Gender (in)difference in private offices: A holistic approach for assessing satisfaction and personalization
Introduction
According to many empirical studies, men and women display different behaviors. Men have been reported to have a lower threshold of risk avoidance in natural environments (Eisler, Eisler, &Yoshida, 2003), a better performance in spatial abilities (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995) and a stronger environmental mastery in their workplaces (Lindfords, Berntsson, & Lundberg, 2006) whereas women have been reported as household-oriented (Hunter, Hatch, & Johnson, 2004), with less organizational commitment (McCue & Wright, 1996), and with stronger ties to their coworkers (Frazer & Hodge, 2000).
Workplace research generally focuses on single issues or a set of issues that is supposed to affect different aspects of employee assessments and behavior. Examples of such research have included the effect of noise, temperature, air quality and lighting on employee's psychological job stress (Leather, Beale, & Sullivan, 2003), spatial and aesthetic evaluation (Gonzalez, Fernandez, & Cameselle, 1997), environmental satisfaction, job satisfaction and job performance (Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994), health conditions (Muhic & Butala, 2004), environmental quality assessment (Reffat & Harkness, 2001), satisfaction with underground and above-ground offices (Nagy, Yasunaga, & Kose, 1995), and general well-being and/or intention to quit (Leather, Pygras, Beale, & Lawrence, 1998). Office plan type (open/closed/shared/private/mixed) and utility (adjustability, storage and enclosure characteristics) have also been studied in relation to employee satisfaction with their physical environment, physical stress, relations and performance issues (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002), work patterns and staff–visitor interactions (Becker, Gield, Gaylin, & Sayer, 1983), privacy, distractions and communication behaviors (O'Neill, 1994) and workplace–outdoor environment relationships (Mahdavi & Unzeitig, 2005). Privacy (Kupritz, 1998, Kupritz, 2000, Kupritz, 2001, Kupritz, 2003a, Kupritz, 2003b, Sundstrom et al., 1982, Sundstrom et al., 1982), territory (Wollman, Kelly, & Bordens, 1994) and personalization (Wells, 2000, Wells and Thelen, 2002) have particularly been studied in relation to office type, partitions and amount of floor space. Only a few studies have been conducted in academic office environments, giving very limited results for personalization issue; and there have been no findings related with gender (Becker et al., 1983, Farenkopf and Roth, 1980, Hensley, 1982, Sundstrom et al., 1982, Vilnai-Yavetz et al., 2005).
However, workplace research is quite fragmented, and in general does not define a broad set of issues that covers all aspects of the related environments. In fact, the generic term “user satisfaction” requires further inquiry. An example of research that has challenged this term is the method of “building-in-use assessment” by Vischer, 1989, Vischer, 1996), a unique example based on seven conventional environmental issues applicable to all office types (air quality, thermal comfort, spatial comfort, privacy, office noise, building noise and lighting).
Integrating conventional issues, Vischer also proposed the concept of “attachment” which is concerned with territoriality, home away from home, conflict and size and status variables. Such integration is the concern of the present study: diagnosing gender differences in terms of satisfaction with workplace issues.
Section snippets
Personalization and gender in the workplace
Empirical research suggests that men and women personalize their offices for different purposes: women for expressing their identity and individuality (attachment), men for showing status and making a place their own (ownership) (Wells, 2000). Women were found to personalize their offices more than men, using different items of personal displays. Symbols of personal relationships, plants and trinkets were diagnosed as the items that women frequently preferred whereas men favored sports-related
Research outline and hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to test the gender difference myth in private offices through comparing sexes on the satisfaction felt with their office space and also on personalization. A comprehensive approach was obtained through adapting Vischer's “building-in-use assessment”. Air quality, thermal comfort, spatial comfort, office noise, building noise and lighting issues were directly taken from Vischer's model. The issue of privacy was excluded from the assessment model due to the fact that
Sample selection
Of the 210 full-time academics of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 170 (99 male and 71 female) voluntarily participated in the study. Questionnaires were delivered to full-time academicians who owned a private office, as part-time faculty and shared-office owners were not included. The youngest participant was 22 and the oldest was 66. The academic titles of participants were grouped into seven types: Research Assistants without Ph.D.s (56),
Reliability analysis
In order to test the internal consistencies concerning the five performance issues of the proposed model, the Cronbach's α coefficient values were checked, which are presented in Table 2. All α coefficient values displayed good reliability, in excess of the recommended minimum value of reliability (0.70), with the exception of the technical performance which is above 0.60, still indicating an “up-to-standard” reliability compared with some previous research on office environments (Brennan
Discussion
The first purpose of this research was to establish a holistic assessment model that would provide parallel considerations of technical, functional and behavioral issues, and consequently, would make comprehensive comparisons available in respect of independent variables such as gender. The second purpose of the current study was to improve the existing approach of gender difference in office personalization subject by adding two new issues (i.e. permanent/temporary changes and desk
Conclusions
The results of this study pose some interesting questions for future research: first, concerning spatial impact. The private office assessments of gender groups were different for the terms stressing, well-defined, rough, attractive, effective, formal, ugly and antisocial. In addition, reflecting personal characteristics and a sense of belonging were also found to be affected by gender. Thus, what do gender groups attribute to these items? What do women and men associate with the item
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Gazi University for supporting this research and Architect Fatma Sanem İnce (graduate student, Gazi University, 2006) for taking part in the study. Arch. İnce prepared her master's thesis titled “Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of Closed Offices: GUFEA Academic Staff Building” (2006) which was within the scope of the multi-layered research project. The findings regarding the POE will soon be published in the Journal of the
References (38)
- et al.
Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2003) - et al.
The effects of self-schema on perception of space at work
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Empirical validation of a model of user satisfaction with buildings and their environments as workplaces
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1997) Privacy in the work place: the impact of building design
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1998)- et al.
Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in the workplace
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2003) - et al.
Occupancy implications of spatial, indoor-environmental and organizational features of office spaces
Building and Environment
(2005) - et al.
The influence of indoor environment in office buildings on their occupants: expected–unexpected
Building and Environment
(2004) - et al.
Japanese office employees' psychological reactions to their underground and above-ground offices
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1995) Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: the role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2000)- et al.
The changing environment of offices, a challenge for furniture design
Design Studies
(2004)
Office design in community college, effects on work and communication patterns
Environment and Behavior
Traditional versus open office design
Environment and Behavior
Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space
Administrative Science Quarterly
Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office décor
Journal of Organizational Behavior
The university faculty office as an environment
Environment and Behavior
Job satisfaction in higher education: examining gender in professional work settings
Sociological Inquiry
Professor proxemics, personality and job demands as factors of faculty office arrangement
Environment and Behavior
Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors
Social Science Quarterly
Cited by (26)
An experience sampling study of employees’ reactions to noise in the open-plan office
2023, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :In recent years, organizations have engaged in a shift from traditional office configurations (which normally accommodate one person, see Duffy, 1999) to open-plan offices (where employees share common workspaces characterized by openness and transparency; cf. Oldham & Rotchford, 1983; also, for a review, see Danielsson & Bodin, 2009).
The phases of user experience during relocation to a smart office building: A qualitative case study
2021, Journal of Environmental PsychologyCitation Excerpt :In order to understand the determinants of user satisfaction, numerous relocation studies have explored user behaviour in means of habituating to new office characteristics (e.g., Babapour et al., 2018; Haapakangas et al., 2018). Habituating to a new environment and adopting new behaviour can be difficult (Van Koetsveld & Kamperman, 2011), and can differ between individuals and teams (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011; Babapour et al., 2018; Dinç, 2009; Scannell & Gifford, 2017a). For instance, Babapour et al. (2018) observed how users developed different behaviours (adopting, experimenting with, or rejecting) and appropriation levels for adopting a desk-sharing policy.
An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office environmental factors on occupants’ comfort and working conditions
2019, Sustainable Cities and SocietyCitation Excerpt :Gender was found to be a significant driver of satisfaction with air quality, reported happiness, reported productivity, as well as measured productivity. This finding is also consistent with existing studies that found differences between how male and female respondents perceive and report indoor comfort and productivity levels (Dinç, 2009; Harimi, Ming, & Sivakumar, 2012; Kim, de Dear, Candido, Zhang, & Arens, 2013; Säter, 2011). Findings also show that age has a significant impact on satisfaction, comfort, and productivity, specifically, satisfaction with humidity, satisfaction with air quality, overall satisfaction and measured productivity, which are also consistent with the findings of previous studies (Choi, Aziz, & Loftness, 2010; Indraganti & Rao, 2010; Kalmár, 2017; Schellen, Loomans, de Wit, Olesen, & Lichtenbelt, 2012).
Making home in the age of globalization: A comparative analysis of elderly homes in the U.S. and Korea
2014, Journal of Environmental PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Environmental psychologists have demonstrated that personalization and spatial appropriation are powerful agents for workplace satisfaction and well-being (Dinç, 2009; Wells, 2000), children’s self-esteem in school settings (Maxwell & Chmielewski, 2008), and creating a strong sense of home in residential spaces (Smith, 1994). Variations that occur in the processes of personalization are explained mainly through genders (Dinç, 2009; Wells, 2000) or the types of rooms in nursing home settings (Chuck, Milke, & Beck, 2005). The current study seems to suggest cultural variations may be another factor.
Workplace Comfort: The role of attachment and personalization in the perception of workspace quality
2014, Psychologie du Travail et des OrganisationsSatisfaction and comfort at work. An implicative analysis
2014, Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations