1

Greening the office and job satisfaction

1


David Uzzell
Department of Psychology
University of Surrey


I just fancy being comfortable. Its got to be comfortable so if I can put things around to make me
feel more comfortable I will. And plants are one of them. (Jillian, office worker)


Greening Workspaces

It is an axiomatic position in environmental psychology that the physical features of the environment
interact with psychosocial affective elements, and this interaction not only gives meaning to place
and space, but is fundamental to our assessment of place (Moser and Uzzell, 2003). The
environmental context is a crucial aspect of psychological processes; change the context and the
psychological processes change. Individual psychology is not independent of the socio-spatial setting
in which it occurs, whether it is a social or and environmental setting. When it comes to
understanding human perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours in real-world settings then the
environment is a critical factor that needs to be taken into account. One such setting is the
workplace. We cannot assess job satisfaction, productivity and well-being independently of the
setting in which work occurs. The nature of the work we do in all its manifestations will influence our
perception, understanding and response to the environment in which it is taking place. Equally, the
socio-spatial setting will impact upon job satisfaction, productivity and well-being. If we are to
understand one or the other, we need to investigate both.

A considerable amount of research has been undertaken over the last three decades into the
restorative effects of the environment, especially the natural environment (Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan and
Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). As Bringslimark, Hartig and Patil (2009, p422) conclude, Studies have
found that passive and active engagement with nature outdoors can, for example, increase positive
affect, reduce psycho-physiological arousal, and renew an ability to perform tasks that require
concentration. On the basis of these findings, the question has been raised as to whether the
presence of plants indoors or visual access to greenspaces outside (i.e., through a window) can have
corresponding benefits. In other words, to what extent does greening up the environment have
positive psychological and physiological effects? Does the presence of plants in offices lead people to
evaluate the office environment more effectively? Do plants help employees to feel better about
their employing organisation or their managers? Does it lead to a less stressful working
environment? Does it lead to more productive outputs individually and collectively? Of course, there
are significant differences between the outdoor and indoor environments. Experiencing nature in an
outdoor environment tends to be an immersive experience one is surrounded by nature visually,
sonically, olfactorily. In the office environment one tends to experience plants passively. Although a
passive experience, for many simply being able to see plants - something living and growing is
important, rewarding and has behavioural consequences. This is the subject of this paper.

For office-based workers, up to 50% of their waking hours are spent in their office. Hence the
workplace environment is important to both individuals and organisations (Paul, 1994). Job
satisfaction can be measured in many ways but always combines person (e.g., levels of absenteeism,
lateness, sickness and productivity) and physical attributes (e.g. preferences for ventilation,

1
Published in Uzzell, D. (2013) Greening the office and job satisfaction in L. Rubens and M. Pierrette (eds)
Psychology at Work, Qubec: Presses de l'Universit Laval.
2

temperature levels, humidity and noise). Job satisfaction is directly related to satisfaction with the
work environment (Anjum, 1998); for organisations it is vital as a good working environment means
maximum productivity and minimum employee absence (Lam, Baum and Pine, 2003; Dale and
Griliches, 1967; Ulrich, 2002). High staff turnover is costly to companies, both in terms of replacing
the lost staff and the negative consequences on those who remain (Hinkin and Tracey, 2000). Open
office design has been found to be negatively related to workers satisfaction with their physical
environment and perceived productivity, compared with traditional individual offices (Brennan,
Chugh and Kline, 2002; Anjum, 1998). Workplaces are essentially a hub for communication; hence
the ongoing trend towards open offices (Vischer, 1999). Thus it is important to create an
environment that is conducive to communication, whilst providing privacy or quiet when a job
requires (Kenreich, 2001). Research evidence suggests that there are certain environments which
improve interpersonal communication opportunities (Parkinson, 1980; Asaumi et al, 1995). There
are interpersonal differences in terms of needs for privacy relating to an employees age; older
workers prefer more private office arrangements to facilitate work and maintain their performance
efficiency (Kupritz, 2003). This may be due to lingering ideas around the need and preference for
traditional individual office spaces. Notwithstanding this, it is increasingly recognised, particularly
within high-tech industries that modern offices are centres for communication and the exchange of
ideas rather than private spaces in which individuals carry out individual work. In order to overcome
a rigid demarcation of space, hard barriers (e.g., walls) are often replaced with soft barriers (e.g.,
screens) which allow some visual and audio communication across space while preserving a degree
of privacy and demarcating an individuals territory. These can be wooden/cloth screens but they
might equally be plants. To what degree do screens in general and plants in particular contribute to
a better working environment?

Trying to identify the correlates between the physical environment and human behaviour is always
difficult, precisely because many studies adopt a correlational framework and thus causality is
impossible to determine. The example of plants as screens is an example of such a cause-effect
relationship which is often asked for by designers and occasionally claimed by researchers. But such
relationships are methodologically difficult to demonstrate. If an evaluation study discovers that
office workers are much happier after the space has been effectively demarcated with plants, would
this be due to the plants or simply demarcation? The suggestion is that plants provide a permeable
barrier and are thus not hard like a screen. Or would it be simply due to the fact that plants have
non-work associations? A painting or a piece of sculpture might have a similar effect. However, a
good office environment with greenery has been linked to decreases in staff turnover, possibly due
to decreased stress and higher job satisfaction. To know whether such barriers as plants have a
beneficial effect requires an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (Bringslimark,
Hartig and Patil, 2009).


