The Effect of Open-Plan Workspaces on Behavior and Performance Among Malaysian Creative Workers

Abstract

Attracting and retaining creative workers is essential to the success of the companies in Malaysia's Multimedia Super Corridor, a special economic zone and high-tech business district that is an important driver of local development. Guided by a conceptual framework based on environmental comfort theory, researchers surveyed 238 employees in 15 firms in this region to assess the impact of employees’ perceptions of workplace design and conditions on their performance and behavior. The findings show that although open-plan offices can contribute to teamwork and creativity, such distractions as uncontrollable and unwanted noise, lack of visual and acoustical privacy, the presence of others, and other ambient conditions in such settings may reduce not only employees’ satisfaction with their work environment, but also their performance.

Full text

42
©2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Global Business and Organizational Excellence • DOI: 10.1002/joe.21779 • March/April 2017
The Effect of Open-Plan
Workspaces on Behavior and
Performance Among Malaysian
Creative Workers
Attracting and retaining creative workers is essential
to the success of the companies in Malaysia’s Mul-
timedia Super Corridor, a special economic zone
and high-tech business district that is an important
driver of local development. Guided by a conceptual
framework based on environmental comfort theory,
researchers surveyed 238 employees in 15 rms in this
region to assess the impact of employees’ perceptions
of workplace design and conditions on their perfor-
mance and behavior. The ndings show that although
open-plan ofces can contribute to teamwork and
creativity, such distractions as uncontrollable and
unwanted noise, lack of visual and acoustical privacy,
the presence of others, and other ambient conditions
in such settings may reduce not only employees’ sat-
isfaction with their work environment, but also their
performance. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
In every era, technological development has resulted
in changes in the relationship between human beings
and their work environment For instance, the high
noise levels and poor indoor air quality once consid-
ered a normal part of the manufacturing process are
no longer tolerated. Studies on workers’ safety and
health, and the inuence of physical working condi-
tions on accident rates, workers’ productivity, and sat-
isfaction have all become signicant topics of interest
(Bechtel & Churchman, 2002; Bonnes & Bonaiuto,
2002; Gifford, Steg, & Reser, 2011; McCoy, 2003).
Over the years, researchers have evaluated the
differences in ofce environments, and tried
to determine the extent to which certain envi-
ronmental characteristics affect employees’
satisfaction and performance (Choi, 2011; Ship-
ton, West, Parkes, Dawson, & Patterson, 2006).
Workplace design and its inuence on occupants
have come to be recognized as having a signi-
cant impact not only on work performance, but
also on employee commitment and even on the
creation of knowledge within the organization
(Vischer, 2008a).
Specialists in the elds of environmental psychol-
ogy and environment-behavior studies focus on
the relationships between people and their daily
sociophysical environments (Bonnes & Bonaiuto,
2002; De Young, 2013; Gifford, 2007; Walsh,
Craik, & Price, 2000). These environments include
residences, workplaces, schools, and other commu-
nity settings. Numerous studies in organizational
behavior have suggested that employees’ physi-
cal workplaces can affect their well-being, satis-
faction, productivity, creativity, and motivation
(Amabile, 1996; Dul, Ceylan, & Jaspers, 2011;
Hameed & Amjad, 2009; Kupritz & Hillsman,
2011; Lee & Brand, 2005; McGuire & McLaren,
2009; Veitch, Charles, Newsham, Marquardt, &
Geerts, 2003). The current trend in workplace
development is to broaden the view of the physical
and social features of employee environments in
order to improve working conditions and, thereby,
promote employee satisfaction, well-being, and
effectiveness on the job.
SANAZ AHMADPOOR SAMANI,
SITI ZALEHA ABDUL RASID,
AND SAUDAH SOFIAN

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe March/April 2017 43
In contemporary work settings, the open ofce
plan is among the most popular layouts, for it facil-
itates communication and, therefore, is believed to
encourage and enhance teamwork and creativity.
Not all workers appreciate this type of design,
however. Though often touted for their exibility,
open-plan ofces typically do not allow employees
to regulate such ambient factors as lighting. There-
fore, it comes as no surprise that some studies have
found that open ofce design can contribute to
employees’ dissatisfaction with their environment
and negatively affect their productivity (Brennan,
Chugh, & Kline, 2002; De Been & Beijer, 2014;
Hua, 2007).
Workplace design and its inuence on occupants
have come to be recognized as having a signicant
impact not only on work performance, but also on
employee commitment and even on the creation of
knowledge within the organization.
