work environment research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

How Toxic Workplace Environment Effects the Employee Engagement: The Mediating Role of Organizational Support and Employee Wellbeing

Samma faiz rasool.

1 Postdoctoral Station of Statistical, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China; nc.ude.uhs.i@ammas

2 Entrepreneurship Institute, School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

3 School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

4 Institute of Administrative Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore 54000, Pakistan; [email protected]

Javed Iqbal

5 School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China; nc.ude.uhzg.e@devaj

Associated Data

The data will be available on request.

This study explores the effects of a toxic workplace environment (TWE) on employee engagement (EE). Building on conservation of resources (COR) theory and organizational support theory (OST), this study proposed a research model. In this research model, a toxic workplace environment negatively affected employee engagement, directly and indirectly, through organizational support (OS) and employee well-being (EW). In this study, we used a quantitative research approach, and data were collected from 301 workers employed in the small and medium-size enterprises of China. To estimate the proposed relationships of the research model, we used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM 3.2.2). The results of this study confirmed that a toxic workplace environment has a negative impact on employee engagement. Moreover, the findings of this research confirm that organizational support and employee well-being significantly mediate a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. The conclusions of this study are as follows: First, the direct relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement confirms that if employees are working in a toxic environment, they will spread negative feelings among other co-workers. The feelings that come with a toxic workplace environment, i.e., harassment, bullying, and ostracism, can be detrimental and lead to unnecessary stress, burnout, depression, and anxiety among the workers. Second, employee well-being will affect employee behaviors that enhance employee engagement with the work as well as with the organization. Third, organizational support also increases employee engagement with the work as well as with the organization. So, it is also confirmed that when workers perceive the support from the organization, their sense of belonging to the organization is strengthened.

1. Introduction

Over the past three decades, China has witnessed tremendous industrialization, urbanization, and economic growth. This growth has partly stemmed from the rapid development of small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) within China. Currently, small and medium-size enterprises employ 80% of the workforce in China [ 1 , 2 ]. One reason why SMEs have flourished this way is that small and medium-size enterprises have fewer regulations imposed on them as compared to large enterprises. However, employees belonging to SMEs have to suffer from a lower pay and a high level of toxic workplace environment, such as workplace harassment, workplace bullying, and workplace ostracism [ 3 ]. Such an environment is a significant detriment toward employee motivation and engagement, and prior studies have shown that a toxic workplace environment in small and medium-size enterprises plays a negative role toward employee engagement [ 2 , 4 ].

Employee engagement, which refers to a commitment demonstrated by employees toward their job and organization, has become an important asset for small and medium-size enterprises that seek to adapt to an uncertain environment [ 5 ]. Therefore, there is increased attention among organizational behavior theorists toward the personal and situational factors that influence employee engagement [ 6 ]. Such research has increasingly focused on personal factors, in a social or a group context, that tend to influence engagement levels [ 7 ]. Other variables, such as organizational culture [ 8 ], relationship with bosses, and job features [ 9 ], are also routinely researched.

In this regard, the overall organizational environment is a matter of great concern. A toxic workplace environment refers to the cruel and often violent treatment of persons, and it jeopardizes employee safety and health [ 10 ]. The impact of a toxic workplace environment is perhaps felt within every organization, but due to personal reasons, very few of the workers are willing to lodge formal complaints against such behavior [ 11 ]. This avoidance and silence by victims of a toxic workplace environment make such incidents difficult to be noted and studied by researchers [ 12 ]. However, it is unanimously acknowledged that victims of violence suffer from a lack of well-being. Employee well-being here refers to a feeling of happiness felt by people based on a sense of security and satisfaction [ 13 ]. According to Maslow’s theory of needs, security is the main concern for people, and insecurity is not applicable to other higher-level needs [ 14 ]. A toxic workplace environment, however, is a climate factor that demolishes a person’s sense of security and, thus, is bound to have a negative impact on well-being. In addition, organizational support is an important source of employee engagement. Although a lot of studies have investigated the psychological processes that promote employee engagement [ 15 , 16 , 17 ], there has not been a clear distinction of organizational characteristics that contribute to cognitive processes that are supportive of innovation and individual development [ 15 , 18 ]. To explore these factors of employee engagement based on this research gap, this study proposes an empirical model that tests the negative effect of a toxic workplace environment (i.e., harassment, bullying, and ostracism) on employees through individual emotional processes, which include employee well-being and organizational support.

This proposed model advances several theoretical perspectives. First, by assessing the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement, considering negative effects, this research studies the factors of a toxic workplace environment that are not found in small and medium-size enterprises operating in the vicinity of China. Such kind of research has not been conducted in previous studies. Previous studies have only focused on positive environmental factors and have ignored negative environmental factors. Second, the use of conservation of resources (COR) theory to understand employee engagement is used for the first time in the literature. COR theory covers two basic principles involving the protection of resources from being lost. The first principle is called the primacy of resource loss. This principle states that it is more harmful to individuals to lose resources compared to when there is a gain of resources. What this means is that a loss of pay will be more harmful than the same gain in pay would have been helpful. The second principle is known as resource investment. This principle of COR states that employees tend to invest in resources in order to protect against resource loss, to recover from losses, and to gain resources. So, when employees’ resource bases become depleted through their exposure to adverse work situations, such as harassment, bullying, and ostracism, they may avoid positive behaviors, which negatively affects employee engagement [ 19 ]. Similarly, according to the second principle of COR theory, employees invest in resources to prevent future resource losses, which positively enhances employee engagement [ 19 ]. The study also eliminates employee engagement on the basis of organizational support theory, which pays significant attention to the psychological process of employees [ 20 ]. Finally, this study examines the mediating effects of employee well-being and organizational support on the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement, and the findings of the study suggest that employee engagement is not an absolute utilitarian behavior and also arises out of an unconscious organizational citizenship activity. Hence, on the basis of the above discussion, we generate the below-mentioned three research questions (RQs):

• RQ1:   How does a toxic workplace environment influence employee engagement?
• RQ2:   How does organizational support intervene between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement?
• RQ3:   How does employee well-being intervene between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement?

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 , we present a literature review. Section 3 presents hypotheses development, while Section 4 presents the research methods, and Section 5 explains the statistical analysis of this study. Section 6 presents the discussion, and Section 7 explains the concluding remarks. Finally, the last part of this study presents the limitations and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. toxic workplace environment.

A toxic workplace environment is a description of the relationship between workers and the workplace [ 21 ]. There are two types of workplace environments previously identified by researchers: a collaborative work environment and a toxic work environment. A collaborative work environment is a friendly place with the right mix of pleasure, involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior [ 22 ]. A toxic workplace environment is defined by narcissistic behavior; offensive, and aggressive leadership; threatening behavior from managers and co-workers; and harassment, bullying, and ostracism. A physical and mental imbalance is regularly observed in a toxic workplace environment, which is alarming due to the deep-rooted grounds for high levels of stress and burnout and is a source of psychological strain on the employees’ health. Work pressures generate counter-productive work behavior at the workplace and ruin the efficiency of the organization [ 23 ]. After an extensive literature review and based on COR theory, this study focuses on the following factors of a toxic workplace environment: (i) workplace harassment, (ii) workplace bullying, and (iii) workplace ostracism. These factors are demarcated as follows: (i) workplace harassment refers to peers and supervisors threatening and poorly mishandling the workers [ 24 ]; (ii) workplace bullying means an individual is mistreated by a group or an individual in any situation, such as cyberbullying or harming the peers and stakeholders at work [ 25 ]; and (iii) workplace ostracism is defined as workplace loneliness of the workers due to their peers, family, stakeholders, and bosses [ 26 ]. The outcomes of workplace ostracism increase employee turnover and job dissatisfaction [ 2 ]. Moreover, previous researchers and COR theory also suggest these three factors reported above create toxic environments in organizations that reduce work performance and employee engagement [ 27 ].

2.2. Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is a source of a physical and emotional connection between employees and the organization [ 28 ]. It aligns employees’ personal goals with the vision of the organization, which increases the productivity of the employees and, hence, the organization [ 29 ]. An engaged employee is well balanced and emotionally connected with the vision and mission of the organization, which portrays and governs the involvement of the employee in the organizational objectives [ 30 ]. An engaged employee will work with a progressive attitude, which will build the repute and value of the organization. Organizations cultivate environments to encourage and indulge high engagement of employees, and engaged employees are enthusiastic for all support from their organizations [ 31 ]. Organizations define well-equipped designs to engage employees, which aligns worker goals with those of the organizations. Employee engagement is a positive method to avoid burnout and disengagement of the employees and indulge their emotions into positivity and patronized ethical behavior at the place of work.

2.3. Organizational Support

Organizational support refers to the course of perception and beliefs on behalf of the employee, where it is believed that the organization has a deep concern for employee well-being [ 32 ]. Organizational support facilitates instrumental, social, and emotional support [ 33 ]. Organizational support has been examined alongside various other variables, all of which support the view that organizational support reduces worker stress and burnout [ 34 , 35 ]. Accordingly, informal support is more helpful, when provided, as compared to formal support from an official senior [ 35 ].

2.4. Employee Well-Being

Apprehension, illness, depression, and fatigue are some of the aspects of a lack of mental health and the overall well-being of any human being. Likewise, headaches and muscular aches are signals of physical ill-health. An employee’s well-being is an accelerator for organizational success, saves the organization from lower productivity, and decreases poor health insurance costs. Progressive organizations have to make sure that their programs have health outcomes for the overall well-being of their employees. The physical environment of the workplace and organizational climate are some of the important aspects of employee well-being. An organization communicates its agenda for employee well-being, as it is obliged to do so under corporate social responsibility initiatives [ 36 ]. The results of previous studies lead to the hypothesized relationship between a better quality of employee well-being, optimistic behaviors, and intentions [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. So, it is proposed that corporate social responsibility initiatives help to create a positive work environment that promotes employee well-being in return and prompts active participation for green behavior.

3. Hypotheses Development

3.1. toxic workplace environment and employee engagement.

There is a lot of evidence from prior studies that show a significant relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement [ 28 , 31 ]. According to Bakker and Albrecht [ 29 ], an engaged employee is a motivated, self-guided, and contributive member who represents a valuable addition to the human capital and promotes organizational growth and development. Das and Mishra [ 40 ] categorize employee engagement into two types: job engagement and organizational engagement. Job engagement leads to employee commitment, which directly deals with dedication and work performance, which routes to organizational development. Organizational engagement is interlinked with employee commitment and employee loyalty. The prior literature supports the view that the impact of at oxic workplace environment on the involvement of the individual, job satisfaction, and enthusiastic characteristics for work is negative, while employee engagement and organizational engagement are adversely affected [ 41 ]. Moreover, COR theory also supports the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. So, as a result, the construct of employee engagement is significantly associated with a toxic workplace environment and can be hypothesized as follows:

A toxic workplace environment is negatively related to employee engagement.

3.2. Mediating Effect of Organizational Support

The presence of a toxic workplace environment is found to have negative effects on employee outcomes, such as stress and engagement. However, certain mediating variables can mitigate these negative effects, and one such variable is organizational support. In a study on the toxic work environment and its relationship with work stress, Wang, Zaman [ 32 ] found that organizational support has a positive impact on employee output, which improves employees’ commitment and performance at the workplace. It has also been established that when organizational support is provided to employees, their cognitive and emotional evaluation of their organization is strengthened [ 2 ]. In this view of a dyadic interaction between employees and their organization, it can be presumed that high levels of organizational support would allow employees to experience higher engagement levels, even if engagement levels are diminished by the presence of unfavorable work environment characteristics. Moreover, COR theory also supports the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and organizational support. Hence, on the basis of the above discussion, we proposed the below-mentioned hypothesis.

A toxic workplace environment is negatively related to organizational support.

Organizational support has been proven to have a positive effect on employee engagement in several studies. Organizational support reflects an organization’s overall expectations of its members and recognizes the personal value of each employee [ 42 ]. The use of social exchange theory and organizational support theory has generally been used to explain the relationship between organizational support and employee engagement. Social exchange theory states that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as both parties abide by the rules of the exchange. For example, when employees receive economic and socioeconomic resources from their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization, thus helping to promote employee engagement [ 43 ]. Similarly, in the view of organizational support theory, when employees perceive support and care from their organization, they make active attitudinal and behavioral changes in order to achieve organizational goals. In other words, when employees feel that their organization is concerned about them, they would respond by becoming more engaged [ 44 ]. Thus, according to the above-discussed literature, organizational support is positively related to employee engagement.

Organizational support is positively related to employee engagement.

Previous studies indicate that organizational support has a significant impact on workers’ output, their job commitment to the organization, and high productive work, transforming the organization and the effectiveness of the fundamental values of the organization [ 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Organizational support in the form of leadership support at the workplace has a positive impact on the dynamic behavior of the workplace [ 48 ]. Motivation in employees from organizational support leads toward more productivity [ 49 ]. According to organizational support theory, organizational support plays a significant role in employee engagement. For instance, the demand control support (DCS) model shows that mental health problems at work arise out of excessive pressures, low control, and low support [ 50 ]. This model shows the negative consequence of a toxic environment, but if supervisors and peers provide support to the workers, it will enhance employee engagement [ 30 , 51 ]. Our study also proposes a theoretical framework ( Figure 1 ) based on organizational support theory and COR theory. This theoretical framework also indicates that organizational support can create a better workplace environment and can mediate between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement [ 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, we proposed the below-mentioned hypothesis.

Research model. Dashed arrows indicate indirect relationships, and solid arrows indicate direct relationships.

Organizational support mediates the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement.

3.3. Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being

According to the prediction of a number of specific studies, a toxic workplace environment negatively influences employee well-being [ 55 ]. Previous studies have shown that the presence of a toxic workplace environment threatens the well-being of employees. For instance, numerous studies have suggested a positive association between workplace bullying and poor well-being. Rajalingam [ 56 ] observed that workplace bullying results in greater stress and lower satisfaction levels among employees who have been subjected to it. Thus, being bullied at work is a threat to psychological well-being as well, and employees who are subjected to bullying report greater levels of general and mental stress [ 57 ]. Similarly, workplace ostracism has also been negatively linked to employee well-being because it leads to enhanced levels of job tension and emotional exhaustion [ 58 ]. The above relationship is shown in the following hypothesis.

A toxic workplace environment is negatively related to employee well-being .

Prior research indicates that high levels of employee physical and psychological well-being play a significant role in delivering some important organizational outcomes that are associated with high-performing organizations, such as employee engagement. The proposition that employee well-being is important in developing sustainable levels of employee engagement appears to have sufficient theoretical expectation and empirical research evidence [ 59 ]. Furthermore, He, Morrison [ 60 ] found that employees who reported higher levels of engagement were likely to benefit from a broadened allocation of psychological resources, one of which is employee well-being. Thus, the positive relationship of employee well-being with employee engagement is depicted in the following hypothesis.

Employee well-being is positively related to employee engagement.