Research on the Beneficial Effects of Plants

This paper continues by reviewing some of the research literature which makes claims concerning
the physical and psychological benefits of greening office environments. This review focuses on the
research evidence which has sought to assess the physiological and psychological impact of plants
on employees, in terms of their role in stress reduction, their impact on air quality, employees sense
of well being in a green environment, and finally the contribution that plans make to office
workers sense of place through the personalising of space and creating a sense of identity. The
paper concludes with a qualitative empirical study which sought to explore, these issues through a
number of focus group discussions.


3

Plants and stress

Stress is a major cause of absenteeism and staff turnover, e.g. in a Pennsylvania telephone company
25% of employees left with stress related illnesses (Kimeldorf and Kimeldorf, 1993). There is
evidence that an individuals perception of stress and their actual stress levels (measured using
physiological techniques) are lowered in the presence of nature and greenery. Visual exposure to
plants and nature, even if it is only for a few minutes, is a valuable tool for both physiological and
psychological recovery from stress (Ulrich, 2002). In the work environment, the use of posters of
outdoor scenes were found to alleviate some of the stress of office workers, and help to make the
workplace more pleasant (Stone and English, 1998). Recovery from stress and mood improvement
has consistently been found to be improved with visual exposure to scenes of nature (by means of
video recordings), based on physiological measures taken in laboratory conditions (Ulrich, Simons et
al, 1991). In a hospital environment, staff patients and visitors all claimed beneficial effects, such as
restoration from stress and improved mood from simply being able to view the hospital gardens
from the window. Park and Mattson (2008, 2009) found that patients in rooms with plants required
a shorter period in hospital, had less pain intensity and analgesic requirements, less anxiety and their
environment was rated more highly. However, there have been other studies undertaken in hospital
environments where the findings are mixed. Stress reduction also occurred when people walked
through a nature reserve compared to an urban setting (Hartig, Evans et al, 2003). Car driving
commuters have been found to have a positive response to stress and mood when driving, even
over short distances, through settings dominated by nature and greenery (Parsons, Tassinary, et al,
1998).


Plants and air quality

Raised levels of indoor air pollution may reduce productivity (Wyon, 2004). Where a building is
considered sick, employees report many associated symptoms such as dry eyes and skin and
breathing complaints, which overall relate to a decrease in job satisfaction (Chao, Schwartz, Milton
and Burge, 2003). The overall intensity of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms has been found
to increase when indoor air was not humidified (Reinikainen and Jaakkola, 2001). Research has been
undertaken on the use of plants in offices and other indoor environments to counter the effects of
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS).

Predominantly focussing on air quality improvements, stemming from Wolverton, McDonald and
Watkins research (1984), it is suggested that the use of plants, greenery and foliage is beneficial to
air quality, especially in open plan office environments (Wood, 2003). This is somewhat of an
anomaly as the actual improvements in air quality in environments with free air exchange have
elsewhere been found negligible (e.g. Schmitz, Hilgers and Weidner, 2000) compared to the findings
from placing plants in sealed units (the method used by Wolverton). It was not until a living wall
was introduced to an office environment that any substantial difference was found in air quality
(Dixon, 2004). Dixon developed a 40 breathing wall incorporating hundreds of plants and aquatic
species which he believes will solve most indoor air quality problems; an active wall is also being
developed linked to the air circulation systems of the building to measure the effectiveness of the
plants in reducing atmospheric pollutants in a project called CLER (Canada Life Environment Room:
Ledger, 1999). Further research following Wolvertons methodologies suggests that certain plants
are very effective for reducing odours in the atmosphere, particularly ammonia (Oyabu, Sawada,
Onodera, Takenak and Wolverton, 2003).

A growing body of research suggests that office occupants do not respond to actual air quality.
Rather, when plants are present, there is a perception that air quality is improved compared to when
4

they are not. Equally, perceived air quality is significantly affected by the type and amount of
ventilation (Seppanen, and Fisk, 2004). Office residents reports of symptoms relating to air
pollution and their rating of environmental acceptability is quite distinct from real indoor air
quality determined from empirical measurements of indoor pollutants (Sekhar, Tham, and Cheong,
2003). Employees who perceived their psychosocial work environment negatively had more
complaints than others regarding the indoor environment and more symptoms attributed to the
indoor air (Lahtinen, Sundman-Diger and Reijula, 2004). It may be that underlying causes of SBS are
not actually related to the physical environment per se but are simply perceived to be so by
employees. Subjective responses to questions about causes of health problems of employees in an
office building showed that employees preferred a more natural environment, especially where
offices were fully air conditioned (Muhic, and Butala, 2004). These research cases support the
findings of Lahtinen, et al (2002) that psychosocial processes play a significant role in indoor air
problems, and that it is important to gather information on the organisation more generally when
considering SBS (Lahtinen et al, 2004).

A sense of place: control, personalising space and identity

The presence of plants has been found to improve employees sense of well-being compared to the
absence of plants (Manos and Traeger-Synodinos, 1998). In a healthcare environment, elderly
patients were found to respond positively to plants which staff attributed to the feelings of overall
well being that resulted from plants being present (Rappe and Linden, 2002). Maintaining general
subjective well-being is most reliant upon self-confidence, mood and ability (Sjorgren-Ronka, Ojanen
et al, 2002); mood and ability to concentrate are all enhanced by the presence of plants.

A sense of control over ones environment is an important issue which recurs repeatedly in the
environmental psychology research literature. Feelings of control and loss of perceived control is a
critical part of the behavioural constraint model (Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1970; Stokols, 1978,
Zlutnick and Altman, 1972). Feelings of not being able to master a situation produces psychological
reactance (Brehm, 1966) and in some cases an attempt to recover his/her freedom of action (Strube
and Werner, 1984). Having freedom of action or controlling ones environment is an important
aspect of everyday life and an individuals well-being, and is considered crucial to an employees job
satisfaction and work life quality (Matthews, 1989). This could include a sense of control that an
office employee has, or believes they have, over their work environment such as bringing plants into
the office. When workers feel in control of their office environment, there is enhanced
environmental satisfaction and communication (Huang, Robers, and Chang, 2004). Vroon (1990)
found that where people have no ability to act on the environment and see the effects, office
workers are forced to adapt their behaviour to the environment resulting in increased stress (Anjum,
1998). Where office environment changes were made without the involvement of staff, productivity
was found to decrease (Vischer, 1999). What appears to be important in the perception of the work
environment is an individuals self-belief of their success or failure (Fischer, Tarquinio and Vischer,
2004). In installing, maintaining and servicing plants in offices the desire for some form of control
over the environment can be accommodated, both to the benefit of employees (in terms of job
satisfaction) and employers (in improved productivity). People feel less threatened by change where
they have some choice.

Kenreich (2001) observed that once basic needs have been met, staff then began to personalise their
office spaces with higher order needs such as plants, posters and pictures. These were elements of
the office which related to pleasure and individuality. Bergs (1992) showed that some influence
over the arrangement of an office improved job satisfaction (e.g., location of furniture, choice of
posters or plants). Where staff had the freedom to move around and influence environmental
conditions to optimise them for their personal preference there was a positive response to job
5

satisfaction (Donald and Sui, 2001). The impact on health of having a role in decision making
relating to natural resources, the ambient environment and the work environment is considered
vitally important, especially considering the number of other decisions made at work over which
many employees have no influence (Baranski, 2002).


Research Study

In order to explore some of these issues further, a study was undertaken to explore office users
experience of plants, and their opinion of the benefits of plants. The principal methodology
employed was focus group discussions among office workers in the UK. In total, six focus groups
were recruited (three under 35s age groups and three over 35s age groups), at three locations in
England. A total of 65 people attended the six focus groups: South East: under 35s, 13 participants;
over 35s, 10 participants. North West: under 35s, 10 participants; over 35s, 12 participants.
Midlands: under 35s, 10 participants, over 35s 10 participants. Almost 86% of participants were
women. The initial discussion lasted for approximately one hour, during which time six areas of
interest were the main subjects.

All participants were recruited as office based employees from a range of small, medium and large
employers, some international businesses and some public sector employees. They worked in a
variety of shared, individual and open plan offices. Approximately 50% had plants in their office, and
of these about 66% had provided these plants themselves, whilst the remaining 33% worked in
buildings where maintained plants were supplied. In some cases, participants had brought their own
plants in addition to the plants that were supplied.

Results

In order to investigate underlying issues that would contribute to these wider aims, the main points
for discussion groups focussed on four main issues:
1. the workplace, job satisfaction and work performance
2. impact of plants on the working environment
3. perceptions of employers in relation to work spaces and plants
4. the role of end users in decision making

The results are presented illustrating the principal responses to these three areas. Where there
were differences between ages, location, or gender, participants office type (individual, shared,
open plan) these are noted under each subject area. It is interesting to note that there were very
few differences between the groups relating to any socio-demographic differences. Where there
were some minor differences these were: male participants generally took a more pragmatic
approach to the workplace and accepted a no-frills working environment, but they were equally
likely to say that enjoyed the presence of plants. Younger participants were likely to personalise
their workspace with toys and pictures whilst older participants were more likely to bring plants.
Open-plan office workers reported noise problems more frequently than others.

1. The Workplace, Job Satisfaction and Work Performance

These questions focussed on the extent to which the working environment in general impacts on
both job satisfaction and work performance. All groups were asked to discuss only the physical
environment of their workplace, and not to dwell on people, or other social aspects.
Overwhelmingly, responses show that the working environment was crucial to participants belief
that they were able to work comfortably and successfully. All participants could verbalise the good
6

and bad points of their physical office environment and relate these to how they felt about their
work, and how it impacted upon their performance.

Participants described good aspects of their workplace, which included natural light, good lighting,
space, an airy place, good views, clean and fresh appearance, good/modern furniture, up to date IT
equipment, natural ventilation, personal space/territory.

Its warm, its airy, its light.
Weve got a window with a nice view.
Theres only two of us sharing so there is enough space for two people, so I suppose thats a
good thing.
Weve got a modern office which is spacious. Its got a lot of light coming in, full length
windows all the way through.
Quite a nice office, quite spacious, plenty of room. I dont like to feel crowded.

Less favourable aspects of the workplace included noise and distraction (particularly in an open plan
office), clutter, no views from windows, lack of natural light, no natural ventilation, lack of storage,
open offices that other people walk through, cramped space, no control over heating, poor or
inadequate equipment, no privacy.

You kind of can talk and forget that theres other people behind the board who can actually
hear what youre saying and vice versa
You just dont see any daylight. None from when you walk in really to the evening.
Weve got windows down one end of the office and thats it. Its all artificial light in there.
Very dark.
It can be noisy in the open plan. Youve got people on the phone, people doing work.
My view is the back of the warehouse and so I dont get any natural light and I feel
claustrophobic
The windows dont open.
It feels that there are too many people and too much work in a small place.

Many participants spontaneously mentioned plants and greenery when they were giving opinions
about attractive aspects of their workplace.

Ive got a really nice outlook through my window. Its not exactly countryside but it actually
looks out over onto a wood.
It does help [the view], theres a tree outside as well which makes it pleasant to work in as
well.
Its quite a nice outlook you know, theres fields around so its far from bad.
I like a bit of fresh air and sometimes its nice to see a bit of greenery around, greenery and
pot plants or something like thatjust to make you feel at home or something like
that.

2. Impact of Plants on the Working Environment

Following the general discussion about the physical attributes of a good and less good workplace,
participants were asked to consider specifically what contribution plants could make to their
working environment and what changes plants made to the atmosphere of their office. In the first
instance there was a very positive response to having plants in offices. In all focus groups, at least
half of participants reported that they currently had plants in their office. Of these, about two-thirds
had provided these plants themselves or by a person in their office they were able to specify by
7

name, whilst the remaining third worked in buildings where maintained plants were supplied.
Generally, where plants had been provided by employees, it was clear that one person in the office
voluntarily took responsibility for supplying and caring for the plants.

We provide them ourselves. [Named person] is brilliant. We could have got little ones from
the company.
When I worked for another company we actually hired a firm to come in and bring our
plantsit was a big office and it did look nice and I used to like my plants.
When you come in through the foyer which is a glass foyer, there are palms and things,
when you get out of the lift there are palms and theyve just actually changed the
pots that theyre in. Looks nice.
The girls have made one of these little mini gardens, so that everyone just adds to it. Bit by
bit it is evolving.

Where participants worked in offices where there were no plants, a number of reasons were put
forward, but almost all specified that given the choice they would like to have plants around.

.....I like having them now theyre here in the office. I wouldnt want to get rid of them, but I
wouldnt think about getting them unless somebody else did really.
I think I would like to have them there but I wouldnt actually go and choose to buy them.
I mean theres no place to put a plant. I wouldnt dream of bringing a plant in. They would
die because of the light. Theres no natural light.
I would like them if there was somewhere to put them but the office is too cramped. Youve
got the shelving and what have you but theres nowhere to put them and you know,
no light.

Some participants had some ideas that plants were good for you in the office. Participants
reported that they believed the plants cleaned the air and helped to reduce the effects of computers
and other equipment.

Its good for the air isnt it to have plants.
I like to have plants cause I think it actually helps counteract the emissions from the
computers and equipment.
I used to work on one of the psychiatric wards; they made a big issue a couple of years ago
about paying God knows how much for big plants on the ward. And the amount of
people that said they felt better in themselves just to see a bit of nature.
The first plant I bought, my ex-boss used to smoke and so I bought a plant that had the
water in the plant. It got rid of the smell basically. It was a definite improvement.

When participants had brought plants to the office themselves, their presence was equated with
homeliness and comfort. They were associated with welcoming and inviting environments. There
was the pragmatic acceptance that it was necessary to spend a good deal of time at the workplace
and the ability to bring plants from home was much appreciated. This was much more apparent for
older groups than younger. Younger people were more likely to personalise their workspace with
pictures or other personal ephemera.

Ive got my plants and something that obviously Ive fetched in from home. And I suppose
its about fetching a part of you into your office space isnt it. The same way that
people fetch pictures of their family. Thats something that is yours for your space
really.
It would be nice if you could bring your own plant.
8

I think some staff enjoy watering them and taking care of them. I think it gives them a
break from their work. They like caring for something.
Its very welcoming to see plants.
Green is a relaxing colour anyway, so its nice to focus on the green and its a bit more
homely isnt it

Favourable comments were also made about paintings and pictures in the office, although it was
generally suggested that plants would be preferable. Some focus group members wanted an office
pet! Choice was an important issue brought up by most focus groups, when participants were
discussing aesthetic trimmings in their offices.

