FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4280551968> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4280551968 endingPage "10" @default.
• W4280551968 startingPage "3" @default.
• W4280551968 abstract "The majority of changes that have occurred in workplace design are human made. Over the years, we witnessed developments in workplace design mostly resulting from technological advancements and organizational strategies that have been triggered by employee efficiency and productivity concerns together with the aim of cutting down facility costs (Harrison et al., 2004; Parker, 2016). The transformation from traditional to activity-based offices has followed a similar trajectory. Activity-based offices have been the uprising workplace design strategy since its early application in technology and consultancy firms in the 1990s (Sachs, 1995). Activity-based offices provide different workstations for diverse work tasks (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017). The purpose of an activity-based office is to reduce rental and building costs (Haapakangas et al., 2018) while maintaining employee satisfaction and growth in productivity with workplace designs that target increased interaction among employees (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011). This type of workplace design typically consists of unassigned workstations on a floor plan tailored to host different activities including collaborative work (e.g., meeting rooms, hubs, team benches), relaxation and socialization (e.g., break-out rooms, lounge corners, cafès), and concentration (e.g., cubicles, quiet rooms). Because employees do not have assigned desks, this requires the implementation of “clean desk policies” meaning no one can leave personal belongings, and they must keep the workstation that they use for the day, clean. These types of office strategies are cost-effective, especially for organizations where employees can also work elsewhere. Studies by Laing (2013) and Oseland et al. (2013) showed that organizations can cut costs if they keep the “desk-share ratio,” which is the ratio of desk space to the number of employees, between 50% to 70%. This approach to workplace design has been aggressively promoted due to a non-hierarchical working environment, while enabling communication and collaboration among employees of all levels (Engelen et al., 2019; Wohlers et al., 2019) with the practices of clean desk policy the trend. On the other hand, key findings from activity-based office research are pointing to issues related to poor indoor environmental quality (Candido et al., 2019), privacy, personal control, territoriality, and organizational commitment (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Göçer et al., 2019). Until COVID-19, the focus on activity-based office designs was to address these negative issues. However, the state of emergency due to the pandemic has overruled our knowledge on workplace design with the induction of a series of new evaluations, modifications on the ways of working and/or sharing of spaces, practices, and temporalities (Babapour Chafi et al., 2022). The impact of COVID-19 on work experience differs regarding the number of cases in that geography, precautionary measures taken by governments or businesses and organizations, and individual needs of workers: each story has become a unique case to analyze. We believe it is crucial to learn from people's experiences by giving them an opportunity to voice their concerns and share their ideas of those factors that affect their perception of the new working practices and work environments. As a start, we conducted two semi-structured interviews with Alya and Lara (names changed to protect identity; see Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2) who were selected based on purposeful sampling among our acquaintances. Alya was introduced to an activity-based office after the pandemic, and Lara was working at an activity-based office pre-pandemic but will be working at a traditional office as she changed her job during the pandemic. Each interview lasted around 40 minutes, was conducted via Zoom, and audio-recorded. We asked questions about their experiences in their workplace pre-pandemic, during the pandemic, and post-pandemic.11 In this text, post-pandemic is used to refer to the period that starts with companies calling their employees back to work to office buildings after the government imposed stringent lockdowns and firm-based precautions of working from home. In Turkey, where Alya and Lara are located, all primary and secondary schools were shut down on March 16, 2020 which was followed by universities after 10 days. The government kept many businesses open between April 29 through May 17, 2020; yet all non-essential businesses were closed. On the other hand, companies were allowed to set their own action plans regarding remote working. With transitioning back to face-to-face learning in September 2021, business life in Turkey went back to “normal.” Considering the unique experience of each country during this pandemic, we describe the use of terminology in defining periods during the pandemic. Considering Turkish government restrictions and announcements, we acknowledged the period before April 2020 as “pre-pandemic,” between April 2020–September 2021 as “during pandemic,” and after September 2021 as “post-pandemic.” By focusing on two participants, we aimed to scrutinize employees' narratives and practices during the pandemic from the perspective of resilience in workplaces and to start a research-based discussion on activity-based office design post-pandemic era. Pre-pandemic Working from Office: Lara had been working for the same firm for 11 years when her firm decided to switch to working from home (WFH) as a part of COVID-19 precautions. This was Lara's first full-time job; she had no prior office experience. Since the day she started working, Lara had no assigned desk as the firm was practicing activity-based workplace strategy and clean desk policy. The space was an open-plan