Moreover, prior researchers have also found that employee well-being motivates all employees, i.e., top-level, middle-level, and administrative staff [ 61 ]. According to the results of multiple studies, if an employee is more committed to his/her organization, it is obvious that said organization participates in employee well-being [ 62 ]. Moreover, it is also concluded that the quality of work life is deep rooted in the engagement of an employee toward the organization’s citizenship behavior [ 63 ]. Fotiadis, Abdulrahman [ 64 ] demonstrated that an employee would perform well if he/she has good concerns. So, if organizations care about their employees, employees will, in return, positively engage with the organizations. The below-mentioned hypothesis was proposed with this understanding. In addition, Figure 1 presents a comprehensive research model of this research. In this spirit, we also hypothesized the following.

Employee well-being mediates the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement.

4. Research Methods

In this study, we used a quantitative research approach. The online survey method was used for data collection. The reasons for online data collection were, first, it is a low-cost method to collect data [ 65 ]. Second, the response rate is usually higher than manual distribution of a questionnaire. Third, most of the data collection was done during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the majority of employees were observing the lockdown period or were working from home. Hence, an online survey was the most appropriate strategy to collect responses. The study was cross-sectional in nature and was conducted from April 2020 to August 2020 in China based on a convenience sample approach. Hennessy and Patterson [ 66 ] suggested in their study that for survey analysis, authors first design the research instrument [ 67 ]. So, in this study, first, we developed a research instrument to collect the data.

4.1. Instrument Development

In this research, first, we designed a questionnaire for data collection, and the base was provided by the constructed hypotheses [ 66 ]. The questionnaire comprised 21 items scored with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). A pilot study checked the instrument’s reliability and validity: 30 drafted questionnaires were distributed to the stakeholders, which included 10 academic professors, 10 PhD students, and 10 professionals, all of whom had sufficient knowledge of the research objectives. After a little fieldwork for the pilot study, some recommended changes were made to modify the instrument to meet the objectives. This action was considered a necessity before collecting information from the targeted population.

4.2. Data Collection and Sampling

Data were collected from workers working in small and medium-size enterprises within the Guangdong Province of China. A cover letter explained the purpose of the instrument, assured the respondents of the confidentiality of their responses, and informed them that the information collected would only be utilized for research purposes. Before data collection, we tested the reliability and validity of the questionnaire through a pilot study. Furthermore, through WeChat (a social network application) and emails, we distributed 500 questionnaires among senior managers, middle-level managers, and administrative staff and received a total of 324 filled responses. After further refinement, the completed sample size was 301.

4.3. Variables and Measures

This paper included three dimensions of a toxic workplace environment: workplace harassment, bullying, and ostracism. The independent variable toxic workplace environment consisted of eight items, and these items were adapted from Anjum, Ming [ 68 ] and Rasool, Maqbool [ 67 ]. The score was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The detailed information about all items of the questionnaire is presenting in Appendix A . Cronbach’s alpha of the toxic workplace environment was 0.935. The items used in the study were considered valid because of their alpha value above the standard value of 0.70 and higher. So, the items we used in this research instrument are valid.

The scale for measuring organizational support was adapted from Wang, Zaman [ 32 ]. The scale included seven items and measured the responses on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The detailed information about all items of the questionnaire are presenting in Appendix A . Cronbach’s alpha of organizational support was 0.784. The standard value of alpha is 0.70 and higher. So, the items we used in this research instrument are valid.

The scale for employee well-being was adapted from Ahmed, Zehou [ 69 ], which also measured the responses on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The detailed information about all items of the questionnaire is presenting in Appendix A . Cronbach’s alpha of employee well-being was 0.843. The items used in the study were considered valid because of their Cronbach’s alpha value above the standard 0.70.

The items of employee engagement were adapted from Saleem, Shenbei [ 70 ], and all items of this variable were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The detailed information about all items of the questionnaire is presenting in Appendix A . Cronbach’s alpha of employee engagement was 0.759. The standard value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70 and higher. So, the items we used in this research instrument are valid.

4.4. Respondents’ Summary

The questionnaire was distributed to 500 employees working for SMEs located in Guangdong Province, China. A total of 324 responses were received in return, of which 301 were used for this paper. In this study, we used descriptive statistics. The majority of the respondents in this research were male, i.e., around 54.44% males and 45.51% females. The proportion of respondents with a work experience above 15 years was 26.57%, with more than 10–15 years was 33.88%, and 5–10 years was 39.53%. Similarly, the positions from whom we collected data were senior managers (26.91%), middle-level managers (35.88 %), and administrative staff (37.20 %). Finally, the respondents’ education levels included post-graduate (29.90%), undergraduate (48.17%), and others (21.92%). The detailed sample demographics are presented in Table 1 .

Respondents’ summary.

5. Statistical Analysis

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) through SmartPLS 3.2 to assess the relationships in the research model [ 71 ]. We selected SmartPLS for our analysis because it follows the variance-based SEM approach, which is comparatively less sensitive to sample size than other applications that use covariance-based SEM approaches, such as AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures) [ 72 ]. In this study, we tested the relationship between a toxic workplace environment, organizational support, employee well-being, and employee engagement. Therefore, before testing the hypothesized relationships, the reliability and validity of each construct were examined.

The construct reliability and validity values are presented in Table 2 . The factor loading of each item was greater than the threshold value of 0.70. Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, and composite reliability measures for each of the constructs were higher than the recommended value of 0.7. Moreover, the average variance extracted for each construct was higher than the recommended value of 0.5 [ 73 ]. We also measured the reliability of all used constructs and quantified the convergent validity. The discriminant validity was tested. The square root of the average variance extracted for each construct should be higher than the shared variance among constructs. Hence, the scale fulfills the reliability and validity requirements.

Reliability and validity of the construct.

Note: TWE, toxic workplace environment; EE, employee engagement; OS, organizational support; WB, employee well-being; CR, composite reliability; rho_A, Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho (ρA); AVE, average variance extracted.

Recently Henseler, Ringle [ 74 ] criticized the Fornell and Larcker [ 75 ] measurement standard and suggested that it is not reliable to measure discriminant validity. Henseler, Ringle [ 74 ] suggested another approach, based on the HTMT (Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix), to measure discriminant validity. It is a new technique to measure discriminant validity. In this study, we used the HTMT for the measurement of discriminant validity. The HTMT is defined as the mean value of the item correlations across constructs relative to the (geometric) mean of the average correlations for the items measuring the same construct. Henseler, Ringle [ 74 ] proposed a standard value of 0.90 for the HTMT. So, an HTMT value above 0.90 would suggest that discriminant validity is not present. Table 3 presents the HTMT value of each construct. The results indicat that the HTMT value of each construct is less than 0.90. So, the scale fulfills the discriminant validity requirements.

Discriminant validity.

Notes: Significant level p < 0.05. EE, employee engagement; EW, employee well-being; OS, organizational support.

Hypotheses Testing

We used SmartPLS 3.2, with a bootstrapping technique, to calculate the path estimates and corresponding t -values, p -values, and confidence intervals [ 71 ]. The direct, indirect, and total effects of various relationships in the conceptual model, along with t -values, p -values, and confidence intervals, are presented in Table 4 . The results indicate that a toxic workplace environment has a significant and negative relationship with employee engagement (β = −0.097, p < 0.05). So, hypothesis H1 of this study was accepted. Furthermore, a toxic workplace environment had a significant and negative relationship with organizational support (β = −0.145, p < 0.05). The results supported hypothesis H2a. Organizational support had a significant and positive relationship with employee engagement (β = 0.376, p < 0.05). Thus, hypothesis H2b was accepted. Organizational support mediated the relationship between a toxic workplace environment (TWE) and employee engagement (EE) (β = −0.062, p < 0.05). Hence, hypothesis H2c was accepted. Moreover, a toxic workplace environment was negatively related to employee well-being (β = −0.152, p < 0.05). Consequently, hypothesis H3a was also accepted. Employee well-being was positively related to employee engagement (β = 0.467, p < 0.05). Accordingly, hypothesis H3b of this study was also accepted. Lastly, employee well-being mediated the relationship between a TWE and EE (β = −0.061, p < 0.05), and the finding supported hypothesis H3c. Hence, the overall results of this study supported the hypotheses listed in Table 4 . Moreover, the detail information of path coefficients of the research model is also present in Figure 2 .

Path coefficients of the research model.

Direct and indirect paths.

Note: Significant level p < 0.05. SD, standard deviation; TWE, toxic workplace environment; EE, employee engagement; OS, organizational support; WB, employee well-being.

6. Discussion

A toxic workplace environment and employee engagement have attracted the attention of many researchers. Previously, such kind of studies were conducted in advanced nations. This is the first study to be conducted in an emerging nation like China. Moreover, it is also the first study to be conducted amongst workers in small and medium-size enterprises of Guangdong Province, China.

First, the direct impacts of a toxic workplace environment on employee engagement were determined, and the findings of this research show that a toxic workplace environment has a negative influence on employee engagement, which support hypothesis H1. Prior studies also confirmed that a toxic workplace environment is negatively associated with employee engagement [ 76 , 77 ]. Similarly, a large-scale survey was conducted by Rasool, Maqbool [ 67 ] that was related to China’s banking sector. The results of their study confirmed that a toxic workplace environment has a negative connection with employee engagement, which reduces the individual worker’s productivity. The findings of this research are also supported by COR theory [ 55 ]. Furthermore, it is also noted that the workers’ health is affected by high job demands and work pressures; as a result, effects such as headaches, personality disorders, anxiety disorders, insomnia, burnout, and depression occur. So, it is suggested that some possible solutions could become the source of reduction in a toxic workplace environment for the workers in SMEs, which will ultimately increase employee engagement. Small and medium-size enterprises need to identify bad employees who are the root cause of the toxic workplace environment and then provide him/her with training on soft skills [ 68 ]. Second, SMEs should communicate with all functional heads, including supervisors, that the employees are the backbone of small and medium-size enterprises. So, they should be treated like an asset of the organization. These actions will reduce the toxic workplace environment and enhance employee engagement among the workers in small and medium-size enterprises in China.

Second, we inquired about the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and organizational support. The finding of this study confirms the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and organizational support, which supports hypothesis H2a. Wang, Zaman [ 32 ] suggested in their study that workplace violence reduces the support from organizations. The findings of this study are also supported by organizational support theory [ 78 ]. Moreover, in this study, we tested the positive relationship between organizational support and employee engagement. The finding of this investigation endorses that there is a positive relationship between organizational support and employee engagement, which supports hypothesis H2b. Tremblay, Gaudet [ 79 ] examined 115 business units of an international retailer, and the findings of their research showed that organizational support is positively linked to employee engagement. These findings are also supported by organizational support theory [ 53 ]. We also investigated the intervening role of organizational support in the relationship between at oxic workplace environment and employee engagement. The finding of this research confirms that organizational support mediates the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement, which support hypothesis H2c. Past studies also support our results [ 80 , 81 ]. Organizational support theory also supports our results [ 82 ]. Organizational support theory suggests that people trade their time and effort at work for valued outcomes. So, if Chinese small and medium-size enterprises provide market-based compensation and benefits, then workers will be satisfied and engage with the vision of the organizations. Similarly, Chen, Hao [ 83 ] demonstrated that organizational support is the degree to which workers think that their organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being.

Third, we investigated the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee well-being. The results of this research confirm the negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee well-being, which supports hypothesis H3a. Samma, Zhao [ 2 ] examined 254 workers employed at small and medium-size enterprise (SMEs) located in Pakistan, and the outcomes of their study indicated that a toxic workplace environment negatively influences employee well-being. Specifically, in this relationship, COR theory confirms that most of SMEs are facing workplace violence, which brings about a negative attitude among the workers, which negatively affects the balanced and emotional well-being connection with the vision and mission of the organization [ 55 ]. Moreover, in this study, we tested the positive relationship between employee well-being and employee engagement. The findings of this paper confirm that there is a positive relationship between organizational support and employee engagement, which supports hypothesis H3b. The evidence of Shuck and Reio Jr. [ 84 ] suggested that a worker’s well-being goes hand in hand with worker engagement. When employers provide health and financial support, employees give their full attention at work. The findings of this study are also supported by organizational support theory [ 78 ]. Furthermore, we used employee well-being as a second mediating variable in the relationship between at toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. The outcomes of this research confirm that employee well-being positively and significantly mediates in the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement, which supports hypothesis H3c. Zhou, Rasool [ 55 ] examined 336 workers employed at small and medium-size enterprises, and the results of their study confirmed that employee well-being reduces workplace harassment, mobbing, and sabotage. As a result, it improves innovative work behavior, which increases employee engagement. Similarly, previous studies also support our results [ 85 , 86 , 87 ]. This relationship is supported by organizational support theory [ 88 ]. So, the above discussion proves that organizational support and employee well-being reduce a toxic workplace environment and increase the level of employee engagement. Additionally, it is also proven that employee well-being is more significant than organizational support.

7. Conclusions

In this study, first, we checked the direct relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. So, the results of this study confirm that there is a negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. Similarly, we tested the indirect relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement using two mediating variables, i.e., organizational support and employee well-being. The results also confirm that employee well-being and organizational support significantly mediate the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement. The negative relationships are supported by COR theory, and the positive relationships are supported by organizational support theory.

The conclusions of this paper are as follows: First, the direct relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee engagement confirms that if employees are working in a toxic environment, they will spread negative feelings among other co-workers. The feelings that come with a toxic workplace environment, i.e., harassment, bullying, and ostracism, can be detrimental and lead to unnecessary stress, burnout, depression, and anxiety among the workers. Second, employee well-being will affect employee behaviors that enhance employee engagement with the work as well as with the organization. Employee engagement creates harmony in the organization. Moreover, employee well-being increases the workers’ work performance. Furthermore, when an organization works for the well-being of the workers, it reduces the toxic workplace environment and brings sustainability to organizational performance. Third, organizational support also increases employee engagement with the work as well as with the organization. Finally, this study also noted that workers want to contribute to their organizations. It is usually a matter of agreeing on a vision, finding the right fit for their particular contributions, and being open to feedback. So, organization custodians listen first and then work with management teams to develop goals and expectations that can be celebrated when they are achieved. It is a four-step process: engage, enlighten, empower, and evolve together. Moreover, employee engagement aligns employees’ personal goals with the vision of small and medium-size enterprises, which increases the productivity of small and medium-size enterprises’ employees and sustainable organizational performance. An engaged employee is well balanced and emotionally connected with the vision and mission of the organization, which portrays and governs the involvement of the employee in the organizational objectives.

8. Limitations and Future Research

The study had certain limitations. First, the sample size was small. A larger sample size will provide a more diversified sample that ought to be used to test the proposed model in future research for a further extension of the validity of the end results. Second, this study only investigated small and medium-size enterprises located in China. In the future, such kind of research can be conducted in another country or can be conducted in another industry such as healthcare, automobile, construction, and information technology. Third, in this study, we did not consider the gender effect in the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and employee enjoyment. So, in the future, gender effect as a mediating variable or moderator can be tested. Lastly, in this research, we used COR theory for negative relationships and organizational support theory for positive relationships. In the future, researchers can use a resource-based view (RBV) or knowledge-based view (KBV) in the present framework. As a result, future research could be exploratory toward the relationships amongst these factors and workplace violence and sustainable organizational performance using job anxiety or job burnout as a mediating variable.