Occupants’ satisfaction with the work envi-
ronment is mainly associated with the quality
of indoor and physical aspects, including the
view, acoustics, thermal and air quality, furnish-
ings and equipment, size of the workspace, aes-
thetic appearance, and cleanliness (Frontczak,
Schiavon, Goins, Arens, Zhang, & Wargocki,
2012). Prior studies in environmental behav-
ior have indicated that employees’ satisfaction
with their work environment is a key indicator
of their well-being and performance (O’Neill,
2008; Van der Voordt, 2004; Yee, Yeung, &
Cheng, 2008). Furthermore, some studies have
suggested that positive mood plays a significant
role in the relationship between work environ-
ment and employees’ health, safety, productiv-
ity, and creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, &
Staw, 2005; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005;
Harter, Schmidt,& Keyes, 2003; Shipton et al.,
2006; Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006).
A Closer Look at the Impact of Ofce Design on
Employee Outcomes
The physical features of the work environment can
affect employees’ satisfaction, stress, productivity,
and effectiveness. Numerous studies have investi-
gated the relationship between employees’ satisfac-
tion with and perception of their psychosocial work
settings and their performance (Sundstrom & Sund-
strom, 1986; Van der Voordt, 2004; Veitch, Brad-
ley, Legault, Norcross, & Svec, 2002; Veitch et al.,
2003). Others have shown that the physical work
environment can promote individuals’ productivity
and creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002; Moultrie,
Nilsson, Dissel, Haner, Janssen, & Van der Lugt,
2007; Oldham, Kulik, & Stepina, 1991; Saleem,
Shah, Zaman, Arif, Shehzad, & Ullah, 2012; Vithay-
athawornwong, Danko, & Tolbert, 2003; Williams,
2009). Since a workplace can be understood as a
motivation domain whose particular characteristics
enable and permit certain behaviors among its resi-
dents (Baron, 2013; Briner, 2000; Carnevale, 1992),
it should ideally be designed to motivate people to
behave and perform better.
For countless workers around the world today, the
workplace consisists of an ofce. Prior studies have
suggested that an ofce building can have a posi-
tive effect on employees when it provides a com-
fortable ambiance, reduces health and safety risks,
and allows individuals to adjust environmental
features and conditions (Clements-Croome, 2006;
Heerwagen, 2000). Conversely, one would expect
that uncomfortable, distracting, and dangerous
environments would have a negative impact on per-
formance and behavior.
Different types of ofce layouts have different
effects on employee relations and communications
(Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Hua, 2007).
Although open-plan designs have been found to
enhance the social interactions that contribute to
creativity (Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Brachos,
Kostopoulos, Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2007), they
also decrease employees’ sense of personal control

March/April 2017 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
44
and increase the likelihood of distraction, which
can affect individuals’ satisfaction with both their
environment and outcomes (Hwang & Kim, 2013;
Samani, Rasid, & Soan, 2015). De Been and Beijer
(2014) suggested that people working in open-plan
ofces were less satised with the physical work
environment (in terms of indoor climate) than peo-
ple working in individual and shared-room ofces.
Since a workplace can be understood as a motiva-
tion domain whose particular characteristics enable
and permit certain behaviors among its residents,
it should ideally be designed to motivate people to
behave and perform better.
Moreover, Kim and de Dear (2013) found that
employees in private ofces report higher levels of
satisfaction compared to those in open-plan ofces
because they had more personal control over their
work environment in terms of sound and visual pri-
vacy. The need for privacy in a workplace is a multi-
layered construct that includes the need to limit and
control distraction from the work environment and
to control access to individual workspace and social
contacts. Kaarlela-Tuomaala, Helenius, Keskinen,
and Hongisto (2009) suggest that noise in open-plan
ofce causes a signcant waste of work time. There-
fore, environmental features can have a remarkable
effect on satisfaction with the work environment.
Previous studies have shown that the perceived
quality of the physical work environment inu-
enced employees’ job satisfaction, psychological
stress, attitudes, and overall performance (Carlo-
pio, 1996; Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011; De Been&
Beijer, 2014; George & Brief, 1992; Hua, Loftness,
Heerwagen, & Powell, 2011; Huang, Robertson,
& Chang, 2004; Hwang & Kim, 2013; Lee, 2006;
McGuire & McLaren, 2009; O’Neill, 2010; Sam-
ani, Rasid, & Soan, 2015; Sundstrom, Town, Rice,
Osborn, & Brill, 1994; Thatcher & Milner, 2012;
Vischer, 2007b). Specically, a high-quality work-
place helped generate positive emotions that ena-
bled individuals to face challenging situations.
