Organization X based its decision to change to a non-territorial office on corporate
policy and wanted to increase space efficiency. Local management of organization X
had to implement this decision, but their interest was more in the field of primary
processes like effects and outcome. They hardly gave attention to organizational
aspects or to communications about how to work in such a new environment.
Part of this context relates to the people in the organization and their acceptance of
the new situation. Although some attention paid to the participation of employees in
the realization phase (employees got the opportunity to participate in the decisions
concerning the interior of the different floors), there was no real attention to employees’
experience and what the new environment meant for them. Perhaps, employees felt
they lacked participation in decision making. Perhaps, a lack of mental preparation for
(individual and group) work conditions in a non-territorial environment has created
a need of personalization. The (opportunity of) employee participation did not lead to a
higher acceptance or to a feeling of ownership of the work environment. Another
influence is created by new arrived managers who did not accept the non-territorial
workplace concept with open arms. They struggle themselves with finding their place
in the organization both position as ways of work in an non-territorial office. Therefore,
the new management did not take their responsibilities to help and manage employees
by working in the new work environment and serve as an example by their
JCRE
11,3
178
own behavior. We assume that these three reasons are success factors that should have
made it easier to work flexibly.
Culture
Cultural aspects, like uncertainty avoidance, can also have influenced the stories about
the non-suitable work environment, which was based on general policy about amount of
workspace per person, activities and tasks. Employees felt that in the designing process
there was no consideration for workforce demographics and the culture of the
organization. The workforce had an average age of 45 years and older. Most of
those employees worked at the organization since high-school and have never left the
company. All those years they were used to having their own workplace, which they
used and personalized the way they preferred. The change to the non-territorial office
was rather sudden for them and for some it felt inhuman. In the new work environment,
most employees fell back in old habits, like working at the same desk every day, with the
same people around them and adjusting the environment as it was their own.
Looking more broadly to the concept of culture, we can say that the Dutch national
culture might influence the way employees dealt with the non-territorial office concept.
Hofstede (2008) characterizes the Dutch culture as highly individualistic, which means
that the society should have “individualistic attitudes and relatively loose bonds with
others” and that privacy is considered the cultural norm. Also, democracy or
anti-authority should be characteristic for the Dutch culture. If we follow Morgan’s
(1997, p. 126) opinion, the chance that Dutch organizational cultures have
characteristics of individuality and democracy is big. Morgan (1997, p. 144) also
points out that many aspects of organizational culture are embedded in routine aspects
of everyday practice. Dealing with the non-territorial office by personalizing the
environment of organization X can be a way to make it more individual driven by the
search for physical markers of status and functional group boundaries or the feeling to
be in control. Which is possibly an outcome of an anti-authoritarian feeling. Although
workplace policy at organization X described that personalization and claiming
workplaces is prohibited, top management claimed an own fixed office and took
consequences that employees did the same.
Corporate real estate and human resource management
At organization X it seemed that the business focused approach of the managers to
work and the workplace neglects the human being in the organization in the design
process. Although people are the most important resources (management says so), they
seem to be reduced to a working resource. But the human being is a crucial factor in the
success or failure of the non-territorial office concept. It is not as simple as cause-effect
logic like “if we change this, people will do that” (Vischer, 2008, p. 233). Buildings are
not just spaces where people are brought together. The experience of the users of the
building influences their behavior, whether this is according to the rules of the design
or not:
[...] building users’ behavior is influenced not just by the space they occupy but by their
feelings, intentions, attitudes and expectations as well as by the social context in which they
are participating (Vischer, 2008, p. 233).
The usability of the non-territorial office can be discussed by its efficiency,
effectiveness and the experience of the users (Alexander, 2008). The tension between
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
179
experience (the feelings and attitudes towards the environment), effectiveness (do the
users achieve their goals), work productivity, and efficiency (how long does it take to
get there and what does this cost) is one that needs to be taken in consideration.
Dealing with this tension requires explicit attention for business ethics (Figure 1).
Usability has to be defined in users’ context (changes in behaviour) rather than
through the use of artifacts. Consideration of the specific context, the situated action,
the cultural issues and user experience shows the real usability of work environments.
