Abstract
Activity-based workplaces have become increasingly prevalent in many organizations. However, research on their implementation regarding perceived productivity within the public sector remains limited. The study’s purpose was to examine differences in perceived productivity, and perceived physical and psychosocial work environment factors, among public sector office employees in activity-based workplaces, in association with the amount of perceived concentration-demanding work. The study was conducted by two surveys responded during the spring 2024 by 450 respectively 320 employees in one Swedish municipality. The results were analyzed by analysis of variance, correlation- and regression analysis. The results indicate that employees with a high amount of perceived concentration-demanding tasks reported lower perceived productivity and experienced poorer perceived physical and psychosocial working environment. Notably, regression analyses revealed that particularly lack of privacy and dissatisfaction with work premises were significantly associated with lower perceived productivity. These findings underscore the importance of considering work task requirements when implementing public sector activity-based workplaces to mitigate potential productivity losses. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed, particularly those with a longitudinal design, to increase knowledge about how different concentration-demanding work tasks are affected by work in activity-based workplaces.
Keywords: Activity-based work, Concentration-demanding work, Productivity, Physical factors, Psychosocial factors, Public sector
Introduction
In the post-COVID era, the adoption of Activity-Based Workplaces (ABWs) has expanded across numerous organizations1, 2). ABWs are characterized by desk sharing (i.e., the absence of assigned workspaces), the provision of task-specific work areas, and the overall openness of the primary work environment3). Several factors drive the implementation of ABWs, including reducing facility costs, increasing flexibility, enhancing interaction and communication among employees, and improving productivity4, 5). It is essential to consider work patterns, such as the extent to which tasks require high levels of concentration, when examining the effects of ABWs6). Additionally, lack of privacy and concentration opportunities, and an increase in distractions have not been explored sufficiently in ABWs7). The actual study aims to fill a part of this research gap and give an enhanced understanding of relations between perceived concentration demanding work and perceived productivity in these organizations.
When it comes to productivity-related outcomes, research is contradictory and there is a need to consider different work demands like concentration demands when studying these outcomes. In a review of healthy workplaces8), studies in general indicate mixed and contradictory effects of these workplaces on productivity. However, overall factors, such as good air quality, high opportunities for communication and concentration, privacy, favorable availability of break-out rooms and high-quality of ergonomic furniture seem to be related to higher perceived productivity8). A survey in five European countries investigated self-assessed productivity in relation to office environments9). The results were that factors such as satisfactory air quality, acoustics, lightning, and employees’ perception of overall workplace comfort were significantly associated with perceived high productivity. According to a review of Newsham et al.10), results were that open-plan designs (with or without partially enclosed cubicles) had adverse effects on organizational productivity outcomes including absenteeism, job satisfaction, environmental satisfaction, overall well-being, and self-rated performance. Even if this review was not explicitly focused on ABWs, the results show that good workplace configuration regarding physical environment factors in office design are associated with perceived high productivity. In another review with a particular focus on ABWs11), negative or negligible effects were found for environmental satisfaction, social relationships, personal space, cognitive performance, job satisfaction and commitment, job characteristics, health and well-being in comparison with cellular offices. However, when comparing ABWs to large open-plan offices, the results are more favorable for the former regarding environmental satisfaction, personal space, cognitive performance, work output, and job characteristics (job demands and job control)11). In a third review12), conclusions were that ABWs had significant positive effects of factors such as indoor climate, space, furniture, and privacy on employee’s mental well-being, satisfaction, and productivity. In a study of relocations from contemporary open-plan offices to ABWs6), significantly higher satisfaction results were found for perceived productivity and key indoor environmental quality for employees working in ABWs. Several studies also reveal that employees´ satisfaction with facilities, the organization, current work processes, personal- and job-related characteristics, and opportunities to concentrate at work are important for productivity outcomes13,14,15). However, there is a need for more studies concerning office design related to different outcomes as part of productivity regarding different health outcomes11).
