175

Workplace preferences – does age make adifference?

Peggie RotheAalto University School of Science and Technology, Built Environment Services Research Grouppeggie.rothe@tkk.fi

Anna-Liisa LindholmAalto University School of Science and Technology, Real Estate Research Groupanna-liisa.lindholm@tkk.fi

Ari HyvönenAalto University School of Science and Technology, Real Estate Research Groupari.hyvonen@tkk.fi

Suvi NenonenAalto University School of Science and Technology, Built Environment Services Research Groupsuvi.nenonen@tkk.fi

Abstract

Aim - User orientated workplace design has to take a variety of user groups into account. Theexistence of four different generations in work life is a unique phenomenon of the 21th century.The aim of this paper is to identify the differences in the work environment preferences ofoffice users of different age.

Methodology - The data was collected through an internet survey. A total of 1106 responsesfrom office workers in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland were analyzed. The surveyincluded questions concerning user preferences in terms of location, buildings, workplaces andservices.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was done for the questionnaire results. The respondentswere divided in to five clusters based on their year of birth and subsequently, in order to findpossible preference differences between the clusters, the results of the PCA were comparedbased on the clusters.

Conclusions - The results indicate that there are differences in some workplace preferences ofdifferent age groups. Sustainability features are valued more by the older respondents than theyounger ones. The younger respondents do however see features that support bicyclecommuting more important that the older groups.

Work environments that support team work, social interaction and innovation within theorganization are preferred more by the younger groups while networking possibilities with

176

other interest groups within the building are valued more by the older ones. The virtualenvironment and mobility is in general valued more among the younger respondents whilepersonal services and being able to adjust the indoor climate are more important to the oldergroups. The smallest differences were found concerning privacy.

Limitations of the research - The main limitation of the study is the use of cross-sectional datawhich makes it difficult to determine if the identified differences in preferences are linked toage and experience or generational differences. It does however give indications whether thereare differences in the workforce as it currently exists. In order to gain more knowledge on thismatter, a longitudinal study should be conducted. Additionally the cultural context has to betaken into account when generalising the results as this research is limited to the HelsinkiMetropolitan Area.

Practical applications - The results give new insights on what office users of different ageprefer in their work environments. The information of user preferences is valuable both for userorganizations and facilities management. Based on the results it is evident that the workplace isno longer a standardized product: one has to pay more attention to options provided.

Keywords: Work environment, End-user, Age, Preference

177

1. Introduction

As knowledge work increases the notion that the employees are organisations’ most importantassets is becoming generally accepted. Employee satisfaction, productivity and well being arebecoming even more crucial for organisations that want to achieve a competitive advantage intoday’s knowledge intense business environment (Brill et al. 2001; Chan et al. 2007).

The influence of the workplace on employees has been the object of research in several recentstudies within workplace research. There is a growing body of evidence linking the physicalworkplace with both satisfaction and productivity of employees. De Croon et al. (2005)systematically reviewed the scientific literature on effects of office concepts and found in total49 publications that were original studies, examined office location, office layout or office useas independent variables, were conducted among individuals who perform office work and thatexamined the effects on work conditions, short- or long-term reactions. De Croon et al. (2005)found that office concepts do affect the office worker’s job demands, job resources and short-term reactions. More recently also Haynes found that office workers do perceive that theenvironment has an impact on their productivity (Haynes 2008a) and also concludes that there isenough evidence to support the claim that office comfort can affect productivity (Haynes2008b).

The individual employee experience has been approached in the research which is connectedwith user satisfaction by several researchers (e.g. Lee 2006; Windlinger 2008; Langston et al.2008). Leaman (1995) and Batenburg and Voordt (2008) found satisfaction with facilities tohave an influence on the perceived productivity of employees while Lee and Brand (2005)found that more personal control over the physical workspace and easy access to meeting placesled to higher perceived group cohesiveness and job satisfaction. Windlinger (2008) states thatthe design of office environments has effects on performance that are not direct but mediatedand that the key variables for the mediation of these effects are job satisfaction and perceivedcontrol over the physical work environment. He further concludes that the perceived physicalwork environment and the experiences in work environments play an important role for jobsatisfaction and individual work performance.

