Employee affective and behavioral reactions to the spatial density of physical work environments

Human resource management researchersand practitioners recognize the importanceof the physical environment in the work-place and have called for more research onhow this environment influences employeereactions to their work (Carlopio, 1996;McCoy, 2002; Oldham, Cummings, & Zhou,1995; Sundstrom, 1987). One important di-mension of the physical environment is thespatial density of employees’ work areas.Studies have demonstrated that spatiallydense areas (i.e., those with little spaceavailable per person) generally have negativeeffects on employee reactions (see Oldhamet al., 1995 for a review). The purpose of thecurrent study is to extend this previous workin several ways, including examining em-ployee reactions that have received little pre-

vious research attention (e.g., tardiness andtransfer intentions) and examining the spe-cific conditions under which spatial densityhas its strongest (and weakest) relations tothese important workplace reactions.

Physical Work Environments and theSocial Interference Perspective

The social interference perspective (see Baum& Paulus, 1987; Evans, Johannson, & Car-rere, 1994; Oldham et al., 1995) suggests thatindividuals often react negatively to densework area conditions because (a) they are un-able to control their interactions with othersand (b) they have more difficulty achievingtheir immediate goals. That is, dense condi-tions tend to increase the number of un-

EMPLOYEE AFFECTIVE AND BEHAVIORALREACTIONS TO THE SPATIAL DENSITY OFPHYSICAL WORK ENVIRONMENTS

Human Resource Management, Spring 2005, Vol. 44, No. 1, Pp. 21–33© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20038

Douglas R. May, Greg R. Oldham, and Cheryl Rathert

This field study of a medical clinic found that employees in spatially dense work areas (i.e., thosewith little space available per person) experienced higher levels of perceived crowding, transferintentions, and tardiness, as well as lower work area satisfaction, than employees in low-densityareas. Crowding perceptions explained the relations between spatial density and the measuresof work area satisfaction and tardiness. Finally, when employees had high workloads and theirjobs required physical movement, spatial density had weaker relations to crowding perceptionsand area satisfaction than in other conditions. Implications of these findings for human resourcepractitioners are discussed. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Douglas R. May, Department of Management, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,NE 68588-0491, (402) 472-8885, [email protected]

22 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2005

wanted, unpredictable interactions employeesexperience. The presence of many others alsomay restrict freedom of movement and boostcoordination demands, making it difficult forindividuals to accomplish their activities or ob-jectives. Thus, individuals in dense conditionsmay become overloaded, report feelingcrowded and dissatisfied with their work areas,and may engage in activities that reduce thisfrustration (e.g., being late to work).

The social interference perspective alsois consistent with the argument that percep-tions of crowding explain the relations be-tween spatial density and individuals’ behav-iors (Baum & Paulus, 1987). Whereas spatialdensity is an objective variable reflecting theamount of space available per person, crowd-ing is an experiential state. Employees whofeel crowded may try to alleviate this per-ceived spatial restriction with certain with-drawal behaviors. Thus, spatial density is anecessary, though not sufficient, conditionfor the feeling of crowding (Stokols, 1972).Consistent with the social interference per-spective, research on residential settingsshows that crowding is associated with lessperceived control (Pandey, 1999). The cur-rent research examines whether crowding ex-plains the relations between the spatial den-sity of employees’ work areas and theiraffective and behavioral reactions.

Previous studies of employees in workorganizations have provided results that aregenerally consistent with the social interfer-ence perspective (see Oldham et al., 1995).For example, research has shown that em-ployees in dense conditions feel morecrowded and dissatisfied with their workareas than those in conditions of low density(Oldham, 1988; Oldham & Rotchford,1983). In addition, studies have demon-strated that density is associated withturnover intentions (Dean, Pugh, & Gunder-son, 1975) and with withdrawal from thework area during discretionary break periods(Oldham & Rotchford, 1983).

The Physical Work Environment of HealthCare Organizations

The current study extends this previous workin four ways. First, we examine the physical

environment of an outpatient medical clinic,a setting that few studies have explored de-spite its importance to the delivery of healthcare. In particular, we focus on the reactionsof the medical receptionists who process in-coming and outgoing patients. These em-ployees are critical to the effective operationof clinics that service large numbers of pa-tients each year in the health care industry.Indeed, health care research shows that pa-tient satisfaction is linked to the satisfactionof health care employees (Meyer & Massagli,2001) and that working conditions are re-lated to medical errors in such settings(Leape, 1999; Leape et al., 1995).