Author Contributions

S.F.R. develop research idea and draft the manuscript, M.W. supervise this study, M.T. work on the literature review, A.S. work on the research methodology and J.I. interpret the data. All authors participate in reading, and approving the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This paper was funded by the Innovation Team Project of Guangzhou, China (grant no. 201831799).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research ethics committee of Guangzhou University and the University of the Punjab approved this study, and it was a survey-based research.

Informed Consent Statement

The research participants gave consent over the telephone for conducting the questionnaire survey. Participants were identified through their supervisors, and they filled in the questionnaires willingly. Moreover, no potentially identifiable human images are presented in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Impact of employees' workplace environment on employees' performance: a multi-mediation model.

• 1 Institute for Cultural Industries, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
• 2 Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
• 3 Program in Leisure Industry Management, Commercial College, Chinese Culture University, Taipei City, Taiwan
• 4 Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
• 5 Department of Management, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

This study examined the impact of workplace environment on employee task performance under the mediating role of employee commitment and achievement-striving ability. For this purpose, data were collected from the academic staff under a cross-sectional research design, and they were approached through convenience sampling technique. As per recommendations of established sample size criteria, we distributed a sum of 420 questionnaires among the respondents. Among these distributed questionnaires, only 330 were received back. The returned questionnaires were checked for missing and incomplete responses and after discarding the missing responses useable responses were 314 which were used for the data analysis. Data had been analyzed through structural equation modeling (SEM) by using Smart PLS 3. The SEM was done based on measurement models and structural models. The results indicated that a positive work environment had the power to improve employee performance. Similarly, a positive work environment also improved the employee commitment level and achievement-striving ability significantly. Both employee commitment and achievement-striving ability also improved employee performance. While in the case of mediation, it had also been observed that workplace environment triggered employee commitment and employee achievement-striving ability which further improved employee performance.

Introduction

According to the assumptions of human resource management (HRM), improved performance is accomplished through the employees of the organization. Employees are thus viewed as a valuable asset to every firm to improve performance ( 1 ). Before the last decades of the 20th century, the performance was viewed as the result of a mix of aptitude and motivation when given adequate resources, and therefore motivating people became an important aspect of most management. Whenever human resource (HR) is used to its greatest capacity, a business may attain limitless productivity, efficiency, and performance. All employees may not work in the same way since they have distinct working styles. Some personnel have the greatest potential regardless of the reward, whereas others benefit from a boost now and again ( 2 , 3 ). The employees' performances are determined by their willingness and openness to complete their jobs. Furthermore, if employees are willing and open to accomplish their jobs, it is possible that their productivity will grow, which will contribute to improved performance ( 4 ).

Employees, equipment, and supplies, on the other hand, must be provided with the required resources to perform, independent of their talents and expertise ( 5 ). “Performance appraisal impacts directly onto highly emotional tasks in professional life, judgment of a person's commitment, and competence,” ( 6 ). According to several academics, implementing a well-defined framework for analyzing employee performance is critical to a company's successful operation ( 7 ). The major difficulty for businesses, according to ( 8 ), has been focused on improving the performance of employees efficiently so that their authenticity remains on top. In other sense, how can businesses use performance evaluation procedures to increase their capacity to discern “excellent” employees (those who perform well) from “poor” employees? Furthermore, according to ( 9 ), many crucial variables in the study and implementation of a performance assessment model are still missed, which may explain why there is not currently an integrated approach for assessing employee performance.

The physical and behavioral aspects are the two facets of a healthy working climate. The prior refers to the factors which are linked with the ability of employees to remain physically associated to their workplaces. while the etiquettes of office bearers are influenced by the behavioral aspects of the environment, the workplace environment plays an important role in shaping behaviors of employees individually. Consequently, employees' motivation to work hard, their efficiency and performance are shaped by the influence of the quality of the workplace. Worker' levels of willingness to keep motivated, creative, engaged with colleagues, and loyal to job are all influenced by the factors of workplace environment ( 10 ). According to some researchers, this feature of relatedness with workplace environment have mixed beneficial and adverse impacts ( 11 ).

The majority of the workplace environments in developing countries are not up to the mark. Unfortunately, most firms consider a safe and healthy work environment to be an unnecessary expenditure and do not invest heavily in sustaining a comfortable working environment ( 12 ). For sustainable development, it is vital for any firm to have dedicated employees who are committed to their goals. When people work in groups, there is a possibility that they may behave as if they are entrepreneurs, so every group member engages in as many tasks as possible to demonstrate that he/she is the most promising person in the group. Employee commitment levels boost employee performance in firms which enhance their commitment levels. Previously, firms have given their employees job security to boost their dedication to the firm and efficiency ( 13 ). Employee performance is tied to employee commitment. Few academics have argued that each commitment element's psychological status varies from one worker to another ( 14 ).

It is supposed that affective commitment as well as employee performance have a positive relationship, suggesting that workers have a belief that their companies would be treating them positively (i.e., fair rehabilitation, involvement in choice determination) could boost interpersonal loyalty of them to the organization and, consequently, enhance their effectiveness ( 15 ). Moreover, the workers with a high sense of commitment to the company's goals feel a strong sense of ownership over their responsibilities, while the employees with a lower level of commitment to the company's targets feel no such obligation. Certain research indicates that normative commitment and performance of employees have a negative relationship ( 16 ). Employees who have a higher level of organizational commitment find themselves “stuck” in situations where they have little option to quit the organization even if they do not really want to stay. As a result, individuals take their jobs in a less serious manner, and their production suffers ( 16 ).

Eudemonia refers to working for and achieving job-related goals, as well as realizing one's maximum potential, and is based on the philosophy of eudemonia drive (i.e., achievement striving). Achievement striving, according to the notion, indicates employees' motivation to take action toward personal greatness ( 17 ). On the one hand, the social contact motivates accomplishment seeking by facilitating currently operating and combining for the purpose of fostering creativity and accomplishing work objectives. Achievement striving, on the other hand, is a performance-oriented aim that has a beneficial impact on staff performance ( 17 ). Employees are more likely to strive for an outstanding performance if they have a strong accomplishment drive. Employees who have meaningful social connections at work are more likely to be motivated to complete the assignments on time (i.e., achievement striving) ( 18 ).

Employees' performance has been evaluated before in different business sectors, leaving behind the gap for a specific sector's evaluation. Moreover, different firm level environmental factors along with job-related factors have been evaluated with specific mediation of employee-related factors such as motivation, adaptability, flexibility, proactivity, skill level, and commitment for evaluating the employees' performance ( 19 ). This kind of evaluation left a gap for assessing the specific mediating role of employees' commitment between their workplace environment and performance. Therefore, we utilized the employees' commitment as a potential mediator between employees' workplace environment and employees' performance. Similarly, the role of achievement-striving ability has been utilized as mediator previously along with occupational commitment between social interaction and job performance ( 18 ) leaving a gap for evaluating the impact of achievement-striving ability between workplace environment and employees' performance. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the mediating roles of employees' commitment and achievement-striving ability.

The impact of employee workplace environment has been studied previously for the evaluation of performance of the employees at different organizational levels but has not been studied among employees of the academic institutes therefore, it posed some questions to address whether it has any impact on the performance of employees of academic institutes or not. The question stated that what role could employee commitment and achievement striving ability of employees could play in the context of academic institute job performance of employees? To answer these questions, this study focused on evaluating the impact of the workplace environment of employees on their performance. The multi-mediation analysis was also carried out in this study to evaluate the aiding role of employees' commitment and achievement-striving ability of employees between workplace environment of employees and their performance.

Theoretical and Hypothesis Support

Employee performance is achieved through the organization's employees, according to HR management theory ( 20 ). To increase the performance, employees are thus considered as a vital asset in any company. Previous to the later decades of the 20th century, performance was considered as a combination of ability and motivation when given sufficient resources, and therefore motivating people, became a key element of the most of the management practices ( 21 ). When HR is employed to its full potential, a company may achieve unattainable levels of production, efficiency, as well as performance ( 22 ). So, this study gets motivation from HR management theory for evaluating the performance of employees.

The willingness as well as openness of employees to fulfill their work determines their performance. Furthermore, if employees are enthusiastic and motivated to accomplish their jobs, their performance is likely to improve, contributing to increased productivity ( 23 ). All this could be achieved under the premises of HRM theory. This study also gets a support from the theory of ecological systems. This theory is also known as “individual theory.” According to this theory, people in a specific environment have a dynamic relationship with their social, physiological, and physical environments. This theory also states that the workplace environments are inter-related in which the job settings are connected with each other and have an effect on activities at workplace in terms of context, time and processes ( 24 ). This theory underpins the importance of environment at workplace for the workers and individuals involved in organizational processes.

Once employees get a favorable working environment, then they become more dedicated to their assigned tasks which ultimately improves their performance. So, the ecological systems theory has a lot to offer to shape up the workplace environment. This study also gets support from social exchange theory in which favorable workplace environment provides a sort of motivation to the employees to work better. Such motivational activities in organizations take place having background support of some exchanges socially. The process of social exchange takes place between an organization and its workers indicating that the organization recognizes the contributions of its employees and ensures that they are well-cared for ( 25 ). This theory provided the basis for understanding the effect of employee performance in the context of the workplace environment.

Employees, in return, do their best to achieve the targets set by their organizations and they perform better in a given favorable working environment. Thus, a social exchange is in practice for this study. Social exchange theory also provides a basis for employees' commitment as if the workplace environment is favorable and suitable, it develops a sense of trust for the organization among the employees. The employees in exchange show more commitment toward the set targets of the organization. This trust is built as a consequence of management support, and as a result, employees are motivated, which aids in the development of a good attitude toward work, and employee commitment is increased, resulting in improved performance ( 26 ). A combination of these theories for evaluating the employees' performance has also been studied before and provided a basis for the conduct of this study.

Relationship of Employee Workplace Environment With Employees' Performance

Employees spend a major considerable amount of time at work, and their working environment has an impact on their performance in integrated ways ( 27 ). Employees who are satisfied with their work environment are more likely to have positive work output. A previous study has revealed that factors which shape up the workplace environment show their impact on the performance of employees ( 28 ). They also proposed that future studies on this kind of relationships referring to workplace environment and evaluation of performance could be conducted. A few scholars also encouraged future researchers to conduct comparison studies on private and public organizational levels for impact of workplace environments be on employee' performance ( 29 ). The researchers observed that the workplace environment is crucial since staff can work more efficiently doing their jobs in a nice workplace, which leads to higher employees' performance and organization output.

The terms “appealing climate” or “supportive atmosphere” refers to a situation which draws people and motivates them to work by giving them possibilities to accomplish ( 30 ). Workers are more willing to integrate their extraordinary use of skills, abilities, and knowledge to achieve success in a welcoming and supportive workplace environment. Employees will be motivated for a number of reasons to accomplish optimal performance and productivity inside a firm; such motivations could be endogenous or exogenous ( 31 ). Endogenous motivations help in accomplishing certain difficult tasks and exogenous motivations are the reward which are given in terms of the acknowledgments and the advanced salaries ( 31 ).

Another appropriate workplace strategy is to motivate employees to set their goals. Employees' performance improves as a result of this type of incentive program, and the productivity of the company rises ( 32 ). Goal setting serves two main functions as follows: First, to improve the behaviors of the individuals; second, to motivate them to work so that they can work effectively and efficiently ( 33 ). Generalized objectives are less successful than a particular aim. Furthermore, in contrast to an achievable objective, excellent performance is attained through hard goals. Based on the strategies of providing a better workplace environment to the employees, a few empirical investigations have been done in recent past in different contexts. These studies hinted to explore this kind of relationship even further for establishing this association as a set parameter in achieving improved employees' performance. Therefore, we suggested the hypothesis as given in the following:

H1: Employee workplace environment has positive and significant effect on employees' performance.

Impact of Employee Workplace Environment on Employees' Commitment

According to prior study, the employees' working atmosphere in the firm is vital and also has a significant impact on employees in a variety of aspects ( 34 ). If the working environment fails to attract employees and they have a bad perception of many workplace aspects such as sick leave, performance, mental illness, and performance, their demand will ultimately be lowered to a low level, impacting the institution's growth and productivity ( 35 ). Employee commitment to the workplace, innovation, efficiency, commitment, and financial wellbeing all benefit from a nice, secure, and reliable workplace, all of which affect the institution's development ( 36 ).

When employees work in groups, the individuals behave as if they are entrepreneurs, and every person in the group engages in as many events as possible to demonstrate how he or she is the brightest in the group. Worker level of commitment boost employee productivity in firms which improve their levels of commitment. Companies have traditionally offered job protection to the workers to boost their loyalty toward the company and performance. Employee performance is linked to employee commitment, which has three facets (affective commitment, continued commitment, and normative commitment). It was previously established that the office atmosphere had a favorable influence on workers' commitment to perform ( 37 ). As a result of this literature support, we hypothesized the following:

H2: Employee workplace environment significantly affects employees' commitment.

Impact of Employee Workplace Environment on Employees' Achievement-Striving Ability

One of the most critical factors influencing employee performance in an organization is the working environment. In today's competitive corporate world, monetary benefits are insufficient to motivate employees to reach better levels of performance levels ( 38 ). A mix of monetary and non-monetary rewards, on the other hand, is more effective better levels of employee performance, which results in increasing of achievement aims of the company for an instance, and it was observed that the employees of certain sector of companies wanted a pleasant, relaxing environment, and to achieve a higher degree of performance, a cooperative working atmosphere is required.

Billings noted that the employees are the focus of organizational decisions as they are present at their workplaces most of the day ( 39 ). In contemporary organizations, justice is not always administered through the equal distribution of employment resources as well as the provision of clear and acceptable explanations for choices taken, and employees are not always treated with dignity and respect throughout policy and procedure execution ( 40 ). This leads to a worse workplace environment while, it is proven that a better workplace environment is always suitable in achieving something good for the organizations. Achievement striving is totally the drive for achieving the targeted goals by the employees. The employees who are more targeted toward the goals are more productive in terms of their performance ( 18 ). In this way, if employees are given suitable workplace environment, then it could initiate achievement-striving ability in employees. So, based on this possible logic, we devised the following hypothesis:

H3: Employee workplace environment significantly affects employees' achievement-striving ability.

Mediation Between Workplace Environment and Employees' Performance

The performance of employees is a popular issue, and this is influenced in a range of ways by the workplace. Behavioral and physical features of a typical working environment are critical. All components which are linked to an employee's ability to physically engage with the workplace are referred to as the physical setting ( 41 ). While behavioral environmental components relate workplace occupants' etiquettes with one another. The workplace atmosphere has a positive impact on individual employee behavior ( 42 ). Consequently, workplace environment quality has a significant impact on workers and their motivation, enthusiasm, creativity, and efficiency. Work motivation, innovative behavior, attendance, colleagues' engagement, and career management are all influenced by how strongly they are connected to a company ( 43 ).