Work environment design should therefore not only focus on meeting the functional needs ofthe organization but also the individual needs and preferences of the users. One solution doesnot fit all. Different people require different environments in order to perform well, dependingon personal factors and the task they are performing. One general belief is that age plays animportant role: the older generations are used to working in their private rooms and do notblissfully welcome change while the young new workforce prefers working in teams and takehighly developed IT-solutions for granted. But how accurate is this general notion?

To summarise, there is a clear connection between the workplace and office users’ satisfactionand productivity. The creation of workplaces that result in satisfied and productive end usersrequires information about user preferences towards their work environments, and as the natureof work is changing, there is a need for updated research within this subject.

178

In order to better understand how to design for satisfaction of users - regardless their age - it isimportant to know what kind of differences there are in the workplace preferences of officeusers of different age. The purpose of this paper is to increase the understanding on differentoffice users’ work environment preferences. The aim of this paper is to identify the differencesin the work environment preferences of office users of different age.

This paper is divided in six parts. After the introduction, an overview is presented on what userneeds, preferences and satisfaction are and how these have been studied. In the third partgenerational research is briefly presented. The methodology of the research is presented in thefourth part following the results and conclusions in parts five and six.

2. Studying needs, preferences and satisfaction

There is quite a fragmented research focusing on office users’ needs, preferences and usersatisfaction. A distinction between the concepts is required: in this research needs are issues thatare necessary for employees to perform well. End-user needs are often seen as needs related towork processes, activities and workplace setting (Brunia & Hartjes-Gosselink 2009). Recentresearch has however brought the attention also to human and psychological needs of the end-users (Oseland 2009; Brunia & Hartjes-Gosselink 2009). People cannot perform to theirmaximum potential if basic psychological needs such as comfort, safety, security and sense ofbelonging are not met (Oseland 2009). Preferences are issues that cause happiness andsatisfaction but which are not necessarily needed to perform a task. Preferences are the thingsend-users would like to have if they had the choice. For example, office users often state thatthey need an own private room when in fact they could perform as well in a landscape office.What they mean is that they prefer their own room. In order to reach end-user satisfaction, bothneeds and preferences have to be taken in to consideration: “Employee satisfaction refers to thedegree to which the working environment meets the wishes and the needs of the employees”(Voordt 2004). Even so, the needs of the individuals have to be balanced with the needs of theorganisation (Oseland 2009).

In reality when organisations are planning and developing their work environments, only a partof the needs and preferences of the users are established as requirements and finallyimplemented, which can then lead to dissatisfaction. A distinction between needs andpreferences and their contribution to user satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be made similar toHerzberg’s two-factor theory of employee satisfaction. According to the theory elements withinthe job and job environment are either dissatisfiers (hygiene factors) or satisfiers (motivators).Hygiene factors contribute to employee dissatisfaction if they are not met while the motivatorsincrease satisfaction when they are fulfilled (Herzberg et al. 1959). Herzberg (1987) alsoproposed that the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, it is no job satisfaction.The proposed distinction between work environment needs and preferences is that needs havethe properties of hygiene factors: dissatisfaction increases if the needs are not met, while thepreferences are motivators: in order to increase satisfaction also preferences have to be fulfilled.However, it is proposed that concerning the work environment the same element can be both aneed and a preference simultaneously (i.e. the user prefers something that he or she also needs),

179

which means that it contributes to dissatisfaction when not fulfilled but increases satisfaction

when implemented. Similarly, the opposite of being satisfied with the work environment is not being

dissatisfied, but rather not being satisfied. The relationship between the concepts need, preference and

requirement and implementation is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relationship between needs, preferences and requirements and implementation

In general it can be said that a large portion of the preference and satisfaction based research is

connected with existing facilities. For example P. L. Martin and Black (2006) looked in their

research on the quality of the current workplace and on how important different elements in the

current workplaceareas factors keeping the employees with their current employer. Schwede et

al. (2008) analysed satisfaction ratings of 12 workplace environment features from more than

5 000 endusers in new, refurbished and unmodified office environments in order to understand how the

features affect enduser satisfaction and to investigate differences in satisfaction of

users in the different office settings. Also Langston et al. (2008) studied enduser satisfaction with the

existing physical work environment with the aim to analyze possible differences between users in

government, educational and commercial settings.