Second, we examine relations betweenthe spatial density of work areas and potentialemployee reactions derived from the socialinterference perspective. Specifically, em-ployees’ affective (i.e., crowding perceptions,work area satisfaction, transfer intentions)and behavioral (i.e., tardiness) reactions areinvestigated in this study. No previous studyhas examined the relations between workarea spatial density and employee tardinessand transfer intentions. Such a study is par-ticularly important in a medical group clinicsetting given that medical receptionists areplaying an increasingly important role inmedical care (Patterson, Del Mar, & Najman,2000). Based on the social interference per-spective discussed above, employees whowork in areas with little space should experi-ence many unpredictable interruptions andrestrictions of their goals, which, in turn, leadthem to feel crowded and dissatisfied withtheir work areas and behaviorally withdraw.Thus, the first formal hypothesis of the studyis offered below:

Hypothesis 1: Employees in dense workareas will react more negatively (i.e., expe-rience greater crowding, lower work areasatisfaction, be late to work more fre-quently, and report stronger transfer inten-tions) than employees in low-density areas.

Third, we examine whether crowding ex-plains (i.e., mediates) relations between workarea spatial density and employee affectiveand behavioral reactions. Research in the en-vironmental psychology literature suggests

Thus,individuals indense conditionsmay becomeoverloaded,report feelingcrowded anddissatisfied withtheir workareas, and mayengage inactivities thatreduce thisfrustration (e.g.,being late towork).

Employee Affective and Behavioral Reactions to the Spatial Density of Physical Work Environments • 23

The currentstudycontributes tothis limitedbody ofknowledge andmore narrowlyexamineswhethercrowdingperceptionsexplain therelationsbetween workarea densityand work areasatisfaction,tardiness, andtransfer intent.

that perceptions of crowding play a signifi-cant role in individuals’ reactions to theirphysical environments (see Baum & Paulus,1987); however, only a few studies have em-pirically explored the mediating effects ofcrowding and employee reactions in theworkplace. One such investigation (Oldham& Rotchford, 1983) did find that three envi-ronmental experience variables (i.e., crowd-ing, concentration, and privacy) explainedthe relations between several office charac-teristics (i.e., openness, office density, workarea density, accessibility, and darkness) andoffice satisfaction. Another study by Carlopioand Gardner (1995) found that workplaceexperiences (i.e., privacy and crowding) me-diated the relations between job level andemployees’ work environment satisfactionand turnover intentions. The current studycontributes to this limited body of knowledgeand more narrowly examines whether crowd-ing perceptions explain the relations betweenwork area density and work area satisfaction,tardiness, and transfer intent. Based on thetheory and research reviewed, the followinghypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perceptions ofcrowding will mediate the relations be-tween work area spatial density and em-ployees’ affective and behavioral reactions.

Fourth, this investigation contributes tothe literature by examining the specific con-ditions under which spatial density has itsstrongest (and weakest) relations to employeereactions. Past research has explored suchmoderating factors as job level and complex-ity, organizational tenure, and stimulusscreening ability (e.g., Carlopio & Gardner,1992; Fried, Slowik, Ben-David, & Tiegs,2001; Oldham, Kulik, & Stepina, 1991). Re-search from social and environmental psy-chology suggests another condition thatmight significantly affect employees’ reac-tions to spatial density—the degree to whichindividuals are required to physically moveabout the dense environment (Heller, Groff,& Solomon, 1977; Schopler & Stockdale,1977). Individuals who are required to moveabout dense work areas in order to completetheir tasks are likely to encounter more inter-

personal obstructions than those who are not.These obstructions, in turn, should reduceopportunities for activity and goal accom-plishment and cause individuals to exhibitgenerally negative reactions.

The current study extends this previouswork by examining whether the effects ofphysical movement on employee reactions tospatial density are amplified by the amount ofwork required of employees. Specifically, it isproposed that employees will react more neg-atively to dense conditions when their workrequires considerable physical movement andthey must complete large amounts of suchwork (i.e., high workload). Based on the so-cial interference perspective described ear-lier, individuals should encounter the mostinterferences and disruptions in such condi-tions. When individuals are required to com-plete large amounts of work that requiresphysical movement, the presence of manyothers may actively restrict the freedom ofmovement necessary for the completion ofgoals or activities (Saegert, 1978), which canlead to employees experiencing high levels offrustration and exhibiting negative reactions.