Depending on the physical circumstances in the workplace, it might have a beneficial or harmful impact. The majority of the working environment in underdeveloped nations is insecure and dangerous. However, most businesses consider a safe and healthy work atmosphere to be an absolute waste of money and therefore do not invest extensively in keeping it in good shape ( 44 ). Employees working in an unstable and unhealthy atmosphere, putting them at risk for occupational sickness related to the adverse effects of the environment on their productivity, which has an impact on the organization's total productivity ( 45 ). Employees are dealing with serious environmental issues at work, particularly in the software business, which makes it difficult to provide necessary amenities to improve their performance level ( 46 ).

Scholars recently examined software house workers' performance in the presence of physical and behavioral workplace ambient variables ( 47 ). As a result, this study's major goal is to analyze and evaluate the factors of the working as well as behavioral environment that influence employee performance. To accomplish the given task of evaluating the impact of the workplace environment of employees' performance, there was a dire need to find the facilitators who could boost the relationship of workplace environment and employees' performance. Based on this need, employee's commitment and achievement-striving ability of employees, which are discussed in previous section, are used as mediators of this study. So, we proposed the following hypothesis (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Conceptual framework.

H4: Employee commitment significantly mediates the relationship between employee workplace environment and employee performance.

H5: Achievement striving significantly mediates the relationship between employee workplace environment and employee performance.

Research Methods

This study used a cross-sectional research design to collect data from the participants. This research design was commonly used in survey research and previously the researchers have used cross-sectional research design in their studies ( 48 , 49 ). This study design was most suitable to our aim of the study which was to investigate the impact of the workplace environment on employee performance. So, we had obtained the perception of the respondents through a cross-sectional research design. In this regard, teachers from the academic institutes were approached. The respondents in this study were selected based on previous studies, where academic teaching staff were approached for data collection to study the impact of workplace environment ( 50 ). Before approaching the academic teaching staff for data collection, we sought formal approval from the administration.

After getting approval from the administration, we contacted the teaching staff according to the list provided by the academic institutes. Moreover, before asking the respondents to provide their feedback, we ensured them regarding data confidentiality and their written informed consent was obtained. Additionally, to increase their motivation in the study, we offered chocolates to the respondent with the questionnaire, so that they could fill out the survey questionnaire with motivation. Before distributing questionnaires to the respondents, a suitable sample size was determined and the criteria regarding setting a reasonable sample size were consulted. In this regard, the widely used and accepted criteria for sample size devised by the study in ( 51 ), and previously used by various researchers, were followed ( 52 ).

Thus, as per the recommendations of this sample size criteria, we distributed a sum of 420 questionnaires among the respondents and of these distributed questionnaires, only 330 were received back. The returned questionnaires were checked for missing and incomplete responses and after discarding the missing responses 314 were retained. Additionally, we have employed Smart PLS software, which handles the small sample size very comfortably, so the issue of sample size does not raise any question in this study ( 53 ).

Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study, it was likely to encounter common method bias in this study. We employed several techniques to reduce the issue of common method bias, we interchanged the place of the scales and items in the questionnaires, so that respondents could not develop a correlation among the study constructs while reporting the responses. This helped us to reduce common method biases ( 54 , 55 ).

Demographic Characteristics

The first section of the questionnaires dealt with demographic characteristics related to qualification, gender, and teaching experience. From the perspective of qualification, respondents were mostly with 18 years of education and 16 years of education; however, the percentage of 18 years education among respondents was high (90%). Second, the distribution of the respondents according to gender's perspective was almost equal [i.e., 54% (male) and 46% (female)]. While most of the teaching staff were employed in service with experience of more than 3 years, very few have <1 year of experience.

Instrument Development

We followed a five-point Likert scale to collect the data for all exogenous and endogenous constructs ranging from five to one on a description of strongly agree to strongly disagree. The independent variable in this study (workplace environment) is measured through 10 items. The one-dimension of the environment (hedonic environment) is used in this study, which denotes the positive side of the workplace environment. Sample items for this scale include, “The transparency of rules in my institution is making my work easier,” and “My company is a positive workplace.” This scale is used in a recent study ( 50 ). This scale contains reverse coded questions, and we have also used these reverse coded questions to restrict the respondents from providing monotonic responses. The outcome variable in this study, employee performance is measured through six-items scale covering the perception of employees' task performance. This scale is developed by Koopmans et al. ( 56 ). The sample items for this scale include, “I kept in mind the results that I have to achieve in my work.” Although in previous studies ( 50 ), another dimension of employee performance has also been used such as contextual and counterproductive work behavior. However, we have used task performance as a measure to assess the response regarding employee performance which denotes it well.

Employee commitment is assessed based on six items-based scale of affective commitment developed by a research team ( 57 ) with sample item, “I would be happy to work at my organization until I retire.” While the second mediating variable, achievement-striving ability is assessed based on a scale developed by in a study ( 58 ) with five-items scale. A sample item for this scale, includes, “I am a very determined person when it comes to my job.”

Assessment of Measurement and Structural Model

We have employed a multi-variate data analysis tool in this study to test the hypotheses through structural equation modeling (SEM). For this purpose, the most commonly used partial least square (PLS) approach through Smart PLS was used ( 59 ). This software deals very well with the complex nature of research frameworks/models ( 60 ). In addition to this, smart PLS has good predicting capability even with a small sample size and it deals with small sample size very well. Lastly, it does deal better with the non-normal data and the issue of normality is handled by Smart PLS very well. Assessment of SEM is based on two approaches/methods, the first one is based on the measurement model while the second one is based on structural model ( 61 ).

Table 1 illustrates the reliability and validity of the study constructs, based on the assessment of the measurement model. At this stage of reliability and validity of the study, the model has been confirmed. For the issue of reliability, the first measure in this regard that is used is Cronbach Alpha or is termed as alpha. The minimum acceptable value for this indicator of reliability is 0.60 ( 60 , 62 ). Alpha statistics have been found statistically high above this benchmark; for instance, the alpha value for the construct, workplace environment is 0.929, for employee performance it is 0.745, for achievement-striving ability it is 0.839 and for employee commitment, it is 0.893. Thus, all the constructs possess good alpha reliability. Similarly, the second measure of reliability (rho-A) is also within the acceptable range (>0.60). The value of Rho-A for the workplace environment is 0.939, for the employee performance is 0.768, for the achievement-striving ability is 0.877, and for the employee commitment is 0.925. Thus, the second measure of reliability is also met. The third measure of reliability is based on composite reliability, which also shows a good level. The values for composite reliability are within a range of 0.830–0.941, illustrating good composite reliability.

Table 1 . Reliability and validity of the study constructs.

In the case of validity, it has been tested through average variance extracted (AVE) and it has been found that the AVE of the respective constructs is greater than the threshold limits of the acceptable range (≥0.50). All the study constructs possess greater AVE values (≥0.50) which indicate that the convergent validity has been established ( 63 ) as illustrated through Table 1 . The AVE values range between 0.551 and 0.663.

The second measure to assess the convergent validity is outer loadings ( Figure 2 ). At this stage, each indicator was checked for outer loadings, and it was observed that outer loadings are above the threshold value of 0.708. Table 2 illustrates the outer loadings of all study constructs. Two items have been dropped in this study due to weak or poor outer loadings. One item from the study constructs workplace environment (WE-10). Similarly, from employee performance, two items (ETP-3 and ETP-6) have been dropped due to poor outer loadings. One item from the construct achievement-striving ability (AS-4) was dropped. One item with slightly low outer loading (ETP-2) was retained in employee performance as the AVE of this construct was above the threshold value (≥0.50). Thus, all the indicators met with convergent validity criteria, and it can be referred that the model possesses convergent validity.

Figure 2 . Path estimates.

Table 2 . Outer loadings (convergent validity).

While testing the other side of validity (discriminant validity), we have followed two well-established criteria, the first one is Fornell and Larcker ( 64 ) and Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations ratios ( 60 ). Tables 3 , 4 illustrate these two criteria. The first criteria in this regard indicates that the square root of the AVE of variables is higher than the correlations among them ( 52 , 65 ). For instance, the square root of AVE of achievement-striving ability is 0.814 which is higher than the correlations in that column (bold and underlined values in diagonal). Similarly, the square root of AVE of employee commitment is 0.808 which is also higher in that column. Same pattern is observed for employee performance and workplace environment.

Table 3 . Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larker-1981 criteria).

Table 4 . Discriminant validity (HTMT).

The HTMT ratio is used as the second measure to assess the discriminant validity. Two criteria were observed in this regard (liberal and conservative). Both criteria were met as the values of HTMT ratios in all columns are <0.90 and 0.85, describing that both liberal and conservative criteria are met. Liberal criteria HTMT ratio indicates that value of HTMT should not be higher than 0.90 while conservative criteria indicate that value of HTMT should not be higher than 0.85. Table 4 illustrates the discriminant validity through HTMT ratios.

Two criteria were used to assess the model fitness, namely, the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) and effect size ( f 2 ). Table 5 illustrates the quality criteria based on coefficient of determination. Here, it has been observed that predictors (workplace environment) along with the mediators (achievement-striving ability and employee commitment) are explaining 63% variation in employee performance; thus, predicting a good and reasonable model fitness ( 52 , 66 ). Similarly, 10% change is observed in achievement-striving ability and 8% change in employee commitment as a result of the workplace environment. Figure 2 also illustrates the coefficient of determination, and it can be assumed that these values of coefficient of determination are satisfactory ( 60 ). Table 6 illustrates the effect size in terms of f 2 . All the effect sizes have been found satisfactory and depict good quality criteria ( 52 ). In addition to this, we have also tested the model predictive relevance based on Q 2 ( 67 ) and all the values of Q 2 have been found to be higher than zero, indicating model predictive relevance.

Table 5 . Coefficient of determination.

Table 6 . Effect size.

Hypotheses Testing

At the final stage, we tested hypotheses based on t - and p -statistics (See Figures 1 and 3 ). Direct hypotheses have been tested based on direct paths while hypotheses related to the mediation relations have been tested based on indirect paths (indirect effects). Table 7 illustrates direct, indirect, and total paths while Table 8 indicates hypotheses testing status. The first hypothesis of this study (H1) related to the relationship of the workplace environment and employee performance has been found statistically significant based on t - and p -statistics and it is accepted. The regression coefficient in this regard indicates that one unit change in the workplace environment will bring 0.55 unit change in employee performance. Moreover, this path also indicates that in the presence of positive workplace environment, employee performance (task performance) moves upward and positive change in task performance is observed.

Figure 3 . Path significance.

Table 7 . Direct, indirect, and total path estimates.

Table 8 . Hypotheses testing.

Similarly, the second hypothesis (H2) of this study which is based on the relationship of the workplace environment and employee commitment has also been found statistically significant as evident from the p - and t -statistics (H2 supported). This state of affairs indicates that with the upward change in the workplace environment there will be positive change in employee commitment. It can be safely assumed that a positive workplace environment tends to promote employee commitment. The third hypothesis of this study was based on the relationship of the workplace environment and achievement-striving ability, which has also been found statistically significant as illustrated in Table 8 (H3 is supported). Thus, a positive change in the workplace environment increases the achievement-striving ability of the employees at the workplace.

While talking to mediation hypotheses, these have been tested through the indirect effects as illustrated in Table 7 . Indirect effect for the path Workplace Environment → Employee Commitment → Employee Performance has been found statistically significant ( p < 0.005) which indicates that employee workplace environment positively increases the employee commitment level which further triggers employees to demonstrate a higher level of employee performance (H4 supported). Similarly, the indirect effect in H5, i.e., Workplace Environment → Achievement striving Ability → Employee Performance has also been found statistically significant ( p < 0.05) (H5 supported). This indicates that a positive workplace environment improves employees' achievement-striving ability which further enhances their ability to show a higher level of performance.

This study analyzed the impact of employee workplace environment on employee related factors including employee commitment and achievement-striving ability of the employees. The hypothesis of this research indicated that the workplace environment had a significant impact on shaping the performance of employees. A lot of research in the past had evaluated the similar kind of relationships in which changing environments and the factors of environments of workplace had significant contribution toward the job performance of employees ( 68 ). For instance, the work in ( 10 ) stated that with an increase in per unit variance for physical and behavioral environmental factors, employee's performance was increased which supported our argument. The possible reason behind this outcome was the psychological ability of employees which molded or reshaped the behaviors of employees in case of conducive and restrictive environments of workplace. All employees may not work in the same way since they have distinct working styles due to different workplace environments. Some personnel have the greatest potential regardless of the workplace conditions, whereas others benefit from a supportive environment of the workplace ( 2 ).

The direct effects of workplace environment of employees on employee commitment and achievement-striving ability were also evaluated in this study and found significant outcomes indicating that workplace environment influences the employee-based factors as well. The direct effects on employee commitment showed that if a conducive environment at the workplace was provided, then it could develop a stronger sense of commitment in the employees toward their job and organizations. Similar kind of results were also reported by some of the previous researchers ( 69 ). In exploration of the relationship between workplace environment with employee commitment, these researchers found that if environment of workplace is suitable then it could lead to wellbeing of employees which in turn improve commitment to work by the employees. Employee commitment levels boost employee performance in firms that increase their commitment levels. Previously, companies have given their employees job security to boost their dedication to the firm and performance ( 13 ).

Another dimension to this study was exploration of the relationship between workplace environment and achievement-striving ability of employees. The results indicated similarly the positive association between workplace environment and achievement-striving ability of employees. This kind of relationship evaluation was new as no one in past had evaluated the direct association of workplace environment of employees to achievement-striving ability of employees. The majority of the workplace environment in underdeveloped countries is not safe. Unfortunately, most firms consider a safe and healthy work environment to be an unnecessary expenditure and do not invest heavily in providing a comfortable working environment ( 12 ). The indirect effects of employee commitment and achievement-striving ability between workplace environment of employees and their performance are also evaluated in this study.

Both indirect effects of employee commitment and achievement-striving ability proved to be significantly mediating the relationship of workplace environment of employees and employee performance. This indicated that if employees were more committed to their work, then association of workplace environment and employee performance would be enhanced. Similarly, if employees had good ability of achievement striving then association of workplace environment with employees' performance would also be strengthened. Few researchers have claimed that the psychological status of every commitment element differs from one employee to the other ( 14 ). It is assumed that organizational commitment and employee performance have a positive relationship, implying that employees who perceive a firm's behavior toward companions is decent (i.e., humane treatment, involvement in judgment) might very well boost their sentimental commitment with the organization and their performance in the organization ( 15 ). The results of the this study are related to the work discussed in ( 18 ) but with a limitation that they evaluated the mediating link of employee commitment along with some moderators as well.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this study tends to add to the existing body of knowledge by investigating the impact of a positive work environment on employee performance which is the contribution of the study. Moreover, this study has tested two mediating mechanisms and proved that achievement-striving ability and employee commitment as a mediator increase employee task performance, which is also a unique contribution. The perception of academic staff has been documented in this study which is the contribution of the study. From the practical point of view, this study advocates that organizations should focus on the creation and provision of a positive workplace environment at the workplace to improve the task performance of the employees. Similarly, a positive work environment promotes the achievement-striving ability of the employees, so organizations should also focus on improving the achievement-striving ability of the employees through a positive workplace environment.

