Does the Design of the Workplace Affect Individual Creativity

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the influence of the work environment in open‐plan workplaces on employees’ work‐related behavior (social interaction and communication) and their outcome (creativity). A quantitative methodology implying a cross‐sectional survey was used to fulfill the study's purposes in addition to the literature review. The Partial Least Square of Structural Equation Model (PLS‐SEM) was used to analyze data. The respondents were 117 staff employees working as programmers and video editors in creative multimedia companies in Tehran. The findings of this study revealed that although employees in an open‐plan office do not have the ability to control environmental features, a great deal of work‐related behavior and creativity is called for in their daily work. In fact, open‐plan spaces improve social interaction among co‐workers by increasing adjacency and reflect a more democratic working culture. Managers and space designers can use the findings of this study to boost workplace facilities in order to positively affect employees’ work behavior and outcome.

Full text

DOES THE DESIGN OF THE WORKPLACE
AFFECT INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY
Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani, PhD Sayed Mohamad Shams Zadeh Alavi
This study aims to investigate the influence of the work environment in open-plan workplaces on
employees’ work-related behavior (social interaction and communication) and their outcome (creativity).
A quantitative methodology implying a cross-sectional survey was used to fulfill the study’s purposes in
addition to the literature review. The Partial Least Square of Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was
used to analyze data. The respondents were 117 staff employees working as programmers and video
editors in creative multimedia companies in Tehran. The findings of this study revealed that although
employees in an open-plan office do not have the ability to control environmental features, a great deal
of work-related behavior and creativity is called for in their daily work. In fact, open-plan spaces
improve social interaction among co-workers by increasing adjacency and reflect a more democratic
working culture. Managers and space designers can use the findings of this study to boost workplace
facilities in order to positively affect employees’ work behavior and outcome.
INTRODUCTION
Within a work environment the roles of both the social-
psychological work environment and the physical work
environment are supposed to aect and support creativ-
ity. As mentioned by Vithayathawornwong, Danko, and
Tolbert (2003), the physical work environment, by apply-
ing its indirect eects on creativity, can facilitate and sup-
port two important social-psychological conditions that
arehelpfulforcreativity,dynamism,andfreedom.Among
these two social-psychological conditions dynamism (the
amount of activity and energy) is the most important
one within an organization; it is supported by the phys-
ical work environment to promote and enhance creative
behavior. Dynamism itself has several sub-dimensions:
communication, interpersonal interaction, and informa-
tion and idea exchange (Vithayathawornwong et al., 2003)
which are also important for facilitating and enhancing
creativity.
Generally, open-plan oce layouts are believed to facil-
itate communication and interaction among co-workers
by reducing environmental distance and promoting team-
work and creativity (Duval, Veitch, & Charles, 2002; Kim
& de Dear, 2013; O’Neill, 2008; Veitch, Charles, Farley, &
Newsham, 2007; Veitch, Charles, Newsham, Marquardt,
& Geerts, 2003). One basic reason for the creation of
open-plan oce arrangements was to increase social in-
teraction and communication among team members and
co-workers. In contrast, open-plan oces are commonly
known to be a more disruptive type of oce design due
to uncontrollable noise, loss of personal control over the
environmental features, and lack of privacy (Candido,
Chakraborty, & Tjondronegoro, 2019; Kim & de Dear,
2013; O’Neill, 2008; Pejtersen, Allermann, Kristensen, &
Poulsen, 2006; Veitch, Bradley, Legault, Norcross, & Svec,
2002). Previous studies have indicated that some envi-
ronmental variables such as the arrangement or design of
the spaces, exibility, size, and proximity of a workstation
(which is more common and possible in share and open-
plan oces) can facilitate the probabilities or limit the so-
cial occurrence (Bitner, 1992). The fact is people’s behav-
ior is limited and inuenced by the physical aspects of
thebuilding.Becausepeoplecannotwalkortalkthrough
6
Performance Improvement, vol. 59, no. 5, May/June 2020
©2020 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21917

Within a work environment
both the social-psychological
work environment and the
physical work environment are
supposed to aect and support
creativity.
walls and partitions, private rooms and cells can limit
their physical movement and limit their social interaction.
Therefore, an uncontrollable work environment becomes
crucial. Exhibit 1 shows the uncontrollable work environ-
ment in open-plan oces.
Theinuenceofocedesignoninteractionpatterns
and employees’ reactions is very noticeable in oce de-
sign, especially in open-plan layouts (Duval et al., 2002;
Hua, 2007; Pejtersen et al., 2006; Veitch et al., 2002; Veitch,
Charles, & Newsham, 2004), because of the many distrac-
tions and complaints that are caused by this type of oce
design, The concept of physical distance is understood in
organizational design, and the area of attention in many
organizational communication studies is uncontrollable
noise, lack of privacy, uncontrollable social interaction,
and other distractions. So it seems dicult for employ-
ees to focus on their tasks, which eventually reduces their
overall productivity.