If you choose your plants and if you choose your pictures, or whatever, I mean its your own
choice. So in that instance its an extension of myself.
Pictures are fine but they tend to be corporate pictures, not growing.
I like both [pictures and plants] but I think its important to choose the pictures so that you
have your own choice of pictures.
I think in the same way you choose your plants carefully to go in various positions around
the office, I think the same with pictures. Its nice to be able to choose your own, not
corporate ones.
Id like to have a dog but not allowed one.
Thought of having a fish before now, but apparently health and safety wont allow that.

There was something apparently ephemeral and difficult for participants to capture when talking
about plants and their impact on job satisfaction and improvements to the workplace. Some
regarded plants as lifting the spirits. While the desire for an office pet may sound strange, its value
was, like plants, to introduce something living into the office environment.

When I was there on my own I liked the fact that Ive got a plant to talk to.
I think it has a calming effect.
Its like having the outside inside, that sort of you know greenery and when the weathers
not nice outside it gives you something to look at.
Its a bit like being trapped as well. If youre sat at your desk and having something green
about, its giving you a bit of freedom I suppose.
Its just a feel good.
Its important that theyre living. You do bond with plants.

3. Perceptions of Employers in Relation to Work Spaces and Plants

This third area of investigation addressed issues relating to whether employers were perceived
differently according to the office environment and to plants in workplaces. Key issues which would
change the perception of an employer for the better included being consulted about changes to the
office, consideration of employees, feeling that an employer considered employees to be people,
and employers providing offices which met the kind of criteria identified above for a good working
environment. Inclusion and consideration was a major discussion point for all focus groups:
participants argued that these two factors could either improve work performance or de-motivate
and end in poor performance.

Theres a feeling of being looked after you know, by doing that [planting entrance and
reception], by involving you. Theyre making an effort for the workers, being valued
where as we feel neglected.
9

Like [persons name] said about someone coming in to make sure your desk is okay and the
lighting is okay, its that feeling of being valued and respected as a worker.
You get more out of the workers if they feel valued.
I think I would like it if somebody could consider the demands of the job. Because thats not
considered at all. The fact that we do need space and quiet sometimes
I was working at a place before where I am now and they were actually banned, you
werent allowed plants, you werent allowed pictures, you werent allowed anything
personalised at all, he went and the whole office changed. Theyre much happier
people in there now.

The key issues which would change the perception of an employer for the worst included no control
over workplace or conditions, no consideration of employees as people, and employers providing
office space which in some way was associated with the poor aspects of the office environment
reported above. Again, the lack of consideration was equated with work performance. Focus group
participants clearly related their own performance to their concept of how they were treated by
their employer.

When you think how long youre actually at work, its a very big part of your life and
therefore if youre not, you know if you dont feel considered, then youre not gonna
perform well.
Youre just there to do the work. Never mind seeing you as a person. Youre an employee
and get on with it.
You just felt like a number yeah. You werent an individual. You know, you were just bums
on seats.

Participants did not believe that their attitudes to an employer would change whether or not plants
were provided, so long as other terms and conditions were good; the physical workplace was not
something that was considered until other important aspects of their work life were dealt with
satisfactorily. Furthermore, the earlier discussion about being consulted and having choice over
decisions also came to the fore.

I dont know if it would hugely change my opinion of my boss. Not a few plants, I dont
think. No.
I think they should just ask for your opinion as to where they [plants] can go or whatever.
I dont think you would view your employer being any different or what. Its just..... it
depends on your employer as well. Whether they give you decent holidays and pay
and things like that.
Id think he was up to something if he gave me a plant.
Decent terms and conditions. If they get those right then plants go a long way.
It would show that there was some thought put into the environment, so yes. But only if I
could choose them.

It was considered important that the first impression of a business was good and that this could be
enhanced by plants. However, it was noted that this must be extended to employees office spaces
and other workplaces to avoid resentment.
I think its so good for the image of a business if they all just looked good. Its like people
who go around in dirty shoes and you think, ooh you cant look after yourself. Its
just like something like that.
I think it makes a great impression, you know. I love the sight of plants because it sort of, as
you said before, it softens things. It gives a personal touch and I think its lovely.
10

I think its giving your company a type of personality. We had these plants, not now but in
our old reception we had always lots of plants and flowers and everything. We had
fresh fruit which was always put out and everything was always shiny and looked
wonderful. Thats important again to the industry that you work in.

4. The Role of End Users in Decision Making

It has already been noted that inclusion of employees in decisions over their office environment is
key to satisfaction with working conditions. However, most participants had little say over the total
design of their office only three out of the 65 participants had firsthand experience and control
over either re-designing an existing office or planning a new workspace: all these focus group
members were very positive towards the experience. Many others mentioned having input to a
redecorating phase, or refurbishment. Where there was some control over work space,
participants were more positive about their office environment and to their employer. Issues over
which they typically had some control included the layout of the office, with whom they sat,
pictures, posters and other personal affects. Aspects of the office over which participants had no
control reflected again their responses to questions at the beginning of the session about what were
good and bad features of their own workplace. These included a lack of natural light, no opening
windows to allow natural ventilation, dcor and air conditioning.

