Stöllman Åsa, Svartengren Magnus, Lampa Erik, Nyman Teresia
Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE- 751 85, Sweden.
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, SE-751 85, Sweden.
BMC Public Health. 2025 May 23;25(1):1894. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22953-4.
In implementation of new office designs the process is of great importance for a successful outcome in terms of a healthy work environment and productivity. Knowledge regarding psychosocial factors needs to be applied early in the implementation process. The study's objective was to explore potential associations between pre-existing psychosocial factors before implementation of open plan office solutions, and self-reported production loss due to work environment problems after the implementation.
Two departments in two large public organisations were included in the study; organisation A with 598 employees across twelve units, and organisation B with 304 employees across six units. At baseline and follow-up, the participants completed a questionnaire. Paired analyses regarding office types, psychosocial factors and production were performed. Ordinal logistic regression was used for analysing associations between baseline psychosocial factors; communication, leadership, relational justice, and self-reported production loss due to work environment problems at follow up.
Several pre-existing psychosocial factors before implementation of new office designs were found to be associated with self-reported production loss due to work environment problems at follow-up. Collaboration within units emerged as a significant factor in both organisations, where a more favourable collaboration was seen as a protective factor, suggesting its importance. The results were more pronounced for Organisation B, where control of decisions, collaboration between units, and all three factors related to leadership: support from superiors, relational justice, and trust in management were significant. The direction of the associations for these variables were the same in Organisation A, but the results did not reach statistical significance. The reverse was seen for quantitative demands restoration from sleep, and attitudes towards relocation where statistically significant associations were found solely in Organisation A.
Although several psychosocial factors seemed to matter for a positive result of an office change, the present study contributes primarily with the knowledge that change always takes place in a unique context for each specific organisation. The mechanisms are interconnected and complex, concerning for instance organisational culture and structure, characteristics of work tasks, and differences in the implementation process.
在实施新的办公室设计时，就健康的工作环境和生产力而言，该过程对于取得成功的结果至关重要。有关社会心理因素的知识需要在实施过程的早期就加以应用。本研究的目的是探讨开放式办公解决方案实施前已存在的社会心理因素与实施后因工作环境问题导致的自我报告的生产损失之间的潜在关联。
两个大型公共组织的两个部门被纳入研究；组织A有598名员工分布在12个单位，组织B有304名员工分布在6个单位。在基线和随访时，参与者完成一份问卷。对办公类型、社会心理因素和生产进行配对分析。采用有序逻辑回归分析基线社会心理因素（沟通、领导、关系公正）与随访时因工作环境问题导致的自我报告的生产损失之间的关联。
发现新办公室设计实施前的几个已存在的社会心理因素与随访时因工作环境问题导致的自我报告的生产损失有关。单位内部的协作在两个组织中都是一个重要因素，更良好的协作被视为一个保护因素，表明其重要性。组织B的结果更为显著，其中决策控制、单位间协作以及与领导相关的所有三个因素：上级支持、关系公正和对管理层的信任都具有显著性。这些变量在组织A中的关联方向相同，但结果未达到统计学显著性。从睡眠中恢复定量需求以及对搬迁的态度则相反，仅在组织A中发现了具有统计学显著性的关联。
虽然几个社会心理因素似乎对办公室变革的积极结果很重要，但本研究主要贡献的知识是，变革总是在每个特定组织的独特背景下发生。其机制相互关联且复杂，例如涉及组织文化和结构、工作任务的特点以及实施过程中的差异。