However, open-plan oce design reduces the cost of
real estate and enhances communication and creativity
among colleagues (Candido et al., 2019; Brennan, Chugh,
& Kline, 2002; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Navai & Veitch,
2003; Veitch et al., 2007). As indicated by Awang and
Denan (2016), due to lower costs and suitability the use
of the open-plan oce is increasing. Therefore, leaders
in creative organizations would do well to consider that
these factors would aect employees’ work-related behav-
iorandoverallproductivity.Thefocusofthisstudywas
to investigate the relationship between an uncontrollable
work environment (perceived level of personal control
over the physical aspects of the workplace and distraction
from them) on social interaction and creativity. Figure 2
presents the model of this study. Considering the nature of
this study, the unit of analysis was individuals (program-
mers and video editors) in creative multimedia industries.
SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CREATIVITY
The concept of physical distance is understood in orga-
nizationaldesign,anditistheareaofattentioninmany
Open-plan oces reduce the
environmental limitations and
individual privacy, which
carry some advantages and
some disadvantages.
organizational communication studies (Duval et al., 2002;
Huber, 1991). As indicated, in the process of social in-
teraction and face-to-face communication within a work-
place the chance of interactions will decrease at a distance
further than 50 meters. So, employees’ communication
(face-to-face) and interaction is inuenced considerably
by distance (Duxbury, 2012). Duxbury (2012) said that
the communication processes within organizations (espe-
cially oce environments) emphasize exchanging infor-
mation rather than exchanging energy.
However, other studies have found no relationship be-
tween physical accessibility and social interaction among
co-workers (e.g., Sundstrom, Burt, and Kamp (1980);
Brennan et al. (2002)). The result of empirical studies
suggests that employees prefer privacy over accessibility
because of the increase in environmental distractions
experienced in open-plan oces. As suggested by prior
studies, organizational functioning and performance
are inuenced by both task and social interaction (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Schein, 1990). As mentioned by
previous studies, there are several contextual factors that
have been linked to creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon,
Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; McLean, 2005; Woodman,
Sawyer, & Grin, 1993). Moreover, current technology
provides additional media, such as mobile telephones and
the Internet that make interactions easier, but managers
and many employees prefer to have face-to-face com-
munication (Nohria & Eccles, 2000). The preference for
face-to-face interaction relates to the nature of its social
support and transfers emotional information and even
task information.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF
OPEN-PLAN WORKSPACES
Type of Noise in Workplace
Noiseisacommonprobleminopen-planworkplaces.Re-
sults from laboratory examinations have conrmed that
individuals perform worse in noisy environments (e.g.,
Leather, Beale, & Sullivan, 2003; Banbury & Berry, 2005;
Roelofsen, 2008). Generally, oce environments share
Performance Improvement •Volume 59 •Number 5 •DOI: 10.1002/pfi 7

FIGURE 1. UNCONTROLLABLE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN
OPEN-PLAN OFFICES
two types of noise. First is the continuous noise from
technical machines, ventilation systems, and various other
sources. Due to the nature of these noises, which are
softer and have the same rhythm, they are categorized
as having a normal level and producing less disturbance.
Prior studies have indicated that human-made noise, es-
peciallynoisefromco-workers’talkingandlackofpri-
vacy, are the strongest factors in the work environment
that cause dissatisfaction in open-plan oces (Brennan
et al., 2002; Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al., 2009). The second
type of oce noises that are more distracting in open-plan
oces are non-continuous noises and noises that include
more information, such as conversations of others, people
moving and walking, keyboard typing, and unpredictable
noises from the ventilation system (Rasila & Rothe, 2012;
E. Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994). These
noise problems, though they occur more often in open-
plan workplaces, exist in all types of oces even in private
ones,.
Noise is one of the serious distractions addressed in ear-
lier studies. As suggested by Banbury and Berry (2005),
99% of employees in open-plan oces report that vari-
ous oce noises, especially telephones ringing and peo-
ple talking, have a negative eect on their concentration.
Within a workplace, distracting noise may contribute to
poor performance, stress, and exhaustion, all of which
increase employees’ cognitive workloads and ineciency
(Leather et al., 2003; Pejtersen et al., 2006; Perrin Jegen &
Chevret, 2016; Smith-Jackson & Klein, 2009). In addition,
Sundstrom et al. (1994) recognized noise as an ambient
stressor that negatively aects job satisfaction in the work
environment. Therefore, having personal control over the
work environment can reduce noise disturbance from un-
controllable sources.
Noise also aects dierent people in dierent ways de-
pending on individual dierences (e.g., age and gender)
as well as the tasks they are involved in (Lee & Brand,
2005; Maher & Von Hippel, 2005; Rasila & Rothe, 2012).
An individual can be disturbed by environmental noise,
but that may not be the case for another individual sitting
inthesameplace.However,somenon-routinetasksmay
demand long-term concentration because they are more
complicated; thus, it will be dicult for an individual to
complete his or her task in noisy environments (Banbury
& Berry, 2005).