Limitation of the Study

Just like other studies, this study has also some limitations. The first limitation is its cross-sectional nature, which does not allow us to assume cause and effect relationships. In the future, researchers should focus on other research designs in replicating this model, which might provide deeper insights into longitudinal research design. Second, only academic staff were approached for data collection; in the future, considering other sectors can provide useful insights. Particularly, banking sector employees can be approached in future studies. Third, we have anticipated only one side of a workplace environment, while in the future, other types of workplace environments should also be tested. Further, this study in future opting larger sample size can provide more detailed and deeper insights regarding the relationship between the workplace environment and employee performance. We have used two mediating mechanisms in this study, considering other mediating variables such as job satisfaction can also be a future avenue. This model can also be tested with the moderating phenomenon in the future such as leadership styles or cultural variables such as power distance and collectivism.

Conclusions

Based on the empirical findings of this study, it can be concluded that a positive work environment promotes employee performance within organizational circuits. More specifically, the workplace environment can improve the achievement-striving ability of the employees, and employees tend to bounce back in difficult situations. Similarly, a positive work environment provides a nurturing and pleasant work environment which promotes employee commitment and employees tend to be loyal to their organizations. In addition to this, it can also be concluded that the employee commitment has the potency to enhance the task performance of the employees; because employees show a higher level of task performance when they are committed to their employer or organization. Similarly, employees with higher achievement-striving ability tend to show a higher level of task performance even in difficult situations. Further it can be endorsed that motivational activities in organizational cultures are triggered under social exchanges, and positive behaviors at workplace are promoted in shape of employee commitment. This increased commitment can result in enhanced and improved individual and organizational performance.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

GZ: initial and final draft. SC and KK: analysis and interpretation. AN and MH: proof read, revision, and data validation. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2022/87), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Nor AI. Enhancing employee performance through human resource management practices: a review of literature. Eur J Hum Resour Manag Stud. (2018). doi: 10.46827/ejhrms.v0i0.492 [Unpublished].

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Meng J, Berger BK. The impact of organizational culture and leadership performance on PR professionals' job satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relat Rev. (2019) 45:64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Berberoglu A. Impact of organizational climate on organizational commitment and perceived organizational performance: empirical evidence from public hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. (2018) 18:399. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3149-z

4. Raziq A, Maulabakhsh R. Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. Procedia Econ Financ. (2015) 23:717–25. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9

5. Kuruparensothynathan P, Vimalendran G, Maryselesteena V. Impact of Working Environment on Employees' Performance: An Emprial Study of Insurance Companies . (2016). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12235.54563

CrossRef Full Text

6. Narcisse S, Harcourt M. Employee fairness perceptions of performance appraisal: a Saint Lucian case study. Int J Hum Resour Manag. (2008) 19:1152–69. doi: 10.1080/09585190802051451

7. Olson EM, Slater SF, Hult GTM, Olson KM. The application of human resource management policies within the marketing organization: the impact on business and marketing strategy implementation. Ind Mark Manag. (2018) 69:62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.029

8. Ho JL, Powell DM, Stanley DJ. The relation between deceptive impression management and employment interview ratings: a meta-analysis. Can J Behav Sci / Rev Can des Sci du Comport. (2021) 53:164–74. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000223

9. Moslemi S, Izadbakhsh H, Zarinbal M. A new reliable performance evaluation model: IFB-IER–DEA. OPSEARCH. (2019) 56:14–31. doi: 10.1007/s12597-019-00360-9

10. Hafeez I, Yingjun Z, Hafeez S, Mansoor R, Cheema K, ur R. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role of employee health. Bus Manag Educ. (2019) 17:173–93. doi: 10.3846/bme.2019.10379

11. Purity M, Eilish M, Ogenna U, Honorati M, Henry M. The impact of supportive supervision on the implementation of HRM processes: A mixed-methods study in Tanzania. Health Syst Policy Res. (2017) 4:1–9. doi: 10.21767/2254-9137.100066

12. Aghaji A, Burchett HED, Oguego N, Hameed S, Gilbert C. Human resource and governance challenges in the delivery of primary eye care: a mixed methods feasibility study in Nigeria. BMC Health Serv Res. (2021) 21:1321. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07362-8

13. Mahmood A, Akhtar MN, Talat U, Shuai C, Hyatt JC. Specific HR practices and employee commitment: the mediating role of job satisfaction. Empl Relations Int J. (2019) 41:420–35. doi: 10.1108/ER-03-2018-0074

14. Yu Q, Yen DA, Barnes BR, Huang YA. Enhancing firm performance through internal market orientation and employee organizational commitment. Int J Hum Resour Manag. (2019) 30:964–87. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1380059

15. Aziz H, Othman B, Gardi B, Ahmed S, Sabir B, Burhan Ismael N, et al. Employee commitment: the relationship between employee commitment and job satisfaction. J Humanit Educ Dev . (2021) 3:54–66. doi: 10.22161/jhed.3.3.6

16. van Rossenberg YGT, Klein HJ, Asplund K, Bentein K, Breitsohl H, Cohen A, et al. The future of workplace commitment: key questions and directions. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. (2018) 27:153–67. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1443914

17. Armbrecht J, Andersson TD. The event experience, hedonic and eudaimonic satisfaction and subjective well-being among sport event participants. J Policy Res Tour Leis Events. (2020) 12:457–77. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2019.1695346

18. Lin CP, Liu CM, Chan HT. Developing job performance: mediation of occupational commitment and achievement striving with competence enhancement as a moderator. Pers Rev . (2021) ahead-of-p: doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2020-0296

19. Diamantidis AD, Chatzoglou P. Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical approach. Int J Product Perform Manag. (2019) 68:171–193. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012

20. Alsafadi Y, Altahat S. Human resource management practices and employee performance: the role of job satisfaction. J Asian Financ Econ Bus. (2021) 8:519–29. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.519

21. Abbasi SG, Shabbir MS, Abbas M, Tahir MS. HPWS and knowledge sharing behavior: The role of psychological empowerment and organizational identification in public sector banks. J Public Aff. (2021) 21:e2512. doi: 10.1002/pa.2512

22. Gangi F, D'Angelo E, Daniele LM, Varrone N. Assessing the impact of socially responsible human resources management on company environmental performance and cost of debt. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. (2021) 28:1511–27. doi: 10.1002/csr.2179

23. Leitão M, Correia RJ, Teixeira MS, Campos S. Effects of leadership and reward systems on employees' motivation and job satisfaction: an application to the Portuguese textile industry. J Strateg Manag . (2022). doi: 10.1108/JSMA-07-2021-0158 [Epub ahead of print].

24. Ferschmann L, Bos MGN, Herting MM, Mills KL, Tamnes CK. Contextualizing adolescent structural brain development: Environmental determinants and mental health outcomes. Curr Opin Psychol. (2022) 44:170–6. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.014

25. Christensen-Salem A, Mesquita LF, Hashimoto M, Hom PW, Gomez-Mejia LR. Family firms are indeed better places to work than non-family firms! Socioemotional wealth and employees' perceived organizational caring. J Fam Bus Strateg. (2021) 12:100412. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100412

26. Casper Ferm LE, Thaichon P. Customer pre-participatory social media drivers and their influence on attitudinal loyalty within the retail banking industry: A multi-group analysis utilizing social exchange theory. J Retail Consum Serv. (2021) 61:102584. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102584

27. Wang X, Zhang Z, Chun D. How does mobile workplace stress affect employee innovative behavior? The role of Work–family conflict and employee engagement. Behav Sci . (2022) 12:2. doi: 10.3390/bs12010002

28. Awada M, Becerik-Gerber B, White E, Hoque S, O'Neill Z, Pedrielli G, et al. Occupant health in buildings: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the opinions of building professionals and implications on research. Build Environ. (2022) 207:108440. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108440

29. Li X, Li H, Skitmore M, Wang F. Understanding the influence of safety climate and productivity pressure on non-helmet use behavior at construction sites: a case study. Eng Constr Archit Manag. (2022) 29:72–90. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-08-2020-0626

30. Ali G, Anbren S, Bashir MK. Climate mitigation, low-carbon society, and dynamism of educational institutes in a low-income country. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2018) 25:3775–84. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-0607-9

31. Song B, Tao W. Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR: Highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation. Public Relat Rev. (2022) 48:102153. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102153

32. Ahmed M, Guo Q, Qureshi MA, Raza SA, Khan KA, Salam J. Do green HR practices enhance green motivation and proactive environmental management maturity in hotel industry? Int J Hosp Manag. (2021) 94:102852. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102852

33. Martela F, Hankonen N, Ryan RM, Vansteenkiste M. Motivating voluntary compliance to behavioural restrictions: self-determination theory–based checklist of principles for COVID-19 and other emergency communications. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. (2021) 32:305–47. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082

34. Li J, Bonn MA, Ye BH. Hotel employee's artificial intelligence and robotics awareness and its impact on turnover intention: the moderating roles of perceived organizational support and competitive psychological climate. Tour Manag. (2019) 73:172–81. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.006

35. Roslee NLB, Goh YS. Young adult's perception towards the formation of stigma on people experiencing mental health conditions: a descriptive qualitative study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2021) 30:148–57. doi: 10.1111/inm.12766

36. Ahakwa I, Yang J, Agba Tackie E, Atingabili S. The influence of employee engagement, work environment and job satisfaction on organizational commitment and performance of employees: a sampling weights in PLS path modelling. SEISENSE J Manag. (2021) 4:34–62. doi: 10.33215/sjom.v4i3.641

37. Faupel S, Helpap S. Top management's communication and employees' commitment to change: the role of perceived procedural fairness and past change experience. J Appl Behav Sci. (2020) 57:204–32. doi: 10.1177/0021886320979646

38. Torlak NG, Kuzey C. Leadership, job satisfaction and performance links in private education institutes of Pakistan. Int J Product Perform Manag. (2019) 68:276–95. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-05-2018-0182

39. Billings J, Ching BCF, Gkofa V, Greene T, Bloomfield M. Experiences of frontline healthcare workers and their views about support during COVID-19 and previous pandemics: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. (2021) 21:1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06917-z

40. Sigahi TFAC, Kawasaki BC, Bolis I, Morioka SN. A systematic review on the impacts of Covid-19 on work: contributions and a path forward from the perspectives of ergonomics and psychodynamics of work. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. (2021) 31:375–88. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20889

41. Scrima F, Mura AL, Nonnis M, Fornara F. The relation between workplace attachment style, design satisfaction, privacy and exhaustion in office employees: a moderated mediation model. J Environ Psychol. (2021) 78:101693. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101693

42. Zhang M, The Cong P, Sanyal S, Suksatan W, Maneengam A, Murtaza N. Insights into rising environmental concern: prompt corporate social responsibility to mediate green marketing perspective. Econ Res IstraŽivanja . (2022) 1−17. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.2021966

43. Ozturk A, Karatepe OM, Okumus F. The effect of servant leadership on hotel employees' behavioral consequences: work engagement versus job satisfaction. Int J Hosp Manag. (2021) 97:102994. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102994

44. Hoque MZ, Cui S, Lilai X, Islam I, Ali G, Tang J. Resilience of coastal communities to climate change in Bangladesh: Research gaps and future directions. Watershed Ecol Environ. (2019) 1:42–56. doi: 10.1016/j.wsee.2019.10.001

45. Chen M, Ran B, Gao X, Yu G, Wang J, Jagannathan J. Evaluation of occupational stress management for improving performance and productivity at workplaces by monitoring the health, well-being of workers. Aggress Violent Behav . (2021) 101713. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2021.101713

46. Kordsmeyer AC, Efimov I, Lengen JC, Flothow A, Nienhaus A, Harth V, et al. Balancing social and economic factors - explorative qualitative analysis of working conditions of supervisors in German social firms. J Occup Med Toxicol. (2022) 17:4. doi: 10.1186/s12995-021-00342-y

47. Di Blasio S, Shtrepi L, Puglisi GE, Astolfi A. A cross-sectional survey on the impact of irrelevant speech noise on annoyance, mental health and well-being, performance and occupants' behavior in shared and open-plan offices. Int J Environ Res Public Heal . (2019) 16:280. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16020280

48. Saqib S, Saleem S, Bashir M, Ali A. Workplace incivility, service spirit and gossips at workplace: perception of nurses working in public sector hospitals of Pakistan. J Manag Sci. (2017) 11:329–34. Available online at: https://qurtuba.edu.pk/jms/default_files/JMS/special_edition/3%20FMM/17%20(AIC-FMM%202017)%20319-334%20Shah%20Nazawz%20Saqib%20FMM-745.pdf

Google Scholar

49. Wu Q, Saqib S, Sun J, Xiao Y, Ma W. Incivility and knowledge hiding in. Academia: mediating role of interpersonal distrust and rumination. Front Psychol. (2022) 12:769282. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769282

50. Abun D. Employees' Self-Efficacy and Work Performance of Employees as Mediated by Work Environment. Available SSRN 3958247 (2021).

51. Krejcie R V, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. (1970) 30:607–10. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308

52. Bashir M, Shabbir R, Saleem S, Abrar M, Saqib S, Gill SH. Job-related and nonjob-related gossips among low-ranked employees in unionized service organization. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:994. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00994

53. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Smith D, Reams R, Hair JF Jr. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers. J Fam Bus Strateg. (2014) 5:105–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002

54. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. (2003) 88:879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

55. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Patil A. Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manage Sci. (2006) 52:1865–83. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597

56. Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, Van Buuren S, Van der Beek AJ, De Vet HCW. Improving the individual work performance questionnaire using rasch analysis. J Appl Meas. (2014) 15:160–75. doi: 10.1037/t35489-000

57. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R, Armeli S. Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. (2001) 86:825. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

58. Jepsen DM. A Side By Side Comparison of Two Organizational Citizenship Behavior Models and Their Measures : Expanding the Construct Domain ' S Scope. In: 11th Annu Conf Asia Pacific Decis Sci Inst. Kowloon, Hong Kong (2006). pp. 670–4.