From a Swedish context, one example of previous research focuses on ABWs in a large Swedish government done 12 months after implementation. The results revealed that satisfaction with the physical environment, privacy, and communication had the strongest positive associations with self-rated productivity16). Another study in the same organization displayed decreased perceived productivity after relocation compared to a control group1). In another Swedish public sector longitudinal study, measurements taking 6 and 18 months after the relocation to ABWs showed decreased perceived productivity among employees17). Lack of privacy, increased noise disturbance, and less satisfaction with sitting comfort and work posture were reported. In addition, employees with work tasks requiring a high amount of concentration experienced lower productivity, and those with a high level of teamwork perceived productivity to be continually high17). Another study from a Swedish context related to relocation from cell offices to open-plan offices showed deceased perceived performance among emplaoyees18).
In summary, both international and Swedish studies show contradictory results regarding ABWs in relation to performance and productivity outcomes. However, a larger number of studies indicate reduced perceived productivity among employees in ABWs compared to cell-offices. Wohlers and Hertel19) pointed at the importance of studying underlying mechanisms of why ABWs lead to different consequences. These researchers propose a theoretical model on the effects of ABWs on short-term and long-term consequences for individuals, teams, and the organization. In the model, different ABW features are related to different working conditions, which in turn are associated with different work-related consequences such as, e.g., performance at individual and team levels.
The aim of this study is to advance knowledge concerning the relationship between perceived concentration-demanding work and perceived productivity within ABWs in Swedish public sector workplaces. The research questions were:
RQ 1: Are there differences in perceived productivity, as well as perceived physical and psychosocial factors at work, among office workers in ABWs based on the perceived amount of concentration-demanding work?
RQ 2: Can the amount of perceived productivity at work mainly be explained by concentration-demanding work, and perceived physical and psychosocial factors among these workers?
Subjects and Methods
This study is part of a larger research project examining perceptions of social-, organizational- and occupational health among Swedish municipal office workers who transitioned from cell-offices into new ABW-designed offices20). These perceptions can be seen as part of organizational ergonomics, which is concerned with the optimization of sociotechnical systems, including e.g. work design, design of working times, teamwork and teleworking.
Both data collection and methodology have been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (registration number: 2023-06718-01). All employees represent various administrative roles (e.g., social work, management, human resources, city planning, and school administration).
Prior to conducting the study, the researchers carid out site visits at the participating workplaces. By the time data collection took place, the office workers had been working in the new environment between 6–18 months. Besides working at the ABWs, the employees had the opportunity to work from home 1–2 d per week. The office layout was designed with ABW principles in mind, featuring distinct zones tailored for different activities: quiet zone, intermediate zone, and creative zone. The quiet zone is dedicated to focused work, where all devices, including computers and phones, should be muted or set to vibrate. Communication within this zone is limited to email, chat, or SMS to maintain a distraction-free environment. The intermediate zone supports both individual work and collaboration, with an emphasis on maintaining an appropriate noise level. Phone calls and online meetings are permitted, but headphones must be used to minimize disruptions. The creative zone is designed for informal conversations and spontaneous meetings, where non-sensitive topics can be discussed. In this area, phone and computer notifications are allowed, fostering a dynamic and collaborative atmosphere. In addition to these zones, the office includes focus rooms for private phone calls, digital meetings involving sensitive matters, or short bursts of concentrated work. There are also various-sized bookable meeting rooms for collaborative discussions. Employees are encouraged to change workstations based on the type of task they need to perform, with the ambition of optimizing productivity and comfort throughout the day. Previous research regarding the same study population revealed that the implementation process was seen as successful as the employees evaluated the process, their involvement and information sharing as satisfying21).
Study design and subjects
A quantitative cross-sectional survey study was conducted among administrative municipality employees working in new ABWs. Data was collected at two separate occasions through convenience sampling by the municipality’s internal digital platform and via e-mails administered by their human resources department. The first survey, which assessed perceived social and organizational work environments, was completed by 450 of the 600 public-sector employees working in ABW environments (75% response rate). The second survey, which focused on perceived physical working-environment factors, was completed by 320 of the 450 participants from the same population (71% response rate). Participants who had answered both surveys (n=146) were singled out to be able to analyze both social and organizational work environments and physical factors. Eleven cases were excluded, as they had answered one of the surveys twice. This was controlled by comparing code, age, and gender responses in the two surveys. Out of the remaining 135 participants, five were excluded because they did not work in the ABW offices.