The Goals of Environmental Psychology
The signicant effect of the work environment on
individual well-being has also been extensively
documented in the psychological literature (e.g.,
Bechtel & Churchman, 2002; Smith-Jackson &
Klein, 2009; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Vischer, 2008b;
Wells, 2000). Environmental psychology explores
the transactions between people (both individu-
als and groups) and their physical settings. Among
the topics that environmental psychologists have
analyzed:
• Basic psychological processes, such as environ-
mental perception, spatial cognition, and person-
ality, that build and lter human behavior and
experience;
• Social space management—personal space, ter-
ritoriality, crowding, and privacy—and the
physical features associated with such everyday
behaviors such as working, learning, and living
in a residence and community; and
• Human interactions with nature (Gifford, 2014;
Gifford et al., 2011).
Thus, environmental psychology combines the sci-
entic goals of analyzing and explaining the nature
of interactions between people and their surround-
ings with the more practical goal of improving and
optimizing the relationship of people and their envi-
ronment through environmental design and effec-
tive strategies of urban planning (Sundstrom, Bell,
Busby, & Asmus, 1996; Walsh et al., 2000).
Environmental psychology investigates the envi-
ronmental context in terms of human attitude,
behavior, and well-being (De Young, 2013). This
environmental context can be both physical (home,
ofce) and social (intent, approach) and vary in size
from large to small. As Gifford (2007) explained,

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe March/April 2017 45
environmental psychology differs from the main
branch of psychology because it involves the eve-
ryday physical environment and includes larger
environmental issues, as well as social, political,
and cultural forces. Gifford et al. (2011) noted that
“in the early 20th century psychologists studied the
effect of noise (United States) and heat (England)
on work performance, while scholars in Germany
and Japan explored concepts and moral philoso-
phy related to environmental psychology” (p. 440).
The eld of environmental psychology provides
a framework of theories, studies, and viewpoints
to contribute to an understanding of human-
environment interaction.
Broad in scope, the eld of environmental psychol-
ogy addresses social settings, built environments,
informational and learning environments, and all
that is natural in the world (Young, 1999). Environ-
mental psychologists study the interaction between
these physical environments and workers’ health,
stress, feelings, social behavior, job performance,
and other factors (Gifford et al., 2011; Oldham &
Fried, 1987; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsa-
koff, 2003; Sundstrom et al., 1996; Vischer, 2008b;
Walsh et al., 2000; Wells, 2000). Aside from study-
ing everyday settings and how people cope with and
shape their environments, the main goals of envi-
ronmental psychology include improving the con-
structed environment and stewardship of natural
resources(Gifford et al., 2011; Walsh et al., 2000).
A Framework Based on Environmental
Comfort Theory
Of all the theories in environmental psychology,
environmental comfort theory is the most common
model for assessing the impact of environment on
performance. Environmental comfort theory argues
that a workspace may support or fail to support the
tasks and activities that are being performed there
(Lewis & Zibarras, 2013; Vischer, 2007a). Thus, the
concept of comfort, which is a foundation for deter-
mining environmental standards, has gone beyond
the simple measurement of the requirement that
employees be healthy and safe in the buildings they
occupy. In fact, people within a building require
environmental support for the tasks they are there
to accomplish, and this condition of environmen-
tal support is what is currently meant by comfort
(Vischer, 2007a,b).
A comfortable and supportive work environment
has been found to enhance and promote employee
outcomes (Kim & de Dear, 2013; Vischer, 2007a).
When employees feel that the workplace can ful-
ll most of their needs, they feel safe and impor-
tant and work more productively (McCoy, 2003;
McCoy & Evans, 2005; Thatcher & Milner, 2012;
Veitch, 2011). Personalizing environmental features
and ambient conditions in a workplace enhances
the comfortable mood, contributing to employee
satisfaction. For instance, appropriate lighting and
a comfortable room temperature, along with the
ability to adjust them to suit individual preferences,
appear to be important to employees and affect
their work-related behavior and task perfromance
(Lee & Brand, 2005, 2010).