The Dutch Center for People and Buildings has developed a diagnostic tool which allows evaluating

and benchmarking work environments based on user experience. The tool also addresses the importance

of some work environment aspects to overall satisfaction and productivity (Maarleveld

et al. 2009). Surprisingly enough this kind of research with a focus on

what users see as important and their preferences seems to be fairly limited.

180

Two exceptions are Fleming (2005) and Lee (2006) who examine not only user satisfaction withtheir current workspaces but also measure users’ rating of importance and expectations towardstheir work environment or. Lee (2006) brings up the importance of not only measuringsatisfaction and concludes with the statement that “Without such research, specifyingemployees’ needs and understanding their expectation toward workplace might lead toincomplete workplace practice”.

User satisfaction with their current workplaces is a key research area in order to achieve betterworkplaces. However, in order to develop the user-orientation it is important to widen theresearch agenda and identify more precisely what the actual user preferences are instead offocusing solely on how they are adapting and experiencing the existing situation andenvironment.

As office users are not alike, there is also a need to better understand the variety of users andtheir needs and preferences. One contribution was made by Erlich and Bichard (2008) who intheir research focused on matching the needs of older knowledge workers with the open planoffice space. They found that the workplace is good for collaboration and teamwork activities,but that it fails to provide environments for tasks that require concentration, ways of workingthat are alternative to the computer, and rest and recuperation. As pointed out by the researchersthemselves, the study was intentionally limited to the experiences of older workers, andtherefore it can only be assumed that younger workers will share many of the needs pointed outby the older colleagues. (Erlich & Bichard 2008.)

Finally, there is a need for a more holistic approach of workplaces. The workplace does not onlyconsist of the physical building and the different spaces and solutions it provides: when aimingto meet workplace needs and preferences of office employees also the location, services and thevirtual environment needs to be investigated.

3. Generational difference or age difference?

Kupperschmidt (2000) defines generations as “an identifiable group that shares birth years, agelocation, and significant life events at critical developmental stages”. A lot of published materialsuch as books, articles and conference presentations can be found on generational differencesand the serious consequences that can follow if organizations do not consider these in theirmanagement. For example, members of Generation Y are found to be independent, they enjoychallenging work, want immediate feedback and love freedom and flexibility. If they cannotfind opportunities for ongoing education, socializing and creativity in an organization, they willgo somewhere else. (C. A. Martin 2005.)

There is however those who are sceptical towards the significance of the generation gap, if itexists at all.Giancola (2006) reviewed a wide body of research on the theory of generationaldifferences, found a lack of published research in academic journals on the issue and ends upsuggesting that “the generational approach may be more popular culture than social science”.

181

He points out several other major issues with the generational approach, such as the findingswhich indicate that the factors that motivate the generations are surprisingly similar.

Another challenge pointed out by Giancola (2006) is that researchers do not agree on the birthperiods for the different generations. For example the Baby Boomers have in recent researchbeen classified as the people born 1946-1961 (Cennamo & Gardner 2008), 1945-1964 (Wong etal. 2008) and 1946-1964 (Chen & Choi 2008). The classification of generations should alsoconsider the geographical aspect, as the generations, by the definition provided byKupperschmidt (2000), share also location and significant life events. Therefore adaptinggeneration classifications from other cultures can be misleading.

Another challenge in generational research is that some of the characteristics of generations arein fact more dependent on experience and life stage than on generational issues. Most of theolder workforce has experienced changes in their work environment; they have for exampleseen their office change from a cellular office to an open office. Having experienced a privateroom is not self evident for their younger colleagues. Another aspect possibly influencing theworkplace needs and preferences of older workers is ageing, which can be associated withdecline in various abilities such as physical strength and agility, perception, memory, learning,hearing and sight (Erlich & Bichard 2008).