Measurements
Employees were asked to answer an extended version of the COPSOQ III-survey22), with a total of 79 questions measuring perceived social- and organizational work environments at their workplaces. Six questions were demographic nominal questions. Four to five months later, employees were asked to fill in a second survey consisting of 53 questions about their perceived physical work environment and productivity at their workplaces. This questionnaire was based on Vischer23) and then reconstructed by Öhrn et al.17) for a study in another municipality in Sweden. Thirty-seven questions were Likert-scale questions and rated from 1 to 4 or 1 to 6, 14 questions had a graphic rating scale ranging from 1 to 40 or 1 to 50, one question was dichotomous (yes or no), and one question was nominal. The total dataset was used in an evaluation study of the overall view of employees’ perception of ABW working environment20). In this study, seven indices (26 questions) were used. The criteria for inclusion of the indices used were based on power analyses and the included variables that had the strongest correlation with the dependent variable.
The dependent variable is perceived productivity. An index for perceived productivity was computed as a mean of five five-point Likert-scale statements (ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘totally agree’): “I can manage to be productive at my workplace”, “I am able to reach my personal performance goals at my workplace”, “My team works well together”, “I manage to be focused and concentrated at my workplace”, and “I can effectively deal with unforeseen problems” (Cronbach’s α=0.87). The productivity questions were part of the second survey investigating the physical working environment. The index for perceived productivity has a numerical interval scale (Mean=3.5, SD=0.9) and is normally distributed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov p-value <0.05). A high value indicates a high level of perceived productivity,
The independent variables focusing on perceived physical working environment factors were noise disturbance, ergonomic satisfaction, light quality, and work premises satisfaction. The noise disturbance variable is an index created by calculating a mean from two questions in the physical survey: “In general, how is the background noise?” and “Are you disturbed by noise from voices or office equipment like printers, etc.?” (α=0.87). The questions had a five-point Likert scale ranging from disturbing to no problems. The noise disturbance index is normally distributed according to Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, with p-values <0.05. The index for ergonomic satisfaction was calculated as a mean of six four-point Likert-scale questions where participants were asked to rate their opinion on the workstations design concerning: “comfort”, “seating comfort/chairs”, “work position”, “the possibility to stand at work”, “the possibility to walk at work”, and “the possibility to adjust the work stations to meet your ergonomic needs” (α=0.85). The possible answers they could give were: “very bad”, “pretty bad”, “pretty good” and “very good”. The index for ergonomic satisfaction is normally distributed according to the Shapiro–Wilk-test (p<0.05). Light quality is an index created by calculating the mean of two five-point Likert scale questions: “How do you experience the lighting in your workplace?” and “How do you experience the access to daylight at your workplace?” (α=0.64). The answering options ranged from “disturbing” to “no problems”. The index was normally distributed, according to Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests (p-values of <0.05). The index for work premises satisfaction was created by calculating a mean of five four-point Likert scale questions, where participants were asked to rate how they assessed the work premises as a whole in terms of: “nice break areas”, “good meal areas”, “good working environment in general”, “access to good meeting spaces” and “work places to work separately or as a group” (α=0.82). The possible answers the participants could give were: “not at all”, “to some extent”, “pretty much” and “to a high amount”. The index is normally distributed (p<0.05).
A high value for ergonomic satisfaction, light quality and work premises satisfaction indicates more favorable outcomes. A high value for noise disturbance indicates a more unfavorable outcome.
The independent psychosocial working environment factors were concentration-demanding work, lack of privacy, and stress. Concentration-demanding work was measured with a single item, where participants were asked to estimate how many hours per week they performed solitary work requiring concentration where they did not want to be disturbed. The variable was a numerical continuous variable where participants could answer any number of hours between 0 and 40. Three groups were created according to amount of perceived concentration-demanding work per week: 0–9 h/wk, 10–19 h/wk, and 20–40 h/wk. Lack of privacy is an index computed by calculating a mean of four four-point Likert scale questions: “How do you asses the possibility to work in private in the premises where you work?”, “Are you in any way bothered by a lack of privacy?”, “Are you in any way bothered by the possibility to be listened in on?”, and “Are you in any way bothered by being watched?” (α=0.84). The first question was turned to match the other questions directions before the index was created. The answering options for the participants were: “not at all”, “to some extent”, “quite a lot”, and “to a high extent”. The index for lack of privacy was normally distributed (p<0.05). Stress is an index created by calculating a mean for three five-point Likert scale questions from the COPSOQ questionnaire. In these questions, participants were asked to rate how it had been for them during the last four weeks: “How often have you had difficulty relaxing?”, “How often have you been irritable?” and “How often have you been tense?” (α=0.86). The answering options were “all the time”, “a large part of the time”, “part of the time”, “a small part of the time” and “not at all”. The stress index was normally distributed (p<0.05).
