The office environment and the work engagement in various formats of working: preliminary study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v19i107.2146Keywords:
work engagement, work engagement resources, friendly office environment, restorativeness, office design, in-office work format, hybrid work formatAbstract
Existing research demonstrates that work engagement is associated with numerous positive outcomes for both organizations and employees. However, the proportion of genuinely engaged employees remains relatively low, making the search for additional factors supporting engagement particularly relevant. This study examined the relationship between work engagement and characteristics of the physical office environment among employees working either in an office-based format (full-time office presence) or in a hybrid format (a combination of office-based and remote work). The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of office environment characteristics to work engagement under different work arrangements. The online study involved 308 employees (71% women; M_age = 39.7 years) from Russia (98%) and CIS countries (2%) working in one of the two specified formats. The following instruments were used: the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, the People in Office questionnaire, and the Perceived Restorativeness Scale. The results showed that the physical office environment makes a positive contribution to work engagement, with restorative environmental characteristics playing the central role in maintaining this state. The most significant and universal factors across both work formats were the attractive appearance of the office and the congruence of the workplace with the employee’s tasks and personality. In the hybrid work format, alignment between the physical characteristics of the office and the employee’s life narrative, as well as convenient infrastructure surrounding the office, also contributed positively to engagement. In contrast, an excessive number of opportunities for leisure and distraction from work activities was negatively associated with work engagement. The findings suggest that characteristics of the physical office environment may be considered a resource for work engagement and may inform simple design solutions aimed at supporting employee engagement.
Downloads
References
Appel–Meulenbroek R., Clippard M., Pfnür A. The effectiveness of physical office environments for employee outcomes: An interdisciplinary perspective of research efforts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 2022, 20(1), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-04-2017-0012
Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. Job demands – resources theory: taking stock and looking for-ward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2017, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Capossela C. To Get People Back in the Office, Make It Social. Harvard Business Review, 2022. https://hbr.org/2022/09/to-get-people-back-in-the-office-make-it-social
Colenberg S., Jylhä T., Arkesteijn M. The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well–being–a literature review. Building Research and Information, 2021, 49(3), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098
Csikszentmihalyi M. Flowing: A general model of intrinsically rewarding experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1975, 15, 3.
Dzyubenko M.M., Nartova-Bochaver S.K. In: Priverzhennost' voprosam psihicheskogo zdorov'ya. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, Moscow, 2022. Moscow: RUDN, 2022. pp. 126–131. (in Russian)
Gallup. State of the global workplace. 2023. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx
Hartig T., Kaiser F.G., Bowler P.A. Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Institutet för bostads-ochurbanforskning. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1997.
Herzberg F.I., Mausner B., Snyderman B. The motivation to work. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1959.
Jeanson S., Michinov E. What is the key to researchers’ job satisfaction? One response is profession-al identification mediated by work engagement. Current Psychology, 2020 No. 39, 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9778-2
Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive, 1989.
Kim W., Kolb J.A., Kim T. The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 2013, 12(3), 248–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635
Korpela K., De Bloom J., Kinnunen U. From restorative environments to restoration in work. Intelligent Buildings International, 2015, 7(4), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.959461
Kropman D., Appel–Meulenbroek R., Bergefurt L., LeBlanc P. The business case for a healthy of-fice; a holistic overview of relations between office workspace design and mental health. Ergonomics, 2023, 66(5), 658–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2022.2108905
Kutuzova, D.A. (PhD dissertation (Psychology). Mosk. gor. psihol.–ped. universitet, Moskva, 2006. (in Russian)
Lipatov S.A. Organizacionnaya psihologiya, 2015, No. 5, 104–110. (in Russian).
Mandrikova E.Yu., Gorbunova A.A. Organizacionnaya psihologiya, 2012, 2(4), 2–22. (in Russian)
Mazzetti G., Robledo E., Vignoli M., Topa G., Guglielmi D., Schaufeli W.B. Work engagement: A meta–analysis using the job demands–resources model. Psychological reports, 2023, 126(3), 1069–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211051988
Nartova–Bochaver S.K, Irhin B.D., Reznichenko S.I. Psihologiya. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki, 2020, 17(3), 500–519. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2020-3-500-519 (in Russian)
Pavlova M.V., Nartova–Bochaver S.K. Organizacionnaya psihologiya, 2020, 10(3), 164–184. (in Russian)
Pavlova M.V., Reznichenko S.I., Dzyubenko M.M., Nartova–Bochaver S.K. Organizacionnaya psi-hologiya, 2025, 15(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2025-15-1-9-29 (in Russian)
Pavlova M.V., Reznichenko S.I., Nartova–Bochaver S.K. A new instrument to measure healthy workplace qualities: the People in the Office Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, No. 14, 1241555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1241555
Robledo E., Zappala S., Topa G. Job crafting as a mediator between work engagement and wellbeing outcomes: A time–lagged study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(8), 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081376
Schaufeli W.B. Applying the job demands–resources model. Organizational dynamics, 2017, 2(46), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual. Utrecht, Nether-lands: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, 2003, 26(1), 64-100. https://doi.org/10.1037/t76451-000
Schaufeli W.B., Salanova M., Gonzalez–Roma V., Bakker A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: The two–sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2003, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Shatalova O.V. Psihologiya. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki, 2022, 19(4), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-4-855-871 (in Russian)
Shtroo V.A., Kolpachnikov V.V. Organizacionnaya psikhologiya, 2014, 4(2), 79-87. (in Russian)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