59. Ali F, Rasoolimanesh SM, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Ryu K. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. (2018) 30:514–538. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568

60. Hair JFJ, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Sage Publications (2021).

61. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. Eur J Mark . (2019) 53:566–584. doi: 10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665

62. Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Bus Rev. (2014) 26:106–121. doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

63. Mela CF, Kopalle PK. The impact of collinearity on regression analysis: the asymmetric effect of negative and positive correlations. Appl Econ. (2002) 34:667–77. doi: 10.1080/00036840110058482

64. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Market Res. (1981) 18:382–8. doi: 10.2307/3150980

65. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, PLS-SEM. Indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. (2011) 19:139–52. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

66. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). (2006)

67. Geisser S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat Assoc. (1975) 70:320–8. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865

68. Saragih R, Warjio W, Susanti S. The effect of leadership style, work environment and performance benefits on employee performance in BP3TKI office, indonesia using statistical method. J Educ Hum Soc Sci (JEHSS). (2021) 4:1066–1074. doi: 10.34007/jehss.v4i2.801

69. Funminiyi AK. Impact of workplace environmental factors on employee commitment: evidence from North East Nigeria. Int J Sci Res Manag. (2018) 6:575–585. doi: 10.18535/ijsrm/v6i7.em08

Keywords: employee workplace environment, employees' performance, achievement-striving, striving for achievement, analysis

Citation: Zhenjing G, Chupradit S, Ku KY, Nassani AA and Haffar M (2022) Impact of Employees' Workplace Environment on Employees' Performance: A Multi-Mediation Model. Front. Public Health 10:890400. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.890400

Received: 05 March 2022; Accepted: 08 April 2022; Published: 13 May 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Zhenjing, Chupradit, Ku, Nassani and Haffar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kuo Yen Ku, ykkuo@sce.pccu.edu.tw

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The work environment pilot: An experiment to determine the optimal office design for a technology company

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Booking.com, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft

Affiliation LearnAdaptBuild, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation CBRE Consulting, Amsterdam, Netherlands

• Jegar Pitchforth, 
• Elizabeth Nelson-White, 
• Marc van den Helder, 
• Wouter Oosting

• Published: May 19, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943
• Reader Comments

24 Jun 2020: Pitchforth J, Nelson EC, van den Helder M, Oosting W (2020) Correction: The work environment pilot: An experiment to determine the optimal office design for a technology company. PLOS ONE 15(6): e0235428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235428 View correction

Over the past few decades many corporate organisations have moved to open-plan office designs, mostly due to financial and logistical benefits. However, recent studies have found significant drawbacks to open plan offices and it is unclear how office designs can facilitate the best work output and company culture. Current design practice aims to optimise efficiency of space, but no previous research has tested the effect of office design experimentally in a working office. This paper describes an experiment comparing four different office designs (Open-plan, Zoned open-plan, Activity based, and Team offices) against a suite of wellbeing and productivity metrics in a real world technology company. Results suggest that two very different designs (Zoned open-plan and Team offices) perform well compared to Open-plan office designs. Zoned open-plan and Team office designs improved employee satisfaction, enjoyment, flow, and productivity, while Activity based and Open-plan designs performed poorly by comparison. The Open-plan office design was rated more poorly by employees, had higher levels of unsafe noise, and once employees no longer had to be in the Open-plan office design of the experiment, they spent more time at their desks.

Citation: Pitchforth J, Nelson-White E, van den Helder M, Oosting W (2020) The work environment pilot: An experiment to determine the optimal office design for a technology company. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0232943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943

Editor: Denis Alves Coelho, Jonkoping University, SWEDEN

Received: August 20, 2019; Accepted: April 25, 2020; Published: May 19, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Pitchforth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was fully funded by Booking.com B.V. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors (JP, MH, WO, EN), but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Authors 1 and 3 (JP, MH) are employed by Booking.com. Booking.com fully funded this research, but did not have any influence over the study design, or decision to publish. Data collection and analysis was conducted using Booking.com data resources. The Booking Public Relations and Data Privacy teams checked the manuscript and submitted data for factual correctness and to ensure no commercially sensitive or PII information was released. Author 4 (WO) is employed by CBRE Consulting, and was contracted by Booking.com to manage the project. CBRE Consulting did not provide any funding, and had no influence over any stage of the project. Author 2 (EN) is employed by Learn Adapt Build, and was contracted by CBRE Consulting to advise on the data collection and analysis stages of the project. Learn Adapt Build did not provide any funding for any stage of the project.

Competing interests: Authors 1 and 3 (JP, MH) are employed by Booking.com. Booking.com fully funded this research, but did not have any influence over the study design, or decision to publish. Data collection and analysis was conducted using Booking.com data resources. The Booking Public Relations and Data Privacy teams checked the manuscript and submitted data for factual correctness and to ensure no commercially sensitive or PII information was released. Author 4 (WO) is employed by CBRE Consulting, and was contracted by Booking.com to manage the project. CBRE Consulting did not provide any funding, and had no influence over any stage of the project. Author 2 (EN) is employed by Learn Adapt Build, and was contracted by CBRE Consulting to advise on the data collection and analysis stages of the project. Learn Adapt Build did not provide any funding for any stage of the project. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Office design is an important factor in many variables of interest to managers, but the impact of open office design has rarely been explored experimentally. Since open offices have become mainstream, research has questioned their efficiency and general likability. Recent research has even gone so far as to wholly condemn open office designs, but designers are working with creative ideas to improve the open workplace [ 1 ]. To date, there has been no randomized, controlled trial in a working organisation capable of establishing such causal relationships. This paper presents the first randomized, controlled experiment in a working international technology company with the aim of finding an optimal open office design for employees.

Office design challenges

Office design can be a source of satisfaction [ 2 , 3 ], engagement [ 4 , 5 ], productivity [ 6 , 7 ], and employee health [ 8 , 9 ], but how companies design an office to meet the needs of their organisation is an open question. In the past, this question has frequently been answered through corporate strategy and budget restrictions [ 10 ]. However, as organisations become more data-driven and office space costs increase, many companies are beginning to consider other types of costs such as loss of productivity and decreased employee engagement [ 11 ]. These considerations have led to new questions regarding the impact of office design choices on employees.

A number of different office designs have been used over time to facilitate a wide range of work styles and goals. In this study we examine four designs common to modern companies, here described as Activity based , Open-plan (our control design), Zoned open-plan and Team office .

Activity based offices are flexible zone-based environments with unassigned seating that provide a range of spaces intended for different usages in an open setting. They have become popular due to aspects such as space reduction and cost savings, with employees making more efficient use of the office floorspace. Despite the financial benefits of the approach, activity based designs have been shown to decrease comfort, privacy and productivity [ 12 ] and contribute to emotional exhaustion [ 13 ]. Further, satisfaction with activity based environments is limited to one subset of workers [ 14 ]. However, recent work [ 15 ] has suggested that some of these issues can be overcome by including employees in the process of changing from their existing environment to an activity based environment. These mixed findings suggest that there is more that can be learned about this office design approach through experimental observation.

Open-plan offices are designed with minimal separation of spaces, such that the office floor is without internal walls or doors. They are currently very popular in large corporations [ 11 ], but they are associated with a range of issues including increased disturbances and lack of privacy [ 16 – 19 ]. Past research has highlighted the tendency for open-plan office designs to drive negative behaviors and attitudes of employees through loss of space and increased contact with coworkers [ 17 , 19 – 23 ]. It has been established that environmental variables such as noise and visual disturbances [ 24 , 25 ], poor air quality [ 26 ], temperature [ 27 ], and lighting [ 28 ] have an impact on satisfaction, engagement, and productivity in open plan environments, suggesting that examining open-plan office design in an experimental context adds value to the literature.

In contrast to Open-plan offices, cubicles are a way of breaking up open office floors with partitions between desks, providing an enclosed desk space for each employee. The design was once the most common type of office design, but has become less popular in recent years [ 29 ]. Some benefits of this type of office design, such as reduced visual distraction leading to increased perseverance [ 30 ] have been identified, but these are now seen as being offset by negative cultural effects and reduced collaboration [ 31 , 32 ]. Most work on this design has focussed on individual cubicles, with no known work on designs with a team of employees in a single large cubicle.

While many researchers have chosen to frame their work in terms of different office design styles, others have remained more general in their approach and have instead focussed on relationships between specific environmental and commercially important variables. Here we review some variables that are proposed to be affected by office design.

Environmental variables

Sound disturbances have been documented to reduce cognitive performance, decrease motivation, and increase stress levels [ 24 , 33 – 36 ]. The prevalence of both audio and visual disturbances have flagged the need for improving employee privacy in the workplace [ 19 ].

Other environmental aspects of workplaces such as temperature, air quality and light have shown both negative mental and physical reactions to sub-optimal environments [ 37 , 38 ]. The term ‘sick building syndrome’ was coined over 30 years ago when it was discovered that many of the offices we work in had poor air quality and were making people ill [ 37 ]. The 1984 World Health Organization (WHO) report suggested that up to 30% of new and remodeled buildings worldwide may be subject to complaints related to poor indoor air quality [ 39 ].

Office temperature has been established to be linked to both productivity [ 27 , 40 ] and satisfaction [ 41 , 42 ]. Recent studies have found that around 22 degrees appears to be an optimal temperature [ 27 , 43 , 44 ]. While there are many academic, government, and industry organisations specifying optimal office temperatures [ 45 – 47 ], there is still debate around the specifics of how temperature affects employees. For example, [ 48 ] found that the relationship between temperature and performance was different for different types of work, and [ 49 ] found that women perform better on some types of work in higher temperatures than men. It may be that there is so much variation in reactions to office temperature that finding one optimal temperature is not possible [ 50 ]. However, given the ability to control office temperature and relative ease of measurement, it is of great value to understand more about how this variable affects employees.

Lighting is another important aspect of office design that can have significant effects on employees. The effects of different intensity, colour, and positioning of lighting on employees have been established in a number of studies [ 18 , 51 , 52 ], although there at present is no conclusive method of designing an optimal office lighting plan. Much of the previous work has focussed on how light can affect productivity by affecting circadian rhythms and making employees drowsy [ 52 ], and results suggest lighting states similar to natural light at the end of the day should be avoided. Recently [ 53 ] proposed a more technologically based solution involving estimating employee drowsiness, then adjusting lighting and air conditioning accordingly. With such a strong link established but little work on experimental observation outside a laboratory environment, there is still much to be learned about the effect of this variable on employee behaviour.

Occupancy and personal variables

Occupancy refers to the number of people using a space, and is an important factor in office operations planning [ 54 , 55 ] as it affects a wide range of decisions such as required cleaning staff and opening hours. In academic literature, the primary focus of collecting occupancy data through sensors has been for further modelling purposes [ 56 , 57 ] but has not been examined in relation to environmental variables such as temperature, noise, or air quality.

Productivity is the primary variable of interest to most organisations, as it is the source of profit and innovation. Given that productivity can mean different things in different job roles, it is easy to see why most studies of productivity have focussed on heavily operational roles with clear productivity metrics such as sales [ 58 , 59 ], manufacturing [ 60 , 61 ], or nursing [ 62 – 64 ]. A notable exception is the work of [ 65 ], who examined the relationship between work habits and productivity in software developers. They note that software developer productivity is very difficult to measure, and that in such a situation it is more useful to measure perceived productivity. While this method may be less accurate than observing metrics of productivity, it is likely to be more relevant for modern knowledge industry companies. A measure for perceived productivity based on role and identity theory was introduced by [ 66 ], and has since been used in a variety of work areas such as public service [ 67 ] and nursing [ 68 ].

One tool commonly proposed as a proxy for productivity in technology driven companies is Git, a software first introduced in 2012 [ 69 ] which assists developers in coding productivity at a group level. The framework allows developers to ‘commit’ their code to collectively managed code bases in a systematic and well-recorded fashion. Scholtes in 2016 [ 70 ], demonstrated that logs of git activity can usefully be examined in relation to productivity. [ 71 ] raised the concern that git activity could be misleading given the software’s potential weakness to bad actors and issues with transporting repositories. These issues are not a concern in the current study however, as the corporate environment serves as a protection from both bad actors and infrastructure problems.

Satisfaction is another important concept for organisational and office design research, and is used as a primary measurement for the sentiment of employees. A common measurement of satisfaction with the working environment is the Leesman satisfaction index [ 72 ], which is seen as useful for benchmarking purposes. While satisfaction is clearly related to organisational and operational factors such as management styles [ 73 – 75 ] and job requirements [ 76 , 77 ], there is a large body of work that explores satisfaction with reference to office design. [ 78 ] found that satisfaction was related to view of nature, and [ 14 ] suggested that offices requiring more place-switching provided a higher level of satisfaction. In addition to the field-studies on satisfaction in office designs [ 79 , 80 ], there have been a number of quasi-experiments examining employee satisfaction before and after office design changes [ 15 , 80 ]. These studies show that satisfaction is of high interest to both researchers and corporations, but the construct is yet to be explored experimentally in the context of working technology companies.

Since its introduction in the literature, managers have been interested in how to help their employees reach psychological flow states, as these are seen to be related to productivity [ 81 , 82 ]. The concept of flow stems from the positive psychology literature [ 83 , 84 ], which uses the term to describe an optimal mental state for accomplishing a task. [ 85 ] outlines the various methods for measuring flow in different environments, such as questionnaire-based scales such as the WOLF scale [ 86 ], or the Experience Sampling Methodology [ 87 ] which requires frequent sampling at an individual level [ 88 ]. Hypothesised drivers of flow include task challenge [ 89 ], daily recovery [ 90 ], job characteristics [ 91 ], and organisational and personal resources [ 92 ], but no solid theory has yet been established on this topic. There is very little work on the relationship between office design and flow states, with recent work by [ 93 ] a notable exception, who invoke flow as one of the benefits of their proposed Emotional Design approach. [ 90 ] explored both energy at work and flow, focusing on the role of ‘detaching’ from work tasks outside of working hours.

Engagement (or its opposite, burnout), and enjoyment are closely related concepts that are also proposed to be affected by office design. Burnout is often described as the antipode of engagement [ 94 ], and has been noted to cause significant costs to businesses in the form of lost productivity [ 95 ]. Recently, it has become more convenient to measure burnout with the introduction of Maslach’s Burnout Inventory [ 96 ] a tool which is used to diagnose burnout in countries like The Netherlands, where this study was conducted. While previous research has focussed largely on effects of more abstract burnout drivers such as job role [ 97 , 98 ] or social environment [ 99 , 100 ], relatively little attention has been paid to the effects of the physical work environment on burnout [ 101 , 102 ].

Enjoyment of a space is also very useful for organisations to measure, as it is related to other staff behaviours such as productivity and wellbeing [ 103 ]. Enjoyable office spaces can improve activity of sedentary workers [ 104 ], help guide corporate culture [ 105 ], and improve creativity [ 106 ]. While studies have demonstrated a clear relationship between enjoyment of office spaces and benefits to organisations, there is still a need to examine how different office designs vary in enjoyment from an experimental paradigm.

Studies of open office designs have considered these variables observationally, but there is still a notable gap in the evidence from systematic experimentation in real corporate environments. Previous research has explored aspects of employee sentiment and behaviour in relation to various aspects of the work environment, but none have employed an experimental design, tending to prefer quasi-experimental (non-randomized) and case study approaches such as work by Cisco [ 107 ] and Hewlett-Packard [ 108 ]. The present paper describes the first experimental analysis of these four open office designs in direct comparison. It also takes a multivariate approach to understanding employee behaviour, with analysis based on automated data collection in addition to more commonly used research tools such as questionnaires and interviews. By systematically observing the performance of four common open office designs in a modern technology focussed company, we demonstrate that an experimental approach to office design can help corporations find optimal office designs and design elements for their employee population, as well as providing evidence of the relationships between office design and commonly studied constructs with strong ecological validity.