A high value for concentration demanding work indicates that the employees perceive a high amount of worktime for concentration demanding work tasks. A high value for lack of privacy and stress indicates more unfavorable outcomes.
Background variables controlled for in this study were age, gender, and highest education. Participants were asked to fill in their age in both surveys in a free-text box. The age variable was treated as a numeric scale variable, and it was reasonably normally distributed (p<0.05). The participants also answered questions regarding gender and education in the surveys.
Two participants did not wish to specify gender and were coded as missing values. Highest education was measured by one question in the first questionnaire: “What is your highest level of education?”. The possible answers were: “junior high school or similar”, “high school”, “vocational education or equivalent” and “university (minimum of 3 yr)”. The variable was treated as a numeric ordinal variable in the analysis.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0.2.0. In both surveys, the respondents answered four free-text questions (enter the last letter in your surname, enter the first letter in your mother’s first name, enter the number of the building where you live, and enter the second letter in your first name) which combined produced an individual code for each respondent (example: NC41U). The code was used as a key variable when merging the two data files in SPSS to match the participants’ individual answers in both surveys and combine them in the same data file.
Descriptive statistics are presented as means, numbers, and percentages for age, gender, and educational level for participants with different amounts of concentration demanding work hours per week. A one-way ANOVA was performed. The grouping variable was the categorical variable for concentration demanding work, where participants with 0–9 h/wk constituted group 1, 10–19 h/wk group 2, and 20–40 h/wk group 3. Variables included in the ANOVA were perceived productivity, noise disturbance, ergonomic satisfaction, light quality, work premises satisfaction, lack of privacy, and stress. In the next step, correlation analyses (Pearson) were conducted between all included variables. In the final step, four ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were performed. Dependent variable was perceived productivity, and independent variables were perceived concentration-demanding work (continuous variable), noise disturbance, ergonomic satisfaction, light quality, work premises satisfaction, lack of privacy, stress, age, gender, and highest educational level.
Results
Demographics
In Table 1, age, gender, and highest educational level of the study participants are presented for the three groups studied. There was no significant difference in age, gender and highest educational level between the three groups. Participants were distributed among seven different administrational operations: education, municipal management, culture, city planning, social care, technical management, care, and welfare administration. χ2 tests revealed no significant differences between the operations regarding amount of concentration-demanding work.
Table 1. Descriptive table of demographic data in the three groups studied.
| Number of working hours per week used
for concentration demanding work |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–9 h/wk | 10–19 h/wk | 19–40 h/wk | ||||
| N | 43 | 45 | 37 | |||
| Mean age | 45 yr | 47 yr | 48 yr | |||
| Gender | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male |
| 32 (76%) | 10 (24%) | 40 (89%) | 5 (11%) | 30 (83%) | 6 (17%) | |
| Highest educational level | 2nd upper school/voc | Uni | 2nd upper school/voc | Uni | 2nd upper school/voc | Uni |
| 6 (14%) | 37 (86%) | 7 (16%) | 38 (84%) | 12 (32%) | 25 (68%) | |
Total mean age: 46 yr; total number of women; 108; men: 20, total number of participants with secondary upper school/vocational school education: 27; total number of university-educated participants: 103. 2nd upper school/voc = secondary upper school/vocational school, Uni= university (minimum of 3 yr).
Group comparison
The results of the one-way ANOVA revealed that there were statistically significant differences in perceived productivity between the three groups. Group 3, which had the highest amount of concentration-demanding work, reported significantly lower perceived productivity than the two other groups (Table 2). Participants with more than 20 h of concentration-demanding work per week rated significantly higher noise disturbance and lack of privacy than the other two groups. The third group rated significantly more stress than the second group (10–19 h/wk), and slightly more than the first group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Participants with 20 h or more of concentration demanding work per week rated significantly lower perceived productivity, ergonomic satisfaction, light quality and work premises satisfaction than the other two groups. There was no significant difference in any of the variables between the groups with 0–9 or 10–19 h of concentration-demanding work per week (Table 2).