SOCIAL DENSITY IN AN OPEN-PLAN OFFICE
Social and spatial density are two kinds of density as
suggested by Duval et al. (2002). Social density refers to
thenumberofindividualsinhabitingaplace,andspatial
density refers to the size of the place or the amount of
usable space per employee (Brennan et al., 2002; Duval
FIGURE 2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNCONTROLLABLE WORK ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL INTERACTION, AND
CREATIVITY IN OPEN-PLAN OFFICES
8www.ispi.org •DOI: 10.1002/pfi •MAY/JUNE 2020

et al., 2002). Some researchers have suggested that in-
creased social density and closeness in the workplace lead
to improved opportunities for friendship and facilitate
interpersonal contact, information exchange, and com-
munication and promote job satisfaction (Kim & de Dear,
2013; Maher & Von Hippel, 2005; Veitch et al., 2003).
On the other hand, some researchers have reached the
opposite conclusion, and they suggested that satisfaction
with the work environment may decrease in places with
high social and spatial density because of the lack of
privacy and the uncontrolled social contact (Baldry &
Barnes, 2012; Duval et al., 2002; Jahncke, 2012; Rashid,
Wineman, & Zimring, 2009).
Within a workplace the amount of available space for
each person is recognized as the most important predic-
tor of environmental satisfaction (Kim & de Dear, 2013).
However, it is important to mention that density alone
(both social and spatial) cannot aect individual satisfac-
tion with the work environment; other factors such as pri-
vacy, distractions, and sense of crowding must be dealt
with (El-Zeiny, 2012; Lee & Brand, 2010). Therefore, em-
ployees’ interaction and communication in the workplace
(both formal and informal) are aected by the amount of
privacy and proximity (Zahn, 1991). Physical proximity
at work can increase individuals’ and groups’ productivity
by increasing the opportunity of both formal and infor-
mal (face-to-face) interaction and communication. Brand
(2009) suggested that open-plan oces should feature low
density, because high density increases visual and audi-
tory distractions; employees feel crowded, and tends to de-
crease employee’s satisfaction and productivity.
Still, the evidence indicated that on the positive side,
open-plan workstations facilitate open communication,
which enables workers to exchange information faster,
easier, and informally (Brennan et al., 2002; O’Neill, 2008;
Rasila & Rothe, 2012; Roelofsen, 2008). On the nega-
tive side, open-plan workplaces can produce environmen-
tal distractions that prevent employees from concentrat-
ing on their tasks and can cause other problems as well
(Brennan et al., 2002; Hua, 2007; Hwang & Kim, 2013;
O’Neill, 2008). However, the popularity of such ndings
has not stopped employers’ tendency to support, use, and
favor open-plan workstations. Open-plan workplaces are
cheapertobuildandmoreexibletorestructurethana
traditional private or cellular oce design, and they re-
quire less square footage than private oces.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
AND SAMPLING
After replacing the oce (changing from private oce
rooms to an open-plan landscape), the F.T.S Group’s of-
ce was characterized by a landscape oce layout (totally
open-plan space) without any partitions or wall for divid-
ing individuals’ workstation. The oce contains a hall and
twoindividualroomsfortheHRandtheocemanager
and a meeting room. In the main hall of the oce em-
ployees sat in a group of ve around a single table. Com-
pared with the previous workstation, employees have less
visualandauditoryprivacy,whichmaycauseenviron-
mental distraction. Moreover employees did not have per-
sonal control over environmental features, which also may
also cause distraction.
This study employed a cross-sectional survey to inves-
tigate the eect of an uncontrollable work environment on
employees’ social interaction and creativity. These factors
included having control over social interaction, privacy
and communication, distraction caused by the uncontrol-
lable noise from the environment as well as privacy issues
and ease of communication. The participants of this study
wereemployeesatacreativemultimediacompany(F.T.S
Group) in Tehran. The selection of research objective is
by the criterion that the data and information should be
easy to be arrived at and relevant to the main focus of the
research project. A well-designed questionnaire was dis-
tributed manually to 124 employees at the company. The
survey questionnaire was translated into Farsi, and there
was an eective sample of 117 to engage with the survey
questionnaire analysis process, which represented 83% of
the total number of survey questionnaires distributed. The
collecteddatawerethenanalysedusingSmart-PLS.
The questionnaire consisted of 20 items about working
condition and ve questions concerning personal demo-
graphics.ContributorswereaskedtouseavepointLik-
ert scale (1 =strongly disagree; 5 =strongly agree) in re-
sponding. The measurement items addressed several en-
vironmental features, including having control over social
interaction, privacy, and communication in the oce (5
items adopted items from Lee and Brand (2005, 2010)),
distraction resulting from the uncontrollable noise from
the environment, and communication and privacy in the
oce (ve items adopted from Lee and Brand (2010)), ease
of communication (ve items adapted from Sundstrom
et al. (1982)), and perceived creativity (ve items adapted
from Amabile et al. (1996)). The items used in this analy-
sis were eectively measured in previous studies and were
foundtohaveahighlevelofreliabilityandvalidity(Lee
& Brand, 2005, 2010; MacMillan, 2012; Eric Sundstrom,
Herbert, and Brown (1982).
