The relationship between office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing

Abstract

Objectives: This cross-sectional study investigated the associations between office type (cellular office, shared-room office, small open-plan office, and medium-sized open-plan office) and employees' ease of interaction with co-workers, subjective wellbeing, and job satisfaction.
Methods: A brief survey including measures of office type, ease of interaction with co-workers, subjective wellbeing, and job satisfaction was sent electronically to 1500 Swedish real-estate agents, 271 of whom returned usable surveys. The data were analyzed using a regression-based serial multiple mediation model (PROCESS Model 6), which tested whether the relationship between office type and job satisfaction would be mediated by ease of interaction and, in turn, subjective wellbeing.
Results: A negative relationship was found between the number of co-workers sharing an office and employees' job satisfaction. This association was serially mediated by ease of interaction with co-workers and subjective wellbeing, with employees working in small and medium-sized open-plan offices reporting lower levels of both these aspects than employees who work in either cellular or shared-room offices.
Conclusions: Open-plan offices may have short-term financial benefits, but these benefits may be lower than the costs associated with decreased job satisfaction and wellbeing. Therefore, decision-makers should consider the impact of office type on employees rather than focusing solely on cost-effective office layout, flexibility, and productivity.

Full text

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
1
The relationship between office type and job satisfaction:
Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing
Objectives: This cross-sectional study investigated the associations between office type
(cellular office, shared-room office, small open-plan office, and medium-sized open-plan
office) and employees’ ease of interaction with co-workers, subjective wellbeing, and job
satisfaction.
Methods: A brief survey including measures of office type, ease of interaction with co-workers,
subjective wellbeing, and job satisfaction was sent electronically to 1500 Swedish real-estate
agents, 271 of whom returned usable surveys. The data were analyzed using a regression-based
serial multiple mediation model (PROCESS Model 6), which tested whether the relationship
between office type and job satisfaction would be mediated by ease of interaction and, in turn,
subjective wellbeing.
Results: A negative relationship was found between the number of co-workers sharing an office
and employees’ job satisfaction. This association was serially mediated by ease of interaction
with co-workers and subjective wellbeing, with employees working in small and medium-sized
open-plan offices reporting lower levels of both these aspects than employees who work in
either cellular or shared-room offices.
Conclusions: Open-plan offices may have short-term financial benefits, but these benefits may
be lower than the costs associated with decreased job satisfaction and wellbeing. Therefore,
decision-makers should consider the impact of office type on employees rather than focusing
solely on cost-effective office layout, flexibility, and productivity.
Key terms: office type, cellular office, shared-room office, open-plan office, ease of
interaction, subjective wellbeing, job satisfaction.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
2
The relationship between office type and job satisfaction:
Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing
Numerous private and public organizations have already adopted the concept of open-plan
offices and many other companies are currently considering a switch from traditional cellular
offices to such open layouts (1–3). In the United States, for instance, approximately 70 percent
of all offices are now open-plan (4), characterized by the absence of interior walls and private
workspaces (5). Common arguments for investing in such open spaces are their claimed cost
efficiency and flexible layout; their assumed ability to facilitate interaction among employees;
and, ultimately, their presumed potential to improve work performance and productivity (6–8).
The problem with these arguments is that most empirical findings do not support them.
Extensive research shows that open-plan (vs. cellular) offices are linked to decreased ease of
interaction among co-workers, decreased levels of job satisfaction, and decreased job
performance and productivity (9–14). In addition, compared to cellular offices, such open-plan
workspaces are linked to decreased wellbeing and other negative health-related outcomes, such
as increased sickness absence, and higher levels of stress, distraction, and disturbance (15–20).
The office plays a major role in many people’s lives, and a recent Gallup investigation
estimated that distracted and disengaged employees cost companies approximately US$500
billion in lost productivity per year in the United States alone (21). Therefore, it is important to
understand the effects of different office types on individuals’ wellbeing and job satisfaction.
Hence, the present study examined whether office type is associated with employees’ ease of
interaction with co-workers, as well as with their subjective wellbeing and job satisfaction. Our
main hypothesis was that there would be a negative relationship between the number of co-
workers sharing an office and employees’ job satisfaction, defined as the level of satisfaction
experienced with one’s job (5). We based this prediction on the fact that a large body of
literature, including longitudinal studies and experimental research, has shown a negative

