See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321756204

The impact of environmental design on employee performance at PNPI Group

Article in Global Business and Organizational Excellence · January 2018

DOI: 10.1002/joe.21841

CITATIONS READS
8 871

4 authors, including:

Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani Dr.Alireza Eskandari

Payame Noor University Rasam Higher Education Institute
15 PUBLICATIONS 252 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani on 29 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DOI: 10.1002/joe.21841

F E AT U R E A RT I C L E

The impact of environmental design on employee performance

at PNPI Group

Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani | Alireza Eskandari | Farahnaz Orojali Zadeh |

Jamshid Ebrahimpoor Samani

A study to investigate the effect of environmental design on employees’ perfor-

mance focused on two newly reconfigured offices of Padideh Novien Pasargard
Iranian Group, a multinational trading company in Tehran. The introduction of
partitions in previously open-plan workspaces gave workers more control over
various ambient conditions and enabled them to personalize their individual
workstations. The results of a research questionnaire administered after the re-
design show that employees’ satisfaction with the work environment and their
well-being improved by 10% and their sense of feeling creative and productive
improved by 7%. In line with previous research on the impact of environmental
conditions on employees’ outlook and performance, the results of this study un-
derscore the value of attention to employees’ opinions and concerns when design-
ing their work environments.

1 | IN T RO D U C T ION 2017b; Veitch, 2011; Vischer, 2007b). In general, workers’

Various elements have an impact on the physical work envi-
ronment. These include indoor lighting, the color of walls
and furnishing, the level of privacy, opportunities for out-
side viewing, furnishings, and plants. Those elements also
directly affect the people who work in and visit those settings.
Studies have shown that well-designed environments make
people feel happy and energized, while those that are poorly
designed have the opposite effect. An understanding of the
relationship between environmental design and residents’
behavior and outcomes can help designers and architects
improve interior designs for better performance in offices,
schools, universities, and other environments where people
gather and work, as well as highlight to managers the value
of attention to such details (Hoff & Öberg, 2015; Luck, 2004;
Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2014).
The physical aspects of employees’ work environments
have been shown to affect their job satisfaction, as well as
performance and other outcomes (Baron, 2013; Collett &
Furnham, 2013; Lee & Guerin, 2009; Oldham, Kulik, &
Stepina, 1991; Roelofsen, 2002; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian,
performance, work-related behavior, job and environmen-
tal satisfaction, motivation, and well-being at work will be
affected by how well they feel they fit into their work envi-
ronment (Hwang & Kim, 2013). In terms of work-related
behavior, both job and environmental satisfaction are con-
sidered key indicators of performance in a work environment
(Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2017a; Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer,
Zaniboni, & Fraccaroli, 2012). Therefore, they are critical to
the success of an organization.
Environmental satisfaction occurs in settings where indi-
viduals feel that their expectations and basic needs are being
met (Lee, 2006). Employees within an organization typically
need to adjust their own needs and requirements to the envi-
ronmental features and ambient condition of the workplace
in order to control the use of space and to create personal
space that will enhance their productivity (Boerstra, Beuker,
Loomans, & Hensen, 2013; Brager, Paliaga, & De Dear,
2004; Lee & Brand, 2010; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2015a).
Psychologists have generally found job satisfaction and posi-
tive organizational outcome to be the two main consequences
of a suitable work environment.

Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 2018;37(2):41–48. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joe © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 41
42
Prior studies have examined the direct relationships among
the physical variables of the work environment and employees’
comfort, behavior, and satisfaction with both the work envi-
ronment and their job. These include studies on the effect of
air quality and thermal comfort on employee satisfaction and
productivity (Höppe & Martinac, 1998; Huizenga, Abbasza-
deh, Zagreus, & Arens, 2006; Tanabe, Haneda, & Nishihara,
2015), the influence of office lighting strategies on employees’
satisfaction and productivity (Katzev, 1992; Newsham, Brand,
Donnelly, Veitch, Aries, & Charles, 2009), acoustic satisfac-
tion (Haque & Anwar, 2012; Navai & Veitch, 2003), and the
effect of the work environment on employees’ satisfaction and
interaction (De Been & Beijer, 2014; Lee, 2006).
In general, workers’ performance, work-
related behavior, job and environmental sat-
isfaction, motivation, and well-being at work
will be affected by how well they feel they fit
into their work environment.
Fast-paced growth in technology and organizational devel-
opment can make it challenging for managers to address
employees’ concerns regarding their workspace. Some
observers have found that these issues have become even more
pressing as the nature of work increasingly shifts from physi-
cal to mental production (Luck, 2004). Essential to the suc-
cess of contemporary organizations, creativity and innovation
are enhanced by individuals’ ability to arrange their physical
environment to fit their personal and work-related needs. As
previously noted, there is a relation between satisfaction (in
terms of both the particular job and work environment) and
employees’ performance outcomes. Therefore, organizational
leaders would do well to consider the important opportunity
they have to influence employees’ satisfaction, well-being,
motivation, and performance, as well as overall organizational
performance, through effective workplace design. A study
conducted in the offices of Padideh Novien Pasargard Iranian
(PNPI) Group, a multinational trading company with two
main branches in Tehran, showed that changing from an open-
plan workspace to one in which individual workstations were
divided by partitions had a significant effect on employees’
work related-behavior by enhancing their environmental satis-
faction and well-being, as well as on their overall performance.
2 | P N P I G ROU P ’S AT T E N T I ON
TO P R IO R R E SE A RCH
Established in 2008, PNPI Group has branches in Malaysia
and Dubai, as well as Tehran. Its focus is on importing and
SAMANI et al.
exporting nanotechnology and healthcare products. Although
located in two different parts of the Iranian capital, the Teh-
ran branches had similar working environments. Both were
located on the top floor of an office building. One branch, on
11th floor of a building in the northern part of the city, had 21
employees in addition to the manager and supervisor. In this
setting, five employees sat around a single table, while the
other employees each had their own individual table. In the
second branch, located on the eighth floor of an office build-
ing in the city center, 25 employees and 1 supervisor also
worked in an open workspace. Each branch also had a private
room that was available for meetings and special occasions.
In both settings, employees had neither visual nor acoustical
privacy. Because of the high level of social density, employ-
ees reported that it was sometimes difficult to concentrate on
their tasks. Moreover, there was no opportunity for them to
personalize their surroundings.
Essential to the success of contemporary
organizations, creativity and innovation are
enhanced by individuals’ ability to arrange
their physical environment to fit their per-
sonal and work-related needs.
Guided by previous research on the impact of workplace
design on performance and in an effort to enhance employ-
ees’ environmental satisfaction, well-being, and motivation,
as well as both individual and overall organizational perfor-
mance, the management of PNPI Group decided to redesign
its Tehran offices.
2.1 | The effect of environment
on employees
In seeking to reduce overhead expenses and facilitate com-
munication among employees, many organizations have
applied open-plan concepts to their workplaces (Brand, 2009;
Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian,
2015b). Various studies that focused on employees in such
open-plan offices have found that those who were more sat-
isfied with their work environment were also more satisfied
with their jobs. For instance, the Cost-effective Open-Plan
Environments (COPE) project was a series of studies to clar-
ify the relationships between the physical work environment
and open-plan office occupants’ satisfaction with such fac-
tors as lighting, acoustics, privacy, and ventilation (Newsham
et al., 2009; Veitch, Bradley, Legault, Norcross, & Svec,
2002; Veitch, Charles, Farley, & Newsham, 2007; Veitch,
Charles, Newsham, Marquardt, & Geerts, 2003). The devel-
opment of such measurements of environmental satisfaction
SAMANI et al.
provides a foundation for assessing the relationship between
environmental features and environmental satisfaction.
In a positive relationship, overall environmental satisfac-
tion may lead to predictable job satisfaction. In this vein,
Veitch et al. (2007) noted a relationship between environ-
mental satisfaction and satisfaction with lighting, ventilation,
privacy, and acoustics. Their conceptual model was a part
of a COPE project designed to develop a better understand-