Whether influenced by generational differences or other issues, it is still important to understandif and how needs and preferences of office users of different age vary. In order to understandhow to meet the workplace needs and preferences of the entire workforce, more information isrequired about the possible differences in workplace needs and preferences of employees ofdifferent ages. In this research we decided to examine workplace preferences of different agegroups rather than defined generations, in order to avoid the risk of defining generationsincorrectly or to make misleading conclusions about generational differences - which could infact be consequences of e.g. experience and life stage.

4. Methodology

Understanding office users’ preferences concerning their workplace requires data from a scaleof various real estate and workplace elements. For this research an internet based survey withemail invitations was selected as the appropriate data collection method.

The questionnaire was developed by a group of researchers in cooperation with industrialspecialists during spring 2009. The complete survey included a wide range of logical questionswith multiple choice answers consisting of options that suit each respondent. Some openquestions were added to the survey to get additional new insights. The survey consisted ofquestions in which the respondents evaluated given work environment attributes with a five stepscale: not important, less important, neutral, important to some extent, and very important. Thispart of the questionnaire was further divided in to 4 sections based on the object of thequestions: locational attributes, service attributes, office building attributes and workspaceattributes. The questionnaire included 81 attributes which were divided in categories as shown

182

in Table 1. At the end of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to give backgroundinformation of themselves such as age, gender, education and position.

Table 1: Attributes included in the questionnaire

Category Amount of attributes

Location 12

Services 30 (of which 14 within walking distance and16 in the office building)

Office building 21

Workspace 18

Total 81

The survey was carried out during spring 2009. It was sent via e-mail to office employees in theHelsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA), which is the most significant investment region fordomestic and international investors in Finland. The questionnaire was sent to 4 275 employeesin 21 organisations. A total of 1116 answers were received of which 1006 were taken in tofurther analysis. The return rate was 26,0 per cent.

The analysis started with a principal component analysis (PCA) to develop an understanding ofthe underlying features that office users prefer in a similar way. Through the PCA a total of 19factors were extracted. In the extraction 8 attributes failed to load and were removed. Therotation method was Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

After the PCA the respondents were divided in to five groups based on their year of birth. Thefive groups were respondents born 1940-1949 (7,3 per cent of the respondents), 1950-1959(27,5 per cent), 1960-1969 (28,8 per cent), 1970-1979 (23,9 per cent and 1980-1989 (12,5 percent). Factor scores were extracted by regression analysis and used to identify where factordifferences between the preferences of the age groups could be found. In order to confirm theanalysis, DA was used to determine the relevant factors for the grouping of respondents to theirrespective age group. The potency index was then calculated for the resulting relevant factors toreveal the order of influence these factors had on the discriminant model. Stepwise estimationwas used for construction of the discriminant model. The calculations were done with StatisticalPackage for the Social Science (SPSS).

5. Results

The Principal Component Analysis resulted in 19 factors that consist of 73 attributes. Thefactors and the attributes they comprise are presented in the attachment of this paper. Factor 1comprises the majority of the sustainability attributes related to the building. Factor 2 includeselements from the virtual environment. Factor 3 consists of work related services while factors7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17 include services that serve the individual. Factors 4, 14 and 18 describethe image of the building and area. Factor 5 supports commuting by car, while factor 10 refers

183

to arriving to work by bicycle. Factors 6 and 15 include elements concerning the possibility toinfluence on the work environment and factors 9, 16 and 19 describe collaboration and privacyattributes. The total variance explained was 67,1 %.

Analysis of the factor scores of the different age groups (Figure 2) and the potency indexesTable 2) indicate that there are some differences in the workplace preferences of different agegroups. In order to give the reader a better overview of the preference differences, the results arepresented in seven themes as follows: service preferences (factors 3,7,8,11,12,13 and 17),virtual and mobility preferences (factor 2), collaboration and privacy preferences (factors 9, 16and 19), image preferences (factors 14,4,18), impact preferences (factors 6 and 15)sustainability preferences (factor 1) and commuting preferences (factors 5 and 10).