Alternatively, an “information process-ing” or “attention” perspective based on em-ployees’ limited cognitive capabilities (March& Simon, 1958) maintains that when workdemands are high, individuals may be forcedto detach themselves from their surround-ings and focus their limited attention on thework itself. Indeed, Wells and Matthews’s(1994) review of the literature suggests that“one of the few consistent effects of arousingstressors which generalize across differentsources of stress is narrowing of attention(italics added)” (p. 187). According to thisview, the stress resulting from high work de-mands may cause individuals to focus on se-lective task-relevant attributes and excludeother cues in the environment from theirlimited attention. Such a “detachment hy-pothesis” (Sutton & Rafaeli, 1987) suggeststhat when work demands are high, employ-ees will tend to focus their attention on thework and will ignore the social interferencespresent in the environment. As a result,when work demands are high, dense workareas should have generally weak or negligi-ble effects on employees’ reactions.


This study compares and contrasts the“social interference” and “detachment” per-spectives described above. The interferenceperspective (Hypothesis 3a) suggests thatdense conditions should have strong nega-tive effects on employee reactions whentheir work requires substantial physicalmovement and they must complete largeamounts of such work. By contrast, the de-tachment perspective (Hypothesis 3b) sug-gests that dense conditions should haveweak or negligible effects when their work-load and physical movement are high. Basedon these perspectives, the third set of hy-potheses is offered below:

Hypothesis 3a: When employees have highworkloads and their work requires sub-stantial physical movement, spatial den-sity should have stronger negative rela-tions to employee reactions than underother combinations of workload and phys-ical movement.

Hypothesis 3b: When employees havehigh workloads and their work requiressubstantial physical movement, spatialdensity should have weaker negative rela-tions to employee reactions than underother combinations of workload and phys-ical movement.

The theoretical framework for the studyis summarized in Figure 1.

Method

Research Design

The research design employed in this studywas a cross-sectional field study that usedboth employee and supervisor question-naires and organizational archival records indata collection.

Research Setting and Participants

The research was conducted in 43 units ofan outpatient medical clinic. The partici-pants were receptionists whose responsibili-ties involved processing incoming and out-going patients. Data were collected from182 receptionists, all but one of whom wasfemale. Their ages ranged from 20 to 68,with a median of 29. The median organiza-tional tenure level was 34 months, and themedian education level was “some technicalschool experience.”

Procedure

Data were gathered onsite by the first author.A questionnaire was administered to groups

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for the Effect of Work Area Spatial Density on Employee Reactions.


Since thereceptionists’primaryresponsibilitiesinvolvedprocessingincoming andoutgoingpatients, themeasure ofworkload wasdesigned to tapthe number ofcontactsbetweenpatients andreceptionists.

of receptionists. It included items that meas-ured required physical movement, transferintention, crowding, and work area satisfac-tion. Before completing the questionnaire,employees were told briefly about the natureand purpose of the research and were giventhe option of not participating. Three indi-viduals chose not to participate; the totalparticipation rate was 98 percent.

The researcher emphasized that employ-ees’ individual responses would be held inconfidence. Participants also were told itwould be desirable if they included on thequestionnaire their organizational identifica-tion numbers. All participants agreed to pro-vide these numbers.

The researcher typically measured thework areas of the 43 units after hours whenemployees were not present. Workload datawere obtained from organizational records,and tardiness data were obtained from su-pervisor reports.

Measures

Spatial density. This was calculated as thetotal number of square feet in each workunit divided by the number of full-time-equivalent receptionists assigned to thatunit. Thus, low scores on this measure re-flect dense conditions. Only square footageavailable to the employees (i.e., space notcovered by furniture) was included in thespatial density calculation.

Workload. Since the receptionists’ primaryresponsibilities involved processing incomingand outgoing patients, the measure of work-load was designed to tap the number of con-tacts between patients and receptionists.Thus, information on the average number ofpatients seen per week by each receptionistin a given work unit was obtained from orga-nizational records. The sample of workloadinformation used was from the same weekthe questionnaire data were collected.

Required physical movement. This refers tothe extent to which physical movement inthe work area was required of employees fortask completion. Three questionnaire itemswere averaged to form an index ( = .80).

Each item was measured on a seven-pointscale. Two items used the scale (1 = very in-accurate; 7 = very accurate): “The job in-volves physical movement from one place toanother in my work area in order to accom-plish the required tasks” and “The job isarranged so that I do not have to walk aroundmuch in my work area (reverse-scored).” Thethird item: “To what extent does doing yourjob require you to physically move around inyour work area? That is, do the tasks whichyou do require you to walk from one workstation to another in your work area?” used aslightly different scale (1 = very little; 7 =very much).

Crowding. This refers to the degree to whichemployees feel crowded in the work unit.Four items adapted from Oldham (1988)were averaged to form an index ( = .92):“My work area has an adequate amount ofspace for the number of employees whowork in it” (reverse-scored), “I often feel‘crowded’ while at work,” “My work areadoes not have enough space for the numberof employees currently working in it,” and“Employees must work too closely togetherin my work area” (1 = disagree strongly; 7 =agree strongly).