ing about workspace characteristics (such as the presence of
windows) and physical conditions (such as lighting levels)
that influenced the relevant environmental satisfaction fac-
tors (Bluyssen, Aries, & van Dommelen, 2011; Veitch et al.,
2007). Exhibit 1 shows the relationship between environ-
mental satisfaction and satisfaction with the physical condi-
tion of a workplace, including lighting, ventilation, privacy,
and acoustics.
Various studies that focused on employees in
such open-plan offices have found that those
who were more satisfied with their work
environment were also more satisfied with
their jobs.
Careful attention to outfitting the indoor environment
with a supportive workspace promotes occupants’ work-
related satisfaction and other positive outcomes. In these
settings, employees feel valued by the organization and its
management (El-Zeiny, 2012; Höppe & Martinac, 1998).
According to an ISO/DIS 28802 report on ergonomics, occu-
pants’ comfort and well-being within an environment could
be influenced by the assessment of thermal, acoustic, visual,
lighting, air quality, and other environmental factors (Cao,
Ouyang, Zhu, Huang, Hu, & Deng, 2012). Thus, environ-
mental satisfaction plays an important role in employees’
work-related behavior, well-being, and performance
EXH IB IT 1 Conceptual model of the COPE project
Source. Veitch et al. (2007)
43
Moreover, as suggested by prior studies, emotions (both
positive and negative moods) and well-being play a signifi-
cant role in improving both creativity and productivity at
work (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; George &
Zhou, 2002; Zhou & George, 2001). According to the
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, a subset of
positive emotions, including joy, love, happiness, and well-
being, could enhance individual creativity (Amabile et al.,
2005; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Therefore, feelings,
emotions, satisfaction, and well-being have a significant
effect on individual outcome and overall performance.
2.2 | The relationship between behavior
and performance
Creating a healthy work environment requires the development
of a supportive workplace that values a variety of employees.
Employee behavior and outcomes, as well as creativity and
satisfaction, are affected by the workplace. Previous studies
have indicated that the work environment affects employees’
satisfaction, well-being, and outcome (Larsen, Adams, Deal,
Kweon, & Tyler, 1998). Focusing on well-being at work
can benefit organizations by helping employees feel happy,
capable, and satisfied in their workplace and in the roles they
are assigned (Amabile et al., 2005; Samani et al., 2014). Spe-
cifically, evidence indicates that those with a greater sense of
well-being at work are likely to be more creative than those
with a poor level of well-being (Fredrickson, 2001). Work-
place settings in which employees can personalize and control
their ambient conditions and also have a sense of social value
can increase employees’ feelings of environmental and job-
related satisfaction (Lee & Brand, 2005, 2010). Positive emo-
tion has also been shown to enhance satisfaction, motivation,
and productivity at work (Martin, 2005).
According to the broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions, a subset of positive emo-
tions, including joy, love, happiness, and well-
being, could enhance individual creativity.
Some factors in the work environment are primarily related
to individual well-being and satisfaction with the job and envi-
ronment, including work environment characteristics or envi-
ronmental features, the availability of personal control over
ambient conditions, the opportunity for interpersonal connec-
tions, and physical safety (Clements-Croome, 2006; Veitch et
al., 2007). These elements are associated with individual well-
being, happiness, and satisfaction in the workplace. Various
studies on environmental behavior have indicated that positive
work-related behavior (such as environmental satisfaction, job
44
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being) is a key to improv-
ing individual outcomes at work (Tanabe et al., 2015; Van der
Voordt, 2004; Veitch et al., 2003, 2007). Moreover, a greater
level of well-being or environmental satisfaction is linked to
better job performance, more job satisfaction, lower absentee-
ism, and lower employee turnover (Clements-Croome, 2006;
Martin, 2005; Van der Voordt, 2004), which further enhance
overall employee outcomes. Exhibit 2 shows the relationship
between the environmental features of the workplace, environ-
mental satisfaction, and individual outcome.
To enhance employees’ satisfaction and motivation through
workplace design, whether in an office or other kind of work-
space, designers strive to create workstations that meet indi-
viduals’ needs (Çağatay, Yıldırım, Gökbulut, & Subaşı, 2017).
But differences in design concepts and sensibilities can com-
plicate this task. Traditional office designs calling for small
private rooms conflict with the open-plan concepts that are
popular with contemporary organizations and start-ups.
According to proponents of open-plan workplaces, they
reduce the organization’s overall real estate footprint. In
saving space, they decrease maintenance costs and make
it possible for greater numbers of people to work together.
Open-space designers also maintain that these work envi-
ronments facilitate individual interaction and enhance col-
laboration (Baldry & Barnes, 2012; Brennan et al., 2002;
Hua, 2007; Navai & Veitch, 2003; Samani, et al., 2017a). On
the downside, open-plan offices have been shown to lead to
interruptions, more stress, and lower levels of concentration
(Brand, 2009; Samani et al., 2017b), which are all disadvan-
tageous to individual and overall organizational outcome.
3 | A S S E SS ING E N V IRON MENTAL
I M PAC T AT P N P I G ROU P
To determine the effects of an office redesign that offered
employees more privacy, researchers polled workers in the
PNPI Group’s two offices in Tehran. Once characterized by
EXH IB IT 2 Relationship between environmental features, environmental satisfaction, and individual outcome in the workplace
SAMANI et al.
a totally open layout without any interior walls or dividers,
the offices were fitted with free-standing, foam-insulated,
fabric-upholstered partitions to divide individuals’ worksta-
tions. This decreased noise levels and allowed employees
more individual privacy, more personal storage space, and
the opportunity to control and enhance lighting at their own
workstation with table lamps and other fixtures. The new
workplace also incorporated natural and artificial plants and
maintained the existing private meeting room.
The questionnaire consisted of 27 items and participants
were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree/dissatisfied; 5 = strongly agree/satisfied) in responding.
The measurement items addressed various environmental
features, including personal control over the work environ-
ment (five items), privacy and social density in the office (five
items), environmental satisfaction (seven items), satisfaction
with working in open-plan workspace (five items), and per-
ceived performance (five items). Effectively measured in pre-
vious studies, the items used in this analysis were found to
have a high level of reliability and validity (Lee & Brand,
2005, 2010; MacMillan, 2012) and translated into Persian.
Demographic and background questions were also included
in the survey.
Manually distributed to 46 employees 1 month after the
workplaces had been redesigned, the survey instrument took
approximately 15 to 20 min to complete. Of the initial 41
responses that were received, 34 were found to be complete
and valid, yielding a response rate of 83%. Of the respon-
dents, 58% were male and 42% female; 81.5% were between
the ages of 32 and 46. Most of the respondents (62.8%) had
a bachelor’s degree, and 75% had been with the company for
more than 7 years.
This study employed confirmatory factor analysis for
evaluating the validity and unidimensionality of the scale,
while the calculation of convergent validity relied on t-tests
for factor loadings. The results of confirmatory factor analy-
sis confirmed convergent validity (t values >1.65; p = .05)
SAMANI et al.
and showed that each factor was a unidimensional construct.
Cronbach’s α for all variables also indicated high reliability.
3.1 | Redesign improves employee
satisfaction
Previous studies have clearly indicated a relationship between
the social and physical work environment and employees’
well-being, satisfaction, and interactions, along with job
performance and creativity (Carlopio & Gardner, 1992;
Karlsson, Wijk, & Bänziger, 2011; McCoy, 2003; Niemelä,
Rautio, Hannula, & Reijula, 2002; Samani, Rasid, & Sofian,
2017b; Thatcher & Milner, 2012; Ulrich, 1991; Veitch, 2011;
Wells, 2000; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, & Ilies, 2012). This
mutual relationship and interaction between individuals and
their work environment—action and reaction—(Edwards,
Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1998) means that employees’ seek
an appropriate work environment that fulfills their needs for
safety, hygiene, accessibility, comfort, privacy, etc. Working
in appropriate working conditions can enhance and improve
employees’ environmental satisfaction, well-being, and
overall performance and organizational outcomes. In terms
of office design, open-plan workspaces offer a low level of
personal control and privacy and increased density, which
could lead to distraction and adversely affect individual sat-
isfaction with the work environment and even organizational
outcomes (Baldry & Barnes, 2012; Charles & Veitch, 2002;
Hwang & Kim, 2013; Marquardt, Veitch, & Charles, 2002;
Samani, Rasid, & Sofian, 2017a, 2017b).
The results of the study conducted at PNPI Group’s
remodeled offices show that most of the respondents (61.6%)
indicated that the change in design gave them more control
over their workspace and that their satisfaction increased as a
result of being able to personalize their own workstations and
control the level of lighting.
Working in appropriate working conditions
can enhance and improve employees’ environ-
mental satisfaction, well-being, and overall
performance and organizational outcomes.
Different workplace layouts have different effects on
employees’ communication and relationships (Brennan et al.,
2002; Hua, 2007; Rashid, Wineman, & Zimring, 2009).
For instance, open-plan environments can enhance com-
munication and lead to such positive organizational overall
outcomes as improved creativity, teamwork, and brain storm-
ing, or negative outcomes, such as difficulty in concentration
(Amabile & Pillemer, 2012; Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soder-
quist, & Prastacos, 2007). This interaction did not seem to
45
be hampered by the introduction of partition panels at PNPI
Group, and empowered employees to determine whether they
wanted to join in any communication that was taking place
near their workspace.
The new workstations included table lamps
and other fixtures for employees to modify the
lighting in their personal workspaces, and the
survey results showed that most employees
(55%) were satisfied with the lighting level.
More than 57% of the respondents in the PNPI Group
study indicated that the redesign gave them more control