Table 2. Mean difference of studied variables for the three groups with different amounts of concentration-demanding work per week and total means for each variable.
| Proportion of individual concentration
demanding work |
Total mean | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–9 h/wk | 10–19 h/wk | 20–40 h/wk | η2 | |||
| Perceived productivity | 0–9 h/w | - | –0.28 | –0.74*** | 0.11 | 3.5 |
| 10–19 h/w | –0.28 | - | –0.47 (*) | |||
| 20–40 h/w | –0.74*** | –0.47 (*) | - | |||
| Noise disturbance | 0–9 h/w | - | 0.16 | 1.0** | 0.11 | 3.1 |
| 10–19 h/w | 0.16 | - | 0.84** | |||
| 20–40 h/w | 1.0** | 0.84** | - | |||
| Ergonomic satisfaction | 0–9 h/w | - | –0.03 | –0.44** | 0.09 | 3.0 |
| 10–19 h/w | –0.03 | - | –0.41* | |||
| 20–40 h/w | –0.44** | –0.41* | - | |||
| Light quality | 0–9 h/w | - | –0.28 | –0.98*** | 0.15 | 3.6 |
| 10–19 h/w | –0.28 | - | –0.70** | |||
| 20–40 h/w | –0.98*** | –0.70** | - | |||
| Work premises satisfaction | 0–9 h/w | - | –0.07 | –0.50** | 0.12 | 2.6 |
| 10–19 h/w | –0.07 | - | –0.43** | |||
| 20–40 h/w | –0.50** | –0.43** | - | |||
| Lack of privacy | 0–9 h/w | - | 0.18 | 66*** | 0.13 | 2.4 |
| 10–19 h/w | 0.18 | - | 0.49** | |||
| 20–40 h/w | 0.66*** | 0.49** | - | |||
| Stress | 0–9 h/w | - | –0.34 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 2.7 |
| 10–19 h/w | –0.34 | - | 0.58** | |||
| 20–40 h/w | 0.25 | 0.58** | - | |||
***p<0.001 **p<0.01 *p<0.05; Scales: 1–5 for Perceived productivity, Noise disturbance, Light quality, Stress and 1–4 for, Ergonomic satisfaction, Work premises satisfaction, Lack of privacy; η2 indicates the proportion of variance.
Correlation
In Table 3, correlations between perceived productivity, physical- and psychosocial factors, and background variables are displayed. Results reveal that perceived productivity correlates significantly with all physical and psychosocial factors in the assumed direction. The educational level correlates with age, as older employees report a lower level of education.
Table 3. Correlation between perceived productivity at the workplace and perceived physical and psychological factors.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perceived productivity | - | |||||||||
| 2 | Concentration demanding work |
–0.41*** | - | ||||||||
| 3 | Noise disturbance | –0.57*** | 0.29** | - | |||||||
| 4 | Ergonomic satisfaction | 0.59*** | –0.20* | –0.55*** | - | ||||||
| 5 | Light quality | 0.46*** | –0.32*** | -0.44*** | 0.44*** | - | |||||
| 6 | Work premises satisfaction | 0.68*** | –0.28** | –0.59*** | 0.61*** | 0.40*** | - | ||||
| 7 | Lack of privacy | –0.68*** | 0.32*** | 0.56*** | –0.54*** | –0.39*** | –0.62*** | - | |||
| 8 | Stress | –0.38*** | 0.07 | 0.39*** | –0.29*** | –0.28** | –0.38*** | 0.38*** | - | ||
| 9 | Age | –0.08 | 0.08 | –0.07 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.13 | –0.12 | –0.17 | - | |
| 10 | Gender | 0.01 | –0.07 | –0.11 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.05 | –0.02 | –0.13 | 0.16 | - |
| 11 | Highest educational level | –0.07 | –0.07 | –0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | –0.07 | 0.05 | 0.12 | –0.21* | –0.07 |
***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.
Regression
In Table 4, an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was performed on four models. Model 1 shows the bivariate values for concentration-demanding work on perceived productivity. This result confirms the correlation results; a higher amount of concentration-demanding work is significantly associated with a lower level of perceived productivity. When controlling for the physical working environment factors in Model 2, this relationship becomes insignificant, while noise disturbance, ergonomic satisfaction, and work premises satisfaction contributed significantly, explaining 54% of the variance in the dependent variable. In Model 3, psychosocial working environment factors were included, showing that ergonomic satisfaction, work premises satisfaction, and lack of privacy were significantly associated with perceived productivity, explaining 59% of the variance in the dependent variable. In the final model, age and educational level were slightly associated with perceived productivity. The model reveals that work premises satisfaction and lack of privacy are dominant factors, explaining perceived productivity with an explained variance of 62%.
