View accepted manuscript: A Model of environmental and job

NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
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.
NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:
http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?lang=en
http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?lang=fr
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/jsp/nparc_cp.jsp?lang=en
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site
http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/jsp/nparc_cp.jsp?lang=fr
LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
Contact us / Contactez nous: [email protected].
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
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ircpubs
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
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
Introduction
S
Open-plan offices dominate among North American
workplaces but are places people "love to hate”
S
Evidence-based design guidelines lacking
S
COPE project aimed to fill gap using multidisciplinary
approach
S
Field study combined satisfaction survey with detailed
physical measurements (Figure 1)
S
EFA and CFA used to create and validate satisfaction
subscales for subsequent regression analyses
S
Structural equation modelling used to establish relations
among forms of satisfaction
Workstation Characteristics
Environmental Features Ratings
Components of ES
Overall Environmental
Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
Figure 1. Field study conceptual model.
Method
Participants & Sites
S
Full sample: N=779 from 9 buildings, 5 cities (Figure 2)
S
For CFA, analyzed the 2002 data collection
S 6 Canadian and US buildings
S 4 private-sector, 2 public-sector
S 360 open-plan office occupants and their workstations
(Table 1)
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.
Physical IE Conditions
Figure 2. Locations of sites.
A poster presented at the Canadian Psychological Association 65th Annual Convention, June 10-12, 2004, St. John's, NL
Table 1. Participant Demographics
N
2000 sample 419
2002 sample 360
% English
87.6
70.0
Questionnaire
% female /% male
48.7 / 50.4
46.4 / 52.8
Mean age (SD)
38.6 (10.8)
33.5 (9.5)
Job Category (%)
Administration Technical
Professional
2000 sample
36.0
14.8
41.3
2002 sample
16.7
36.7
35.0
High
School
2000 sample 16.0
2002 sample
6.4
S
27 questions, delivered on palm-top computer (Table 2,
Figure 3)
S 18 items – satisfaction with environmental features
S 2 items – satisfaction with environment overall
S 2 items – satisfaction with job
S 7 items – ranked importance of environmental features
S demographics
S
English and French versions offered (combined for analysis)
Personally invited by NRC team to participate while
workstation conditions measured
Management
6.7
10.8
Education (%)
Community University Undergraduate Graduate
College
courses
Degree
Degree
17.7
14.6
26.0
23.2
12.2
14.7
43.3
22.2
S
Table 2. Satisfaction Questionnaire.
Question
Response Category
Very
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Somewhat
Unsatisfactory
Neutral
Somewhat
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Very
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
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
20. How old are you?
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
21. What is your sex?
Female
Male
Administrative
Technical
High school
Community
college
Some
university
Bachelor
degree
Graduate
degree
Very
strongly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Very
strongly
agree
- 30 %
- 20 %
- 10 %
0%
+ 10 %
+ 20 %
+ 30 %
Very
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Somewhat
Unsatisfactory
Neutral
Somewhat
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Very
Satisfactory
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Amount of lighting on the desktop
Overall air quality in your work area
Temperature in your work area
Aesthetic appearance of your office
Level of privacy for conversations in your office
Level of visual privacy within your office
Amount of noise from other people's conversations
while you are at your workstation
Size of your personal workspace to accommodate
your work, materials, and visitors
Amount of background noise (i.e. not speech) you
hear at your workstation
Amount of light for computer work
Amount of reflected light or glare in the computer screen
Air movement in your work area
Your ability to alter physical conditions in your work area
Your access to a view of outside from where you sit
Distance between you and other people you work with
Quality of lighting in your work area
Frequency of distractions from other people
Degree of enclosure of your work area by walls,
screens or furniture
19. Rank order importance of: noise levels, temperature,
privacy, air quality/ ventilation, size of work space,
window access, lighting
22. Job category?
23. Highest education level?
24. My department/agency is a good place to work
Professional Managerial
25. I am satisfied with my job
26. Effect of environmental conditions
on personal productivity
27. Indoor environment in your workstation,
as a whole
Environmental Features Ratings
S
Factor structure of the 18 environmental features ratings
was examined using exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses using the 2000 sample (reported in 2002)
S
Established model used for 2nd confirmatory factor
analysis (N = 353) with 2002 data (reported here)
S
Model fit assessed using multiple established fit indices
(Table 3)
S All factor loadings statistically significant (Figure 5)
S Moderately good fit to model, comparable to 2000
sample
Figure 3. Palmtop computer used to administer questionnaire.
Physical Conditions
S
Simultaneous measurement of physical environment
(Figure 4) while occupant completed questionnaire nearby
S Ambient conditions (sound level, illuminance, thermal
conditions, etc.)
S Workstation characteristics (partition height,
workstation size, etc.)
S
Analyses including physical conditions are discussed
elsewhere
Results & Discussion
Data Preparation and Screening
S
Data screened according to established statistical
procedures (missing data checks, univariate and
multivariate normality, multicollinearity, singularity and
factorability)
S
Variable mean imputation used where missing data were
infrequent and random
S
Cases with missing data on multiple items were excluded
Figure 5. CFA model, with parameter estimates for 2002 sample
Table 3. CFA results: Goodness of fit indices
N
Optimal fit
2002 sample
353
c2
c2/df
<3
527.63 4.00
GFI AGFI NFI
> .90 >.90 >.90
.85
.81
.82
NNFI RMSR
>.90 <.10
.83
Note. Tested against model shown in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Detailed physical measurements of a workstation. The occupant
sat in a nearby cubicle to complete the questionnaire.
Full report at: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/rr152/
National Research
Council Canada
Conseil national
de recherches Canada
Institute for
Research in
Construction
Institut de
recherche en
construction
.08
Conclusions
Overall Satisfaction Relationships
S
S
S
S
S
Structural equation modelling - relationships between the
three environmental satisfaction scales, overall environmental
satisfaction, and job satisfaction
S
18-item Environmental Features Ratings meaningfully
reduce to 3 subscales
S
Results generalise across public and private sector
organisations, US and Canada
S
Tool for future research
S
Overall model (Figure 7) shows that environmental
satisfaction contributes to job satisfaction
S
Consistent with the literature, which has found á job
satisfaction related to:
S â intent to turnover
S â absenteeism
business-unit customer satisfaction
S á
S á
profitability
S
Satisfactory physical environment is one component of a
healthy workplace - worthy of greater research attention
Preliminary analyses used 2000 data only (reported in 2002),
established basic model
Final analysis used full dataset (n = 714)
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
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
N
2
2
Optimal fit
c /df
<3
Full sample
714 1042.15 5.16
c
GFI AGFI NFI
> .90 >.90 >.90
.88
.84
NNFI RMSR
>.90 <.10
.85
.86
.06
Satisfaction
with
lighting
Note. Tested against model shown in Figure 4.
Satisfaction
with privacy
& accoustics
Overall
environmental
satisfaction
Satisfaction
with
ventilation
Figure 7. Simplified concept model.
Figure 6. SEM model, with parameter estimates for full sample
Job
satisfaction