As the hierarchical model in Exhibit 1 shows, there
are three categories of comfort:
Exhibit 1. Categories of Comfort
Inhabitant Well-Being and Satisfaction
Physical Comfort
Psychological Comfort
Discomfort
Functional Comfort

March/April 2017 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
46
• Physical comfort refers to fundamental human
needs, such as safety, hygiene, and accessibility.
These needs are met by applying prevalent con-
struction codes and standards to architectural
design and construction (Vischer, 2007b).
• Functional comfort refers to ergonomic support
that facilitates work-related tasks, activities, and
behavior. Such features as appropriate lighting
for screen-based work, enclosed rooms for meet-
ings and team work, and ergonomically designed
furniture address functional comfort (Vischer,
2007b).
• Psychological comfort refers to individuals’ feel-
ings regarding the workplace, and their having a
sense of belonging, ownership, and control over
such issues as privacy (Lewis & Zibarras, 2013;
Vischer, 2007a).
According to environmental comfort theory, weak-
ness in one category can be compensated for in
another category. The strongest environmental
support of work performance, however, occurs in
workspaces where quality is assured at all three
comfort levels (Vischer, 2007b).
Examining the Impact of Open-Plan Design on
Creative Personnel
As suggested by environmental comfort theory,
employee’s perceived level of comfort is associated
with concrete outcome measures, such as enhanced
task performance with productivity (Vischer,
2007a). This is represented in the suggested frame-
work given in Exhibit 2.
To date, however, little attention has been paid to the
effect that individuals’ perception of the supportive
and distracting elements of their work environment
has on their overall behavior and task performance.
Grounded in environmental comfort theory, this
study investigates the inuence of employees’ per-
ception about their work environment on their sat-
isfaction and performance.
Linked to research methodology and a survey instru-
ment, the conceptual model shown in Exhibit 2 was
used in an examination of the relationship of indi-
viduals’ perception of comfort with work-related
behavior and task performance in open-plan ofces
in 15 creative multimedia companies in Malaysia.
Questionnaires were distributed to 293 employ-
ees within the 15 rms; 248 forms were returned.
Of these, 238 were usable; seven were incomplete
and another three had to be discounted because
the respondents worked in private ofces. Adapted
from previous studies, the survey items included
32 questions concerning work environment and ve
questions concerning personal demographics.
Perceived support and perceived distraction in the
work environment, as well as inclination to work
in a private ofce room were measured using items
Exhibit 2. The Effect of Work Environment Perception on Employee Behavior and Performance
Perceived distraction
from the work
environment Task performance
(creativity and
productivity)
Perceived support
from the work
environment
Environmental
satisfaction
Inclination to work in
a private office

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe March/April 2017 47
adapted from Lee and Brand (2010, 2005, respec-
tively). Satisfaction with the work environment
was measured using items adapted from Carlo-
pio (1996). Creative outcome was measured using
items adapted from Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and
Staw (2005). Respondents were asked to rate their
answers on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree).
The population for this study consisted of employ-
ees in mobile and application companies listed as
creative multimedia companies in Malaysia’s Mul-
timedia Super Corridor, a special economic zone
and high-tech business district (Ofcial Portal of
MSC Malaysia, 2002). The industries employ-
ing the respondents are involved in a wide range
of activities, including mobile businesses and game
applications, online and mobile game networks
and development, mobile web portals, mobile con-
tent development and delivery systems, and mobile
marketing tools, such as MobChat, that connect
technology and the arts. By spearheading the use
of digital technologies to create high-quality crea-
tive content, these rms seek to become a principal
source of local development. They were chosen for
the survey because they depend on creative employ-
ees for their success.
As mentioned earlier, previous studies have indi-
cated a relationship between both social and
physical work environment and employees’ work-
related behavior, such as well-being, satisfaction,
and interactions, along with performance and
creativity (Carlopio & Gardner, 1992; Karlsson,
Wijk, & Bänziger, 2011; McCoy, 2003; Thatcher &
Milner, 2012; Tsai, Horng, Liu, & Hu, 2015;
Ulrich, 1991; Veitch, 2011; Wells, 2000). This
means that people have particular needs and
wants at the workplace (safety, hygiene, accessibil-
ity, comfort, etc.) and expect that an appropriate
work environment will full their expectations.
Within a supportive work environment, employ-
ees feel valued by the organization and manage-
ment. Thus, there is a mutual relationship and
interaction between individuals and the work
environment (action and reaction).