The situation at organization X shows that employees used their talks and
complaints about the new work environment as a new binding element which probably
influences the effectiveness and efficiency more than expected. Increased usability
might be gained when the user’s knowledge, expectations and perceptions about the
new work environment were better inquired, developed and implemented not only in
the new work environment itself but also in development and design processes.
One could wonder what the risks of outbalancing are for labor productivity. We assume
that emotional costs can increase, especially when people are not satisfied with the
work environment or find suitable ways to do their work.
Traditionally, CRE departments care for workplace solutions that both are efficient
and effective. The needs of the end-user is often translated in needs related to work
process, activities and workplace settings. HR departments are too often busy hiring
and firing staff. Top management talks strategy and targets not ethics. From this
research project, it becomes clear that preparing a future change in the workplace
might include an explicit discussion of human needs to identification and sense making
by personalization.
Limitations
In this research project, we dealt with a couple of limitations. First, the introduction to
the organization was through the top management. The independency of the
researchers might not have been clear to the employees. Second, researchers were not
fulltime at the office, which makes it possible that they missed important things. Also
because, this research project consisted of one case analysis, one could wonder where
the findings are the same or differ in other organizations, contexts and cultures. Future
research could focus on this.
Ideas for future research
Personalization can be studied from different disciplinary perspectives: the
psychologist might ask “What makes that employees do or do not find their comfort
zone in a non-territorial office?” The economist might ask: “What are the costs and
benefits of the prohibiting of personalization?” and “How can organizations in the
context of personnel economics deal with insubordination like at organization X?”
Figure 1.
Experience
Tension
Effectiveness Efficiency
JCRE
11,3
180
The anthropologist or sociologist might ask: “Does the feeling of belonging somewhere
have influence on the (work) identity as well? And what makes that a collective
identity, expressed through collective personalization, feels comfortable?”
Implications for practice
There is a need for considering both organizational and personal needs in designing new
work places. Clear and bright basic principles, a process with participation,
communication about decisions and choices and preparation of the organization in
new ways of working, helps employees to find their own physical and social place in the
non-territorial office. The need of personalization cannot be ignored but can both result
in individualistic actions which disturb general work processes in several unexpected
ways or can result in new ways of identification as group binding activities expressed in
social groups and stories.
References
Alexander, K. (2008), “Usability: philosophy and concepts”, in Alexander, K. (Ed.), Usability
of Workplaces, CIB Report, Publication 316.
Baldry, C. (1999), “Space – the final frontier”, Sociology, Vol. 33, pp. 535-53.
Barber, C. (2008), Five Workplace Myths, available at: www.knoll.com/research/myths.jsp
(accessed February 29, 2008).
Blom, J. (2000), “Personalisation – a taxonomy”, Chi, February, pp. 313-4.
de Heer, J. (2003), Waardering voor privacy, territorium, Status en identiteit in innovatieve
kantoren. De waardering van gebruikers van innovatieve kantoren voor privacy,
territorium, status en identiteit, Graduation research at Faculty of Architecture, Delft
University of Technology, Delft.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003), “Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: identity threat and
affirmation in a non-territorial office space”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48
No. 4, pp. 622-54.
Elsbach, K.D. (2004), “Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office decor”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 99-128.
Haynes, B.P. (2007), “The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 158-71.
Hofstede, G. (2008), available at: www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_netherlands.shtml (accessed
July 3, 2008).
Koppejan, Y. and Edelkoort, T. (2002), “Een eigen plek in een flexwerkomgeving”, Facility
Management Magazine, December, pp. 37-41.
Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organization, Sage, London.
Scheiberg, S.L. (1990), “Emotions on display: the personal decoration of work space”, American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 330-8.
Spicer, A. and Taylor, S. (2006), “The struggle for organizational space”, Journal of Management
Inquiry, pp. 2-27.
Sundstrom, E. (1986), “Symbolic workspace: self-identity and status”, Ch. 11 in, Work Places. The
Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 217-51.
van der Voordt, D.J.M. and van Meel, J.J. (2001), De mens op kantoor. Privacy, territorium, status,
TU Delft/CfPB, Delft.
