Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la
première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
65th Annual Conference of the Canadian Psychological Association [Proceedings], pp. 1-4, 2004-06-10
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=93cfa648-4aec-4819-b28b-e81b27583a89 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=93cfa648-4aec-4819-b28b-e81b27583a89
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
A Model of environmental and job satisfaction in open-plan offices: COPE field findings
A Model of environmental and job satisfaction in open-plan offices: COPE field findings
Charles, K.E.; Veitch, J.A.; Farley, K.M.J. ; Newsham, G.R.
NRCC-47630
A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:
Canadian Psychological Association 65th Annual Convention, St. John’s, NF., June 10-12, 2004, pp.1-4
A Model of Environmental and
Job Satisfaction in Open-Plan Offices:
COPE Field Findings
Kate E. Charles, Jennifer A. Veitch,
National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa, ON Kelly M. J. Farley, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON
Guy R. Newsham, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa, ON
Abstract
As part of NRC's Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments project, a field study was conducted to examine occupants' satisfaction with their physical environments. The
questionnaire, including satisfaction ratings of 18 environmental features, 2 overall environmental
satisfaction items, and 2 job satisfaction items, was
administered to 779 US and Canadian office workers, from public and private sector organizations. (Two presentations at CPA 2002 reported on a subset of these data.) This
paper focuses on the factor structure of the 18
environmental features, and examines a model combining these factors, overall environmental satisfaction, and job satisfaction. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, conducted on 3 subsets of the data, supported a 3-factor structure: satisfaction with lighting, satisfaction with privacy and acoustics, and satisfaction with ventilation. The
models showed acceptable fit to data from different
geographical locations and organizational sectors, showing their generalisability. Structural equation modelling also
confirmed a model in which these 3 factors were jointly related to overall environmental satisfaction, which in turn was related to job satisfaction. Occupants who were more satisfied with their environment also reported greater job satisfaction, suggesting a role for the physical environment in promoting organizational well-being and effectiveness. Résumé
Une étude sur le terrain a été menée dans le cadre d'un projet du CNRC, Planification rentable des aires ouvertes, afin d'examiner la satisfaction des occupants vis à vis de leur environnement physique. Le questionnaire qui
contenait des degrés de satisfaction par rapport à 18 composantes environnementales, 2 éléments de
satisfaction vis à vis de l'environnement général, 2
éléments de satisfaction vis à vis du travail, a été distribué à 779 employés de bureaux américains et canadiens, des secteurs public et privé (deux présentations données à SCP 2002 portaient sur un sous-ensemble de ces
données). Cet article vise plus particulièrement l'ensemble des facteurs des 18 composantes environnementales et examine un modèle combinant ces facteurs, la satisfaction vis à vis de l'environnement général et la satisfaction par rapport au travail. Les analyses de facteurs préliminaires et confirmatives, menées sur 3 sous-ensembles de
données, ont soutenu un ensemble de 3 facteurs :
satisfaction vis à vis de l'éclairage, satisfaction vis à vis de l'intimité et de l'acoustique, et satisfaction vis à vis de la ventilation. Les modèles ont montré une adéquation
acceptable avec les données des différents emplacements géographiques et secteurs organisationnels, démontrant ainsi une généralisation possible. La modélisation par équation structurelle a également confirmé un modèle dans lequel ces trois facteurs sont étroitement reliés à la satisfaction générale vis à vis de l'environnement, laquelle étant à son tour liée à la satisfaction au travail. Les
occupants qui étaient le plus satisfaits de leur
environnement ont mentionné une plus grande satisfaction vis à vis de leur travail, suggérant un rôle moteur de
l'environnement physique sur le bien-être et l'efficacité de l'organisation.
Acknowledgements
This investigation formed part of the Field Study sub-task for the NRC/IRC project Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments (COPE) (NRCC Project # B3205), supported by Public Works and Government Services Canada, the Building Technology Transfer Forum, Ontario Realty Corp., USG Corp., British Columbia Buildings Corp., Natural Resources Canada, and
Steelcase, Inc. COPE was a multi-disciplinary project directed towards the development of a decision tool for the design, furnishing, and operation of open-plan offices that are satisfactory to occupants, energy-efficient, and cost-effective. Information about the project, including detailed research reports related to this presentation, is available at
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ie/cope
The authors are grateful to the following individuals: Chantal Arsenault, John Bradley, Marcel Brouzes, Natalie Brunette, Raymond Demers, Ryan Eccles, Tim Estabrooks, Brian Fitzpatrick, Ralston Jaekel, Judy Jennings, Roger Marchand, Emily Nichols, and Scott Norcross (data collection); Louise Legault (research design advice); Gordon Bazana and Cara Duval (data management). We also thank the management and employees in the nine buildings for their participation.
Introduction
Open-plan offices dominate among North American workplaces but are places people "love to hate”
Evidence-based design guidelines lacking
COPE project aimed to fill gap using multidisciplinary approach
Field study combined satisfaction survey with detailed physical measurements (Figure 1)
EFA and CFA used to create and validate satisfaction subscales for subsequent regression analyses
Structural equation modelling used to establish relations among forms of satisfaction
S S S S S S Overall Environmental Satisfaction Job Satisfaction
Workstation Characteristics Physical IE Conditions
Environmental Features Ratings
Components of ES
Method
Participants & Sites
Full sample: N=779 from 9 buildings, 5 cities (Figure 2) For CFA, analyzed the 2002 data collection
6 Canadian and US buildings 4 private-sector, 2 public-sector
360 open-plan office occupants and their workstations (Table 1) S S S S S
Figure 1. Field study conceptual model.
Table 2. Satisfaction Questionnaire.