Consistent with the ndings of previous studies
(Lee & Brand, 2005; Lee & Brand, 2010; Lee &
Guerin, 2009; O’Neill, 2008; Parker, Jimmieson, &
Amiot, 2013; Ross & Mirowsky, 2013), the nding
of this study indicated that perceived support from
and satisfaction with the work environment could
benet an organization by enhancing productivity
and creativity. Specically, the descriptive statistical
analysis of this study showed that:
• More than 60 percent of the responsents reported
that a great deal of creativity is called for in their
daily work, and more than 40 percent said that
despite distractions and lack of support, they feel
creative in their current open-plan work environ-
ment. Interior designers for Malaysia’s mobile
creative industries have embraced this type of
ofce design, and this nding supports thecon-
tention that open-plan ofces can enhance
employees’ creativity.
• More than 50 percent of the respondents are
unable to control room temperature and light-
ing, which can negatively affect their satisfaction
with the work environment and positively affect
their inlination to work in private ofces.
• More than 50 percent of the respondents can
personalize their workspace according to their
needs and have access to meeting rooms, which
can positively affect their satisfaction with their
work environment.
• More than 60 percent of the respondents were
satised with their overall work environment
and visual and sound privacy. Feeling that they
have control over these components led to a posi-
tive effect on outcomes.
• More than 50 precent of the respondents experi-
enced auditory distractions and felt they did not
have enough privacy in their individual work areas.
These conditions can negatively affect their satis-
faction with the work environment and contribute
to the desire to work in a private ofce. Yet, 46

March/April 2017 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
48
percent of respondents were satisfed with the level
of privacy. This indicates that people may react dif-
ferently to environmental distractions. While some
people may able to concentrate on their work
despite environmental noise, others may nd it dif-
cult to concentrate in a noisy setting.
• More than 50 percent of the respondents were
satised with their noise level, amount of stor-
age, visual privacy, lighting, and room tempera-
ture and more than 60 percent of the respondents
were satised with the general atmosphere in the
workspace.
Besides having an impact on performance and well-
being, employees’ satisfaction with their physical
environment can also affect their information chan-
nels, interpersonal interactions, and the availability
of knowledge and equipment. Further, it can inu-
ence individuals’ (or a group’s) ability to arrange
and control their situation for continuity and coher-
ence with the whole organization. Therefore, physi-
cal space in a work environment can contribute to
individual and collective competitive advantage.
Paying careful attention to the facilitating elements
of workplace design, such as lighting, room tem-
perature, nosie level, privacy, and storage space,
can inuence overall performance. In addition, it
is important to note that these elements also can
serve as a powerful symbol of the user’s status in
the organization. These ndings should be of value
to organizational designers and managers who
use open-plan ofces to enhance and support
employee creativity and productivity.
Previous studies have suggested that employees
in private ofces have a higher level of environ-
mental and job satisfaction than those working in
open ofces (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; De
Been & Beijer, 2014). In open-plan environments,
repeated distraction from a collection of environ-
mental factors can negatively affect employees’
satisfaction and performance. Within open-plan
ofces, employees are unable to individually control
the ambient conditions, such as lighting and room
temperature because they are xed in a certain level.
When employees cannot control noise, privacy, and
overall ambient conditions, the likelihood of being
distracted or uncomfortable will increase. Previous
research has shown that when given the choice,
employees would prefer to work in a setting where
environmental features can be controlled (Samani,
Rasid, & Soan, 2015). This is yet another impor-
tant point for organizational managers and space
designers to consider in their facilities planning.
Paying careful attention to the facilitating elements
of workplace design, such as lighting, room tem-
perature, nosie level, privacy, and storage space,
can inuence overall performance.
The ndings of this study also revealed, however,
that environmental distraction alone cannot reduce
task performance and satisfaction with the work
environment. As expected, satisfaction with the
work environment was found to mediate the nega-
tive effects of environmental distraction on perfor-
mance in ofce workplaces. As suggested by Huang,
Robertson, and Chang, (2004), satisfaction with the
work environment increased the respondents’ abil-
ity to effectively use the available environmental
features and arrangements to minimize distractions
and improve privacy. Consequently, when the envi-
ronment meets and satises its residents’ needs, they
will feel more positive and ultimately, that sense of
satisfaction and positive emotion can enhance peo-
ple’s performance and creativity at work (Fredrick-
son, 2004; Harter et al., 2003; Vischer, 2007a).