office. Each desk had screens and charging docks to plug laptops. Everyone worked at different desks and on different floors, based on their preferences and needs. Lara was WFH one day a week prior to the pandemic. At the office, she had a laptop, mouse, water bottle, mug, notebook, pens, and a cardigan as personal belongings. She stored these in an assigned locker at the end of each day. For her, the normal is being flexible and working at an activity-based office. Alya and Lara are among the many who needed to quickly adjust to working from home (WFH) with the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and the consequences of lockdowns. While WFH is not a new idea, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this transition (Lal et al., 2021) and opened a new research area on the possible values of WFH (Margariti et al., 2021). Now, as organizations start calling employees back to the office, the discussions focus more on the impact of WFH practices on office culture, the dynamics of hybrid workplaces, and what these mean for the design of post-pandemic office spaces. Ways of working and/or sharing spaces, practices, and temporalities have significantly changed over the last 2 years. There is a trend toward transitioning to hybrid workplaces, the workplace strategy in which the workforce is divided into remote and in-office workers (de Lucas Ancillo et al., 2021; O'Rourke, 2021). The stories of our participants (see Table 1) overlap with the findings from Marzban et al. (2021) who reported an increase in employees' preference to WFH some part of the week. With this trend and hybrid workplace approach, a smaller workforce of an organization is in the office each day. These developments bring the discussion back to activity-based office designs. Based on Alya's and Lara's stories and the growing body of literature on the post-pandemic workplace, we have two interpretations. First, WFH practices seem to positively impact employees' adaptation to the concept of flexibility/resiliency and therefore to activity-based offices. Second, as employees have the chance to personalize their workspace at home, it may become less of a concern not to own a desk at the office, where they now spend less time. Alya's workspace at home specifically supports this understanding (see Figure 1) whereas Lara's workplace at home does not include any personal belongings (see Figure 2). In Lara's case, the void of personal belongings might be related to the fact that all her work experience has been based on clean desk policy, and the lack of personal belongings could be helping with the mental separation of work and personal life. Regardless of the translation, personalization at the workplace may no longer be a concern due to hybridization; thus, supporting the clean desk policy of an activity-based office. Alya and Lara shared their desire to make their own decisions on WFH or in the office, considering the challenges and opportunities for each workspace (see Table 2). They both expressed socialization needs and more efficient collaborative engagements when being together with colleagues. They associate the office as a place to address these purposes. This is inline with the research done before COVID-19 on activity-based offices. For example, Engelen et al. (2019) described the positive effects of activity-based office designs on interaction, communication, control of time and space, and satisfaction with the workspace. Early post-pandemic expectations highlighted the need to restructure activity-based office designs that can further encourage collaboration. Flexible and interactive tasks seem more appropriate in activity-based offices, whereas individual responsibilities demanding concentration seem less fit (Öhrn et al., 2021). As working from the office is increasingly associated with the opportunities of teamwork and collaboration, concentration and focus zones in an activity-based office could be replaced by a home office. This would also fulfill workers' privacy and territoriality needs. However, the WFH transition might not be complete for everyone yet. A study done by Cuerdo-Vilches et al. (2021) inquired if our home is ready for WFH. The research team found that 42.2% of teleworkers had to adjust their homes to make a space to work, especially for families with children under 5 years of age who struggled to find a suitable place and adequate spatial qualities, since many were working in rented and smaller houses. These findings further communicate the significance of considering hybrid workplaces. Workplace was mentally connected to a single space in the past. With hybrid workplaces, there are at least two spaces for people to work: the office and home. This brings the questions on the impact of coherence and relationship of these workspaces on individuals' efficiency and work satisfaction. It might be important to consider this reality while designing an activity-based office. As we move forward, we encourage designers and researchers to reflect on the past 2 years' lived experiences on workspaces. Every case is unique and offers us a perspective to learn about challenges and opportunities of the new norm of working for a better understanding of its outcomes on workers' health, resiliency, and well-being in the post-pandemic era. Alya's and Lara's stories tell us there is the need for a “physical office” to have face-to-face communication, collaboration, and inspiration. Hybrid workplace arrangements may lead to the new design of offices that are smaller but more inviting to employees. Also, the positive outcomes of the WFH experience such as concentration and the time saved by not commuting will encourage organizations to consider hybrid working arrangements for a more flexible work environment. Knowledge workers are willing to give up 9 to 5 schedules since they are now more aware of the remote working potential, as a result of their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to domestic demands, a virtual work schedule and being more flexible could increase motivation toward WFH; yet as noted by our two participants, work-life balance can be problematic. Extended working hours and being “always on” make it hard for employees to get away from work both physically and mentally, which may cause work-related stress and time pressures that could impair the quality of personal life. Previous studies (de Gennaro et al., 2022; Kossek et al., 2021; Tayal & Mehta, 2022) presented experimental evidence on how WFH creates a conflict between work and personal life, especially for those with children. Our findings on work-life balance during WFH provide additional support. While the scope of this study was limited in terms of participant profile, organizational culture, and geographical coverage; it supports the results from numerous investigations that suggest hybridization along with an activity-based office design could be the future trend (Babapour Chafi et al., 2022). Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Sydney, as part of the Wiley – The University of Sydney agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Dr. Işıl Oygür is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Design at Özyeğin University, Turkey. She holds a PhD from Washington State University and a master's degree from Istanbul Technical University. Her interdisciplinary scholarship focuses on design anthropology, personal informatics, family informatics, technology use in family life, child-computer interaction, and digital interactions. Dr. Özgür Göçer is a lecturer at the School of Architecture Design and Planning at The University of Sydney. She holds a PhD in Building Science from Istanbul Technical University. Her research interest and expertise focus on investigating the built environment through the lenses of occupant experience with a view of informing design and performance improvements. Dr. Ebru Ergöz Karahan is an Assistant Professor of Faculty of Architecture and Design at Özyeğin University, Turkey. She received her PhD, M.Arch, and B.Sc. degrees in Architecture from Istanbul Technical University. She worked for various national and international construction firms and has collaborated actively with researchers in several other disciplines of architecture. Her research interest focuses on housing mobility, place attachment, sustainable housing, and occupant behavior." @default.
• W4280551968 created "2022-05-22" @default.
• W4280551968 creator A5009439977 @default.
• W4280551968 creator A5024007724 @default.
• W4280551968 creator A5030692977 @default.
• W4280551968 date "2022-09-01" @default.
• W4280551968 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W4280551968 title "Hybrid Workplace: Activity–based office Design in a Post–pandemic Era" @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2086093613 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2096766790 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2344139183 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2378176176 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2767147786 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2790816004 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2807430651 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2809795847 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W2971324626 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3115975780 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3137302936 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3152562783 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3179888643 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3184068879 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W3196907650 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W4200449481 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W4200503702 @default.
• W4280551968 cites W4206428055 @default.
• W4280551968 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12218" @default.
• W4280551968 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4280551968 type Work @default.
• W4280551968 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W4280551968 countsByYear W42805519682022 @default.
• W4280551968 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4280551968 hasAuthorship W4280551968A5009439977 @default.
• W4280551968 hasAuthorship W4280551968A5024007724 @default.
• W4280551968 hasAuthorship W4280551968A5030692977 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C170154142 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConcept C89623803 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C126322002 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C127413603 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C170154142 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C17744445 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C2779134260 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C3008058167 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C524204448 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C71924100 @default.
• W4280551968 hasConceptScore W4280551968C89623803 @default.
• W4280551968 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4280551968 hasLocation W42805519681 @default.
• W4280551968 hasOpenAccess W4280551968 @default.
• W4280551968 hasPrimaryLocation W42805519681 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3103289217 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3106370311 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3108360120 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3119540162 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3152606407 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3152916563 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W3194637846 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W4313474620 @default.
• W4280551968 hasRelatedWork W4327956415 @default.
• W4280551968 hasVolume "47" @default.
• W4280551968 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4280551968 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4280551968 workType "article" @default.