Personalization
in non-territorial
offices
181
van der Voordt, D.J.M. and van Meel, J.J. (2002), Psychologische aspecten van kantoorinnovatie,
Faculteit Bouwkunde, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft.
Vischer, J.C. (2008), “Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment”, Building
Research & Information, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 231-40.
Wells, M.M. (2000), “Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: the role of office
personalization in employee and organizational well-being”, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 239-55.
Wells, M.M., Thelen, L. and Ruark, J. (2007), “Workspace personalization and organizational
culture: does your workspace reflect you or your company?”, Environment and Behaviour,
Vol. 39, pp. 616-34.
Corresponding author
Sandra Brunia can be contacted at: s.brunia@tudelft.nl
JCRE
11,3
182
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Sandra Brunia and Anca Hartjes (2009), “Personalization in non-
territorial offices: a study of human need”, Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3
Traditionally, Corporate Real Estate groups pride themselves on developing work place
solutions that are both efficient and effective at enabling the core business. The process
generally focuses on the needs of the end-user relative to the work process, required
activities and workplace standards. The authors of this paper have conducted research
that indicates that these efforts may not produce the results we are seeking because the
process often ignores the basic human need of personalization. Their research builds a
compelling case that our quest for improved space utilization through non-territorial work
environments can often negatively impact employee morale and productivity which, in
turn, reduces the operating efficiency of the core business.
Through qualitative interpretive research, the authors seek to find out more about the
human need for personalization and how our evolving workplace concepts often seem to
be contradicting concepts. This paper begins by providing an overview of the concept of
personalization which has its roots based in environmental psychology. Moving on, the
authors elaborate on this concept by illustrating that personal space is needed to express
one’s identity and to create a sense of workplace identify. The research also explains that
opinions on the value of non-territorial offices vary significantly between management
and the employees. Based upon these findings, the paper outlines how some companies
have modified their non-territorial workplace policies, procedures and change
management practices to help employees personalize their workspace while maintaining
the flexible work place. This, in turn, has lead to improved employee morale and
productivity.
This thought-provoking paper challenges us all to better understand how the
environments we promote impact the business we support and how, by incorporating the
need for personalization of space into our practices, we can enhance the value we bring to
our clients.
A review of Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, 2009
By M.C.R. Benjamin Chirgwin, Global Corporate Services, Seattle, Washington, USA; CB
Richard Ellis, El Segundo, California, USA.
w
... Permitting employees to distinguish their workspaces from others by using personal or work-related items would add character, enhance their psychological well-being and serve as a temperament enhancer and stress reducer (De Been and Beijer, 2014). This results in satisfying their human needs, which reflects positively on their workplace productivity (Brunia and Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009). ...
... This consideration was rated the second most important by both the A/Es and workplace users, with a RII value of 71.7%. The authors of this study agree with this assessment, as documented in other previous studies (Cowan and Smith, 2004;Brunia and Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009;Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011), since efficiently occupied spaces would significantly support the professional accommodation of employees at the workplace, in addition to improving their morale and performance. Facilities managers also perceived "Suitable workstation location relative to the equipment" to be the second most important consideration in this group, with a RII value of 65.8%, corresponding to a rating of "Very Important". ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This paper aims to review and assess the sustainable design and management considerations affecting workplaces’ productivity in Saudi Arabia. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a mixed approach, commencing with literature review, development and pilot-testing of a structured questionnaire instrument to assess design and management considerations towards productively sustainable workplaces (PSWs). In total, 31 considerations affecting sustainable workplaces’ productivity were identified and clustered under five main directions. A collective group of stakeholders, including architects/engineers (A/E), workplace users and facilities managers, were approached to correlate and compare their individual assessment of the identified PSWs. The relative importance index (RII) for each of the PSW considerations is correlated and discussed. Findings A high level of agreement is recognized among the three stakeholder groups for PSWs considerations’ assessed rankings. The provision of sufficient ventilation and illumination levels, availability of occupational health, security and safety, availability of ergonomically oriented technological infrastructure, availability of formal and informal meeting spaces, efficient space utilization and ergonomic workstations are all ranked highest in importance as design considerations towards PSWs. Originality/value The study stems from the need to understand how the PSWs’ design and management considerations are perceived by all streams of stakeholders. The findings identify the considerations’ importance for prioritization on PSWs’ investments.