We had a budget to work with and we still had the confined space but there was some
discussion about where would we place the desks, anybody got any ideas. That was
good.
Recently ours was refitted, when we all went into this shared office and we were able to
choose our furniture, the colours and the colours of the carpet so that was good.
First time in 15 years that Ive been able to choose what colour carpet we got.
I think youd feel good about that [having a say in the office design]. Valued yeah. And I
think youd actually, you know youd be encouraged to actually work more. Yeah
work harder for them yeah. Go that extra bit, instead of saying no, Im sorry youre
paying for me to do so and so
We dont have any say whatsoever. You come in on a Monday morning, things have been
moved around, second hand furniture has been brought in from somewhere and its,
no, were not considered.

Many participants reported that though they had been asked about their opinions about the design
of their office, they believed their employer had not really acted upon this. This resulted not only in
frustration, but in some cases a more negative view of the employer.

In our situation they ask for our opinions and then they go and do what they want.
If they said, were doing this for you because, I think that would make a difference to what
you felt. Its like, its my office, why are you doing that but if they were making out
they were helping you, that would be completely different.
Its the powerlessness of being done towe had no say in the layout or anything else and it
was just that whole feeling of not having any choice.

Participants did believe that they had a say over plants that they had in their office, but this mostly
reflected the fact that they had provided the plants themselves. Those who had worked in buildings
where plants were provided had never been asked their personal preferences, but would have liked
to have been consulted.

11

Id want to choose otherwise wed all get a potted poinsettia or an orange chrysanthemum
or something like that which Id probably wilfully let die.
If you got a choice of ten or something, and you know it would be nice to choose.

Where plants were provided by someone else (i.e., the company or colleagues), participants
reported that they still enjoyed those plants being in the office and did not mind that they had not
had any say. When probed further however, there was still the opinion that having a say in what
would be provided in ones everyday working environment would be preferred. Inclusion could
therefore overcome issues relating to businesses being seen to spend money on aesthetic frills.

I worked on this ward once where they went out and spent a lot of money and the staff that
didnt pick the plants [complained].... You know, its too big, and why have they
forked out all this money, you know, so yeah it is important that people have their
say.

Conclusions

It should be stressed that this study did not seek to prove that plants have a beneficial effect from a
psycho-physiological perspective. It was beyond the scope of the research to attempt that. This
research focussed on office workers attitudes and affective responses to the benefits of plants. The
focus groups provided support for a number of research findings identified in the literature review.
Plants in offices are associated with positive responses and associations. Respondents used words
such as homely, inviting, welcoming and calming when describing exactly what plants brought to
their office environment. Plants were associated with reduced stress by the office residents
participating. There was acknowledgement that the workplace was a place in which participants
spent significant proportions of their time and was therefore an environment in which it was
extremely important to feel comfortable.

Participants identified good and bad aspects of their workplace. Equally, they related good and bad
aspects of their workplace with job satisfaction and work performance. It is noteworthy that
reference to plants or greenery had not been made by the focus group facilitator at this stage in the
discussion the comments and suggestions were voluntary and spontaneous. All participants
associated plants and views of outside greenspaces with satisfying aspects of their workplace and
having a positive impact on job satisfaction. It could therefore be concluded that the majority of
people viewed plants in offices as a desirable, relaxing and pleasing addition to their workplace.

In comparing plants with other aesthetic interventions, plants were favoured: they were living,
required interaction, and participants believed that they had other environmental benefits relating
to air quality, noise and humidity. An element of choice over plants and pictures was important to
office workers: hence many participants had made the effort to bring their own plants to the office.
In some cases, even when the corporation had provided plants, some participants had also brought
their own to the office linking them to home and their own identity.

It became apparent that the inclusion of staff in decisions about office design was a key aspect of job
satisfaction. Though few participants had full involvement, many reported that they had been able
to express an opinion over colours, carpets and furnishing and this resulted in them feeling valued
and having a sense of involvement. This reflects the importance of control as a critical factor in
peoples working environment and conditions. Whilst employees accepted that there may be little
that they can do about their actual office premises, they do appreciate employers who both try to
do their best for their employees and involve them in decision making. Aesthetic embellishments
were appreciated in the workplace although it was recognised that they were not necessary. Where
12

basic needs are not met (especially salary but also working conditions) placatory actions such as
buying plants could build up resentment amongst employees. Moreover, in terms of enhancing the
perception of employers, however, the role of plants did not figure highly.