Table 4. OLS regression with four models and perceived productivity as dependent variable.
| Components | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration demanding work | –0.04*** (0.01) | –0.01 (0.01) | –0.01 (0.01) | 0.00 (0.01) |
| Noise disturbance | –0.12* (0.06) | –0.07 (0.06) | –0.08 (0.06) | |
| Ergonomic satisfaction | 0.27* (0.12) | 0.20 (*) (0.11) | 0.18 (0.11) | |
| Light quality | 0.08 (0.07) | 0.07 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.06) | |
| Work premises satisfaction | 0.61*** (0.12) | 0.46*** (0.12) | 0.44*** (0.13) | |
| Lack of privacy | –0.39*** (0.10) | –0.40*** (0.10) | ||
| Stress | –0.04 (0.07) | –0.05 (0.07) | ||
| Age | –0.02** (0.01) | |||
| Gender | 0.02 (0.15) | |||
| Highest educational level | −0.20* (0.09) | |||
| Intercept | 4.06*** (0.14) | 1.28* (0.55) | 2.72*** (0.63) | 4.44*** (0.82) |
| R2 (adj) | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
Unstandardized B coefficient presented with standardized error in parentheses; Collinearity statistics for all IV ranged between 0.45 and 0.93 (tolerance) and 1.08 and 2.20 (VIF); ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, (*) p<0.1; R2 (adj) represents the proportion of the total variance explained by the model.
Discussion
In this study, we examined perceived productivity among Swedish municipality employees working in ABWs in relation to perceived concentration-demanding work, and physical-, and psychosocial working environment factors at work. Although several recent studies have focused on ABWs and different outcomes, there is a lack of studies, both in general and more specifically regarding concentration-demanding work, in public sector workplaces. The main findings from the study are that those who experience high concentration demands at work report less perceived productivity, and more problems with work premises, noise disturbance, ergonomics, lightning, privacy, and stress (RQ 1). Results from the correlation analyses show significant associations between perceived productivity and physical and psychosocial working environmental factors in assumed directions. In the final regression model, work premises satisfaction and lack of privacy contributed to explaining 62% of the variance in perceived productivity. In addition, the regression results indicate that ergonomic satisfaction, noise disturbance, age, and educational level are of importance for perceived productivity (RQ 2). It is notable that although the employees are satisfied with the transition to ABWs, employees perceiving high amounts of concentration-demanding work also perceive challenges related to perceived productivity. A practical implication is therefore when creating ABWs it is important to take this into account and design spaces for concentration-demanding work tasks.
Moreover, earlier studies have shown contradictory results regarding perceived productivity when implementing ABWs24, 25). However, several studies in both private and public organizations indicate decreased productivity in different ABW solutions1, 10, 17). According to studies, explanatory factors related to decreased productivity are that ABWs can be unfavorable related to distractions, decreased privacy, and the need for workspace-switching for concentration and privacy at work1, 6, 7, 14). In a longitudinal study26), privacy decreased after implementing ABWs. Findings in a longitudinal study in a Swedish public sector organization27) showed negative trends regarding privacy and perceived performance in ABWs. Our results also show that a lack of privacy expressed as possibilities to work privately on one’s work premises, being bothered by being listened to, and being watched are of particular importance for perceived productivity. The other main explanatory factor contributing to decreased perceived productivity in our study is dissatisfaction with work premises, including the perception of access to good meeting spaces, meal areas and workplaces for working separately or as a group. In addition, our results confirm that dissatisfaction with ergonomic factors as possibilities to vary working positions and adjust work equipment; and noise disturbance from equipment, voices, and surroundings contribute to decreased perceived productivity. This is in line with previous studies which revealed that satisfaction with physical work environment factors related to work premises, ergonomics, and noise are related to higher perceived productivity8, 9). The fact that higher educational levels are also associated with a lower amount of perceived productivity may be explained in that these employees work on more concentration-demanding work tasks. Although earlier studies report different and contradictory findings regarding perceived productivity related to ABWs, our study reveals that higher amounts of concentration-demanding work are associated with lower levels of perceived productivity.
