Personal Space Case Study

950 Words2 Pages

Introduction: The 1950’s was the period that saw the birth of the open office concept in Germany. It was introduced to bust employees out of a resistive cubicle perception so as to improve employee interaction, business satisfaction, efficiency and idea flow (Thompson, 2017 and Konnikova, 2014). Since then majority of office layouts have taken on the open floor concept; however, studies have shown that some offices have been reconverting to cubicle designed spaces. Tompkins, White, Bozer and Tanchoco (2010), defines an open floor plan as an office area free from temporary or permanent partition walls and closed offices or cubicle farms as a structure where floor-to-ceiling temporary or permanent partition walls divide an office facility into …show more content…

First and Second Body Paragraphs: The general intention of an open office is to give a sense of camaraderie as well as working to achieve a shared goal; however, open floor plans can lead to the development of poor health for an employee. According to Konnikova (2014), a survey conducted between two firms found that individuals who could not physically alter their work space impacted harmony and satisfaction. In other words, the lack in sense of controlling one’s surrounding eventually leads to demoralization in work ethics. As a result, this takes a toll on the psychological build-up of what one defines personal space as (Konnikiva, 2014). Therefore, in a business context this can reduce levels of focus and creative thinking as environmental satisfaction is limited. Office spaces that are left open without any form of enclosed partition can leave exposure to contagious microbes. According to Thompson (2017), cases have shown that work spaces that utilize open offices experience an increase in absenteeism of employees by as much as twenty percent. Compared to someone with a cubicle farm, Brikman (2015), mentions that there is a 62 percent …show more content…

One such way is from lack of sound privacy. Study shows that many workers are frustrated with open offices because of its exposure to distractions that imminently resulted in poorer work performance (Kaufman, 2014). The study’s survey showed that more than 50% of the participants had a problem with this form of privacy. Another way in which privacy is argued to reduce productivity is through visual distractions that occur around an employee’s field of vision (Shellenbarger, 2017). This is so whenever sudden movement or gathering takes place within the line of vision as one brainstorms ideas or is productively active in an open office. According to (Shellenbarger 2017), research shows that this can erode concentration and disrupt analytical thinking or creativity. Unlike noise pollution where a set of earphones can reduce disruptive sound it is more difficult to mitigate visual pollution in an open setting. Open offices can monitor work productivity as work environments are left exposed. However, such exposure can lead to a false sense of good work ethic. Employees can utilize monitors for personal usage rather than office work as with such openness it is expected for one to be professionally productive. On the other hand, open offices can cause employees’ productive levels to fall as these offices prevent

More about Personal Space Case Study

Open Document