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
3
relationship between open (vs. cellular) offices and employees’ job satisfaction (9–10, 12, 14–
15). Indeed, a systematic review (12) of the effects that various office concepts have on
workers’ health and performance concluded that “there is strong evidence that working in open
workplaces reduces job satisfaction” (p. 128).
Multiple studies, some comprising samples larger than 40,000 occupants, have also
documented a negative association between open (vs. cellular) offices and employees’ ease of
interaction with co-workers (5, 9–13), operationalized as the extent to which it is easy to
communicate and collaborate at work (13, 15). Moreover, previous research has found a
negative relationship between open (vs. cellular) offices and various wellbeing-related
outcomes, such as internal motivation to perform effectively at work and feelings of
engagement, calmness, and harmony, with ease of interaction at work being conceptualized as
an antecedent of such wellbeing-linked variables (5, 15, 17). Given these research findings, we
further expected that the hypothesized association between the number of co-workers sharing
an office and employees’ job satisfaction would be serially mediated by a decreased ease of
interaction with co-workers and, in turn, by lower levels of subjective wellbeing.
Method
A cross-sectional survey was sent out electronically to 1500 individuals working as real-estate
agents throughout Sweden, distributed across three different real-estate agencies and 30
different offices during May, 2017. In total, 305 agents replied to the survey, yielding a response
rate of 20 percent, which is similar to the response rates obtained in other studies utilizing web-
based surveys (22). Thirty-four surveys had missing values on the crucial item of how many
other people (if any) the respondent shared an office with, resulting in a final sample of 271
participants (61 percent female; Mage = 39.70 years, SD = 11.80).

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
4
Participants were informed that all responses were anonymous and that the data would be
analyzed at an aggregate level, ensuring that it would not be possible to identify individual
responses or companies. They then replied to a set of items related to office type, subjective
wellbeing, job satisfaction, and other study-specific variables. Participants were initially asked
to indicate whether they shared an office with someone, and if so, how many people. We created
groups based on the number of co-workers with whom the participants shared their office using
a pre-defined categorization from Danielsson and Bodin (11, 15). Participants who worked
alone in a room (n = 76) were classified as belonging to a cellular office, while those who
worked in a room with one or two colleagues (n = 45) were classified as belonging to a shared-
room office. Participants working in a room with three to nine co-workers (n = 113) were
categorized as belonging to a small open-plan office, while the remaining participants, who
worked in rooms with 10–20 co-workers (n = 37), were categorized as belonging to a medium-
sized open-plan office. Next, participants completed eight items from the STS scale (23), which
measures subjective wellbeing (for items, see the Web appendix). Items were rated on nine-
point semantic differential scales ranging from -4 to 4, and were averaged to form a composite
wellbeing index (α = 0.90). Using the same nine-point response format, participants continued
by replying to two items about ease of interaction at work: “I perceive the communication at
my office as: very bad/very good;” and “The collaboration with my co-workers is: bad/good.”
Items were averaged to form a composite ease of interaction index (α = 0.80). Lastly,
participants indicated their job satisfaction on a single-item scale (“How satisfied are you with
your job?”) using the same response format (-4 = very dissatisfied; 4 = very satisfied). Single-
item scales are reliable if, as in the present case, they represent clear and unambiguous
constructs (24–25).

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
5
Results
We screened the data for outliers and excluded nine cases prior to analysis, using a cutoff of
three standard deviations from the mean on our key constructs. We then performed a serial
multiple mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 6; 26) in which missing values were replaced
by group means (27). Office type (cellular office, shared office, small open office, medium-
sized open office) was the predictor, ease of interaction at work was the first mediator,
subjective wellbeing was the second mediator, and job satisfaction was the outcome variable.
We found that the total effect of office type on job satisfaction was statistically significant (β =
-0.15, T = -2.02, P = 0.04), with employees experiencing lower job satisfaction as the office
type become relatively more open; see Table 1 for means and standard deviations. Office type
also had significant negative effects on both ease of interaction at work (β = -0.27, T= -3.26, P
= 0.001) and subjective wellbeing (β = -0.19, T = -2.53, P = 0.01). Furthermore, ease of
interaction at work had a positive effect on subjective wellbeing (β = 0.68, T = 12.11, P <
0.001), with the former variable also being positively associated with job satisfaction (β = 0.27,
T = 4.60, P < 0.001), just as subjective wellbeing was (β = 0.24, T = 4.52, P < 0.001). Central
for the current investigation, when job satisfaction was regressed on office type, ease of
interaction at work, and subjective wellbeing, the effect of office type was clearly reduced and
was no longer significant (β = 0.01, T = 0.19, P = 0.85). Finally, this mediation effect was
assessed using a bootstrap procedure with 5000 bootstrap samples. The results of a 95 percent
confidence interval (CI) revealed that the indirect effect of office type through ease of
interaction at work and, in turn, subjective wellbeing, was significantly different from zero
(95% CI -0.09 – -0.02]); see Figure 1.
---Table 1---
---Figure 1---