(Bringslimark, Hartig and Patil, 2009) in their critical review of experimental and quasi-experimental
research examining whether indoor plants offer some of the same benefits provided by experiences
of nature outdoors concluded that:

The reviewed studies suggest that indoor plants can provide psychological benefits such as
stress-reduction and increased pain tolerance. However, they also showed substantial
heterogeneity in methods and results. We therefore have strong reservations about general
claims that indoor plants cause beneficial psychological changes. It appears that benefits are
contingent on features of the context in which the indoor plants are encountered and on
characteristics of the people encountering them. (p.431)

This, as a conclusion, is what we might expect as environmental psychologists. We know that
context is important, but that the characteristics of the people who are interacting with that
environment are critical as well; there will be an interaction between the two thereby making
deterministic predictions extremely unreliable. The relationship between an organisations culture,
the physical planning of the office environment and the evaluation of the organisations facilities
becomes most apparent when there is a mismatch. A mismatch often occurs when an office space is
planned according to criteria such as: how many people should it accommodate? How many square
feet should it occupy? How much equipment should it have? How should it look to visitors?
Questions typically posed and addressed by environmental psychologists have a different emphasis:
will the designs and space layout enhance or detract from the desired corporate work styles? Is the
organisation prepared to accept that employees have different working styles and that these should
be catered for in the provision of space and facilities? How much control does the organisation
currently exert over its employees time and space use? What rights (and responsibilities) do the
workforce have for managing their space and making such that it enhances their feelings of well-
being, their productivity and their sense of occupational fulfilment? In what way, for whom and how
does the management and design permit, encourage or enhance personal and group recognition,
environmental control (e.g., heating; lighting; ventilation, presence of plants), social integration and
identity, communication within and between working groups, and appropriate levels of privacy?
How are issues such individual/group identity, individual capacities, needs and preferences and
working patterns reflected in space planning and the allocation of environmental resources?

There are many ways of looking at the relationship between the employee, corporate culture and
physical facilities. The effective use of an organisations resources lies not in fitting the staff to the
workplace, but recognising that there will be a transaction between staff, organisational culture and
workplace. As we saw above a sense of control is not only important in terms of overcoming feelings
of helplessness, but on a positive note, control also enhances ones sense of well-being. This brings
us back to the methodological issue raised earlier. It might well be that the provision of plants
enhances employees sense of well-being as was demonstrated in the focus group discussions. But
the focus group discussions also revealed that some office workers were dissatisfied with more than
just the working environment. There were other shortcomings in the working environment that
extended beyond the physical environment to the organisational culture and their own lives. The
provision of plants and greenery in the office may be an important and beneficial addition to the
office landscape, but they will not compensate for other aspects of everyday life in the office.



13

References

Anjum, N. (1998). An environmental assessment of office interiors from the consumers perspective.
PhD Thesis. Dundee.
Asaumi, H., Nshina, H., Namba, R., Masui, Y., and Hashimoto, Y. (1995). Evaluation of impression of
ornamental foliage plants and psychological rating of rooms with ornamental foliage plants
by means of semantic differential method. Journal of Shita, 7, 34-45.
Baranski, B. (2002). Policy requirements and performance indicators for good practice in health,
environment and social management in the enterprises. International archives of
occupational and environmental health. 75. 51-56.
Bergs, J. (2002). Effect of healthy workplaces on well-being and productivity of office workers,
Proceedings of International Plants for People Symposium, Floriade, Amsterdam, NL.
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open office design: A longitudinal study.
Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279-299. Brownlee, S. 2004. Open Wide. FX. September
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G.G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical
review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 422-433.
Chao, H.J., Schwartz, J., Milton, D.K., Burge, H.A. (2003). The work environment and workers health
in four large office buildings. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111(9). 1242-1248
Dale, J., and Griliches, Z. (1967). The explanation of Productivity Change. Review of Economic
Studies 34 (3). 249-283
Dixon, M (2004). Guelph-Humber Plant Wall a Breath of Fresh Air, At Guelph, November 10, 2004 -
Volume 48, No. 17 (Available at http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/04-11-
10/featuresair.shtml accessed 24 January 2011)
Donald, I., and Sui, O.L. 2001. Moderating the stress impact of environmental conditions: the effect
of organisational commitment in Hong Kong and China. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 21(4). 353-368
Fischer, G.N., Tarquinio, C., and Vischer, J.C. 2004. Effects of the self-schema on perception of space
at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24(1). 131-140
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jammer, L.D., Davis, D.S.,and Garling, T. 2003. Tracking restoration in
natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(2). 109-123.
Hinkin, T.,and Tracey, J. 2000. The cost of turnover. The Cornell Quarterly. 41(3). 14-21
Huang, Y.H., Robers, M.M., Chang, K.I., 2004. The role of environmental control on environmental
satisfaction, communication and psychological stress effects of office ergonomics training.
Environment and Behavior. 36(5). 617-637
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benets of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15, 16218.
Kenreich, M.E. (2001). Physical settings and organisational success. Library collections, acquisitions
and technical services. 25. 67-79
Kimeldorf, M., and Kimeldorf, H. (1993). Work, education and the quality of life: Reconsidering
some twentieth century myths. International Journal of Career Management. 4(4).
Kupritz, V. (2003). Accommodating privacy to facilitate new ways of working. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research. 20(2). 122-135.
Lahtinen, M., Huuhtanen, P., Kahkonen, E., and Reijula, K. (2002). Psychosocial dimensions of
solving an indoor air problem. Indoor Air. 12(1). 33-46.
Lahtinen,M., Sundman-Diger, C., Reijula, K. (2004). Psychosocial work environment and indoor air
problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 61(2). 143-149
14