... Google, Facebook and Apple have received extensive media attention as exemplars of PWE redesign, prompting many other companies to jump on this bandwagon to remain competitive and innovative (Thoring et al., 2018). However, according to Stegmeier (2008), attempts to implement creative workplace concepts often fail because of employee resistance, as management focuses on costs and productivity while employees experience loss and grief (Brunia & Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009). Moreover, little is currently known about companies' goals when pursuing these initiatives or the perceived effects after implementation (De Paoli & Ropo, 2017;Inalhan, 2009). ...
... Given that the workplace is a company's second-most expensive resource (McCoy, 2005;Steiner, 2005) and that more than half of all employees work outside the office (Steiner, 2005;Van der Voordt, 2004a), it makes sense to reduce workplace capacity as a means of improving company financial performance. From an employee perspective, however, this approach is counterintuitive (e.g. a lack of personalisation, a lack of feeling of control over the environment and identity threat) (Brunia & Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009), and companies need to ensure that work processes are properly supported to facilitate individual and decentralised ways of working (Steiner, 2005). ...
Article
Full-text available
Providing adequate workspaces for employees is now considered crucial for organisational innovativeness in light of evidence that the work environment influences creative behaviour. It is unsurprising, then, that companies increasingly seek to implement modern workspace designs based on what is often referred to as New Work to support employee creativity. However, designing, planning, and implementing a modern and creative workspace is a highly complex undertaking. Existing studies report a multiplicity of interconnected organisational variables affected by such changes at the levels of the individual employee (e.g. creativity), the team (e.g. communication) and the organisation (e.g. culture). To explore whether and how organisational changemakers consider these variables when designing creative workspaces, we interviewed 20 experts from companies that have recently implemented creative workspace designs, asking them about the objectives and consequences of their new workspace designs. Upon comparing the interviewees’ answers to the findings reported in the existing literature, we found that their organisations were not fully aware of the organisational impact of such changes and failed to consider creativity enhancement as an explicit goal. Concluding that much of the potential of modern workspace design remains untapped, we propose avenues for further research.
... Workspace personalization is another way of giving meaning to an environment by adding visual cues (Brunia and Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009). There is ample evidence that a sense of ownership resulting from workspace personalization can positively influence employee wellbeing, attitudes, and relationships (Brown et al., 2005;O'Driscoll et al., 2006;Pierce et al., 2001;Wells, 2000). ...
... The impossibility of personalizing workspaces was another disadvantage of activity-based office design that led to feelings of anonymity. Studies have shown that personalization is one way of ascribing meaning to space (Brunia and Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009), and the perceived inability to personalize workspaces in activity-based offices can hinder identity developments within organizations (Ashkanasy et al., 2014). Personalization at the individual level, however, may become less important as the acceptance of activity-based offices may increase due to hybrid work practices and less time spent in offices. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This thesis explores the interrelations between the design characteristics of activity-based offices, users’ perceptions of them, and users’ sense of coherence. The goal is twofold: (i) contribute to conceptualizations of healthy activity-based offices and (ii) facilitate practical use of the sense of coherence theory for office designers. Most research into healthy offices has focused on harm-causing factors (pathogenic aspects) while overlooking the health-promoting design characteristics in activity-based offices (salutogenic aspects). This thesis is a response to the call for a paradigm shift and explores the particular design characteristics of activity-based offices that promote health, drawing on the salutogenic approach and sense of coherence theory. The thesis builds on a literature review and two mixed methods case studies on activity-based offices. Drawing on the sense of coherence framework, three types of design characteristics were identified: (i) those that promote a clear understanding of office environments, (ii) those that enhance users' access to relevant resources, and (iii) those that evoke meaning for users to cope with stressors. These characteristics and the perceptions of them are interrelated meaning that they can have multiple impacts on users’ sense of coherence. The findings also highlighted temporal changes in users’ perceptions, indicating that novelties of the new office wore off and the initial problems observed in the office environment worsened. Moreover, activity-based offices were not always perceived as intended because of suboptimal design solutions and contextual factors. In conclusion, there are no definitive answers to how to design healthy activity-based offices. Activity-based offices are complex environments and consist of many interacting aspects including the design characteristics, individuals’, and their work-related prerequisite as well as organization-related factors that influence users’ perceptions and their sense of coherence. The framework developed in this thesis may contribute to better-informed discussions about designing for sense of coherence. The thesis suggests that healthy activity-based offices should be viewed as a "moving project" that develops over time through experimentation and adaptation, with management’s involvement. Thus, a healthy activity-based office provides users resources and opportunities to codesign an environment that enables them (i) build meaningful social relationships, (ii) manage visual and acoustic distractions, (iii) read and understand workspaces, and (iv) receive support from management in their daily work.