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
6
Discussion
Several studies have demonstrated negative associations between open (vs. cellular) offices and
ease of interaction with co-workers, wellbeing-related outcomes, and job satisfaction (5, 9–15,
17). However, as far as we can ascertain, this is the first study to unite all these concepts in one
testable model. Our results revealed that employees working in small or medium-sized open-
plan offices consistently reported lower levels of job satisfaction, subjective wellbeing, and ease
of interaction with co-workers than employees working in cellular or shared-room offices, with
the association between office type and job satisfaction being serially mediated by ease of
interaction and, in turn, subjective wellbeing. Companies may wish to consider these findings
before switching to such open office layouts, since their purported financial savings may be
substantially lower than the costs associated with decreased job satisfaction and wellbeing, as
well as impaired job performance, increased sickness absence, and higher degrees of stress and
distraction (9–20).
However, it should be the noted that the mean values for all constructs in the present study
were consistently above the scale midpoint, regardless of office type, which means that
employees generally gave positive ratings on job satisfaction as well as ease of interaction with
colleagues and subjective wellbeing. Hence, the question may not be which office type
produces satisfied and dissatisfied employees, but rather which office type produces more or
less satisfied employees.
Limitations and future research
Because this is a cross-sectional study, it is not possible to infer causality. While we assume
that office type has influenced ease of interaction, subjective wellbeing, and job satisfaction,
we cannot rule out the possibility that these assumed consequences or other associated variables
may have contributed to the pre-selection of individuals into different office types. It is also

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
7
possible that job satisfaction is a cause, rather than a consequence, of subjective wellbeing and
ease of interaction. However, in light of existing theorizing and the fact that each of our
hypothesized relationships has been shown in previous research (albeit not together in a single
coherent study), we believe that the use of a multiple mediation model is reasonable.
The low response rate is another limitation of our study. However, because we are testing
the model per se rather than trying to infer population values from sample data, we believe it is
unlikely that the low response rate should invalidate our findings. Nevertheless, our results –
based exclusively on self-report data and with a relatively low response rate – should be taken
with caution and we call for replications with improved research designs, such as cohort studies
and studies utilizing cluster-randomized designs, to ascertain whether the direction of causation
is as hypothesized.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
8
References
1. Billing M. Öppna kontorslandskap ett globalt problem [Open office workspaces, a global
problem]. Dagens Nyheter. 2015; June 4. Accessed at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.
com/search?q=cache:SF 2msRc5j8J: www.dn.se/ekonomi/jobb-karriar/oppna-
kontorslandskap-ett-globalt-problem/+&cd= 2&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se (2017; August 8).
2. Burkus D. Why your open office workspace doesn’t work. Forbes. 2016; June 21. Accessed
at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2016/06/21/why-your-open-office-workspace-
doesnt-work/#69d22ab1435f (2017; August 8).
3. Kinman G, Garfield I. The open-plan university – noisy nightmare or buzzing ideas hub? The
Guardian. 2015; October 16. Accessed at: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-
network/2015/oct/16/the-open-plan-university-noisy-nightmare-or-buzzing-ideas-hub (2017;
August 8).
4. Borzykowski B. Why open offices are bad for us. BBC. 2017; January 11. Accessed at:
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170105-open-offices-are-damaging-our-memories (2017;
August 8).
5. Oldham GR, Brass DJ. Employee reactions to an open-plan office: A naturally occurring
quasi-experiment. Admin Sci Quart. 1979; 24(2): 267–84.
6. Allen TJ, Gerstberger PG. A field experiment to improve communications in a product
engineering department: The nonterritorial office. Hum Factors. 1973; 15(5): 487–98.
7. Ashkanasy NM, Ayoko OB, Jehn KA. Understanding the physical environment of work and
employee behavior: An affective events perspective. J Organ Behav. 2014; 35(8): 1169–84.
8. Kamarulzaman N, Saleh AA, Hashim SZ, Hashim H, Abdul-Ghani AA. An overview of the
influence of physical office environments towards employee. Procedia Eng. 2011; 20: 262–
68.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
9
9. Brennan A, Chugh JS, Kline T. Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal field
study. Environ Behav. 2002; 34(3): 279–99.
10. Carlopio JR, Gardner D. Direct and interactive effects of the physical work environment on
attitudes. Environ Behav. 1992; 24(5): 579–601.
11. Danielsson CB, Bodin L. Difference in satisfaction with office environment among
employees in different office types. J Archit Plan Res. 2009; 26(3): 241–57.
12. De Croon E, Sluiter J, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen M. The effect of office concepts on worker
health and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics. 2005; 48(2): 119–
34.
13. Kim J, de Dear R. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan
offices. J Environ Psychol. 2013; 36: 18–26.
14. Sundstrom E, Town J, Rice R, Osborn D, Brill M. Office noise, satisfaction, and performance.
Environ Behav. 1994; 26(2): 195–222.
15. Danielsson CB, Bodin L. Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction
among employees. Environ Behav. 2008; 40(5): 636–68.
16. Evans GW, Johnson D. Stress and open-office noise. J Appl Psychol. 2000; 85(5): 779–83.
17. Hedge A. The open-plan office: A systematic investigation of employee reactions to their
work environment. Environ Behav. 1982; 14(5): 519–42.
18. Pejtersen JH, Feveile H, Christensen KB, Burr H. Sickness absence associated with shared
and open-plan offices – a national cross sectional questionnaire survey. Scand J Work
Environ Health. 2011; 37(5): 376–82.
19. Seddigh A, Berntson E, Danielsson CB, Westerlund H. Concentration requirements modify the
effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. J Environ Psychol. 2014; 38: 167–
74.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
10
20. Vischer JC. Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by
environments for work. Archit Sci Rev. 2008; 51(2): 97–108.
21. Sorenson S, Garman K. How to tackle U.S. employees stagnating engagement. Business
Journal. 2013; June 11. Accessed at: http://www.gallup.com/ businessjournal/ 162953/tackle-
employees-stagnating-engagement.aspx (2017; August 8).
22. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates.
Public Opin Q. 2004; 68(1): 94–101.
23. Ettema D, Gärling T, Eriksson L, Friman M, Olsson LE, Fujii S. Satisfaction with travel and
subjective well-being: Development and test of a measurement tool. Transport Res F-Traf.
2011; 14(3): 167–75.
24. Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures
of the same constructs. J Marketing Res. 2007; 44(2): 175–84.
25. Nagy MS. Using a single‐item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. J Occup Organ
Psych. 2002; 75(1): 77–86.
26. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York; 2013.
27. Titterington DM, Murray GD, Murray LS, Spiegelhalter DJ, Skene AM, Habbema JDF,
Gelpke GJ. Comparison of discrimination techniques applied to a complex data set of head
injured patients. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G. 1981; 145–75.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
11
-0.27***
-0.19**
0.68***
-0.15* (.01)
0.27***
0.24***
Cellular
Office
Shared
Office
Small Open
Office
Medium-Sized
Open Office
Ease of Interaction
2.62 (1.13)
2.53 (1.17)
2.12 (1.66)
1.80 (1.25)
Subjective Wellbeing
1.99 (1.41)
1.83 (1.21)
1.36 (1.76)
0.78 (1.64)
Job Satisfaction
3.15 (1.00)
3.16 (1.21)
2.82 (1.50)
2.78 (0.89)
Table 1: Means (and standard deviations) of interaction at work, subjective wellbeing, and job
satisfaction across office types.
*** P ≤ 0.001
** P ≤ 0.01
* P < 0.05
Figure 1: Serial multiple mediation model.
Job
Satisfaction
Ease of
Interaction
Subjective
Wellbeing
Office Type