Given the current state of office design research and the noted gap in the literature, the aim of this research is to use an experimental approach to compare four open office designs, and determine if there is an optimal open office design which fosters productive work but also reaches high levels of satisfaction for employees of a large corporate tech company.

Materials and methods

This study involved human subjects, and was formally approved with written confirmation by the Booking.com B.V. Works Council in the Netherlands, which is a legally designated body charged with upholding ethical and professional standards for the company. All data were analyzed anonymously in accordance with European GDPR regulations.

Booking.com is a large corporate tech company founded 23 years ago in the Netherlands with an employee population of 17,500 people globally, 5,580 of which are based in the global headquarters in Amsterdam. Their employee population includes software and system developers, travel market specialists, marketing, finance, and a range of support roles facilitating the entire customer experience.

Participants

Participants were recruited as whole teams from a sample of all departments and job roles in Booking.com, excluding Customer Service agents who work in call centers rather than an office environment. The final sample included 288 participants from 22 teams in a similar mix of functions to that found in the wider company including code development, project management, administration of HR processes, and strategy formulation. Each team ranged in size from four members to 20 members.

All participants were informed of the intent to run an experiment and were shown outlines of the environment they would be seated in. They discussed their participation in the experiment with their team, who decided to participate or not. Communications to participants stressed that there was no requirement to participate in the experiment, and that there would be no consequences for non-participation. The experimental area was clearly marked with signage indicating the boundaries of the experiment, and that participants could leave the area if they did not want to participate. All experiment plans were presented to the Booking.com Works Council, a legally mandated body with oversight of all changes regarding employees, who provided written consent on behalf of the employee population.

Participants in the sample ranged in age from 22–59 years old with a mean age of 32. The gender split loosely reflected the company population with 59.84% identifying as Male. 51 nationalities were represented, including Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Oceania ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g001

Sample selection

Sampling was achieved using a stratified convenience sampling approach wherein teams were asked to volunteer for the experiment, with a preference for complete organisational sets of teams (known as ‘tracks’). Teams were selected from those that volunteered to participate, working closely with team and track managers to ensure full coverage of job roles. The final choice of participants ensured representation was proportional to the makeup of departments in the company.

Experiment design

A uniform cross-over design [ 109 – 112 ] was employed to systematically observe the effect of office design on the constructs of interest. The specifics of the design and consequent analysis method is described below.

Blocking and randomized exposure.

Teams of participants were assigned to one of four groups. An R script was used to randomly assign teams to groups such that each group had equal numbers of individual participants.

Each group was then exposed to each office design for two weeks at a time before moving to the next design. The sequence of exposure was randomized such that no group was exposed to the designs in the same order as any other group. See Table 1 for the exposure schedule adopted.

Letters A through D represent the group assigned to that design for that wave.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t001

Scheduling the exposure pattern for groups in this way ensured that sequence effects and time effects were both controlled for when the experiment was analysed over all four waves. This assumption is explicitly validated in the analysis phase.

Office designs.

Office designs were designed in workshops with a working group of 10 employees led by Booking.com’s Real Estate team and CBRE, a commercial workplace design consultancy. The overall aim of the process was stated to be ‘to design an office space that is healthier, happier, and more productive’. Using a heuristic needs gathering process, three office designs were developed for testing that were proposed to suit the working style of the employee population. With the addition of the Open-plan office design as a control design, four designs were chosen for testing in the final experiment.

• Open-plan (Control) The Open-plan design is very similar to many large technology based companies around the world, and serves as a control design for this study ( Fig 3 ). In the present study it is an open-plan design with groups of six desks, allowing three people to sit on either side.
• Zoned open-plan The Zoned open-plan design was proposed initially by project architects as their first answer to the needs gathering process. Zoned open-plan is similar to the open-plan design for working spaces, but added soundproof doors between working and collaboration spaces ( Fig 4 ). Each Zoned open-plan zone had no more than 40 people in a room (compared to a maximum of 72 occupants), and each room included at least two ‘phone booth’ style units with soundproof doors. Plants were integrated into the space using hanging planter boxes above each set of desks.
• Activity based The Activity based design is an open-plan design in which desks are not officially assigned to a specific employee and includes activity-centered zones ( Fig 5 ). Other spaces are provided such as small, one person rooms with desks and screens (known as ‘focus rooms’), phone booths, and a variety of collaboration spaces of different sizes and levels of privacy.
• Team office The Team office design is the closest to the traditional design of the cubicle, with each cubicle large enough to sit six or four people( Fig 6 ). Team offices each contained six of four desks, and included a whiteboard and large screen for sharing content. Each space was delineated by walls of sound absorbing panels.

Blacked out areas represent empty spaces (e.g. atriums) and non-experimental areas. Coloured areas represent experimental zones Control (red), Limited open plan (purple), Zoned open plan (yellow), and Team offices (blue).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g002

Digital render of the Open-plan Control area.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g003

Digital render of the Zoned Open-plan design.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g004

Digital render of the Activity-based design.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g005

Digital render of the Team office design.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g006

The experiment measured outcomes over 9 constructs. Operational definitions are defined in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t002

Healthy ranges for environmental variables were chosen based on suggestions from the literature [ 45 – 47 ]. Table 3 contains the final ranges that were chosen for this experiment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t003

g = The appropriate link function for the response distribution.

Y ij = The value of outcome variable Y for time i in group j .

μ = The overall response mean.

π i = The effect of time i .

s j = The effect of the j th group.

τ d ( i , j ) = The effect of the design d at period i to group j . Design d corresponds to the designs referred to in Table 1 .

ρ d ( i −1, j ) = The carryover effect applied at period i − 1 to the group j , under the design d .

β m = The effect of covariate m on the outcome Y.

For perception based outcomes, the covariates introduced to the model were based on demographic features that were believed to be of importance to determining the experience of the office space, such as age, gender, workgroup (i.e. company department), nationality, introversion, preference for morning or evening work, and the level of collaboration required to work.

Most response variables were normally distributed, and thus most models are linear models (identity link). Git commits were Poisson distributed, so a log link function is chosen. For each outcome the overall effect of each term is examined using an ANOVA. In cases where office design has a significant effect on the outcome variable, we examine the coefficients of the generalised linear model for all terms that were shown to have a significant effect on improving the fit of the model to data.

Two brands of sensor, ERS (82 sensors) and PointGrab CogniPoint (282 sensors), were used to measure environmental and behavioural variables. Each sensor type was administered by a third party sensor specialist who collected and collated the data before sending it for analysis by Booking.com Data Scientists. Sensor locations were recorded by the installation company as a map, then these points were manually input to the QGIS software [ 113 ] to ensure each set of readings was associated with specific coordinates.

ERS sensors [ 114 ] measure a set of environmental variables (light, temperature, noise, movement, CO 2 levels) simultaneously, and send these measurements to a receiver which in turn transmits data to servers. This process occurs regularly at 15 minute intervals.

PointGrab CogniPoint [ 115 ] sensors are used to sense desk occupancy. These sensors contain infrared cameras and have functionality to set a zone of interest within the video frame. They produce a count of the number of people seen within the zone of interest once every 5 minutes.

Questionnaire.

A questionnaire was administered to all participants at the end of each wave of exposure. All responses were required to be anonymous, so respondents provided the design to which they were assigned for that wave and responses were analysed at the group level. Differences between groups were controlled by the repeated-measures experiment design.

The questionnaire was designed based on past studies measuring both individual outcomes as well as group outcomes of environmental change. Satisfaction and perceived productivity were measured with 1 item, engagement with 3 items, enjoyment with 3 items, energy with 3 items, and flow with 4 items (see Table 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t004

Git commits.

Git commits were collected as a loose proxy for technical output. This was achieved using a bash script that was run once at the end of the project using:

git shortlog -sne

with some extra parameters to filter counts for only experimental participants.

Data analysis and preparation

Data were analysed using R based on CSV files from sensor providers (for environmental measurements) and Qualtrics [ 116 ] (for survey responses). Data from each wave were engineered into a database in Hive to allow for modelling. Sensors were hung in the space for 2 weeks during a beta test to see both functionality of the devices, results of the space and behavior. It was established during this time that sensor measurements could be limited to 8 AM to 6 PM on weekdays, as no employees were in the office outside those times. This was confirmed in a check of the data during the experiment.

Occupancy data were aggregated by hour to calculate the average proportion of occupancy per design for that period. This decision was made to normalise the number of measurements taken per period, as each sensor provided readings asynchronously (such that there was a different number of readings per sensor within each hour window) and due to the Activity based design having a lower number of occupancy sensors in the design (due to the desk-sharing ratio introduced). In addition, a binomial treatment of the data would have considered each measurement to be independent, which is not the case for occupancy data taken from sensors, where each reading is both time and sensor dependent. Following an assessment of the data choices, the hourly aggregation method was considered most actionable by stakeholders. Analyses of the data in both raw and aggregated forms are provided in the supporting data for the reader’s convenience.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire had a declining response rate over the course of the experiment ( Fig 7 ). As responses were to be analysed at the group level, this decrease in responses over time was not considered to be a major problem as time is controlled through the repeated measures experiment design.

The response rate for each survey wave by design.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.g007

For each outcome a GLM was used to determine the effect of the experimental design on that outcome while also controlling for covariates. The effect of experimental design was found to be significant for all outcomes except for energy and commits, which are subsequently excluded from reporting in results. Covariates with significant effects are reported here, and non-significant effects are reported in the supplementary information.

Satisfaction.

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on participant satisfaction with the workplace ( F = 39.958, p < 0.001) ( Table 5 ). Participants reported 12% higher satisfaction in the Zoned open-plan design ( est . = 1.169, se = 0.295, p < 0.001) and 8% higher satisfaction in the Team office design ( est . = 0.781, se = 0.287, p = 0.007) than in the Open-plan design ( Table 6 ). Participants reported 14% lower satisfaction in the Activity based design ( est . = -1.391, se = 0.307, p < 0.001) than in the Open-plan design.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t006

Of the covariates, only the number of days in the concept had a significant effect on satisfaction ( F = 6.275, p = 0.012). Further exploration of the covariates revealed that each additional day participants had spent in the concept was associated with 3% higher satisfaction ( est . = .303, se = 0.121, p = 0.012).

Engagement.

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on employee engagement in the workspace ( F = 3.279, p = 0.0208) ( Table 7 ). Participants reported 7% higher engagement in the Team office design than in the Open-plan design ( est . = 0.701, se = 0.293, p = 0.017). The Activity based and Zoned open-plan designs did not receive significantly different engagement scores to the Open-plan design ( est . = -0.383, se = 0.312, p = 0.221, and est . = 0.461, se = 0.301, p = 0.126 respectively).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t007

Of the covariates, age ( F = 7.425, p = 0.007), workgroup ( F = 2.726, p = 0.013), introversion ( F = 9.763, p < 0.001), preferred time of day to work ( F = 3.71, p < 0.001), and the level of collaboration required for participants’ tasks ( F = 4.591, p = 0.011) all had significant effects on engagement ( Table 8 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t008

Further exploration of the covariates revealed that ratings of engagement increased by.4% for each year of participant age ( est . = 0.048, se = 0.019 p = 0.011). Participants in the finance department reported 8% higher average engagement ( est . = 0.791814 se = 0.393079 p = 0.045). Participants who identified themselves as extroverts reported 5% higher engagement than those who identified as introverts or halfway between ( est . = 0.455, se = 0.160, p = 0.014). Participants who identified themselves as morning people reported 3% higher engagement than those who identified as afternoon or evening people ( est . = -0.298, se = 0.121, p = 0.014). Participants whose tasks required high levels of collaboration reported 9% higher engagement than those whose tasks required medium or low collaboration ( est . = 0.994, se = 0.333, p = 0.003).

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on participant enjoyment of the workspace ( F = 15.742, p < 0.001) ( Table 9 ). Participants reported 11% more enjoyment in the Zoned open-plan design than in the Open-plan design ( est . = 1.071, se = 0.364, p = 0.003). Conversely, participants reported 9% lower enjoyment in the Activity based design than in the Open-plan design ( est . = -0.896, se = 0.378, p = 0.018). The Team office design did not receive significantly different enjoyment responses to the Open-plan design ( est . = 0.649, se = 0.355, p = 0.068) ( Table 10 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t009

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t010

Of the covariates, the effect of the previous wave ( F = 3.584, p < 0.001), gender ( F = 15.742, p = 0.007), nationality ( F = 2.222, p = 0.016), workgroup ( F = 2.3033, p = 0.033), preferred time of day to work ( F = 5.173, p = 0.023), and days spent in the concept ( F = 7.096, p = 0.008) were all significant in the model.

Further exploration of the covariates revealed that the carryover effect of the previous office design was only significant in the first wave (i.e. when there was no previous design), such that participants in their first wave of the experiment reported 10% higher enjoyment of the workspace, regardless of office design ( est . = 0.995, se = 0.388, p = 0.010). Participants who identified as female reported 3% higher enjoyment than participants who identified as male ( est . = 0.305, se = 0.269, textitp = 0.258). Participants who worked in the HR department reported 10% higher enjoyment than those who worked in other departments ( est . = 0.968, se = 0.459, p = 0.035). Participants who identified themselves as morning people reported 4% higher enjoyment of the workspace than those who identified as afternoon or evening people ( est . = -0.363, se = 0.148, p = 0.0143). Each additional day participants had spent in the concept was associated with 4% higher enjoyment ( est . = 0.395, se = 0.148, p = 0.008).

Environment.

A series of linear models revealed no significant effects of office design on aggregated environmental variables ( F = 20.629, df = 3) ( Table 11 ). However, the Open-plan design recorded sound peaks outside of healthy ranges 20% more often than the Team Office design ( est . = 0.195, se = 0.029, p = < 0.001), 29% more often than the Zoned open-plan design ( est . = 0.291, se = 0.030, p = < 0.001), and 27% more often than the Activity based office design ( est . = 0.269, se = 0.030, p = < 0.001) (Tables 12 and 13 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t011

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t012

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t013

The Activity based design recorded an average temperature that was 0.4% lower than the Open-plan design, which was statistically significant ( est . = -0.041, se = 0.014, p = 0.025) ( Table 14 ). No significant differences were found for light, humidity, or air quality between the office space designs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t014

Office design did not have a significant effect on self reported energy levels at work ( F = 1.439, p = 0.231) (Tables 15 and 16 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t015

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t016

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on flow ( F = 20.529, p < 0.001) ( Table 17 ). Participants reported 12% higher flow in the Team office design ( est . = 1.247, se = 0.281, p < 0.001) and 15% higher flow in the Zoned open-plan design ( est . = 1.531, se = 0.288, p < 0.001) than in the Open-plan design. The Activity based office design did not receive significantly different flow responses to the Open-plan design ( est . = -0.081, se = 0.299, p = 0.785).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t017

Of the covariates, the effect of the previous wave ( F = 4.823, p < 0.001) and the number of days spent in the concept ( F = 5.871, p = 0.016) contributed significantly to the explanatory power of the model ( Table 18 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t018

Further exploration of the covariates revealed that the carryover effect of the previous office design was only significant in the first wave (i.e. when there was no previous design), such that participants in their first wave of the experiment reported 6% higher flow, regardless of office design ( est . = 0.559, se = 0.307, p = 0.069). Each additional day participants had spent in the concept was associated with 3% higher flow ( est . = 0.284, se = 0.117, p = 0.016).

