What happens to the physical and psychosocial work environment when activity-based offices are introduced into academia?

Abstract

Purpose -Activity-based offices are still uncommon at universities, but there is an increase in their popularity now. The purpose of this study is to contribute to the knowledge about the importance of the physical work conditions for the psychosocial work environment within academia by analyzing how staff at a large Swedish university experienced the physical and psychosocial work environment before and after moving to activity-based offices.Design -A web-based survey was distributed to all employees at two faculties at a university three months before (2015, n=217, response rate 51%) and nine months after (2016, n=200, response rate 47%) relocation to a new activity-based university building.Findings -In the new premises, a vast majority (86%) always occupied the same place if it was vacant. Employees were working more often from home, which in turn may lead to further deterioration of the psychosocial work environment. Social community at work had declined and social support from colleagues and supervisors was perceived to have decreased. Participants were more likely to seek new jobs, and also job satisfaction was lower. No aspects in the physical or psychosocial work environment were perceived to have improved after the relocation.Research limitations -The study had a two-wave cross-sectional design, which does not allow establishing causal relations.Practical implications -There is reason to be cautious about relocation to activity-based offices at universities. The savings that the organization may make in costs for premises may lead to costs in other ways. The risk that staff cannot concentrate on their work in activity-based university workplaces and lose their sense of community with colleagues are factors which in the long run may lead to decreased efficiency, more conflicts and poorer well-being.Originality -This paper contributes new knowledge concerning changes in the physical and psychosocial work environment when relocating from cell offices to activity-based offices in a university setting.

Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Version III and Establishment of Benchmarks for Psychosocial Risk Management in Sweden

“…Sweden is globally among those countries with the highest proportion of workers employed in service work (2019: 80% [45]), which is typically perceived as more meaningful than manufacturing work. The high levels of reported social support contrast with the levels reported for COPSOQ II for specific occupational contexts in Sweden [11,16]. This could be a consequence of the COPSOQ III standard version including two rather than three items in each of these scales.…”

“…The nomological validity has been corroborated by operationalization of an extended JD-R model by the instrument with aspects of workability as outcome [11] as well as need for recovery [12] and also in relation to the newly introduced dimensions in the COPSOQ III of Work Engagement, Quality of Work [13] and Cyber Bullying [14]. Studies across different occupations have corroborated the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the scales [11][12][13][15][16][17][18][19]. The ability to distinguish different groups (organizations with similar missions, work teams or occupational groups) has been demonstrated [20][21][22], as also the relevance of multilevel analyses and for intervention and organizational change studies [23][24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Activity-based flexible offices: effects on work-related outcomes in a longitudinal study

“…The most recent systematic review about the effects of A-FOs shows that A-FOs tend to be associated with reduced privacy and fewer concentration opportunities (Engelen et al 2019), yet results varied considerably among studies. Moreover, studies that explored interruptions and distractions before and after relocating to new flexible offices revealed either an increase, no change, or even a decrease in interruptions and distractions (Brennan, Chugh, and Kline 2002;Berthelsen, Muhonen, and Toivanen 2018;Gerdenitsch, Korunka, and Hertel 2018;Rolf€ o 2018). Therefore, more research is needed to clarify these inconsistent findings, especially considering the growing evidence about the negative effects of work interruptions on workers' wellbeing and performance (Baethge, Rigotti, and Roe 2015;Keller et al 2020).…”

Taking care of the researcher –a nature and art-related activity retreat: Sharing natural space puts humanity into perspective

“…One risk factor for ill-health is physical inactivity, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ranks it as the fourth most common cause of death in the world, causing 6% of deaths [16]. As health-supporting work environments including opportunities for physical exercises and academic walks [17] become more common in our universities, we are beginning to understand how this is linked both to better health and to possible new learning environments for both students and staff [18].…”