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
12
Summary
Employees who work in open-plan offices reported lower levels of job satisfaction, subjective
wellbeing, and ease of interaction with co-workers than employees who work in cellular or
shared-room offices. Therefore, decision-makers should consider the impact of open office
environment on employees rather than focusing solely on cost-effective office layout,
flexibility, and productivity.
Number of characters: 11012
Number of words: 1698
Number of tables: 1
Number of figures: 1
Article type: Short communication
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of
Helsinki and without any funding source. The first author analyzed the data and lead-authored
the article, with input from the other authors. The two first authors developed the survey, and
the two last authors collected the data under supervision of the second author. All authors
approved the final version of the article prior to submission and jointly declare that they have
no conflicts of interest.

Otterbring, T., Pareigis, J., Wästlund, E., Makrygiannis, A., & Lindström, A. (in press). The relationship between
office type and job satisfaction: Testing a multiple mediation model through ease of interaction and wellbeing.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
13
Web appendix
Measures of subjective wellbeing from the STS scale, slightly rephrased to fit the context and
with items rated on nine-point semantic differential scales ranging from -4 to 4 (α = 0.90).
Please indicate how you have felt at your office during the last week:
1. Tired (-4) – alert (4)
2. Bored (-4) – enthusiastic (4)
3. Fed up (-4) – engaged (4)
4. Stressed (-4) – calm (4)
5. Time pressed (-4) – relaxed (4)
6. My office is bad (-4) – good (4)
7. The standard of the work environment at my office is low (-4) – high (4)
8. The layout of my office is the worst I can think of (-4) – the best I can think of (4)
Correlations between office type (cellular office = 1; shared office = 2; small open office = 3;
medium-sized open office = 4) and ease of interaction at work, subjective wellbeing, and job
satisfaction.
Office
Type
Ease of
Interaction
Subjective
Wellbeing
Job
Satisfaction
Office Type
1
-0.20**
-0.24**
-0.12*
Ease of Interaction
-
1
-0.62**
-0.49**
Subjective Wellbeing
-
-
1
-0.49**
Job Satisfaction
-
-
-
1
* P < 0.05
** P ≤ 0.001