Too hot, too cold, and then just right: Balancing form and function in biophilic designed office workspaces

Organizations are increasingly implementing biophilic design, or design which uses or mimics natural elements, into the office workspace with limited understanding of its effects. This dissertation seeks to address a paradigm shift in the academic and practitioner understanding of the influence of nature integration into workspace design. Further, research is nascent concerning the influences of biophilic design on office employees. This study utilizes a systematic review with a realist synthesis approach and a theoretical lens incorporating biophilia, environmental stimulation, attention restoration, and system theories in addition to the savanna hypothesis. Thirty-one existing studies are configured to identify how biophilic design affects employees. The dissertation identifies how the forms introduced through biophilic design application to the workspace should balance with office employee tasks and functions to produce outcomes related to positive physiological, psychological, and cognitive functioning. Consequently, these effects may address issues with the way the workspace affects employee satisfaction, well-being, performance, productivity, and organizational costs. Balancing form with function through continual environmental risk assessments and appraisal of a proposed biophilic design hierarchy of needs (BHON) are recommended for several levels of practitioners as well as employees to ensure biophilic design elements are positively influencing the office employee.TOO HOT, TOO COLD, AND THEN JUST RIGHT: BALANCING FORM AND FUNCTION IN BIOPHILIC DESIGNED OFFICE WORKSPACES By Kaisa Geraldine Holloway Cripps Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland University College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Management 2016 Advisory Committee: Dr. Denise A. Breckon Dr. Deborah M. Wharff © Copyright by Kaisa Geraldine Holloway Cripps 2016 This dissertation may contain copyrighted material. This material was used to advance research and it is the dissertation authors belief that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. i ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: TOO HOT, TOO COLD, AND THEN JUST RIGHT: BALANCING FORM AND FUNCTION IN BIOPHILIC DESIGNED OFFICE WORKSPACES Dissertation Author: Kaisa Geraldine Holloway Cripps Doctor of Management University of Maryland University College, 2016 Dissertation Advisors: Dr. Denise A. Breckon and Dr. Deborah M. Wharff Organizations are increasingly implementing biophilic design, or design which uses or mimics natural elements, into the office workspace with limited understanding of its effects. This dissertation seeks to address a paradigm shift in the academic and practitioner understanding of the influence of nature integration into workspace design. Further, research is nascent concerning the influences of biophilic design on office employees. This study utilizes a systematic review with a realist synthesis approach and a theoretical lens incorporating biophilia, environmental stimulation, attention restoration, and system theories in addition to the savanna hypothesis. Thirty-one existing studies are configured to identify how biophilic design affects employees. The dissertation identifies how the forms introduced through biophilic design application to the workspace should balance with office employee tasks and functions to produce outcomes related to positive physiological, psychological, and cognitive functioning. Consequently, these effects may address issues with the way the workspace affects employee satisfaction, well-being, performance, productivity, and organizational costs. Balancing form with function through continual environmental risk assessments and appraisal of a proposed biophilic design hierarchy of needs (BHON) are recommended for several levels of practitioners as well as employees to ensure biophilic design elements are positively influencing the office employee. Keywords: Biophilic design, workspace design, evidence-based management, organizational theory, offices ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... ii LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. v CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROBLEM ................................ ... 6 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Importance to Management and Research ................................ ................................ ... 20 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 23 Themes and Concepts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 Scope and Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 Definitions and Terminology ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 Organization of Dissertation ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL ....................... 27 Discussion of Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ .......... 27 Theoretical framework ................................ ................................ ................................ . 35 Workspace Design and Employee Behaviors ................................ ............................... 36 Biophilic Design as a Workspace Intervention ................................ ............................. 38 Employee Physiological Functioning in the Office ................................ ...................... 48 Employee Psychological Functioning in the Office ................................ ..................... 49 Employee Cognitive Functioning in the Office ................................ ............................ 50 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 52 Thesis Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 55 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 55 CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ .................... 57 Evidence-based Management ................................ ................................ ....................... 57 Search Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 65 Quality Appraisal of Literature ................................ ................................ ..................... 76 Synthesis Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Data Extraction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 79 Expert Panel Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 94 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 97 CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................ ................................ .. 98 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 101 Updated Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ........................ 124 Alternative Perspectives ................................ ................................ ............................. 127 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 130 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 132 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ .............. 133 Implications and Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......... 133 Implications and Recommendations for Practitioners ................................ ................ 134 Implications and Recommendations for Researchers ................................ ................ 143 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 145 iii Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 148 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 152 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 153 APPENDIX A ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 154 APPENDIX B ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 155 APPENDIX C ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 156 APPENDIX D ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 157 APPENDIX E................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 160 APPENDIX F ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 161 APPENDIX G ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 162 APPENDIX H ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 163 APPENDIX I ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 164 APPENDIX J ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 165 APPENDIX K ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 169 APPENDIX L................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 170 APPENDIX M ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 174 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 178 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Systematic Review process ................................ ................................ ......................... 65 Table 2: Synonym Terms and Keywords for Search Terms ................................ ...................... 67 Table 3: Subject Areas Searched ................................ ................................ ............................... 68 Table 4: Inclusion and exclusion criteria ................................ ................................ .................. 70 Table 5: Search Statistics Summary ................................ ................................ .......................... 74 Table 6: Quality Appraisal Risk of Bias Summary (number of evidence, n=31) ..................... 77 Table 7: Evidence Categorization By Quality (n=31) ................................ .............................. 77 Table 8: Provisional Codes ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 81 Table 9: Synthesized Data Extraction Results Matrix ................................ .............................. 82 Table 10: Sample Sizes by Intervention (Total known sample n = 3,846) ............................... 86 Table 11: Studies With Number of Biophilic design Elements Examined ............................... 87 Table 12: Connections between Mechanisms and Primary Outcomes ................................ ..... 88 Table 13: Connections between Mechanisms and Interventions ................................ .............. 90 Table 14: Primary Outcomes Relationships to Interventions ................................ ................... 91 Table 15: Primary Outcomes Relationships to Sub Outcomes ................................ ................. 92 Table 16: Intervention and Sub Outcome Frequencies ................................ ............................. 93 Table 17: Expert Panel and Feedback ................................ ................................ ....................... 96 Table 18: Summary of Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 101 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ............................. 36 Figure 2. Midsommarkransen, Sweden circa 1930s ................................ ................................ 43 Figure 3. Ideas office, Sweden, circa 2015 ................................ ................................ ............... 43 Figure 4. Conceptual Model. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 53 Figure 5. Social Science Citation Index Search ................................ ................................ ........ 68 Figure 6. PRISMA diagram. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 75 Figure 7. Evidence by Geography ................................ ................................ ............................ 83 Figure 8. Evidence by Year of Publication ................................ ................................ ............... 84 Figure 9. Type of Evidence by Research Method ................................ ................................ ..... 85 Figure 10. Evidence by Intervention ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 Figure 11. Evidence by Mechanism ................................ ................................ .......................... 89 Figure 12. Evidence by Primary Outcome ................................ ................................ ................ 90 Figure 13. Evidence by Sub-Outcome ................................ ................................ ...................... 93 Figure 14. Adapted CIMO logic ................................ ................................ ............................... 