N % English % female /% male Mean age (SD)
2000 sample 419 87.6 48.7 / 50.4 38.6 (10.8)
2002 sample 360 70.0 46.4 / 52.8 33.5 (9.5)
Job Category (%)
Administration Technical Professional Management
2000 sample 36.0 14.8 41.3 6.7
2002 sample 16.7 36.7 35.0 10.8
Education (%)
High Community University Undergraduate Graduate
School College courses Degree Degree
2000 sample 16.0 17.7 14.6 26.0 23.2
2002 sample 6.4 12.2 14.7 43.3 22.2
Table 1. Participant Demographics
Question Response Category
Very Unsatisfactory Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
1. Amount of lighting on the desktop 2. Overall air quality in your work area 3. Temperature in your work area
4. Aesthetic appearance of your office
5. Level of privacy for conversations in your office 6. Level of visual privacy within your office
7. Amount of noise from other people's conversations while you are at your workstation
8. Size of your personal workspace to accommodate your work, materials, and visitors
9. Amount of background noise (i.e. not speech) you hear at your workstation
10. Amount of light for computer work
11. Amount of reflected light or glare in the computer screen 12. Air movement in your work area
13. Your ability to alter physical conditions in your work area 14. Your access to a view of outside from where you sit
15. Distance between you and other people you work with 16. Quality of lighting in your work area
17. Frequency of distractions from other people
18. Degree of enclosure of your work area by walls, screens or furniture
Very Unsatisfactory Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Satisfactory Very
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
19. Rank order importance of: noise levels, temperature, 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
privacy, air quality/ ventilation, size of work space, window access, lighting
20. How old are you? 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
21. What is your sex? Female Male
22. Job category? Administrative Technical Professional Managerial
23. Highest education level? High school Community Some Bachelor Graduate
college university degree degree
24. My department/agency is a good place to work Very Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly Very
strongly disagree nor disagree agree strongly
disagree agree
25. I am satisfied with my job
26. Effect of environmental conditions - 30 % - 20 % - 10 % 0 % + 10 % + 20 % + 30 %
on personal productivity
27. Indoor environment in your workstation, as a whole
Questionnaire
27 questions, delivered on palm-top computer (Table 2, Figure 3)
18 items – satisfaction with environmental features 2 items – satisfaction with environment overall
2 items – satisfaction with job
7 items – ranked importance of environmental features demographics
English and French versions offered (combined for analysis) Personally invited by NRC team to participate while
workstation conditions measured S S S S S S S S
Physical Conditions
Simultaneous measurement of physical environment
(Figure 4) while occupant completed questionnaire nearby Ambient conditions (sound level, illuminance, thermal
conditions, etc.)
Workstation characteristics (partition height, workstation size, etc.)
Analyses including physical conditions are discussed elsewhere
Results & Discussion
Data Preparation and Screening
Data screened according to established statistical procedures (missing data checks, univariate and
multivariate normality, multicollinearity, singularity and factorability)
Variable mean imputation used where missing data were infrequent and random
Cases with missing data on multiple items were excluded S S S S S S S
Figure 4. Detailed physical measurements of a workstation. The occupant sat in a nearby cubicle to complete the questionnaire.
Figure 3. Palmtop computer used to administer questionnaire.
Table 3. CFA results: Goodness of fit indices
2 2
N c c /df GFI AGFI NFI NNFI RMSR
Optimal fit < 3 > .90 >.90 >.90 >.90 <.10
2002 sample 353 527.63 4.00 .85 .81 .82 .83 .08
Note. Tested against model shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. CFA model, with parameter estimates for 2002 sample Environmental Features Ratings
Factor structure of the 18 environmental features ratings was examined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using the 2000 sample (reported in 2002)
Established model used for 2nd confirmatory factor analysis (N = 353) with 2002 data (reported here)
Model fit assessed using multiple established fit indices (Table 3)
All factor loadings statistically significant (Figure 5) Moderately good fit to model, comparable to 2000
sample S S S S S National Research Council Canada Institute for Research in Construction Conseil national de recherches Canada Institut de recherche en construction
Figure 6. SEM model, with parameter estimates for full sample
Conclusions
18-item Environmental Features Ratings meaningfully reduce to 3 subscales
Results generalise across public and private sector organisations, US and Canada
Tool for future research
Overall model (Figure 7) shows that environmental satisfaction contributes to job satisfaction
Consistent with the literature, which has found á job satisfaction related to:
â intent to turnover
â absenteeism
á business-unit customer satisfaction á profitability
Satisfactory physical environment is one component of a healthy workplace - worthy of greater research attention S S S S S S S S S S
Figure 7. Simplified concept model.
Satisfaction with lighting Overall environmental satisfaction Satisfaction with ventilation Satisfaction with privacy & accoustics Job satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Relationships
S Structural equation modelling - relationships between the
three environmental satisfaction scales, overall environmental satisfaction, and job satisfaction
S Preliminary analyses used 2000 data only (reported in 2002),
established basic model
S Final analysis used full dataset (n = 714)
S Model tested (Figure 6):
S 3 interrelated satisfaction scales (as in CFA)
S Unidirectional paths from satisfaction scales to overall
environmental satisfaction
S Unidirectional path from overall environmental satisfaction
to job satisfaction
S Model fit assessed using multiple established fit indices
(Table 4)
S All factor loadings statistically significant
S Moderately good model fit, comparable to 2000 sample
Table 4. SEM results: Goodness of fit indices
2 2
N c c /df GFI AGFI NFI NNFI RMSR
Optimal fit < 3 > .90 >.90 >.90 >.90 <.10
Full sample 714 1042.15 5.16 .88 .84 .85 .86 .06