The results of this study imply that as long as envi-
ronmental distractions do not continue, they have
no effect on employee outcomes. But when envi-
ronmental distractions negatively affect satisfac-
tion with the work environment, they also reduce
performance. Therefore, employees in open-plan
ofces in creative mobile industries can handle

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe March/April 2017 49
environmental distractions, but in order for them
to have better outcomes, they must be satised with
their work setting. This is yet another point for
organizational managers to consider to facilitate a
positive and productive environment.
A Call for Future Study
Future researchers would do well to consider other
factors within the work environment that might
play an important role in affecting individual sat-
isfaction and job performance, such as the use of
private ofces and the ability to personalize the
workplace. Since the focus of this study was on pro-
grammers and designers in creative mobile indus-
tries that use open-plan ofces, future studies could
also focus on companies in other elds and employ
other survey methods.
Although the overall the ndings of this study dem-
onstrated that the intensity of individuals’ percep-
tions and expectations regarding their workspace
affects overall outcomes on the job in terms of both
creativity and productivity, additional research
should focus on the design elements of group
spaces, such as open-plan and shared ofces, that
support employees’ environmental control. In par-
ticular, it should address the role of boundaries
in group work and the quality and availability of
meeting spaces, as well as expand the measures of
group performance that are employed.
References
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organiza-
tions. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Amabile, T., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M.
(2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403.
Amabile, T., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social
psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
46(1), 3–15.
Baron, R. A. (2013). How environmental variables inuence
behavior at work. In P. Collett & A. Furnham (Eds.), Social
psychology at work (psychology revivals): Essays in honour
of Michael Argyle (pp. 176). London: Routledge.
Bechtel, R. B., & Churchman, A. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook
of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psy-
chology: From spatial-pphysical environment to sustain-
able development. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.),
Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 28–54). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Soderquist, K. E., & Prastacos,
G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context, and innova-
tion. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional ver-
sus open ofce design a longitudinal eld study. Environment
and Behavior, 34(3), 279–299.
Briner, R. (2000). Relationships between work environments,
psychological environments and psychological well-being.
Occupational Medicine, 50(5), 299–303.
Carlopio, J. R. (1996). Construct validity of a physical work
environment satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 1(3), 330.
Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and interactive
effects of the physical work environment on attitudes. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 24(5), 579–601.
Carnevale, D. G. (1992). Physical settings of work: A theory
of the effects of environmental form. Public Productivity &
Management Review, 15(4), 423–436.
Choi, S. (2011). The relationships among indoor environ-
mental quality, occupant satisfaction, work performance,
and sustainability ehtic in sustainable buildings. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Clements-Croome, D. (2006). Creating the productive work-
place. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Group Ltd.
Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physi-
cal environment of the ofce: Contemporary and emerging
issues. In Gerard P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), Organi-
zational & Industrial Psychology (vol. 26, pp. 412): Interna-
tional Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The inuence of ofce type
on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal
of Facilities Management, 12(2), 142–157.
De Young, R. K. (2013). Environmnetal psychology overview.
In A. H. Huffman & S. Klein (Eds.), Green Organizations:

March/April 2017 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
50
Driving Change with IO Psychology (pp. 17–33). New York:
Routledge.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge work-
ers’ creativity and the role of the physical work environment.
Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory
of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions Royal
Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, 359(1449),
1367–1378.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions
broaden the scope of attention and thought action reper-
toires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., &
Wargocki, P. (2012). Quantitative relationships between
occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor envi-
ronmental quality and building design. Indoor Air, 22(2),
119–131.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good:
A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational
spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310.
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles
and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal Books
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters.
Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 541–579.
Gifford, R., Steg, L., & Reser, J. P. (2011). Environmental
psychology. In P. R. Martin, F. M. Cheung, M. C. Knowles,
M. Kyrios, L. Littleeld, J. B. Overmier & J. M. Prieto (Eds.),
IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology (pp. 440–470).
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Hameed, A., & Amjad, S. (2009). Impact of ofce design on
employees’ productivity: A case study of banking organi-
zations of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Journal of Public Affairs,
Administration and Management, 3(1), 1–13.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-
being in the workplace and its relationship to business out-
comes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes &
J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the
dood life (Vol. 2, pp. 205–224). Washington D.C: American
Psychological Association.
Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green buildings, organizational suc-
cess and occupant productivity. Building Research & Infor-
mation, 28(5-6), 353–367.