98 Figure 15. Comfort Control Primary Relationships with Interventions and Outcomes ......... 103 Figure 16. Pleasure and Aesthetics Primary Relationships to Intervention and Outcomes .... 109 Figure 17. Nature Affiliation and Interventions and Outcomes Primary Relationships ........ 115 Figure 18. Primary Cognitive Relationships ................................ ................................ ........... 120 Figure 19. Potential Contextual Effects of Biophilic design on Employees ........................... 123 Figure 20. Updated Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................... 126 Figure 21. Biophilic design hierarchy of needs (BHON) conceptual model .......................... 136 Figure 22. Process of risk assessment ................................ ................................ ..................... 143 Figure 23. Edith Green – Wendell Wyatt Federal Building, US ................................ ............. 146 Figure 24. Maggie's Lanarkshire, UK ................................ ................................ ..................... 146 Figure 25. Commerzbank, Germany ................................ ................................ ....................... 150 6 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROBLEM In the 21st-century workspace, nature may play a strategic role in generating a positive physical environmental influence on office employees. Integrating nature into workspace design can affect employees and organizational performance, including employee satisfaction, organizational costs, and productivity. For example, studies have concluded that employees with views of trees out of windows have lower annual sick leave rates than those without nature views (Elzeyadi, 2011) and call center employees with access to greenery in their workspace are more productive than their peers (Heschong et al., 2003). However, how does this research inform and benefit practitioners and academic researchers? These studies measure the influence of biophilic design on employees in office workspaces and present outcomes on changes to employee physiological, psychological, and cognitive functioning, which may be of significance to practitioners and researchers alike. Biophilic design is an emerging field in architectural design as reflected in popular and management publications. Biophilic design focuses attention on the effects of natural features such as greenery, natural lighting, natural air, and water in the workspace (Kellert et al., 2008). Biophilic design is not about placing employees into nature, for example, out of an urban area and into a rural one. Instead, biophilic design is the application of natural features to the workspace. When used as an intervention, biophilic design has the potential of influencing employees and outcomes, including organizational costs and employee performance. Biophilic design integration can be detrimental to employee satisfaction, performance, and well-being without an understanding of employee and workspace needs (Ng and Akasah, 2013). A long-accepted fact in management studies is that many organizational factors affecting results cannot be controlled by the office manager, despite their responsibility for them (McGregor, 1960). While this may be true concerning some influences, modern managers do 7 exert control over the physical workspace design. Managers can design the workspace to foster an enhanced and productive experience for employees. This control includes the addition of biophilic design elements into the workspace, which assesses the impression nature and the environment have on humans (Cooper, 2014). Modern companies, such as Google, are purposefully integrating biophilic design principles into their workspaces with the intended outcome of better productivity and performance (Clancy, 2014). If managers wish the form of the workspace to follow the desired function of better organizational results, an awareness of the effects of biophilic design on employees could benefit practice. Employees neither want their office to be too hot nor too cold, but just right; balancing the form of the workspace with the employee and organizational functions. Biophilic design affects the individual employee in the workspace in several ways; architectural design aesthetics directly influence employees through their interactions in, and with, the physical environment (Hutchison, 2014; Kellert et al., 2008; Wilson, 1984). By design of its form, the workspace can induce both psychological effects (Bergstrom et al. 2015) and physiological effects (Veitch, 2011). Biophilic design, when applied to the workspace, also affects cognitive functioning (Gray & Birrell, 2014). Empirically, employee cognition has been shown to affect organizational performance (Cooke & Meyer, 2007; Thomas & Clark, 1993) and employee productivity (Sullivan, Baird & Donn, 2013). These effects can directly influence organizational results, as employee performance is a driver of organizational performance (Bhalla et al., 2011). This incorporation of biophilic design into the office presents a changing paradigm in workspace design, and practitioners, as well as researchers, would benefit from knowledge and understanding of the effects of biophilic design on employees. Biophilic design research in the management field is emerging, but still nascent in its development. In practice, these effects of workspace design on employees are neither always 8 considered nor understood (Bitner, 1992; Gruber et al., 2015). Practitioners do not always address these effects, as well (Cohen, 2007; Davis, 1984). Biophilic design has behavioral mediating effects on employee interactions with the physical environment (Kellert, 2005). When used as an intervention, biophilic design induces effects which may mitigate the negative and enhance the positive employee functioning in the office (Gray & Birrell, 2014). Knowledge is increasing on the application of biophilic design as an intervention into the workspace, which is creating an opportunity to further explore and synthesize existing research to benefit the management profession. This d