This study employed conrmatory factor analysis for
evaluating the validity and unidimensionality of the scale,
while the calculation of convergent validity relied on t-
tests for factor loadings. Results of the conrmatory fac-
tor analysis conrmed convergent validity (t values >1.65;
Performance Improvement •Volume 59 •Number 5 •DOI: 10.1002/pfi 9

|
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND THE PRESENT STUDY’S HYPOTHESIS
WHAT WAS DONE BY PREVIOUS STUDIES? THE CURRENT STUDY’S HYPOTHESIS
Obviously open-plan offices reduce the environmental limitations and individual
privacy, which carry some advantages and some disadvantages. Open and
easy communication is the main advantage of open-plan offices and also the
most important and valuable reason behind the establishment of this type of
office design. In this regard some studies suggested that this type of office design
facilitates communication and collaboration among employees (as an
advantage), especially among team members placed in close proximity to one
another, and enhances creativity among co-workers (Brennan et al., 2002;
Ça˘
gatay, Yıldırım, Gökbulut, & Suba¸sı, 2017; Candido, Chakraborty, &
Tjondronegoro, 2019; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Lee & Brand, 2005; Lee & Guerin,
2009; Navai & Veitch, 2003; Veitch et al., 2007). On the contrary, some
studies suggest that open-plan workspaces do not facilitate social interaction and
communication among co-workers (Birnholtz, Gutwin, & Hawkey, 2007;
Brennan et al., 2002; Kim & de Dear, 2013; Passero & Zannin, 2012) due to
distractions caused by uncontrollable noise from co-workers talking or lack of
control over the workplace, along with lack of privacy for confidential
conversations (Brennan et al., 2002). Moreover, as suggested in previous
studies, a more positive social climate and interactions within the office
environment enhance the level of creativity at work (Amabile et al., 1996; Miller,
2005; Tsai, Horng, Liu, & Hu, 2015).
H1/H2: An uncontrollable working condition in
open-plan offices (by the mean of personal
control and environmental distraction) is
positively linked to social interaction.
H3: Social interaction among individuals has a
positive effect on individual creativity.
H4/H5: Social interaction in open-plan offices
positively mediates the relationship between
uncontrollable working conditions in
open-plan offices (by means of personal
control and environmental distraction) and
creativity.
|
TABLE 2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA OF THE
VARIABLESINTHESURVEY
CONSTRUCTS
NUMBER
OF ITEMS
CRONBACH’
ALPHA
Personal control 50.858
Environmental
Distraction
50.803
Social interaction 50.866
Creativity 50.814
p=.05) and presented that each factor was a unidimen-
sional construct. Cronbach’s alpha for all variables also
showed high reliability (see Table 2).
DATA ANALYSES
In the survey questionnaires, the items succeeded in cap-
turing the underlying dimensions of the uncontrollable
working environment including personal control, envi-
ronmental distraction, and creativity. The mediating role
of social interaction in the relationship between individ-
ual control, environmental distraction, and creativity was
investigated as well. Under the advanced statistical mea-
sures, the survey questionnaire data collected were tested
for missing values, outliers, and normality using SPSS
21.0; after that, the measurement (inner model) and the
structural(outermodel)usingthePartialLeastSquares
technique (Smart-PLS 3.0) were measured. The results
were discussed in relations to the literature review, the re-
search questions, and hypotheses to provide additional de-
tails on the work environment as well as the inuence of
theenablingfactorsonpromotingemployees’creativity.It
also integrated other results that were not directly related
to the research hypotheses and the conceptual model to
inform broader research questions.
RESULTS
An analysis of the demographic characteristics of respon-
dents showed that 46.8% of the sample members were fe-
male; 32.0% were aged between 20 and 29; 51.6% had 1–4
years working experance within the company. In terms of
highest level of educational attainment, 40.6% of respon-
dents indicated they had a bachelor’s degree.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among
the variables are presented in Table 3. There is a strong
positive signicant correlation between the dependent
variable (personal control and environmental distraction)
and independent measures (creativity). The mediating
variable (social interaction) is also positively and signi-
cantly correlated with personal control and environmen-
tal distraction. This suggests that the open-plan oce has
reached its main goal: to promote employee social interac-
tion by fostering communication and nearness and overall
creativity.
The hypotheses are tested using ordinary least-squares
regression analysis (see Table 4). Hypothesis 1 states that
personal control over the work environment will be pos-
itively related to individual creativity. Model 1 supports
this hypothesis, indicating that personal control over the
10 www.ispi.org •DOI: 10.1002/pfi •MAY/JUNE 2020

|
TABLE 3: MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES, AND CORRELATIONS FOR THE STUDY
INDICATORS
VARIABLES MEAN SD AV E CR 1 2 3 4
Personal control 4.01 7.054 0.529 0.817 0.727
Creative outcome 3.20 5.009 0.584 0.894 0.497 0.764
Environmental distraction 3.69 5.651 0.546 0.857 -0.212 -0.276 0.739
Social interaction 5.54 5.019 0.680 0.914 0.50 0.521 -0.238 0.825
|
TABLE 4 DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
HYPOTHESIS
SUGGESTED
RELATIONSHIPS
PATH
COEFFICIENTS T-VALUE LOW UP SUPPORT
Personal Control →Social
Interaction
+0.500 9.579 0.349 0.414 Yes
Environmental Distraction →
Social Interaction
− −0.430 6.276 −0.525 −0.220 Yes
Social Interaction →Individual
Creativity
+0.227 3.150 0.212 0.381 Yes
work environemnt is signicantly related to individual
creativity (𝛽=0.500, p <0.001). Hypothesis 2 suggested
that environmental distraction will be negatively related
to social inetraction. Model 2 supports Hypothesis 2, in-
dicating the existence of a signicant negative relationship
(𝛽=-0.43, p <0. 001). Also, Hypothesis 3 suggested that
social inetraction will be positively related to individual
creativity. Model 3 supports Hypothesis 3, indicating the
existence of a signicant positive relationship (𝛽=0.227,
p<0. 001).