Different models have been applied in research on productivity related to ABWs16, 24). In several studies, perceived productivity is measured by a one-item question regarding general performance. In our study, perceived productivity is measured by an index including five statements regarding managing to be productive, reaching performance goals, the functioning of teamworking, and possibilities to focus and concentrate and to effectively deal with problems. We believe that this way of viewing productivity can enhance understanding as it is of importance to consider different performance and productivity related aspects when measuring perceived productivity.
Strengths and limitations
One strength of this study is the use of validated instruments with good internal consistency to measure perceived productivity and physical and psychosocial working environment factors. Our study also contributes to knowledge regarding how perceived concentration-demanding work is associated with perceived productivity in public sector organizations who have been through a good implementation process. However, the study has some limitations. Although the sample represents employees in different operations in a public sector organization, the sample is quite small. In addition, employees’ satisfaction with the implementation process may have exerted a positive influence on their subsequent assessments of physical and psychosocial conditions. However, the aim of the study was to compare the amount of concentration-demanding work between created groups. It is difficult to generalize the results to other private and public organizations due to potential differences in ABW designs and contextual factors. However, the study results indicate the importance of considering work characteristics when studying perceived productivity in public sector organizations. The participants in this study previously worked in cell-offices which could have affected the study results compared to if they had moved from other office-types.
The cross-sectional design means that it is not possible to investigate causal relationships between studied variables. In contrast to the explanations discussed, some relationships can be opposite and/or be explained by not investigated factors. One confounding factor could be that employees with a high amount of concentrating-demanding work tasks work more often from home and therefore respond differently regarding studied variables. However, in the introduction of the surveys the participants were informed that the questions considered workplace configurations and physical and psychosocial conditions at their ordinary workplaces and not at home. A limitation could be that data was collected on two different occasions; the results could have been more reliable if data had been collected on one occasion in one survey.
Conclusions
Our results showed that higher amount of perceived concentration-demanding work was associated with decreased perceived productivity among employees in ABWs in a public sector organization. Regarding perceived physical and psychosocial factors, dissatisfaction with work premises and lack of privacy contributed significantly to employees’ experiences of decreased productivity. In addition, dissatisfaction with ergonomic factors and noise disturbance were associated with decreased productivity. Notably, the results indicate that employees experience decreased productivity even when ABWs are well-developed and adjusted to different administrative work tasks and a work design with quiet-, intermediate-, and creative zones. These results point to the need for considering the type of tasks involving concentration-demanding tasks when studying perceived productivity in ABWs.
The findings point to the need for organizations implementing ABWs to consider potential consequences of decreased productivity. Furthermore, our results emphasize the importance of considering work design measures related to work premises and privacy adapted to employees with high amount of concentration-demanding work.
When working with implementation processes, external support from Human Resource consultants and occupational health services can be valuable. Perceived productivity is often measured with different self-esteemed items and there is a need to develop these measures with relevant productivity and performance items and objective measures to improve research in this area. Lastly, our study points at the need for both qualitative and quantitative studies, particularly those with a longitudinal design, to increase knowledge about how different concentration-demanding work tasks are affected by work in ABWs.
Author Contribution
J.W, P.L. and S.V. were engaged in the design of the study, responsible for data collection and analyzes of data. All authors drafted the initial manuscript and approved the final version. P.L. was project leader for the actual project.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the support of the human resource department of the municipality for facilitating this study, as well as the contributions from employees to answer the surveys in the study. We also appreciate the collaboration between the university and the municipal organization.