Work area satisfaction. This refers to the de-gree to which employees are satisfied withthe areas in which they work. Three itemsadapted from Oldham (1988) were averagedto form an index ( = .88): “I am satisfiedwith my work setting as a whole,” “In gen-eral, my work area provides a good setting inwhich to work,” and “Overall, I feel comfort-able in my work area” (1 = disagree strongly;7 = agree strongly).

Transfer intention. This was measured by anitem adapted from the Michigan Assessmentof Organizations Questionnaire (1975): “If Ihad the chance, I would take a different jobwithin [the organization]” (1 = disagreestrongly; 7 = agree strongly).

Tardiness. Supervisors reported the averagenumber of days per month each receptionistunder their supervision was late to work by atleast 10 minutes. Supervisors’ ratings were


obtained during the week of questionnairedata collection.

Results

Relations Among the Variables

Correlations among the measures includedin the study are shown in Table I. The tableshows the three independent variables (i.e.,spatial density, required physical movement,and workload) were moderately correlatedwith one another. However, these correla-tions were not so high as to mitigate againstthe use of the measures as separate variablesin the substantive analyses. Correlationsamong the reaction measures were generallysmall in magnitude, with the exception ofthe association between crowding and workarea satisfaction (r = –.67, p < .01). Consis-tent with past literature (Oldham, 1988),employees who felt crowded at work werealso generally unhappy with their workareas. Because of the relatively strong rela-tion between crowding and work area satis-faction, we conducted supplementary prin-cipal component factor analyses usingoblique rotation for the items in thesescales. Results of these analyses confirmedthat the items for the crowding and workarea satisfaction measures loaded on twodistinct factors with no cross-loadings above.30. Details of these results are available onrequest from the first author.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that employeeswould have generally negative reactions todense work environments. Table I showsthat all the correlations involving spatialdensity and the reaction measures were sta-tistically significant and in the expected di-rection. Employees in dense work areas withlittle space available tended to be late towork more often and were more interestedin transferring than were individuals whoworked in less dense areas. Individuals indense areas also reported higher levels ofcrowding and lower levels of work area sat-isfaction than those in low-density areas.Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

To examine whether crowding mediatedrelations between spatial density and theother affective and behavioral reactions (Hy-pothesis 2), a series of analyses were con-ducted that followed recommendations byBaron and Kenny (1986). Each step musthold in order to support a conclusion of me-diation. First, the independent variable mustsignificantly influence the mediator. Asshown in Table I, spatial density was signifi-cantly related to crowding (r = –.46, p < .01).Second, the independent variable must sig-nificantly influence the dependent variable.As noted above, spatial density was signifi-cantly related to each of the employee reac-tions—work area satisfaction (r = .30, p <.01), tardiness (r = –.12, p < .05), and trans-fer intention (r = –.18, p < .01). Third, themediator must significantly influence the de-

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among All Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Spatial Density 27.42 14.71 --

2. Workload 110.19 65.65 .30** --

3. Movement 6.00 1.14 –.26** –.27** --

4. Crowding 4.75 1.73 –.46** –.18** .17** --

5. Work Area Satisfaction 4.36 1.60 .30** .17** –.15* –.67** --

6. Tardiness 0.35 0.92 –.12* –.14* .06 .16* –.05 --

7. Transfer Intention 3.60 1.84 –.18** –.09 .01 –.03 –.05 –.05 --

*p < .05, **p < .01, one-tailed test.

Higher spatial density scores indicate more space available to the employee.

TABLE I


pendent variable. Crowding was not relatedto transfer intention (r = .03, p = n.s.) butdid have a significant relation to tardiness (r= .16, p < .05) and to area satisfaction (r =–.67, p < .01). Thus, the last step focusedonly on the latter two employee reactions.Fourth, full mediation is supported if the ef-fect of the independent variable on the de-pendent variable is reduced to nonsignifi-cance when controlling for the mediator.Hierarchical regression results for this analy-sis demonstrated that the relation betweenspatial density and work area satisfaction( R2 = .00; F = .02, p = n.s.) and that be-tween spatial density and tardiness ( R2

=.00, F = .58, p = n.s.) both became statisti-cally nonsignificant when crowding was en-tered into the regression equation before thedensity measure. Thus, crowding fully medi-ated the relation between spatial density andboth area satisfaction and tardiness. How-ever, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) conditionsfor mediation were not met for transfer in-tention. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was only par-tially supported.

To test whether employee reactions towork area spatial density were influenced byworkload amount and required physicalmovement (Hypotheses 3a and 3b), hierar-chical regression analyses were conducted.In these analyses, the three independentvariables were introduced into the regression

equations, followed by the three possibletwo-way interactions and the three-way in-teraction (spatial density × movement ×workload). To minimize multicollinearity, wecentered the independent variables aroundtheir means before formulating the interac-tion terms (Aiken & West, 1991). We thenexamined the increase in the squared multi-ple correlation ( R2), including each interac-tion term in the regression equations.

Results indicated that none of the inter-action terms contributed significantly to theexplanation of the tardiness and transfer in-tention measures (see Table II). Apparently,relations between spatial density and thesewithdrawal measures were not substantiallyinfluenced by the physical movement re-quired or the amount of work assigned.

In contrast, results indicated that thejoint effects of density, movement, andworkload contributed significantly to theexplanation of both crowding and workarea satisfaction. Results showed that themain effects alone accounted for 22% ofthe variance in crowding and 10% in areasatisfaction. However, the interactionterms made statistically significant contri-butions to the explanation of each of thesereactions. In particular, the three-way in-teraction term contributed significantly tothe explanation of both crowding percep-tions and work area satisfaction.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Results for Crowding, Work Area Satisfaction, Tardiness, and TransferIntention

Measure R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2

Work Area Transfer Crowding Satisfaction Tardiness Intention

Spatial Density (D) .21** .21** .09** .09** .02† .02† .03* .03*

Movement (M) .22** .01 .10** .01 .02 .00 .03* .00

Workload (W) .22** .00 .10** .00 .03 .01 .03† .00

D × M .22** .00 .10** .00 .03 .00 .03 .00

D × W .25** .03** .12** .02† .03 .00 .04 .01

M × W .27** .02* .14** .02† .03 .00 .04 .00

D × M × W .29** .02* .16** .02* .03 .00 .04 .00

†p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

TABLE II


These results suggest that spatial density,required physical movement, and workloadcombined to affect individuals’ affective re-actions. To interpret the nature of the inter-actions, we used procedures suggested byAiken and West (1991). We used the unstan-dardized beta coefficients and constantsfrom the saturated regression equation toplot the relation between spatial density andcrowding at different levels of workload andrequired movement. This interaction is dis-played in Figure 2 and is consistent with thedetachment argument for Hypothesis 3b.Specifically, for employees in the high-work-load/high-movement condition, spatial den-sity (i.e., space/person) had only a weak rela-tion to crowding. By contrast, for individualsin the other workload and movement condi-tions (i.e., low-workload/low-movement,high-workload/low-movement, and low-workload/high-movement), dense work areas(i.e., little space per person) resulted in in-creased feelings of crowding.

A similar pattern of results emerged forwork area satisfaction. For those in the high-workload/high-movement condition, densityhad a weak relation to area satisfaction.However, individuals in other workload andmovement conditions reported lower satis-faction since work areas had less space avail-

able to employees. Overall, these findings forwork area satisfaction and crowding supportHypothesis 3b and suggest that when work-load and required movement are high, indi-viduals tend to ignore the social interfer-ences present in dense environments.

Discussion

Results of this study suggest that work areaspatial density may have a substantial impacton the affective and behavioral reactions ofreceptionists in a medical clinic setting.Specifically, results indicated that reception-ists who worked in dense work areas (i.e.,those with little space available per person)felt more crowded and dissatisfied with theirwork areas than those who worked in spa-cious areas. Most important, findings alsosuggested that employees who had littlespace available were more likely to be late towork and to express an intention to transferthan individuals with ample space. Resultsindicated that employees’ perceptions ofcrowding explained the relations betweenwork area density and both employee tardi-ness and work area satisfaction. Finally, thedegree to which employees’ work requiredphysical movement and the amount of workthey were assigned combined with work area

Figure 2. Interaction of Work Area Spatial Density, Required Physical Movement, and Amount of Workload on Perceptions of Crowding.


The findingsinvolving thecombinedeffects ofspatial density,physicalmovement, andworkloadsuggest thatindividuals mayresponddifferently tothe socialinterferences intheir physicalenvironmentswhen theirwork isdemanding.

density to influence employees’ attitudinalreactions. Employees with heavy workloadswho were required to move about their workareas appeared to detach themselves fromthe social interferences present in dense en-vironments and focus their attention prima-rily on their work.