Table 2: Potency Indexes of the resulting relevant factors

Factor Potency Index Factor Potency Index

Factor 7 0,149 Factor 9 0,110

Factor 12 0,133 Factor 13 0,104

Factor 10 0,119 Factor 11 0,104

Factor 5 0,115 Factor 6 0,063

5.1 Service preferences

The services preference theme consists of factors 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17. The servicesincluded in the survey were both work related services, such as lobby, posting and meetingroom services, and services that serve the individual. Based on the result, the variation inpreferences concerning work related services was fairly low.

Bigger preference differences were however found concerning services that serve the individual.Practical services such as daycare services in the area and building, laundry and car rental, werevalued much higher by the group born in the 1970’s than the others. This can probably beexplained by the fact that this age group is the one most likely to have children that attend daycare. The older age groups value personal services, such as beauty, culture, bank and postservices near the workplace, higher than the younger generations. The younger ones do on theother hand appreciate restaurants, cafés and bars in the area more than the older generations.

Figure 2: Factor scores

184

The restaurant and café offering in the building also seems to be more important for the youngeremployees than the older ones, but the difference is not significant.

The preferences concerning workout services (e.g. fitness center in the building) did not differremarkably between the generations although, surprisingly enough, these services were moreappreciated by the respondents belonging to the oldest and the two youngest age groups (40’s,70’s and 80’s).

5.2 Virtual and mobility preferences

The virtual and mobility preference theme consists of factor 2, which comprises attributes of thevirtual environment and the possibility to choose type of workplace according to the currenttask. Based on the results, there are small differences between the age groups, but these are notsignificant and the factor was not relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective agegroups.

The small differences that were found indicate that the younger age groups see the virtualenvironment and mobility a little bit more important than the older age groups. The group bornin the 1980’s is the one that has indicated the virtual environment most important, followed bythe respondents born in the 1970’s. However, the group that rated these issues least importantcompared to the others is the group of respondents born in the 1950’s and not the 1940’s, whichcould perhaps have been expected.

5.3 Collaboration and privacy preferences

The collaboration and privacy preference theme includes factors 9, 19 and 16. The issuescovered by these factors are work environments that support team work and openness, that theworkplace supports tasks that require privacy and the possibility to network with others in thebuilding.

Based on the results the privacy preferences are very similar for all age groups. All respondentsvalued their privacy to the same extent, although it can be noted that the respondents born in the1950’s valued privacy a bit more than the others. The difference is however not considerable.Privacy preferences can perhaps be better explained based on the tasks the users are completingrather than age.

The collaboration and networking preferences did however count for a more considerabledifference: the youngest group of respondents stand out as valuing work environments thatsupport team working and socializing within the team much higher than all the other groups.The two oldest age groups on the other hand value the possibility to network with others in thebuilding much more than the younger ones, but based on the DA this factor was not relevant ingrouping the respondents.

185

5.4 Image preferences

The image preferences consists of factors 4, 14 and 18 of which the two first factors portray theimage of the area and building and the last one the importance of how the workspace supportsthe image and values of the organization.

The differences in image preferences between the groups are not considerable; none of thefactors were relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective age groups. Smalldifferences can however be noted. An interesting finding is that the image of the area andbuilding is seen most important by the youngest and the oldest age groups while the three othergroups value this aspect less. The safety and cleanliness of the area is valued most by the threeoldest groups while the respondents born in the 1970’s and 1980’s do not see this aspect asimportant as the others. A workspace that supports the image and values of the organization isperceived less important by the respondents born in the 1940’s and the 1950’s than by theothers.

5.5 Impact preferences

The impact preferences refer to the possibility of the individual to be able to have an impact onhis or her work environment. The theme includes factors 6 and 15 of which the first representsthe possibility to adjust the indoor climate and the second includes the possibility to adjustfurniture and have an influence on workplace development.