Lam, T., Pine, R., and Baum, T. (2003). Subjective Norms: effects on job satisfaction. Annals of
Tourism Research. 30(1). 169-177.
Ledger, B., (1999). "Canada Life environmental room", Canadian Consulting Engineer,
August/September 1999. Available at
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/reference/reference001418.html, accessed 24 January
2011)
Manos, J. and Traeger-Synodions, J. 1998. Focus: Plants and the Indoor Environment. OSH World.
(Available at http://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus/1998/199812.html accessed 24
January 2011)
Moser, G. and Uzzell, DL (2003). Environmental Psychology, in Millon, T., & Lerner, M.J.(Eds.),
Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology, New
York: John Wiley & Sons. pp 419 445.
Muhic, S., and Butala, V. (2004). The influence of indoor environment in office buildings on their
occupants: expected-unexpected. Building and Environment. 39(3). 289-296.
Oyabu, T., Sawada, A., Onodera, T., Takenaka, K., and Wolverton, B. (2003). Characteristics of
potted plants for removing offensive odours. Sensors and Actuators B. 89. 131-136
Park, S.-H., & Mattson, R. H. (2008). Effects of owering and foliage plants in hospital rooms on
patients recovering from abdominal surgery. HortTechnology, 18, 563568.
Park, S.-H., & Mattson, R. H. (2009). Therapeutic inuences of plants in hospital rooms on surgical
recovery. HortScience, 44, 14
Parkinson, R. (1980). Organisation space, employee perceptions and inter-personal behaviour. PhD
Theses. Bradford
Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R. and Grossman-Alexander, M., (1998). The view
from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 18, pp. 113139.
Paul, O. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor
Relations Review. 47 (2), 173-187.
Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H., and Rivlin, L.G. (1970). Environmental Psychology: Man and his
Physical Setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rappe, E., and Linden, L. (2002). Plants in health care environment: experiences of the nursing
personnel in homes for people with dementia. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 639: XXVI
International Horticultural Congress: expanding roles for horticulture in improving Human
Well-Being and Life Quality
Reinikainen, L, M., and Jaakkola, J,J, (2001). Effects of temperature and humidification in the office
environment. Archives of environmental Health. 56(4) 365-368.
Schmitz, Hilgers, U., and Weidner, M. (2000). Assimilation and metabolism of formaldehyde by
leaves appear unlikely to be of value for indoor air purification. New Phytology. 147. 307-
315
Sekhar, S.C., Tham, K.W., Cheong, K.W. (2003). Impact of airflow profile on indoor air quality a
tropical study. Building and Environment. 39(3). 255-266
Seppanen, O.A., Fisk, W.J. (2004). Summary of human responses to ventilation. Indoor Air. 14.
102-118
Sjogren-Ronka, T., Ojanen, M.T., Leskinen, E.K., Mustalampi, S.T., and Malkia, E.A. (2002). Physical
and psychosocial prerequisites of functioning in relation to work ability and general
subjective well-being among office workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environment
and Health. 28(3). 184-190.
Stokols, D. (1978). A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum and Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human
response to crowding. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum, pp 219-255.
Stone, N.J. and English, A (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on mood, satisfaction, and
performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, pp. 175185.
15

Strube, M. J. and Werner, C. (1984). Psychological Reactance and the Relinquishment of Control,
Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 10, 2, 225-234
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In I. Altman, & J. F.
Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85125). New York:
Plenum.
Ulrich, R., S., Simons, R., F., Losito, B., D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., A., Zelson, M., (1991). Stress recovery
during exposure to natural and urban environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
11, pp. 201 230
Ulrich, R.S., 2002. Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. Paper presented at Plants for People
Conference. Florida, 2002.
Vischer, J. (1999). Will This Open Space Work? Harvard Business Review. 77 (3). 28-40
Vroon, P.A. (1990). Psychologische aspecten van ziekmakende gebouwen, Utrecht, Rijksuniversiteit
Utrecht (in Dutch).
Wolverton, B.C., McDonald, R.C., Watkins, E.A. (1984). Foliage plants for removing indoor air
pollutants from energy efficient homes. Economic Botany. 38. 224-228.
Wood, R.A. (2003). Improving the indoor environment for Health, Well-Being and Productivity.
Paper presented at Greening Cities: a new urban ecology. April. Australian Technology
Park, Sydney.
Wyon, D.P, (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air.
14. 92-101.
16

Zlutnick S. and Altman, I. (1972). Crowding and human behavior. In J.F. Wohlwill and D.H. Carson
(Eds.), Environment and the social sciences (pp. 44-60). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.