... Personalization as a form of identity is used to differentiate oneself from others and to mark work-related and personal issues. This can include someone's status (group), boundaries, satisfaction, job performance, interests, and life outside of work [35]. Personalization is also related to organizational issues, such as employee status, workspace quality, and policies [30]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into interior design education is a growing trend. This study presents a warm-up assignment where students used AI design tools to develop a concept of contemporary office designs inspired by characters from the TV series "Avrupa Yakası." The goal was to prepare students for an office design project while introducing them to AI applications. The AI-generated designs reflected character personalities and aesthetic preferences. Findings show the AI's capability to translate textual cues into visual designs, but limitations arise due to insufficient definitions in the AI's memory. The study highlights AI's potential for assisting in design inspiration but also emphasizes the need for continuous AI database development. This initiative contributes to understanding AI's role in design education and its evolving impact on creative processes.
... People value a workplace that provides a balance between open spaces to work as a team and encourages communication, with individual spaces to focus on work. They also value flexibility and non-static spaces to meet varying needs, as well as an option to customize or personalize, which allows the user to have an identity, positively affecting their psychological well-being [2,16]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Office-based environmental control systems are centralized and designed to control entire spaces, ignoring use dynamics and requirements, and despite being regulated by standardized comfort models, they fail to satisfy real occupants, mainly due to their varied individual characteristics. This research is field-based with a quantitative approach and correlational design. Its objective is to empirically demonstrate that open-plan design, where different users share the same space and generalized environmental conditions, lacks a holistic view of IEQ criteria and the integration of other factors that affect health and well-being. Four buildings are chosen in different Chilean cities, measuring temperatures and CO2 levels at different desks, and applying a survey, which was designed as part of the research to analyze the estimation of relationships between variables and to reveal the factors that cause differences among occupants. The results show that people’s satisfaction is multivariable and depends on other factors that positively or negatively stimulate their sensations and perceptions, such as, for example, the option to personally control their environmental conditions. Likewise, it is evident that to achieve comfort, health is being affected while in the building.
Chapter
Many universities are currently reviewing or redeveloping their workplace concepts. The reasons for these activities are changes in working methods, new forms of teaching and communication with students, a stronger emphasis on informal interaction, cost pressure, internationalisation and sustainability. New workplace concepts at universities are often met with resistance from users. Various functional, cultural, hierarchical, and emotional reasons for this resistance are described in the literature. In a qualitative interview study with 13 hierarchically high-ranking employees of universities and hospitals who had individual offices available at the time of the interviews, various topics on the role and importance of offices were identified, and possible scenarios for future office workplace concepts at universities were discussed. The following themes were identified: function of the office depending on professional tasks and personal preferences, offices as a place of social exchange, and the hierarchical character of office use. For the future scenario “introduction of activity-based office concepts”, the topics of changes in working and communication styles, conflict (potential), organisational culture, attitudes and reactions to such concepts, potential reasons for resistance, as well as elements one would advocate in the new concept were identified. It turns out that the topics identified in the interviews cannot be assigned to specific activity-related needs, but that the topics and their evaluation are strongly dependent on individual needs and preferences, as well as team and organisational cultural contexts. Accordingly, there was a very wide range of statements on the different topics. Changes in workplace concepts at universities must, therefore, be carefully developed to meet the respective task and activity-specific needs and within the framework of organisational cultural and strategic goals. Against the backdrop of the digital transformation accelerated by the Covid19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and financial pressures, there is great potential in adapting workplace concepts to achieve sustainable solutions.