The findings of this study are generallyconsistent with the social interference per-spective proposed by scholars in the physicalenvironment literature (Oldham et al., 1995)for the direct impact of work area spatialdensity on employees’ reactions: Individualsfelt crowded in, were dissatisfied with, andwithdrew from dense areas that likely havemany interferences. Indeed, crowding per-ceptions explained the relations betweenspatial density and employees’ work area sat-isfaction and tardiness behaviors. However,crowding did not explain the relation be-tween spatial density and transfer intent. Itmay be that individuals base their decisionsto transfer not on the number of interfer-ences present in the environment but onother factors that are influenced by spatialdensity (e.g., task or communication privacy;Carlopio & Gardner, 1992). It also may bethat individuals withdraw from dense condi-tions because of personal space or territorialviolations that are either present or antici-pated in such conditions. More research isneeded to test these possibilities, perhaps byfocusing on other indicators of density (e.g.,distance between employees) and a variety ofwithdrawal measures (e.g., absenteeism andturnover). In addition, future researchshould explicitly examine whether the theo-retical mechanisms offered by Oldham et al.(1995) for the social interference perspective(i.e., feelings of personal control or goal frus-trations) explain the effects of work area spa-tial density on employee reactions foundhere. It may be that individuals behaviorallywithdraw in some situations (e.g., lack ofcontrol) but only react affectively in othersituations (e.g., goal frustrations).

The findings involving the combined ef-fects of spatial density, physical movement,and workload suggest that individuals mayrespond differently to the social interfer-ences in their physical environments whentheir work is demanding. The weakened re-

lations between spatial density and percep-tions of crowding and work area satisfactionunder conditions of high workload and highmovement may represent employees’ at-tempts to cope with the information-pro-cessing demands of their environments.Specifically, by focusing their attentions ontheir work, they exclude distractions that areless task-relevant (e.g., Wells & Matthews,1994). These findings for crowding andwork area satisfaction are consistent withSutton and Rafaeli’s (1987) research thatshowed weaker relations between densityand both workstation and job satisfactionwhen employees experienced high role over-load. Similarly, our findings revealed thatrelations between work area density andemployees’ affective reactions were tem-pered by the combined effect of their work-load and the physical movement required bytheir jobs. These findings suggest that inspatially dense circumstances, individualsselectively focus more on their work activi-ties and less on the environment if certainstressors are present. However, it is notclear whether this detachment from the en-vironment is beneficial to employees in thelong term. It may be that such narrowed at-tention due to environmental stressorscould lead to job burnout over time. Moreresearch is now needed to examine thelong-term effects of such cognitive detach-ment as a means of coping with stimulifrom the physical environment.

The complexity of the work also may in-fluence whether an employee detaches fromthe interferences present in his or her physi-cal environment. Previous research on thisissue is mixed. For example, Oldham et al.(1991) found that performance was relativelyunaffected by density and stimulus screeningskills for individuals with high-complexityjobs as compared to low-complexity jobs. Infact, the most negative reactions for job sat-isfaction were found for those with low-com-plexity jobs and weak screening skills, inwork areas with little space. However, recentwork by Fried and his colleagues (2001)found that complex work combined with or-ganizational tenure and dense conditionsproduced the most negative effects on em-ployees’ attitudinal reactions to their work


(e.g., coworker satisfaction, job satisfaction,and organizational commitment). The cur-rent study’s findings for workload demandsare consistent with the proposition by Old-ham et al. (1991) that when jobs have highdegrees of information-processing demands(e.g., complex jobs or high workload), individ-uals pay little attention to the distractions orintrusions in their environments. Future re-search should examine how employees reactto the combined effects of job complexity andworkload. If individuals do detach themselvesfrom their environments because of informa-tion-processing demands, the strongest ef-fects should be observed for those with com-plex jobs and high workload. Future researchalso might explore the impact of coordinationsystems (e.g., division of tasks, structuring ofmovement in the work area) on reducing in-trusions and the information-processing de-mands associated with them.

The strengths of this research on thephysical environment include its use of mul-tiple methods and sources of data for thevariables incorporated in the theoreticalframework (i.e., objective measurement ofthe physical environment, organizationalworkload records, supervisor ratings of tardi-ness, and employee questionnaire re-sponses). Rigorous statistical analyses alsowere conducted to assess the proposed me-diation and moderation effects. Neverthe-less, one should use caution when attempt-ing to generalize from the results of thisstudy. We focused only on clerical employ-ees, 99% of whom were women. It may bethat individuals in other kinds of jobs reactdifferently to the combined effects of denseconditions, movement, and workload thanthe employees in this sample. Furthermore,men may react differently to dense workingconditions than women. A number of labo-ratory studies (e.g., Paulus, Annis, Seta,Schkade, & Matthews, 1976) have demon-strated that men react more negatively todense conditions than do women. Furtherresearch is now needed that examines thecombined effects of gender and job type onemployee reactions to work areas with littlespace available. Next, although the researchused multiple sources for a number of theindependent and dependent variables, com-

mon methods still may account for some ofthe variance shared between the perceptualmeasures in the study. We explored this possi-bility by conducting Harmon’s one-factor test(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), which demon-strated that one factor did not account for amajority of the variance in the data, therebyreducing the plausibility of common methodvariance as an explanation for our findings.Finally, our study obtained workload data fora one-week period and assessed tardiness fora typical work month. Future research mightconsider exploring the relations examined inthis research with longer-term, potentiallymore stable measures of workload and tardi-ness (e.g., one year).

