Issues and Methods in Studying Territoriality and Physical Workplace

Oluremi B. Ayoko Neal M. AshkanasyUQ Business School

The University of Queensland, Australia

Karen A. JehnMelbourne Business School

The University of Melbourne, Australia

Montreal, 2010

Presentation Overview

Introduction

Literature Review & Research Aims

Issues and Methods

Implications

Introduction

Researchers are increasingly paying more attention to the impact of physical environment on human behavior (Brennan et al., 2002; Elsbach, 2003)

However, much of the studies are outside OB and management (Brown & colleagues, 2005)

The impact of the work physical environment on human behaviors has highlighted paradoxes and tensions (Elsbach & Bechky, 2007) while there are difficulties in locating valid instruments to measure territoriality (except for Brown, 2009)

Workspaces, Territoriality & Affectivity: A Paradox

Open space offices reduce costs, improve communication and foster relationships (Chigot, 2003; Chilton & Baldry, 2002; Ettorrre, 1995)

Similarly, open-plan offices lead to poor employees’ satisfaction and motivation (Oldham & Brass, 1979)

Office size and features drive employees’ territoriality of marking and defending (Brown & Colleagues, 2005)

Open workspace has a potential to increase noise, loss of privacy leading to inefficiency (Ettorre, 1995) and increased turnover

Workspaces, Territoriality & Affectivity: A Paradox

Territoriality is linked with increased communication while enhancing people’s sense of control over their own environment and others’ behaviors (Kelly & Brodens,1994)

However, territoriality can trigger conflict, frustration and employees’ negative emotional responses (Ayoko & Härtel, 2003)

Additionally, workplace physical aesthetic features affect employees’ mood and behaviors (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004)

Interaction between noise & light is linked with the recall of negative emotional words (Hygge & Knex, 2001) while team composition causes emotional responses(Lovaglia & Houser, 2009)

Research Aims

To date, the impact of workspaces on territoriality and affectivity has been overlooked in OB research (Ayoko, Ashkanasy & Jehn, 2009) and so has its measurement

Aim: To suggest ways of reconciling the mixed findings and paradoxes especially in research on physical workspace & territoriality

To address methodological issues surrounding our suggestions

Reconciling Paradoxes: Propositions

Exploring physical workspaces, territoriality/affectivity in teams and promoting positive employee affective consequences

First, time is crucial; the same territorial behaviors initially provoking conflict may later reduce conflict because of more defined boundaries & norms (See Zaheer & colleagues, 1999)

Second, team composition (e.g. age, gender & ethnicity) should moderate overtime the impact of territorial affective products (conflict, emotions) on team outcomes (See Jones et al., 2007; Kaya & Weber, 2003)

Methodological Issues

Multi-method Design

Experience Sampling Method (Fisher, 2008; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983)

Surveys

Physiological Data (Jehn, Rispens & Thatcher, 2009)

Potential Results

Furthering our understanding of the role of time and team composition in the association between workspace territoriality affectivity

Reconciliation of the current paradoxes highlighted by studies on physical workspaces, emotions and territoriality

Improvement of managers’ territorial and affect management skills

Conclusion

Our proposals and methodological approaches should assist researchers in advancing both theoretical and empirical research in physical workspace and territoriality especially in organizational behavior

ImplicationsTheory

Extension of literature on work physical environment, territoriality & affectivity

MethodologyProposed ESM and Physiological measurements

PracticeManagers awareness of the need to manage territoriality & affective responses

Training in managing employees’ territoriality

Thank You

r.ayoko@business.uq.edu.au