In the current study, the entity variables for social inter-
action were hypothesised to mediate the relationship be-
tween individual control and creativity (see Table 5). Sig-
nicant results were found (𝛽=0.229; t-value =5.376; and
CI was between 0.041 and 0.220), indicating that social
interaction positively mediates the relationship between
individual control and individual creativity at work in an
open-plan workspace in creative industries. The results of
themediating-eectsanalysisimpliedthattherelationship
between individual control and individual creativity was
partially mediated by social interaction.
Moreover, social interaction was hypothesised to me-
diate the relationship between environment distraction
and creativity. Signicant results were found (𝛽=–0.133;
t-value =2.646; and CI was between –0.120 and 0.045),
indicating that social interaction negatively mediates
the relationship between environmental distraction and
creativity at work in open-plan oces in creative in-
dustries. The present study attempted and succeeded in
establishing a link between environmental distraction
and creativity through social interaction. The results
of mediating-eects analysis showed that the relation-
ship between environmental distraction and individual
creativity was fully mediated by social interaction.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Work environments with norms that promote and support
individual freedom and autonomy at work, risk taking,
and external competition are highly expected to facilitate
creativity. Therefore, to some extent creativity is known
as a social process, which means that more social contact,
interaction, and communication are present in the work-
place and they facilitate and promote creativity (Shalley,
Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Woodman et al., 1993). So, based
ontheresultofthisstudy,theopen-planoceenhances
employees’ positive or work-related social interaction and
overall creativity.
Based on the “Environmental Comfort Theory” and
previous studies, while individuals have the ability to
Performance Improvement •Volume 59 •Number 5 •DOI: 10.1002/pfi 11

|
TABLE 5 MEDIATOR ANALYSIS
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
HYPOTHESES INDIRECT
EFFECTS
T- VALUE LOW UP SUPPORT
Control →Social Interaction →
Creativity
𝛽2=0.229 5.376 0.041 0.220 Yes
Distraction →Social Interaction
→Creativity
𝛽3=−0.133 2.646 −0.120 0.045 Ye s
control, modify, and own their territoriality and privacy,
they feel more comfortable with the work environment
and they are more willing to communicate (Vischer,
2007). This means that in open-plan oces, social in-
teraction and more communication occur in conditions
where personal control is considered and can positively
aect creativity. The result of descriptive statistical anal-
ysis in the current study shows that the majority (over
50%) of stas in the Fakhr Tousehe Sanat (F.T.S) Group
have control over the timing and amount of their social
interaction with others. The results also showed that more
than 60% of employees indicated that they have eective
communication with others in the workplace and also that
the oce design enhances their communication. There-
fore, it is not surprising to infer that social interaction,
whichisrequiredforcreativeoutcome,mediatestherela-
tionship between personal control and creative outcome
in open-plan oces in creative industries. Therefore, as
predicted, the ndings indicate that the availability of per-
sonal control can enhance employees’ productive social
interaction, which can positively mediate the relationship
between personal control and creativity in Fakhr Tousehe
Sanat (F.T.S) Group.
Within organizations, there are a number of related so-
cial and physical factors that have signicant eects on
supporting or hindering individual or group creative out-
comes. The results of this study, together with those of
prior studies (e.g., Brennan et al., 2002; McCoy & Evans,
2002) show that open-plan oces enhance employees’
communication and collaboration and aect their creative
outcome. The ndings of this study are consistent with
those of previous studies and theories (Amabile, 1996a;
Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Tsai, Horng, Liu, & Hu, 2015;
Woodman, Sawyer, & Grin, 1993), which indicates that
social interaction and communication of information en-
hance the level of creativity (Woodman et al., 1993; Tsai
et al., 2015). Therefore, improving communication among
co-workers and individuals enhances the level of knowl-
edge sharing among them as well as their creativity, which
should be considered by innovative and creative compa-
nies.
Within the work environment, factors such as social
interactions positively inuence and signicantly aect
creativity. The ndings of Tsai et al. (2015) also illustrated
that social interaction aects and enhances creativity. Ac-
cording to the componential theory of Amabile (1996b),
there are some factors within the work environment that
enhance and encourage the overall creativity, and social
interaction is one of them. Therefore, more positive social
interaction in the workplace enhances the level of creative
outcome in creative industries. Miller (2005) also sug-
gested that a more positive social climate in the workplace
leads to greater creativity. Consequently, it is possible to
conclude that a positive social climate and interaction
play an important role in enhancing individual creative
productivity and overall innovation at work.