The results of this study suggest thathuman resource managers should considerthe physical design of the work setting beforeadditions in personnel are made to workareas to meet customer or client growth. Inparticular, our research demonstrated thatwork area density can have serious implica-tions for employees’ physical withdrawalfrom their work areas (i.e., tardiness) and,consequently, human resource costs for or-ganizations. Thus, managers may considerproviding protected areas for employees touse to “recharge” themselves from the socialinterferences of their work environments.Social withdrawal has been shown to be aneffective coping strategy for reducing short-term stress associated with chronicallycrowded residential conditions (Evans, Rhee,Forbes, Allen, & Lepore, 2000). Before anyredesign effort, human resource practition-ers should observe how work areas are usedto better understand their employees’ envi-ronmental needs.

Human resource managers also shouldcarefully consider the job characteristics andworkload demands of those employees inwork areas with little space available, be-cause this study showed these factors com-bined to influence employees’ affective re-sponses. Practitioners should be particularlycognizant of the potential impact of densework environments on crowding and workarea satisfaction when employees are notoverloaded by high amounts of workload andmovement in their work areas. This is partic-ularly important since recent research has

If individualsdo detachthemselves fromtheirenvironmentsbecause ofinformation-processingdemands, thestrongest effectsshould beobserved forthose withcomplex jobsand highworkload.Future researchalso mightexplore theimpact ofcoordinationsystems (e.g.,division oftasks,structuring ofmovement inthe work area)on reducingintrusions andtheinformation-processingdemandsassociated withthem.


found evidence that employee satisfaction isrelated to such outcomes as patient or clientsatisfaction (Meyer & Massagli, 2001). Fur-ther, the frequent interruptions employeesexperience in dense work areas have beenshown to lead to diversion of attention, for-getfulness, and errors (Coiera & Tombs,1998; Leape et al., 1995). Errors in informa-tion processing can have serious implicationsin some settings (e.g., medical errors), andcare should be taken to design such workareas carefully.

Finally, we found that receptionists inthe current study tended to mentally with-draw from their environments when theywere assigned large amounts of work andwere required to move about their workareas. Research suggests this may be an ef-fective temporary coping mechanism forsuch environmental stressors, but it is notlikely that such withdrawal will be an effec-tive long-term solution since burnout may

eventually occur without some type of inter-vention. In addition, the receptionists’ nar-rowing of attentions may cause them to over-look vital patient information from others intheir environment or even from the patienthim/herself. In conclusion, human resourcemanagers should assess the information-pro-cessing demands caused by both the physicalenvironment and the job itself. By doing so,the work environment can be optimized foremployees in order to enhance their work-place experiences.

Acknowledgments

The authors express sincere thanks to themanagement of the medical clinic where thisstudy was conducted for their cooperationand assistance in collecting the data. KeithMurnighan, four anonymous reviewers, andthe associate editor provided helpful com-ments on earlier versions of this article.

Douglas R. May is an associate professor and the director of the Program in Busi-ness, Ethics, and Society at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Doug received hisPhD in business administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.His current research interests include issues associated with work design and busi-ness ethics. Doug’s articles have appeared in such journals as the Academy of Man-agement Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Organizational and OccupationalPsychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, Journal of Business Ethics, and Business and Society.

Greg R. Oldham is the C. Clinton Spivey Distinguished Professor of Business Ad-ministration, a professor of labor and industrial relations, and an associate dean ofFaculty in the College of Business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Yale University. His current re-search focuses on the contextual and personal conditions that prompt the develop-ment and expression of creative ideas in organizations. Greg is a former president ofthe Academy of Management (1993–1994) and a former chair of the OrganizationalBehavior Division of the Academy (1987–1988).

Cheryl Rathert is a research scientist for the National Research Corporation, whereshe manages all phases of patient and employee survey research for the health care in-dustry. She is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Management in the Col-lege of Business Administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). Cheryl re-ceived a BA in psychology from UNL, a master’s degree in industrial and organizationalpsychology from the University of Nebraska-Omaha, and has experience working as ahuman resources consultant. Her current research interests are in the measurement ofpatient and employee satisfaction and medical errors in the health care industry.