Neither of the two factors was relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective agegroups. The results indicate that being able to adjust the indoor climate is more important for theolder age groups than the younger ones. The possibility to have an influence on workplacedevelopment and to adjust the office furniture is on the other hand valued most by therespondents born in the 1960’s, followed by the respondents born in the 1970’s and 1980’s, butthe differences are not as significant as concerning the indoor climate.

5.6 Sustainability preferences

The sustainability preferences theme consists of factor 1 which covers the sustainabilitycharacteristics of the building and its management, such as energy efficiency, recycling, greencleaning and possible green building certificates.

Some differences were found in the preferences of the groups. The two oldest age groups seethe sustainability characteristics of the building most important compared to the others while therespondents born in the 1970’s are ones valuing these features the least. The differences werehowever not significant and the sustainability factor was not relevant in grouping therespondents in to their respective age groups.

186

5.7 Commuting preferences

The commuting preferences theme consists of factor 5 which describes the preferencesconcerning issues that support commuting by car and factor 10 which contrary consists ofattributes that support bicycling to work. Both factors were relevant in the grouping of therespondents. What really stands out is the youngest age group not caring much about issues thatsupport commuting by car but highly valuing characteristics of the workplace that supportriding a bicycle to work. Based on the results, the commuting issue is in general not importantto the oldest respondents compared to the others.

6. Conclusions and further research

The aim of this paper was to identify the differences in the work environment preferences ofdifferent age groups. The research was done by analyzing the results of an internet questionnaireconcerning office users’ preferences conducted in the Helsinki Metropolitan area.

The results indicate that there are some differences in the workplace preferences of different agegroups. The biggest preference differences were found concerning personal services,commuting by car or bicycle, workspace that supports team work and innovation, the restaurantoffering in the neighborhood and adjustability of the indoor climate while the smallestdifferences were found concerning privacy, workout services, the café and restaurant offering inthe building and the image of the area and building.

The cluster with respondents born in the 1980’s stands out as valuing features that supportbicycle commuting and work environments that support team work, social interaction andinnovation more than the other clusters. The preference trend line of the 70’s cluster is similar tothe one of the 80’s cluster but with smaller peaks.

Characteristic for the 40’s and 50’s clusters are seeing personal services more important than theother clusters. These two clusters also value sustainability features and networking possibilitiesin the building more than the other clusters. The virtual environment and the possibility tochoose work desk based on ones tasks were preferred less compared to the other clusters but itshould be noted that the differences were not significant. The preferences of the 60’s clusterseem to represent the average preferences of all respondents.

The results give new insights on what office users of different age prefer in their workenvironments. The information of user preferences is valuable both for user organizations andfacilities management. Based on the results it is evident that the workplace is no longer astandardized product: one has to pay more attention to options provided.

There is still a need for more research with the focus on needs and preferences of office users ofdifferent generations as the matter is too often discussed based on anecdotal verification and noor diminutive academic research evidence. The main limitation of the study is the use of cross-sectional data which makes it difficult to determine if the identified differences in preferences

187

are due to generational differences or if these are a result of age and experience. It does howevergive indications whether there are differences in the workforce as it currently exists. In order togain more knowledge on this matter, a longitudinal study should be conducted. Additionally thecultural context has to be taken into account when generalising the results as this research islimited to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area.

References

Batenburg, R.S. & Voordt, T.J.V.D., 2008. Do facilities matter? In EFMC 2008Conference Proceedings. Manchester.

Brill, M., Weidemann, S. & The BOSTI Associates, 2001. Disproving widespreadmyths about workplace design, Kimball International.

Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A., 2009. Personalization in non-territorial offices: astudy of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(3), 169-182.

Cennamo, L. & Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomesand person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8),891-906.

Chan, J.K., Beckman, S.L. & Lawrence, P.G., 2007. Workplace Design: A NewManagerial Imperative. California Management Review, 49(2), 6-22.

Chen, P. & Choi, Y., 2008. Generational differences in work values: a study ofhospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 20(6), 595-615.