Furthermore, the result of the study conducted at
Fakhr Tousehe Sanat (F.T.S) Group’s workplace replace-
ment showed that more than 50% of employees indicated
easy, face-to0face and positive social interaction in their
oce room. In fact, open-plan workplaces are designed
to improve communication and social interaction among
employees, which is essential for creativity. Moreover, it is
important to mention that when creativity is highly valued
within organizations, it is possible to examine the physical
environment, which indirectly implies equality and facil-
itates interpersonal interaction. Generally, open-plan of-
celayoutsarebelievedtofacilitatecommunicationand
interaction among co-workers by reducing environmen-
tal distance and promoting teamwork and creativity. Most
employees reported that because of the greater proximity
oered by open-plan oces they feel socialy closer to their
co-workers.
Previous studies have indicated that some environ-
mental variables such as the arrangements or design of
the spaces, exibility, size, and proximity of the work-
station (which is more common and possible in share
and open-plan oces) can facilitate the probabilities or
12 www.ispi.org •DOI: 10.1002/pfi •MAY/JUNE 2020

limit the social occurrence (Candido et al., 2019; Duval
et al., 2002; Kim & de Dear, 2013; O’Neill, 2008; Veitch
et al., 2007; Veitch et al., 2003). As mentioned previously,
people’s behavior and actions are aected by the physical
design of the building. In fact private rooms and cells in
traditional oecs can limit individulas’ physical move-
ment and limit their social interaction. One basic reason
behindthecreationofopen-planocearrangementswas
to increase social interaction and communication among
team members and co-workers.
In line with previous studies, in a creative environment
attention should be given to both the physical and the
social environment, ideally by creating an enabling social
climate while ensuring that distraction caused by the
physical environment is minimized (Brennan et al., 2002;
Galasiu & Veitch, 2006; Huang, Robertson, & Chang,
2004; Paciuk, 1990; Parker, Jimmieson, & Amiot, 2013;
Veitch & Giord, 1996). This means that organizations
can enhance creativity in their work environment by pay-
ing more attention to developing the physical and social
environment. Also, the creative environment improves
while the distraction of the environment decreases or
people will be able to handle and deal with the uncontrol-
lableenvironment.However,somestudiesindicatethat
distraction or an uncontrollable working condition do
not aect workers’ perceived performance (both creativity
and productivity) (Rasila & Rothe, 2012). Based on the
result of this study, employees in the F.T.S Group reported
improvement in their creativity in the new workspace.
Moreover, results showed that respondents indicated that
in their current working condition they still feel creative.
Moreover, dierent people have dierent reactions to
enviromental distraction. For instance, according to Rasila
and Rothe (2012), within a workplace young people, as
compared with older ones, are less bothered by distrac-
tion in the environment. Consequently, individual dier-
ences such as age and gender possibly aect people’s per-
ceptions of an uncontrollable work environment. Based
on the result of this study, about 76% of female employ-
ees were aware of an uncontrollable environment but still
believed that they had more social interaction and easy
communication with others in their current F.T.S Group’s
workplace, which was benecial for their creativity. So it’s
possibletosaythatdetermingthelevelandamountofdis-
traction and control over the environment is dierent in
dierent people. Based on the survey results, about 81%
of male respondents do not feel distracted in their uncon-
trollable work environment, and their current work envi-
ronment positively aects their creativity.
The results of the study at Fakhr Tousehe Sanat (F.T.S)
Group illustrate that within a work environment so-
cial interactions with various co-workers and increased
communication with others are helpful both for under-
standinghowmoresocialbehaviorsaectcreativityand
for establishing an important base for a social perspective.
Social climate and interaction have an important role to
play in enhancing creativity and overall innovation at
work. Thus, a higher level of creativity in the workspace
occurs in situations that oer a more positive social
climate. This nding should help managers and organi-
zational designers, especially in creative and innovative
industries, to appreciate the valuse of modifying their
work environment to motivate employees to have more
communication of ideas and information.
Social interaction and communication are supposed to
balance stability and change within the individual and the
organization with the purpose of promoting dynamism,
creativity, and innovation (Johannessen and Olsen, 2011;
Tsai et al., 2015). As indicated by the results of the study,
within a work environment social interactions with vari-
ous co-workers and increased communication with oth-
ers are good ways to understand how more social behav-
iors aect creativity and constitute an important base for
a social perspective. Consequently, it is in the best inter-
est of space designers and organizational managers to pay
moreattentiontothedesignoftheirworkplaceandto
appreciate the eect of that on employees’ work-related
behavior.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
As indicated by this study, open-plan oces improve so-
cial interaction and overall communication among co-
workers by increasing adjacency and reect a more demo-
cratic working culture, which leads to increased creativ-
ity. Therefore, it is possible to say that the social climate
and interaction that are oered by workplace conditions
play an important role in enhancing employees’ creativ-
ity. However, it is too early to conclude whether these
improvements are long-lasting. Therefore, additional re-
search would be benecial to determine whether an open-
plan workspace may enhance positive social interaction
andconnection,whichenhancecreativity.Althoughthis
study focused on a company’s change from private oce
roomstoacompletelyopen-planlayoutwithinanIranian
creative multimedia group, future studies would also do
well to concentrate on other types of workplaces in other
industries and in other countries.