REFERENCES

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury,CA: Sage.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera-tor-mediator variable distinction in social psy-chological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Baum, A., & Paulus, P. B. (1987). Crowding. In D.Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of envi-ronmental psychology (pp. 533–570). NewYork: Wiley.

Carlopio, J. R. (1996). Construct validity of a physi-cal work environment satisfaction question-naire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 1, 330–344.

Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and in-teractive effects of the physical work environ-ment on attitudes. Environment and Behavior,24, 579–601.

Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1995). Perceptions ofwork and workplace: Mediators of the relation-ship between job level and employee reactions.Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 68, 321–326.

Coiera, E., & Tombs, V. (1998). Communication be-haviors in a hospital setting: An observationalstudy. British Medical Journal, 316, 673–676.

Dean, L. M., Pugh, W. M., & Gunderson, E. (1975).Spatial and perceptual components of crowd-ing: Effects on health and satisfaction. Environ-ment and Behavior, 7, 225–236.

Evans, G. W., Johansson, G., & Carrere, S. (1994).Psychosocial factors and the physical environ-ment: Inter-relations in the workplace. In C.Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International re-view of industrial and organizational psychology(Vol. 9, pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley.

Evans, G. W., Rhee, E., Forbes, C., Allen, K. M., &Lepore, S. J. (2000). The meaning and efficacyof social withdrawal as a strategy for copingwith chronic residential crowding. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 20, 335–342.

Fried, Y., Slowik, L. H., Ben-David, H. A., & Tiegs,R. B. (2001). Exploring the relationship be-tween workspace density and employee attitudi-nal reactions: An integrative model. Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, 74,359–372.

Heller, J. F., Groff, B. D., & Solomon, S. H. (1977).

Toward an understanding of crowding: The roleof physical interaction. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 35, 183–190.

Leape, L. L. (1999). Lucian Leape on the causesand prevention of errors and adverse events inhealth care. Interview by Peter I. Buerhaus.Image—The Journal of Nursing Scholarship,31(3), 281–286.

Leape, L. L., Bates, D. W., Cullen, D. J., Cooper, J.,Demonaco, H. J., Gallivan, T., et al. (1995).Systems analysis of adverse drug events. Journalof the American Medical Association, 274(1),35–43.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.New York: Wiley.

McCoy, J. M. (2002). Work environments. In R.Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook ofenvironmental psychology (pp. 443–460). NewYork: Wiley.

Meyer, G. S., & Massagli, M. P. (2001). The forgot-ten component of the quality triad: Can we stilllearn something from “structure”? The JointCommission Journal on Quality Improvement,27(9), 484–493.

Michigan Assessment of Organizations Question-naire. (1975). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for So-cial Research.

Oldham, G. R. (1988). Effects of changes in work-space partitions and spatial density on employeereactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 73, 253–258.

Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A., & Zhou, J. (1995).The spatial configuration of organizations: A re-view of the literature and some new research di-rections. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in person-nel and human resources management (Vol. 13,pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., & Stepina, L. P. (1991).Physical environments and employee reactions:Effects of stimulus screening skills and jobcomplexity. Academy of Management Journal,34, 929–938.

Oldham, G. R., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Rela-tionships between office characteristics andemployee reactions: A study of the physical en-vironment. Administrative Science Quarterly,28, 542–556.

Pandey, S. (1999). Role of perceived control in cop-ing with crowding. Psychological Studies, 44,86–91.

Patterson, E. A., Del Mar, C., & Najman, J. M.(2000). Medical receptionists in general prac-


tice: Who needs a nurse? International Journalof Nursing Practice, 6, 229–337.

Paulus, P. B., Annis, A. B., Seta, J. J., Schkade, J. K.,& Matthews, R. W. (1976). Crowding does af-fect task performance. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 34, 248–253.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-re-ports in organizational research: Problems andprospects. Journal of Management, 12,531–544.

Saegert, S. (1978). High density environments:Their personal and social consequences. In A.Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human response tocrowding (pp. 257–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Schopler, J., & Stockdale, J. (1977). An interference

analysis of crowding. Environmental and Non-verbal Behavior, 1, 81–88.

Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between den-sity and crowding: Some implications for futureresearch. Psychological Review, 79, 275–277.

Sundstrom, E. (1987). Work environments: Officesand factories. In I. Altman & D. Stokols (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1,pp. 733–782). New York: Wiley.

Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1987). Characteristics ofworkstations as potential occupational stres-sors. Academy of Management Journal, 30,260–276.

Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention andemotion: A clinical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Documents

Employee affective and behavioral reactions to the spatial density of physical work environments