Hua, Y. (2007). Designing open-plan workplaces for collabo-
ration: An exploration of the impact of workplace spatial
settings on space perception and collaboration effectiveness.
Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Hua, Y., Loftness, V., Heerwagen, J. H., & Powell, K. M.
(2011). Relationship between workplace spatial settings and
occupant-perceived support for collaboration. Environment
and Behavior, 43(6), 807–826.
Huang, Y. H., Robertson, M. M., & Chang, K. I. (2004). The
role of environmental control on environmental satisfaction,
communication, and psychological stress effects of ofce
ergonomics training. Environment and Behavior, 36(5),
617–637.
Hwang, T., & Kim, J. T. (2013). Assessment of indoor envi-
ronmental quality in open-plan ofces. indoor and built envi-
ronment, 22(1), 139–156.
Karlsson, T., Wijk, K., & Bänziger, T. (2011). A description
of work environment management in succesful companies.
Paper presented at the Wellbeing and Innovations Through
Ergonomics: Proceedings of NES2011, September 18-21,
2011, Oulu, Finland.
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., &
Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work
in private ofce rooms and open-plan ofces – Longitudinal
study during relocation. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1423–1444.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The
privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan ofces.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.
Kupritz, V. W., & Hillsman, T. (2011). The impact of the
physical environment on supervisory communication
skills transfer. Journal of Business Communication, 48(2),
148–185.
Lee, Y., S. (2006). Expectations of employees toward
the workplace and environmental satisfaction. Facilities,
24(9/10), 343–353.
Lee, Y., S, & Brand, J., L. (2005). Effects of control over
ofce workspace on perceptions of the work environment
and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 323–333.
Lee, Y., S, & Brand, J., L. (2010). Can personal control over
the physical environment ease distractions in ofce work-
places? Ergonomics, 53(3), 324–335.
Lee, Y., S, & Guerin, D., A. (2009). Indoor environmental
quality related to occupant satisfaction and performance in
LEED-certied buildings. Indoor and Built Environment,
18(4), 293–300.

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe March/April 2017 51
Lewis, R., & Zibarras, L. (Eds.). (2013). Work and occupa-
tional psychology: Integrating theory and practice. London:
SAGE Publication Ltd.
McCoy, J. M. (2003). Work Environments. In R. B. Bechtel &
A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychol-
ogy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of
the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 14(3-4), 409–426.
McCoy, J. M., & Evans, G. W. (2005). Physical work envi-
ronment. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone
(Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
McGuire, D., & McLaren, L. (2009). The impact of physical
environment on employee commitment in call centres: The
mediating role of employee well-being. Team Performance
Management, 15(1/2), 35–48.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U. E., Janssen,
S., & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation spaces: Towards a
framework for understanding the role of the physical envi-
ronment in innovation. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 16(1), 53–65.
O’Neill, M. J. (2010). A model of environmental control and
effective work. Facilities, 28(3/4), 118–136.
O’Neill, M. (2008). Open plan and enclosed private ofces.
Retrieved from www.knoll.com/media/878/738/Open-
Closed_Ofces_wp.pdf (accessed 14 November 2015).
Ofcial Portal of MSC Malaysia. (2002). Status com-
pany. Retrieved October 18, 2014, Ofcial Portal of MSC
Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.mscmalaysia.my/
status_company.
Oldham, G. R., & Fried, Y. (1987). Employee reactions to
workspace characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
72(1), 75.
Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., & Stepina, L. P. (1991). Physical
environments and employee reactions: Effects of stimulus-
screening skills and job complexity. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 34(4), 929–938.
Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2013). Self-
determination, control, and reactions to changes in work-
load: A work simulation. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 18(2), 173.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended reme-
dies. Journal of applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2013). The sense of personal
control: Social structural causes and emotional conse-
quences. In Carol S. Aneshensel, Jo C. Phelan, & A. Bier-
man (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health
(pp. 636). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Saleem, A., Shah, A., A., Zaman, K., Arif, M., Shehzad, K.,
& Ullah, I. (2012). Impact of interior physical environment
on academicians’ productivity in Pakistan higher education
institutes perspectives. Iranian Journal Management Studies,
5(5), 25–46.
Samani, S.A., Rasid, S.Z., & Soan, S. (2015). Individual control
over the physical work environment to affect creativity. Indus-
trial Engineering and Management Systems 14(1), 94–103.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Soan, S. (2015). Perceived
level of personal control over the work environment and
employee satisfaction and work performance. Performance
Improvement, 54(9), 28–35.
