Abstract
A high percentage of information-based work is now conducted in open-plan offices as opposed to traditional cellular offices. In this systematic review, we compare health, work, and social outcomes as well as employee outcomes for workers in the two environments. From a total of 10,242 papers reviewed, we identified 31 papers which met strict inclusion/exclusion criteria of allowing a direct comparison between the office types. The results showed that working in open-plan workplace designs is associated with more negative outcomes on many measures relating to health, satisfaction, productivity, and social relationship. Notable health outcomes included decreased overall health and increased stress. Environmental characteristics of particular concern included noise and distractions, poor privacy, lighting and glare, and poorer temperature control. Most studies indicated negative effects on social relationships and interactions. Overall, the findings showed that while open-plan workplace designs may offer financial benefits for management, these appear to be offset by the intangible costs associated with the negative effects on workers. The study encourages further focused investigations into design factors as well as employee characteristics that might contribute to better outcomes in open-plan designs.
Highlights
Office work environments have changed significantly over time
Many workers have, in the last few decades, moved from traditional cellular offices to open-plan work environments. It was estimated by the International Facility Management Association and Corenet Global that more than 70% of office workers in the United States of America work in an open-plan workplace design (Congdon et al, 2014)
This review aims to use a systematic approach to summarize all published quantitative peer-reviewed research conducted on the positive and negative effects that different office designs/configurations have on a range of different outcome measures, that is, health, satisfaction, productivity, social interactions, and retention
Summary
Office work environments have changed significantly over time. In the past, workplaces were often based in multistory buildings arranged in the form of cellular offices on each side of corridors. Thereby, office designs are typically not interpreted holistically in return-oninvestment (ROI) terms; as financial planners are limited by their financial documents which do not account for the associated “people” investments (e.g., increased coworker proximity) and costs (e.g., increased sick leave; reduced job and occupancy satisfaction) of open-plan office designs Another putative benefit of open-plan offices is that they are advanced as ways to increase communication and collaboration between workers (Maher & von Hippel, 2005). The lack of a precise definition, for example, a clear definition of the physical characteristics, dimensions, and number of occupants per space for “open-plan” office spaces is problematic because it makes it more difficult to compare studies and study outcomes on different designs For this reason, research has benefited from the development of definitions and typologies such as Bodin Danielsson and Bodin’s (2008) system which distilled seven named office types into three main categories based on their architectural and functional features. Cubicle offices with partitions of various heights are treated as a form of open-plan workplace design in this article
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