De Croon, E.M. et al., 2005. The effect of office concepts on worker health andperformance: a systematic review of literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119-134.

Erlich, A. & Bichard, J., 2008. The Welcoming Workplace: designing for ageingknowledge workers. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 273-285.

Fleming, D., 2005. The application of a behavioural approach to building evaluation.Facilities, 23(9/10), 393-415.

Giancola, F., 2006. The Generation Gap: More Myth than Reality. Human ResourcePlanning, 29(4), 32-37.

Haynes, B.P., 2008a. Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journalof Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 286-302.

Haynes, B.P., 2008b. The impact of office comfort on productivity. Journal of FacilitiesManagement, 6(1), 37-51.

Herzberg, F., 1987. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard BusinessReview, 65(5), 109-120, including a retrospective commentary (originallypublished in 1968).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B., 1959. The Motivation to Work, JohnWiley, New York.

Kupperschmidt, B., 2000. Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective

References

Batenburg, R.S. & Voordt, T.J.V.D., 2008. Do facilities matter? In EFMC 2008Conference Proceedings. Manchester.

Brill, M., Weidemann, S. & The BOSTI Associates, 2001. Disproving widespreadmyths about workplace design, Kimball International.

Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A., 2009. Personalization in non-territorial offices: astudy of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(3), 169-182.

Cennamo, L. & Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomesand person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8),891-906.

Chan, J.K., Beckman, S.L. & Lawrence, P.G., 2007. Workplace Design: A NewManagerial Imperative. California Management Review, 49(2), 6-22.

Chen, P. & Choi, Y., 2008. Generational differences in work values: a study ofhospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 20(6), 595-615.

De Croon, E.M. et al., 2005. The effect of office concepts on worker health andperformance: a systematic review of literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119-134.

Erlich, A. & Bichard, J., 2008. The Welcoming Workplace: designing for ageingknowledge workers. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 273-285.

Fleming, D., 2005. The application of a behavioural approach to building evaluation.Facilities, 23(9/10), 393-415.

Giancola, F., 2006. The Generation Gap: More Myth than Reality. Human ResourcePlanning, 29(4), 32-37.

Haynes, B.P., 2008a. Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journalof Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 286-302.

Haynes, B.P., 2008b. The impact of office comfort on productivity. Journal of FacilitiesManagement, 6(1), 37-51.

Herzberg, F., 1987. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard BusinessReview, 65(5), 109-120, including a retrospective commentary (originallypublished in 1968).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B., 1959. The Motivation to Work, JohnWiley, New York.

Kupperschmidt, B., 2000. Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective

188

management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76.

Langston, C., Song, Y. & Purdey, B., 2008. Perceived conditions of workers in differentorganizational settings. Facilities, 26(1/2), 54-67.

Leaman, A., 1995. Dissatisfaction and office productivity. Facilities, 13(2), 13-19.

Lee, S.Y., 2006. Expectations of employees toward the workplace and environmentalsatisfaction. Facilities, 24(9/10), 343-353.

Lee, S.Y. & Brand, J.L., 2005. Effects of control over office workspace on perceptionsof the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 25(3), 323-33.

Maarleveld, M., Volker, L. & Voordt, T.J.V.D., 2009. Measuring employee satisfactionin new offices – the WODI toolkit. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(3), 181-197.

Martin, C.A., 2005. From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers needto know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.

Martin, P.L. & Black, R.T., 2006. Corporate real estate as a human resourcemanagement tool. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8(2), 52-61.

Oseland, N., 2009. The impact of psychological needs on office design. Journal ofCorporate Real Estate, 11(4), 244-254.

Schwede, D.A., Davies, H. & Purdey, B., 2008. Occupant satisfaction with workplacedesign in new and old environments. Facilities, 26(7/8), 273-288.

Windlinger, L., 2008. Direct and mediated effects of office design on performance. InEFMC 2008 Conference Proceedings. Manchester.

Wong, M. et al., 2008. Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do theyexist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 23(8), 878-890.

Voordt, T.J.V.D., 2004. Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces.Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(2), 133-148.