References
- 1.Bergsten EL, Haapakangas A, Larsson J, Jahncke H, Hallman DM. (2021) Effects of relocation to activity-based workplaces on perceived productivity: importance of change-oriented leadership. Appl Ergon 93, 103348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Haapakangas A, Sirola P, Ruohomäki V. (2023) Understanding user behaviour in activity-based offices. Ergonomics 66, 419–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Haapakangas A, Hallman DM, Bergsten EL. (2023) Office design and occupational health—has research been left behind? Scand J Work Environ Health 49, 1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Appel‐Meulenbroek R, Groenen P, Janssen I. (2011) An end‐user’s perspective on activity‐based office concepts. J Corp Real Estate 13, 122–35. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Babapour Chafi M, Harder M, Bodin Danielsson C. (2020) Workspace preferences and non-preferences in Activity-based Flexible Offices: two case studies. Appl Ergon 83, 102971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Candido C, Zhang J, Kim J, deDear R, Thomas LE, Strapasson P, Joko C. (2016) Impact of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity. In Windsor Conference. Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hodzic S, Kubicek B, Uhlig L, Korunka C. (2021) Activity-based flexible offices: effects on work-related outcomes in a longitudinal study. Ergonomics 64, 455–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Voordt TVD, Jensen PA. (2023) The impact of healthy workplaces on employee satisfaction, productivity and costs. J Corp Real Estate 25, 29–49. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Humphreys MA, Nicol JF. (2007) Self-assessed productivity and the office environment: monthly surveys in five European countries. ASHRAE Trans 113, 606. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Newsham GR, Veitch JA, Zhang MQ, Galasiu AD. (2022) Comparing better building design and operation to other corporate strategies for improving organizational productivity: a review and synthesis. Intell Build Int 14, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Masoudinejad S, Veitch JA. (2023) The effects of activity-based workplaces on contributors to organizational productivity: a systematic review. J Environ Psychol 86, 101920. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhang X, Du J, Chow D. (2023) Association between perceived indoor environmental characteristics and occupants’ mental well-being, cognitive performance, productivity, satisfaction in workplaces: a systematic review. Build Environ 246, 110985. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Seddigh A, Berntson E, Danielson CB, Westerlund H. (2014) Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. J Environ Psychol 38, 167–74. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Engelen L, Chau J, Young S, Mackey M, Jeyapalan D, Bauman A. (2019) Is activity-based working impacting health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build Res Inform 47, 468–79. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Groen B, van der Voordt T, Hoekstra B, van Sprang H. (2019) Impact of employee satisfaction with facilities on self-assessed productivity support. J Facil Manage 17, 442–62. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Haapakangas A, Hallman DM, Mathiassen SE, Jahncke H. (2018) Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: the role of environmental perceptions and workspace use. Build Environ 145, 115–24. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Öhrn M, Wahlström V, Harder MS, Nordin M, Pettersson-Strömbäck A, Bodin Danielsson C, Olsson D, Andersson M, Slunga Järvholm L. (2021) Productivity, satisfaction, work environment and health after relocation to an activity-based flex office—the active office design study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 7640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bergström J, Miller M, Horneij E. (2015) Work environment perceptions following relocation to open-plan offices: a twelve-month longitudinal study. Work 50, 221–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wohlers C, Hertel G. (2017) Choosing where to work at work—towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics 60, 467–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Löfstrand P, Vinberg S, Wall E, Selander J, Nordenmark M. (2024) Aktivitetsbaserade kontor inom Östersunds kommun − delrapport [Activity-based workplaces in Östersund municipality]. Mid-Sweden University, Östersund (in Swedish).
- 21.Löfstrand P, Vinberg S. (2025) The impact of implementation approaches in activity based workplace transitions: a mixed methods study in the Swedish public sector. Cogent Psychol 12, 2540062. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Bergström G, Burr H. (2020) Validation of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire version III and establishment of benchmarks for psychosocial risk Management in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 3179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vischer JC. (1996) Workplace strategies: environment as a tool for work. Chapman & Hall, New York. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Arundell L, Sudholz B, Teychenne M, Salmon J, Hayward B, Healy GN, Timperio A. (2018) The impact of activity based working (ABW) on workplace activity, eating behaviours, productivity, and satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15, 1005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Foley B, Engelen L, Gale J, Bauman A, Mackey M. (2016) Sedentary behavior and musculoskeletal discomfort are reduced when office workers trial an activity-based work environment. J Occup Environ Med 58, 924–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Halldorsson F, Kristinsson K, Gudmundsdottir S, Hardardottir L. (2021) Implementing an activity-based work environment: a longitudinal view of the effects on privacy and psychological ownership. J Environ Psychol 78, 101707. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Forooraghi M, Hultberg A, Jonsdottir IH, Babapour Chafi M. (2025) Exploring alignments between design principles and work unit needs in activity-based flexible offices: a case study. Ergonomics 68, 1472–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]