Productivity.

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on productivity ( F = 31.570, p < 0.001) ( Table 19 ). Participants reported reported 10% higher productivity in the Team office ( est . = 1.032, se = 0.394, p = 0.009) and 17% higher productivity in the Zoned open-plan ( est . = 1.715, se = 0.404, p < 0.001) designs than in the Open-plan design. Conversely, participants reported 14% lower productivity in the Activity based design than in the Open-plan design ( est . = -1.424, se = 0.420, p < 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t019

Of the covariates, the effect of having no previous design ( F = 3.618, p = 0.006), and the number of days spent in the concept ( F = 4.473, p = 0.035) had a significant effect on the explanatory power of the model ( Table 20 ). Further exploration of the covariates revealed that participants reported 9.4% higher productivity in their first wave of the experiment regardless of office design ( est . = 0.943, se = 0.431, p = 0.029). Each additional day participants had spent in the concept was associated with 3.5% higher productivity ( est . = 0.349, se = 0.165, p = 0.035).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t020

Office design was not found to have an effect on the number of git commits made by participants ( χ 2 = 0.372, df = 259) (Tables 21 and 22 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t021

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t022

A linear model revealed a significant effect of office design on hourly occupancy ( F = 20.842, p = < 0.001) ( Table 23 ). Sensors in the Activity based design recorded a 5% higher hourly occupancy than the Open-plan design ( est . = 0.052, se = 0.008, p = < 0.001) ( Table 24 ). There were no significant differences in hourly occupancy between the Open-plan design and the Zoned open-plan or Team office designs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t023

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.t024

Of the covariates, both the wave of the study ( F = 18.871, p = < 0.001) and the previous design ( F = 6.981, p = < 0.001) had a significant effect on hourly occupancy.

Further exploration of the covariates revealed that the carryover effect of the previous office design was significant in the first wave, such that sensors recorded 6% higher hourly occupancy in the first wave of the experiment, across all designs ( est . = 0.062, se = 0.009, p = < 0.001). Additionally, moving out of the Open-plan design was associated with a 4% increase in hourly occupancy ( est . = 0.036, se = 0.009, p = < 0.001). Sensors recorded 2% lower hourly occupancy for each wave of the experiment ( est . = -0.018, se = 0.004, p = < 0.001), indicating that hourly occupancy overall decreased as the experiment progressed.

While this research yielded many results, three specific findings should be of interest to researchers and practitioners.

First, our results demonstrated that office designs can affect employees’ satisfaction, engagement, enjoyment, flow, and productivity. The Zoned open-plan design was highest rated in terms of employees’ satisfaction, enjoyment, flow, and self-reported productivity. The Team Office design was highest rated for engagement and additionally was higher rated for satisfaction, flow, and self-reported productivity than the Open-plan or Activity based designs. The Open-plan office did not perform better than any other office designs, on any of these outcomes. Additionally, moving out of the Open-plan office was associated with an increase in desk occupancy, suggesting that employees’ preference for other designs was matched by their actual behaviour in showing up more when they no longer had to participate in the Open-plan design of the experiment. Finally, the sensors in the Activity based design reported a 5% increase in the proportion of desks that were occupied compared to other designs. However, given that the Activity based design included 27% fewer workstations than other designs, we interpret this finding to mean that desks were harder to find in this design, rather than that more people were occupying the area. The Activity based design did not perform better than other designs on any other outcomes and was worse than the Open-plan office for employee satisfaction, enjoyment, and productivity.

Second, noise was the main environmental variable to differentiate office designs. The noise levels in the Open-plan office were within healthy ranges 20% and 30% less often than in the other three designs, indicating a large difference between Open-plan and other designs in terms of noise. Thus, part of the reason for employees’ more positive ratings of other office designs may be that these are less distracting, and more comfortable, compared to Open-plan. While it is well established that quieter work spaces facilitate productivity, this research demonstrates the critical role of office design in managing noise.

Third, the consistency of results demonstrated that, in general, office design can be experimentally tested in a working office without disrupting business continuity. The cross-over design method proved to be a practical and informative method for office experimentation. However, we did observe higher enjoyment, flow, and occupancy when participants had not been in any other experimental design previously. This observation suggests that simply running an experiment on office design with employees may have a positive effect on enjoyment of the space, engagement, and occupancy. While this experimental design is noted to be be not as efficient as other designs [ 117 ], the advantages in overcoming commercial and logistic challenges make it a valuable tool in the practitioners toolkit.

We additionally observed some interesting findings from our exploratory analysis of the covariates. First, employees differed in their reported engagement with their work. Specifically, employees whose jobs required high levels of collaboration also reported high levels of engagement with their work, and this effect was slightly larger than the effect for office design. Additionally, employees identifying as extroverts and employees identifying as morning people reported higher engagement with their work. Finally, some employees reported higher enjoyment of their work than others, specifically, women, people working in HR, and people whose work required high levels of collaboration. However, in general, the effect of office design was larger than that of any employee covariates, suggesting that office design is of equal or greater importance to employee satisfaction, engagement, flow, and productivity than any personal variables.

We encountered some challenges in the process of conducting this experiment. First, the real-world setting prevented fully randomized selection of participants, as certain teams were unable or unwilling to participate, and teams could not be separated for the experiment and so allocation was randomized at the team level. We controlled for this experimentally through a randomized exposure pattern, and statistically by explicitly including a term for group effects in the statistical models. Second, while the study included a diverse group in terms of nationality, the sample was on average younger than the general population, as they were drawn from a specific corporate population. Results may therefore not generalise to companies with an older population. We recommend repeating the experiment in other companies with different age ranges. Third, the exposure of participants to designs could not be strictly controlled. For example, if a meeting room could not be booked within one experimental area, sometimes a team might book a meeting room in a different experimental area. This is unavoidable in a real world setting, but did not happen commonly, and participants were discouraged from the practice. Fourth, as a corporate research project, anonymity was especially important and this prevented us from tracking individual respondents from one design to the next. Finally, the survey was conducted in English, and while English is the language spoken at the office, this may have introduced some bias in a population that speaks many languages natively.

This paper presents a cross-over experimental evaluation of open office designs in a working technology company. It builds on previous studies of employee experience and behaviour in the office by combining many different factors to determine an optimal office design. We found that Zoned open-plan and Team office designs improved employee satisfaction, enjoyment, flow, and productivity, while Activity based and Open-plan designs performed poorly by comparison. The Open-plan office design was rated more poorly by employees, had higher levels of unsafe noise, and once employees no longer had to be in the Open-plan office design of the experiment, they spent more time at their desks. Given that the Open-plan design is used in many major technology companies, these findings should be noted by the wider industry as it suggests that many companies could benefit from redesigning their offices. The results suggest that office design can have a significant impact on employee productivity, health, and wellbeing across a range of factors. This effect should be considered and studied by companies faced with the decision of how to design their office spaces, and factored into budgeting and design stages.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232943.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the reviewers for taking the time to provide their valuable comments and guidance, which have greatly helped them to improve the manuscript.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Villanueva ME, Caroche ML, Ani A, Ramirez M. Impact of Office Design on Satisfaction of Government Employees in Laguna Provincial Capitol, Philippines. Advances in Social and Occupational Ergonomics. 2019; p. 398–408.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 7. Hatch MJ. The Symbolics of Office Design: An Empirical Exploration*. In: Symbols and Artifacts. Routledge; 2017. p. 129–146.
• 11. CRBE. 2019 EMEA Occupier Survey; 2019. Available from: https://www.cbre.co.uk/research-and-reports/EMEA-Occupier-Survey-2019 .
• 15. Rolfö L, Babapour Chafi M. Policies for sharing workspaces in activity-based flex offices. In: 48th Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Ergonomists. Banff; 2017. p. 339–344. Available from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1136592&dswid=4056 .
• 21. Hundert AT, Greenfield N. Physical space and organizational behavior: A study of an office landscape. In: Proceedings of the 77th annual convention of the American Psychological Association. vol. 1; 1969. p. 601–602.
• 25. de Korte E, Kuijt-Evers L, Vink P. Effects of the office environment on health and productivity 1: auditory and visual distraction. In: International Conference on Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers; 2007. p. 26–33.
• 26. Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Fanger O. Productivity is affected by the air quality in offices; 2000. Available from: http://greeninitiatives.cn/img/white_papers/1461554977217_Productivity_and_Air_Quality.pdf .
• 27. Seppanen O, Fisk WJ, Lei QH. Effect of temperature on task performance in an environment. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (US); 2006.
• 31. Chen S. Harvesting a Culture of Design: A Review of Organizational Design Research. In: The Design Imperative. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 13–35. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-78568-4_2 .
• 32. Walker JP. Design, Learn, Repeat: Architecture to Promote Learning Organization Behavior. University of Cincinnati; 2017. Available from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1490701852171284 .
• 38. Bergs J. The effect of healthy workplaces on the well-being and productivity of office workers. In: Proceedings of International Plants for People Symposium. Amsterdam; 2002. p. 12.
• 39. Environmental Protection Agency. Sick Building Syndrome. Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1991.
• 45. Occupational Health and Safety Australia. Offices: Temperature and humidity—what are the’rules’?; 2019. Available from: http://www.ohsrep.org.au/hazards/call-centres/offices-temperature-and-humidity-what-are-the-rules .
• 46. Canadian Center for Health and Safety. Thermal Comfort for Office Work: OSH Answers; 2019. Available from: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/thermal_comfort.html .
• 47. Society for Human Resource Management. Are we required to keep the workplace a certain temperature?; 2019. Available from: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/workplacetemperature.aspx .
• 53. Kogo T, Tsujikawa M, Kiuchi Y, Nishino A, Hashimoto S. Model Predictive Control of Shallow Drowsiness: Improving Productivity of Office Workers. In: International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2019. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.06195 .
• 55. Erickson VL, Lin Y, Kamthe A, Brahme R, Surana A, Cerpa AE, et al. Energy efficient building environment control strategies using real-time occupancy measurements. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Embedded Sensing Systems for Energy-Efficiency in Buildings—BuildSys’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2009. p. 19. Available from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1810279.1810284 .
• 60. Taylor AA. Assessing the Effect of Stress on Employee’s Productivity at the Work Place and how It can be Managed. Presbyterian University College; 2018.
• 71. Bird C, Rigby PC, Barr ET, Hamilton DJ, German DM, Devanbu P. The Promises and Perils of Mining Git. In: Proceedings of the 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. MSR’09. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society; 2009. p. 1–10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2009.5069475 .
• 72. Leesman Consulting Group. Benchmark employee experience; 2019. Available from: https://www.leesmanindex.com/benchmark-employee-experience/ .
• 73. Platis C, Zoulias E. Organization Style and Its Effect on Employee Satisfaction and Personal Performance. In: Strategic Innovative Marketing. Springer, Cham; 2017. p. 151–158.
• 75. Ohunakin F, Adeniji AA, Akintayo ID. Transactional Leadership Style and Employee Job Satisfaction among Universities’ Guest Houses in South-West Nigeria. In: 3rd International Conference On African Development Issues. Ota, Nigeria; 2016. p. 368–371.
• 77. Patton D. Predictive Relationships Between School Counselor Role Ambiguity, Role Diffusion, and Job Satisfaction. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 2019.
• 81. Demerouti E, Mäkikangas A. What predicts flow at work? In: Fullagar C, Delle Fave A, editors. Flow at Work: Measurement and Implications. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge; 2017. p. 66–80. Available from: https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SDAlDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA66&dq=%22psychological+flow%22+productivity&ots=O6o7wfriUR&sig=aOIjRoYbjC2mJswEjTuBv7fqeMc#v=onepage&q=%22psychological%20flow%22%20productivity&f=false .
• 84. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. 6th ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1990. Available from: https://books.google.nl/books?id=V9KrQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y .
• 85. Moneta GB. On the Measurement and Conceptualization of Flow. In: Advances in Flow Research. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2012. p. 23–50. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-2359-1_2 .
• 88. Dimotakis N, Ilies R, Judge TA. Experience sampling methodology. In: Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organization. Routledge; 2013. p. 319–348.
• 93. Vischer JC, Wifi M. The Effect of Workplace Design on Quality of Life at Work. In: Fleury-Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O, editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 387–400.
• 96. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Manual—Maslach Burnout Inventory Fourth Edition; 2019. Available from: https://www.mindgarden.com/maslach-burnout-inventory/685-mbi-manual.html .
• 101. Papierska A. An office design and employee stress: an office design that reduces employee’s stress and increases employee productivity. Universidade de Lisboa; 2018.
• 102. Jennings BM. Work Stress and Burnout Among Nurses: Role of the Work Environment and Working Conditions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21328768 .
• 103. Heerwagen JH. Design, Productivity and Well Being: What are the Links? In: American Institute of Architects Conference on Highly Effective Facilities. Cincinatti: American Institute of Architects; 1998. p. 23. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8da1/0b425348d8655160b47a888017ed1a358592.pdf .
• 106. Miller AM. Fun in the workplace: Toward an environment behavior framework relating office design, employee creativity, and job satisfaction. University of Florida; 2005.
• 107. Cisco Systems. Office Design Case Study: How Cisco Designed the Collaborative Connected Workplace Environment—Cisco on Cisco—Cisco; 2004. Available from: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/cisco-on-cisco/collaboration/connected-workplace-web.html .
• 108. Worsham AP. Effects of office design on personal control and its correlates; 1983. Available from: https://archive.org/details/effectsofofficed00wors/page/n23 .
• 109. Bose M, Dey A. Optimal Crossover Designs. World Scientific; 2009.
• 110. Bose M, Dey A. Crossover Designs. In: Handbook of Design and Analysis of Experiments. CRC Press; 2015. p. 159–196.
• 111. Kenward MG, Jones B. Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials. 3rd ed. CRC Press; 2009.
• 112. Wu CF, Hamada M. Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Optimization. 2nd ed. Wiley; 2009.
• 113. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System; 2019. Available from: http://qgis.osgeo.org .
• 114. Elsys se. Elsys.se home site; 2019. Available from: https://www.elsys.se/en/ .
• 115. PointGrab. Cognipoint sales and specifications; 2019. Available from: https://www.pointgrab.com/our-product/ .
• 116. Qualtrics. Qualtrics; 2018. Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com .