189

Attachment

The extracted factors and the total variance explained

AttributesFactorloading Communality

Percent ofvarianceexplained

Factor 1 Environmental friendly cleaning ,849 ,788Environmental friendly interior and surface materials ,835 ,755Energy efficiency of the building ,797 ,709Spaces support environmental responsibility ,796 ,763Environmental certifications ,775 ,679Diverse recycling possibilities ,763 ,693Communication concerning energy efficiency ,762 ,669Environmental friendliness of catering services ,750 ,638 8,6 %

Factor 2 Possibility to use virtual communication channels ,787 ,709Wireless connection in the office ,743 ,705Possibility to work mobile by using mobile equipment ,739 ,632Wireless connection in the building ,635 ,681Possibility to use virtual meeting places ,633 ,547Possibility to choose work station depending on task ,457 ,396 5,1 %

Factor 3 Bookable meeting rooms in the building ,769 ,654Tele and videoconference services in the building ,746 ,713Lobby service in the building ,667 ,626Postal services in the building ,643 ,566Video conference possibilities that reduce need to travel ,619 ,634 4,4 %

Factor 4 Image of the building ,733 ,743First impression when entering the building ,679 ,740Image of the area ,676 ,671The area is modern ,637 ,601Cultural history of the area ,556 ,643High quality representation spaces ,418 ,585 4,4 %

Factor 5 A sufficient amount of parking areas in the area ,813 ,782Accessibility by car ,811 ,799Accessibility by public transportation -,666 ,682Accessibility by walking/bike -,616 ,638Car cleaning service in the building ,476 ,600Location near city/town centre -,445 ,576 4,2 %

Factor 6 Adjustment possibility of Air conditioning ,925 ,921Adjustment possibility of Temperature ,922 ,910Adjustment possibility of Lightning ,822 ,768 3,8 %

Factor 7 Day care facility within walking distance ,843 ,764Day care facility in the building ,796 ,732Car rental within walking distance ,644 ,625Laundry service within walking distance ,457 ,585Hotel within walking distance ,440 ,557 3,5 %

Factor 8 Fitness centre in the building ,830 ,789Guided training in the building ,795 ,746Possibilities for sports within walking distance ,557 ,651

190

AttributesFactorloading Communality

Percent ofvarianceexplained

Physiotherapist in the building ,475 ,599 3,4 %Factor 9 Spaces support team work ,773 ,704

Spaces support social interaction and tacit knowledge transfer ,766 ,681Spaces support innovation ,580 ,565Spaces support openness and transparency ,555 ,538 3,3 %

Factor 10 Bicycle storage in the building ,849 ,789Shower and changing facilities ,797 ,747Accessibility by bike ,698 ,619 3,3 %

Factor 11 Cafeteria within walking distance ,800 ,747Restaurant within walking distance ,784 ,690Bar within walking distance ,585 ,524 3,3 %

Factor 12 Beauty services within walking distance ,785 ,741Beauty services in the building ,700 ,735Cultural services within walking distance ,517 ,613 3,1 %

Factor 13 Bank within walking distance ,821 ,762Post office within walking distance ,794 ,760Occupational Healthcare within walking distance ,398 ,502 2,8 %

Factor 14 Cleanliness of the area ,789 ,740Safety of the area ,774 ,728Proximity of nature ,554 ,598 2,8 %

Factor 15 Adjustability of Office furniture ,662 ,535Workplace supports wellbeing at work ,575 ,511Possibility to influence workplace development ,533 ,531 2,4 %

Factor 16 Players from the same industry in the building ,816 ,739Clients and other interest groups in the building ,789 ,692 2,3 %

Factor 17 Restaurant in the building ,792 ,695Cafeteria in the building ,697 ,697 2,3 %

Factor 18 Office reflecting the values of the organisation ,682 ,721Office supporting the image of the organisation ,665 ,747 2,2 %

Factor 19 Spaces support tasks that require concentration and privacy ,656 ,596Possibility to store and archive documents in physical format ,458 ,497 2,0 %

Total 67,1 %