References
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.
(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity.
Academy of Management Journal,39(5), 1154–1184.
Performance Improvement •Volume 59 •Number 5 •DOI: 10.1002/pfi 13

Amabile, T. (1996a). Creativity and innovation in organizations
(vol. 5). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Amabile, T. (1996b). Creativity in context: Update to “the social
psychology of creativity.”Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social
psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
46(1), 3–15.
Awang, A.H., & Denan, Z. (2016). Designer’s oce in Malaysia:
Comparative analysis on space, planning and design issues.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,6(6),
427.
Baldry, C., & Barnes, A. (2012). The open-plan academy: space,
control and the undermining of professional identity. Wo r k ,
Employment & Society,26(2), 228–245.
Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (2005). Oce noise and employee
concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential
improvements. Ergonomics,48(1), 25–37.
Birnholtz, J.P., Gutwin, C., & Hawkey, K. (2007). Privacy in the
open: How attention mediates awareness and privacy in
open-plan oces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group
work.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of
Marketing,56, 57–71.
Brand, J.L. (2009). Should your company transition from
traditional private oces to an open oce plan?
Change/Transition Management White Paper, 5.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus
open oce design: A longitudinal eld study. Environment and
Behavior,34(3), 279–299.
Ça˘
gatay, K., Yıldırım, K., Gökbulut, N., & Suba¸sı, T. (2017).
The eects of interior design in open oecs on employee’s
motivation. Mugla Journal of Science and Technology,3(1),
20–26.
Candido, C., Chakraborty, P., & Tjondronegoro, D. (2019). The
rise of oce design in high=performance, open-plan
environment. Journal of Buildings (MDPI),9(4), 100.
De Dreu, C.K., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus
relationship conict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction:A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(4), 741.
Duval, C.L., Veitch, J.A., & Charles, K.E. (2002). Open-plan
oce density and environmental satisfaction.NationalResearch
Council Canada, Ottawa: Institute for Research in
Construction.
Duxbury, T. (2012). Creativity: Linking theory and practice for
entrepreneurs. Technology Innovation Management Review
(August 2012: Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century).
El-Zeiny, R.M.A. (2012). The interior design of workplace and
its impact on employees’ performance: A case study of the
private sector corporations in Egypt. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences,35, 746–756.
Galasiu, A.D., & Veitch, J.A. (2006). Occupant preferences and
satisfaction with the luminous environment and control
systems in daylit oces: A literature review. Energy and
Buildings,38(7), 728–742.
Hua, Y. (2007). Designing open-plan workplaces for
collaboration: An exploration of the impact of workplace spatial
settings on space perception and collaboration eectiveness.
Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Huang, Y H., Robertson, M.M., & Chang, K.I. (2004). The role
of environmental control on environmental satisfaction,
communication, and psychological stress eects of oce
ergonomics training. Environment and Behavior,36(5),
617–637.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing
processes and thelLiteratures. Organization Science,2(1).
Hwang, T., & Kim, J.T. (2013). Assessment of indoor
environmental quality in open-plan oces. Indoor and Built
Environment,22(1), 139–156.
Jahncke, H. (2012). Cognitive performance and restoration in
open-plan oce noise. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation,
University of Gävle, Luleå, Germany.
Johannessen, J.-A., & Olsen, B. (2011). Projects as
communicating systems: Creating a culture of innovation and
performance. International journal of information Management,
31(1), 30–37.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The
privacy-communication trade-o in open-plan oces. Journal
of Environmental Psychology,36, 18–26.
Leather, P., Beale, D., & Sullivan, L. (2003). Noise, psychosocial
stress and their interaction in the workplace. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,23(2), 213–222.
Lee, Y.S, & Brand, J.L. (2005). Eects of control over o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 oce workplaces?
Ergonomics,53(3), 324–335.
Lee, Y.S., & Guerin, D.A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality
relatedtooccupantsatisfactionandperformancein
14 www.ispi.org •DOI: 10.1002/pfi •MAY/JUNE 2020

LEED-certied buildings. Indoor and Built Environment,18(4),
293–300.
Maher, A., & Von Hippel, C. (2005). Individual dierences in
employee reactions to open-plan oces. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,25(2), 219–229.
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.
McLean, L.D. (2005). Organizational culture’s inuence on
creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and
implications for human resource development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources,7(2), 226–246.
Miller, A.M. (2005). Fun in the workplace: Toward an
environment-behavior framework relating oce design,
employee creativity, and job satisfaction. Gainesville FL:
Master’s degree thesis, University of Florida.