Article
Purpose This paper aims to examine how the existing organisational culture of organisations changed with the introduction of activity-based working (ABW) office layouts from the employees’ perspectives. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire was used to measure the influence of introducing ABW. The study focused on three different industry sectors in Australia – financial, IT and government – and one organisation from each sector who had introduced ABW during the period of 2012–2019 was selected. The Competing Value Framework was used to measure the dimensions of organisational culture. A paired sample test was used to measure the changes in employees’ perceptions after the layout changes. Findings Findings identify that the nature of workplace designs has a considerable impact on an organisation’s corporate culture which can be used to leverage and change its culture. However, some noticeable discrepancy between the perceptions of public and private sector employees was identified, where public sector employees felt that standardised procedures still governed their actions even in ABW layouts. Originality/value This research highlights that workplace designs directly influence culture by supporting the engagement, motivation and behaviours of the employees. It emphasises the importance of in-depth examination of the behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of employees to obtain a better understanding of how they interact in ABW layouts. Such an analysis provides the context for a more inclusive understanding of the operation of modern office layouts.
Article
Purpose Journal of Corporate Real Estate (JCRE) is an international journal of repute. JCRE is an interdisciplinary journal focusing on corporate real estate management and caters to the needs of real estate owners and end-users. The journal's scope includes private and public sector corporate real estate owned and used by businesses to run their operations. This paper aims to analyze the journal's impact using bibliometric analysis from 1998 to 2017 on 380 publications. Design/methodology/approach The network analysis is performed using VOSviewer software and Biblioshiny R studio. The mapping presents citation structures, coauthorship patterns, bibliographic coupling and other network analyses. Findings The results show that the journal is growing in terms of citations and impact. The findings document various mapping criteria and their summaries. Seven major clusters are identified to delineate the underlying themes of publications in JCRE . Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper offers the original and first bibliometric analysis of the journal’s impact over the first two decades. The findings are relevant for researchers and real estate stakeholders.
Article
Full-text available
I used qualitative methods to explore why some employees working in a newly created, non-territorial office environment perceived that their workplace identities were threatened and used particular tactics to affirm those threatened identities. Findings suggest that the non-territorial work environment threatened some employees' workplace identities because it severely limited their abilities to affirm categorizations of distinctiveness (versus status) through the display of personal possessions. Categorizations of distinctiveness appeared to be most threatened by the loss of office personalization because of three characteristics: (1) their absolute, rather than graded membership structure, (2) their high subjective importance and personal relevance, and (3) their high reliance on physical markers for affirmation. In affirming threatened identity categorizations, employees chose different tactics, in terms of the amount of effort required and their conformance with company rules, based on the acceptability and importance of affirming the threatened categorization.
Article
Full-text available
The building user's experience is explored as the basis for constructing a theory of the built environment. The first postulate of a user-centred theory is that the built environment exists to support the activities of users that it shelters. This theory, therefore, indicates ways in which we might learn more about this complex relationship; it also provides tools for measuring the degree to which the built environment in use is successful. Ways of approaching the users' experience of built space, and ways of measuring it to ensure that knowledge of the user-environment relationship grows, are described. Challenges to implementing such an exploration include defining users, agreeing on the meaning of experience, and organising if not delimiting what is included in the notion of built environment. The temporal dimension of space use is also a consideration. Drawing on extensive research on space-use in office buildings, a viable user-centred theory is developed in the context of one type of built environment. The user-centred theory enables links to be made between knowledge accumulated both at the micro scale of the users' experience and at the macro perspective of how the built environment is produced and delivered.
