Donation ~ Why?

About Us ~ Contact Us ~ Privacy ~ Copyright ~ Useful links

Please Note: The views expressed in articles do not necessarily reflect the views of this occupational health safety and welfare forum. Readers acting on advice in articles should consider the applicability to their particular needs and circumstances and implement advice at their own risk.

Are Open-Plan Offices Bad For Your Health?

Source : Far Horizons

Goodbye Health, Productivity and Stability!

Dr Oommen, of the Queensland University of Technology's Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation states:

"In 90 per cent of the research, the outcome of working in an open-plan office was seen as negative, with open-plan offices causing high levels of stress, conflict, high blood pressure, and a high staff turnover.

"The high level of noise causes employees to lose concentration, leading to low productivity, there are privacy issues because everyone can see what you are doing on the computer or hear what you are saying on the phone, and there is a feeling of insecurity."

As if these physical, psychological, social and organisational issues weren't enough, there is also the demonstrated risk that open office environments assist in the propogation of contagious diseases.

Competing Interests

How is it that, in spite of rigorous occupational health, safety and welfare legislation, a practice such as open office design is gaining a firmer foothold in modern workplaces? Organisations that have already "trod this well worn path" know well that employees cite these kinds of issues as barriers to good health and productivity. Lower morale is an inevitable consequence.

Even a cursory understanding of Herzberg's theory of job satisfaction highlights the importance of both "hygeine" factors (i.e. pay and conditions) and "motivation" factors (i.e. capacity to influence, perform and achieve).

Organisations, seeking to minimise facilities costs where possible, frequently discount this "common-sense" based feedback as strident examples of inflexibility and resistance to change. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out the percentage of executive decision makers who work day-to-day in an open office setting? My educated guess is that they are few and far between. And I suspect this would be the case for precisely the reasons cited by hapless employees scheduled for the "battery-hen" existance of the modern workplace.

The issue of office accommodations is rooted in several very traditional and inter-related management philosophies,summed up in these assumptions;

• Employees are out to get whatever they can from management
• Employees are "production units" that should be capable of consistent output in any environment (within reason, of course!)
• Providing dedicated offices for employees or small groups of employees with related roles, is pandering to professional vanity
• Keeping overheads low outweighs all other considerations.

Again, I would ask, "How are executive decision makers accommodated?"

"Are their reasons any more valid than those of open office fodder?."

The Locked-in Approach

What if we could put a number on lost productivity? Say, 15%, or 10%, or even 5% of gross annual turnover? In mid-size to large organisations these sorts of imposts would begin to look very grim against the "one-off" costs of providing appropriate accommodations.

Part of the difficulty with using research is that no two places are the same. In the quest for short-term gains, employers will argue (with genuine belief) that "this" company is different and the research is not applicable for one reason or another.

Worse still, most employers contemplating changes to accommodations are unlikely to even consider what the research says, let alone consider the implications for their company. By the time commitments have been made and staff informed, the adversarial scenario is set. Employees and their representative agencies find that their "consultation" opportunities are reduced to little more than "What colour desk calendar would you like?". The inevitable conflict solidifies management commitment to "change-management" which in reality is simply an implementation phase.

In the short term the budget benefits seem to support an open office plan, but rigorous monitoring of the long-term effects is unlikely, risking a resounding "We told you so!" from stakeholders.

A Planned Approach

The underpinning principles of occupational health, safety and welfare include;

• Consultation
• Risk assessment
• Risk (i.e. "hazard") management
• Review, or evaluation of action plans.

A genuine commitment to these principles means that stakeholders all have the opportunity to raise issues for detailed consideration. Research, where available, will provide the benefit of others' experience. "Red herrings" (on either side) will be exposed as such in the consultation and discussion process. Stakeholders do not need to feel "locked in" to a "one right way" position.

After all, as much as employees do not want to work in a counter-productive environment, no executive management team wants to initiate a strategy of perpetual productivity losses either.

Let's go back to Herzberg's theory of job satisfaction. Current research is telling us that open office design undermines both the "hygeine" and "motivation" aspects that underpin job satisfaction, with a consequent loss of employee engagement.

Is this the trade-off organisations want?