Although there is a trend in today's organisations to implement activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs), only a few studies examine consequences of this new office type. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms why A-FOs might lead to different consequences as compared to cellular and open-plan offices are still unclear. This paper introduces a theoretical framework explaining benefits and risks of A-FOs based on theories from work and organisational psychology. After deriving working conditions specific for A-FOs (territoriality, autonomy, privacy, proximity and visibility), differences in working conditions between A-FOs and alternative office types are proposed. Further, we suggest how these differences in working conditions might affect work-related consequences such as well-being, satisfaction, motivation and performance on the individual, the team and the organisational level. Finally, we consider task-related (e.g. task variety), person-related (e.g. personality) and organisational (e.g. leadership) moderators. Based on this model, future research directions as well as practical implications are discussed. Practitioner Summary: Activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs) are popular in today's organisations. This article presents a theoretical model explaining why and when working in an A-FO evokes benefits and risks for individuals, teams and organisations. According to the model, A-FOs are beneficial when management encourages employees to use the environment appropriately and supports teams.

Activity-based work environments (WEs) aim to support office workers doing both concentrated and communicative work, but empirical tests are rare. We expected the availability of different WEs to be beneficial for job attitudes and vitality, and that the benefits would be stronger when available WEs were perceived to fit to tasks, and when workers used WEs appropriately. As predictors of appropriate use of WEs, we postulated need for routine seeking and trust in management. Hypotheses were tested in a questionnaire study with 560 office workers from different organizations. The availability of WEs that support undisturbed working was positively related to job attitudes and vitality. For WEs that support communicative work, job attitudes and vitality were additionally explained by the relative fit to the task and appropriate use of WEs. Finally, appropriate use of WEs

This three-wave longitudinal interview study (time lag: 12 and 18 months) investigates the impact of working in an activity-based flexible office (A-FO) on processes within and across teams (i.e., communication, trust, cohesion, and collaboration) and team management. Based on a new theoretical framework on benefits and risks of A-FOs (A-FO-M; Wohlers and Hertel, 2017), we conducted interviews with 25 employees of an in-house training institute who recently switched from single cell or shared offices to an A-FO. The A-FO consisted of a main open-layout environment without assigned workstations and provided additional working zones appropriate for specific work activities. According to the A-FO-M, A-FO features are expected to alter visibility and proximity of employees compared to office environments with assigned workstations. Altered visibility and proximity, in turn, should be related to team processes, such as communication. The interview material was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. This textual analysis procedure revealed that the interviewees reported that inter-team collaboration improved while working in the A-FO. Reasons that were mentioned for this positive effect were more contact, communication, collaboration possibilities (joint project work), and trusting relationships. However, interviewees also reported negative effects, such as that teamwork suffered due to less communication and cooperation. Along with that, especially ensuring team cohesion and communication among team partners were the most often mentioned challenges for management since team members were spatially dispersed within the office building. Theoretical and practical implications, such as assigning additional team areas to support teamwork, as well as recommendations for future research are discussed.

No abstract