Book
Full-text available
Als argument tégen kantoorinnovatie wordt vaak aangevoerd, dat het opgeven van de eigen werkplek indruist tegen universele menselijke behoeften, zoals de behoefte aan privacy, territoriumdrift en status. De vraag rijst, in hoeverre deze nadelen door de gebruikers inderdaad als bezwaarlijk worden ervaren en hoe zwaar deze aspecten en andere psychologische mechanismen meewegen in het totaaloordeel. Aan de hand van literatuurstudie en evaluaties van het gebruik en de beleving van innovatieve projecten wordt in dit rapport verkend hoe en in welke mate psychologische aspecten bijdragen aan het succes en risico’s van flexwerkplekken.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the role the behavioural environment plays in office productivity. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews the literature from the occupier perspective. This approach enables a greater appreciation of the social context of offices. The review establishes the need to link work process with the office environment. It identifies the need to understand how occupiers make sense of space through personalisation. The balance between the positive interactions in the office and negative distractions are explored. Findings The review of the literature reveals that by adopting the occupier perspective potential tensions can be identified between individual, private and team‐based collaborative work areas. These tensions can have an impact on the office occupier's productivity. Originality/value This paper establishes that to ensure office environments are designed for optimum productivity; consideration needs to be given to the role of the behavioural environment. Office environments need to be designed to enhance collaboration, whilst at the same time ensure individual private work is not compromised.
Article
Full-text available
Using qualitative methods, I examine how employees in corporate office environments interpreted a variety of relatively permanent office décor (e.g., furniture, photos, personal mementos) as indicators of their colleagues' workplace identities (i.e., central and enduring categorizations regarding employees' status and distinctiveness in the workplace). Similar to the encoding of behavioral cues of identity, findings suggest that interpretation of physical identity markers begins with either (1) a top-down process of social categorization, in which specific rules are applied to encoding a few, focal, and visually salient pieces of office decor as evidence of management prototypes, or (2) a bottom-up process of social categorization, in which a variety of physical artifacts are examined and compared to specific managerial exemplars to develop a complex representation of workplace identity. Findings also suggest that some of the unique attributes of physical identity markers (i.e., their potential to be viewed independently from their displayer, and their relative permanence) may be associated with the focus of each profiling process (i.e., on interpreting status vs. distinctiveness, and consistency vs. change). Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
For too long the built working environment has been excluded from the analysis of work organisations. Buildings, like other cultural artefacts, encapsulate social and economic priorities and values, and represent prevailing power structures. Work buildings, such as offices and factories, both make possible the organisation of the labour process and also serve as structures of non[hyphen]verbal communication, providing cues on hierarchy, status and appropriate behaviour. Control over the working environment can be seen as a constituent part of the control of the labour process, displaying similar cyclical movements. Human resource management and information technology are currently combining to encourage a reappraisal of the working environment, but one that is not without its own contradictions.
Conference Paper
Personalization is here defined as a process of changing a system to increase its personal relevance. This may have a work or social motivation. A taxonomy of motivations is developed and illustrated by application to mobile phones and e-commerce Web pages.
Article
Approximately 70% to 90% of American workers personalize their workspaces. Personalization has many benefits for employees (e.g., enhanced job satisfaction and well-being) and organizations (e.g., improved morale and reduced turnover). Personalization is also related to organizational issues such as employee status, workspace quality, and policies. This study extended the research by examining organizational commitment and culture. It was predicted that highly committed employees personalize more than do less-committed employees and that culture has an indirect effect on personalization. Thus, 172 office employees from 19 businesses were surveyed. Path analyses revealed that employee commitment was only indirectly related to personalization through status. As expected, organizational culture had an indirect effect on personalization, via personalization policies or norms and employee status. Thus, this research suggests for the first time that the primary predictors of workspace personalization are organizational rather than personal. Your workspace most likely reflects your company rather than you.
Article
Explores the importance of expressing emotions in the workplace through personalization of work space. Understanding the ramifications of such symbolic and communicative behaviors is beneficial for the organization and the employee. Two work units from a university are examined, and implications for managers are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)