Shipton, H. J., West, M. A., Parkes, C. L., Dawson, J. F.,
& Patterson, M. G. (2006). When promoting positive feel-
ings pays: Aggregate job satisfaction, work design features,
and innovation in manufacturing organizations. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(4),
404–430.
Smith-Jackson, T. L., & Klein, K. W. (2009). Open-plan
ofces: Task performance and mental workload. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 279–289.
Sundstrom, E., Bell, P. A., Busby, P. L., & Asmus, C. (1996).
Environmental psychology1989-1994. Annual Review of
Psychology, 47(1), 485–512.
Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places:
The psychology of the physical environment in ofces and
factories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill,
M. (1994). Ofce noise, satisfaction, and performance. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 26(2), 195–222.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based
interactionist model of job performance. Journal of applied
Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.
Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2012). The impact of a
‘green’building on employees’ physical and psychological
wellbeing. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and
Rehabilitation, 41, 3816–3823.

March/April 2017 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
52
Tsai, C.-Y., Horng, J.-S., Liu, C.-H., & Hu, D.-C. (2015).
Work environment and atmosphere: The role of organiza-
tional support in the creativity performance of tourism and
hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospital-
ity Management, 46, 26–35.
Ulrich, R. S. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness:
theory and recent scientic research. Journal of Health Care
Interior Design, 3(1), 97–109.
Van der Voordt, T. J. (2004). Productivity and employee sat-
isfaction in exible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, 6(2), 133–148.
Veitch, J. A. (2011). Workplace design contributions to men-
tal health and well-being. Healthcare Papers, 11, 38–46.
Veitch, J. A., Bradley, J. S., Legault, L. M., Norcross, S., &
Svec, J. (2002). Masking speech in open-plan ofces with
simulated ventilation noise: Noise level and spectral compo-
sition effects on acoustic satisfaction. Institute for Research
in Construction, Internal Report IRC-IR-846.
Veitch, J. A., Charles, K. E., Newsham, G. R., Marquardt,
C. J., & Geerts, J. (2003). Environmental satisfaction in
open-plan environments: Workstation and physical condi-
tion effects. Institute for Research in Construction, National
Research Council of Canada.
Vischer, J. C. (2007a). The concept of environmental com-
fort in workplace performance. Ambiente Construido, Porto
Alegre, 7(1), 21–34.
Vischer, J. C. (2007b). The effects of the physical environ-
ment on job performance: Towards a theoretical model of
workspace stress. Stress and Health, 23(3), 175–184.
Vischer, J. C. (2008a). Towards a user-centred theory of the
built environment. Building Research & Information, 36(3),
231–240.
Vischer, J. C. (2008b). Towards an environmental psychology
of workspace: How people are affected by environments for
work. Architectural Science Review, 51(2), 97–108.
Vithayathawornwong, S., Danko, S., & Tolbert, P. (2003).
The role of the physical environment in supporting organi-
zational creativity. Journal of Interior Design, 29(1-2),
1–16.
Walsh, W. B., Craik, K. H., & Price, R. H. (Eds.). (2000).
Person-environment psychology: New directions and per-
spectives. City of Publication: Psychology Press.
Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know
you: Positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex
understanding in the formation of a new relationship. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 93–106.
Wells, M. M. (2000). Ofce clutter or meaningful personal
displays: The role of ofce personalization in employee and
organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 20(3), 239–255.
Williams, A. (2009). The creative footprint: The impact of
physical space on workplace creativity. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativ-
ity and Cognition, Berkeley, California, October 26–30.
Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. (2008). The impact
of employee satisfaction on quality and protability in high-
contact service industries. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 26(5), 651–668.
Young, R. K. D. (1999). Environmental psychology. In D. E.
Alexander & R. W. Fairbridge (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Envi-
ronmental Science (pp. 223–224). Hingham, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani, PhD, studied management at
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia. Her research
interests include management, human resources, creativity,
and innovation. She can be reached at sanaz.ahmadpoor@
gmail.com.
Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, PhD, is an associate professor in
the International Business School at Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur. Her research interests include
management accounting, enterprise risk management,
and corporate governance. She can be reached at szaleha@
ibs.utm.my.
Saudah Soan, PhD, is an associate professor in the Depart-
ment of Management and Human Resources at Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, in Johor. Her research interests include
management accounting, intellectual capital, and corporate
governance. She can be reached at saudah@utm.my.