Individual Flexibility in the Workplace

Abstract

During the past few decades, scholars have undertaken numerous studies to map various determinants of flexibility at various levels: organizational, group, and individual. However, limited attention has been paid to the role of context and spatiality in realizing individual flexibility. This article aims to fill this gap and seeks to inquire into links between flexibility and spatiality. More specifically, this article will explore how organizational spatial layouts affect individual flexibility as everyday work activities are undertaken in the production of services in two settings, namely, health care and financial services. The findings show that spatial layout is important to better understand and conceptualize individual and organizational flexibility. The findings also show how spatial layout affords various and unexpected outcomes and that layouts that unilaterally foster flexibility are difficult to achieve due to the polymorphous nature of flexibility.

Collaboration in open-plan offices

“…Although there are studies on diverse physical work environments, such as hospitals (Värlander, 2012), factories (Bernstein, 2012), and hairdressing salons (Shortt, 2015), office environments continue to be of substantial interest for researchers who study physical work environments. Many of the significant 1970's and 1980's studies of physical work environments compared cell and open-plan offices (e.g.…”

“…Similarly, Värlander (2012) has demonstrated that in open-plan offices, social rules quickly emerge to limit people's interaction with one another. Employees developed and policed norms related to talking loudly and talking on the phone, which limited the flexibility of the space and employees' behaviour, the outcome the organisation was trying to promote.…”

“…Ayoko & Härtel, 2003;Pepper, 2008;Värlander, 2012), most research is survey-based and quantitative (e.g. KaarlelaTuomaala et al, 2009;Oldham & Brass, 1979;Sundstrom et al, 1980).…”

“…Open-plan offices are rooms shared by upwards of four people (often more than 24 people) where workstations are freely arranged in groups and where there are few physical barriers between workstations (Bodin- Danielsson & Bodin, 2008). While advocates of open-plan offices have argued that open-plan offices enhance collaboration, innovation and performance (Allen & Gerstberger, 1973;Boutellier, Ullman, Schreiber, & Naef, 2008), opponents of open layouts have suggested they impair concentration, inhibit productivity and can actually undermine, rather than facilitate, collaboration (Hatch, 1987;Kim & de Dear, 2013;Värlander, 2012). De Croon et al (2005) found that one of the most contested topics relates to…”

“…(Bernstein, 2012;Edenius & Yakhlef, 2007;Värlander, 2012). Yet empirical research has shown that physical barriers can promote (Hatch, 1987) and inhibit interactions , that co-presence can aid (Fahy et al, 2013) and undermine collaboration (Sundstrom, Herbert, et al, 1982), and that being able to see, hear, and smell others can both trigger (Edenius & Yakhlef, 2007) and undermine communication (Bernstein, 2012).…”