Navai, M., & Veitch, J.A. (2003). Acoustic satisfaction in
open-plan oces: Review and recommendations. National
Research Council Canada: Institute for Research in Construction.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. (2000). Face-to-face: Making network
organizations work. Technology, Organizations and Innovation:
Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 1659–1681.
O’Neill, M. (2008). Open plan and enclosed private oces
Retrieved from
www.knoll.com/media/878/738/OpenClosed_Oces_wp.pdf
Paciuk, M. (1990). The role of personal control of the
environment in thermal comfort and satisfaction at the
workplace. Proceedings of the 21st Environmental Design
Research Association meeting, 303–312.
Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Amiot, C.E. (2013).
Self-determination, control, and reactions to changes in
workload: A work simulation. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology,18(2), 173.
Passero, C.R.M., & Zannin, P.H.T. (2012). Acoustic evaluation
andadjustmentofanopen-planocethrougharchitectural
design and noise control. Applied Ergonomics,43(6),
1066–1071.
Pejtersen, J., Allermann, L., Kristensen, T., & Poulsen, O.
(2006). Indoor climate, psychosocial work environment and
symptoms in open-plan oces. INDOOR AIR 16(5), 392–401.
Perrin Jegen, N., & Chevret, P. (2016). Eect of noise on
comfort in open-plan oces: Application of an assessment
questionnaire. Ergonomics (just-accepted), 1–31.
Rashid, M., Wineman, J., & Zimring, C. (2009). Space,
behavior, and environmental perception in open-plan oces: A
prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design,36(3), 432–449.
Rasila, H., & Rothe, P. (2012). A problem is a problem is a
benet? Generation Y perceptions of open-plan oces.
Property Management,30(4), 362–375.
Roelofsen, P. (2008). Performance loss in open-plan oces due
to noise by speech. Journal of Facilities Management,6(3),
202–211.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational Culture. The American
Psychologist,45(2), 109–119.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, LL., & Blum, T.C. (2000). Matching
creativity requirements and the work environment: Eects on
satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management
Journal, 215–223.
Smith-Jackson, T.L., & Klein, K.W. (2009). Open-plan oces:
Task performance and mental workload. Journal of
Environmental Psychology,29(2), 279–289.
Sundstrom, E., Burt, R.E., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work:
Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job
performance. Academy of Management Journal,23(1),
101–117.
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R.K., & Brown, D.W. (1982). Privacy
and communication in an open-plan oce: A case study.
Environment and Behavior,14(3), 379–392.
Sundstrom,E.,Town,J.P.,Rice,R.W.,Osborn,D.P.,&Brill,M.
(1994). Oce noise, satisfaction, and performance.
Environment and Behavior,26(2), 195–222.
Tsai, C.Y., Horng, J.S., Liu, C.H., & Hu, D.C. (2015). Work
environment and atmosphere: The role of organizational
support in the creativity performance of tourism and
hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality
Management,46, 26–35.
Veitch, J.A., Bradley, J.S., Legault, L.M., Norcross, S., & Svec, J.
(2002). Masking speech in open-plan oces with simulated
ventilation noise:Noise level and spectral composition eects
on acoustic satisfaction. Institute for Research in Construction,
Internal Report IRC-IR-846.
Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Farley, K.M., & Newsham, G.R.
(2007). A model of satisfaction with open-plan oce
conditions: COPE eld ndings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology,27(3), 177–189.
Veitch, J.A., Charles, K.E., Newsham, G.R., Marquardt, C.J., &
Geerts, J. (2003). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan
environments: Workstation and physical condition eects.
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
Council of Canada.
Performance Improvement •Volume 59 •Number 5 •DOI: 10.1002/pfi 15

Veitch, J.A., & Giord, R. (1996). Choice, perceived control,
and performance decrements in the physical environment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology,16(3), 269–276.
Vischer, J.C. (2007). The eects of the physical environment on
job performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace
stress. Stress and Health,23(3), 175–184
Vithayathawornwong, S., Danko, S., & Tolbert, P. (2003).
The role of the physical environment in supporting
organizational creativity. Journal of Interior Design,29,1–2,
1–16.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Grin, R.W. (1993). Toward a
theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management
Review, 293–321.
Zahn, G.L. (1991). Face-to-face communication in an oce
setting: The eects of position, proximity, and exposure.
Communication Research,18(6), 737–754.
SANAZ AHAMADPOOR SAMANI, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Management and
Human Resource at Payame Noor University, Tehran, Alborz, Mahdasht, Iran. She earned her doctoral
degree in management at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia, and her research interests include
human resources, creativity, and innovation. She may be reached at sanaz.ahmadpoor@gmail.com
SAYED MOHAMAD SHAMS ZADEH ALAVI, has a Master;a degree in Public Administration-Human Re-
source. He earned his Master’s degree at the Faculty of Management and Human Resource, Payame Noor
University, Tehran, Alborz, Mahdasht, Iran. He may be reached at Alavi.mm@gmail.com
16 www.ispi.org •DOI: 10.1002/pfi •MAY/JUNE 2020