over their privacy at work, which enabled them to have
more control over their social interactions and communica-
tions. Most (57.2%) also noted that this enabled them to
better concentrate on their tasks, and positively enhanced
their outcomes. More than 50% of the respondents also
indicated that they felt more creative and productive in
the newly designed workspace. These findings align with
previous research that has found that when an environment
meets and satisfies its residents’ needs, they will feel more
positive and that satisfaction and positive emotions can
enhance and improve employees’ performance and creative
outcomes (Fredrickson, 2004; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes,
2003; Vischer, 2007a). Most of the PNPI Group respon-
dents (62%) indicated that they are satisfied with the new
arrangement of their office’s interior elements and felt that
the new working environment has had a positive effect on
their overall outcomes.
Although employees still were not able to control the
room temperature after the panels were installed, more
than half of them indicated that they were satisfied with
the ambient temperature. The new workstations included
table lamps and other fixtures for employees to modify
the lighting in their personal workspaces, and the survey
results showed that most employees (55%) were satisfied
with the lighting level. Most of the employees (58.3%) also
reported satisfaction with the acoustics and privacy in the
new workstations.
In line with previous research, employees’ satisfaction
with their refurbished work environment was expected to
affect their well-being and performance. The survey results
showed that the office redesign improved employees’ over-
all performance by 7%. In addition to noting that they had
more privacy, employees said they were happy to be able
to personalize their workstations and modify their lighting
level. Moreover, both employees and managers felt that the
addition of the partitions made their workplace seem better
organized, and that enabled them to work more efficiently
46
and effectively. Overall, the respondents’ level of satisfaction
with their work environment increased by 10%.
The results of the study at PNPI Group illustrate that rede-
signing a work environment to better suit employees’ needs
and preferences can enhance not only employees’ satisfaction
with their environment, but also their overall performance.
This finding should help managers appreciate the value of
tailoring their work facilities to motivate employees to work
more effectively and to feel better while doing so. Even minor
environmental improvements can help make employees feel
valued by the organization, thereby encouraging their best
performance. Thus, it is in the best interest of any organi-
zation for its managers and space designers to pay careful
attention to the design of their work environment and to
employees’ opinions concerning it.
3.2 | Suggestions for future study
This study clearly showed that employees’ satisfaction with
their work environment and various job-related outcomes
improved after their workplace was redesigned. Yet, it is too
early to determine whether these improvements are long-
lasting. Therefore, additional research would be beneficial.
Whereas this study focused on the shift from a completely
open-plan workspace to one that used partitions to separate
workstations in two office branches of an Iranian multina-
tional trading company, future studies would also do well to
concentrate on other types of workplaces in other fields and
in other locations.
Even minor environmental improvements
can help make employees feel valued by the
organization, thereby encouraging their best
performance.
Although many previous studies have explored the rela-
tionship between workplace design and employees’ work-
related behavior and performance, staff members’ opinions
on the various elements that make up their workspace are
rarely considered, and most decisions in this regard typi-
cally are made by budget-conscious managers. Ideally, future
studies should also consider the impact of workers’ input
in determining the layout, style, and other features of their
workplace—and management’s attention to it—on perfor-
mance and organizational commitment.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect
and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3),
367–403.
SAMANI et al.
Amabile, T., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychol-
ogy of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3–15.
Baldry, C., & Barnes, A. (2012). The open-plan academy: Space, con-
trol and the undermining of professional identity. Work, Employ-
ment & Society, 26(2), 228–245.
Baron, R. A. (2013). How environmental variables influence behavior at
work. In P. Collett & A. Furnham (Eds.), Social psychology at work
(psychology revivals): Essays in honour of Michael Argyle (p. 176).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Bluyssen, P. M., Aries, M., & van Dommelen, P. (2011). Comfort of
workers in office buildings: The European HOPE Project. Building
and Environment, 46(1), 280–288.
Boerstra, A., Beuker, T., Loomans, M., & Hensen, J. (2013). Impact of
available and perceived control on comfort and health in European
offices. Architectural Science Review, 56(1), 30–41.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Soderquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007).
Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.
Brager, G. S., Paliaga, G., & De Dear, R. (2004). Operable windows, personal
control, and occupant comfort. Ashrae Transactions, 110(2), 17–35.
Brand, J. L. (2009). Should your company transition from traditional
private offices to an open office plan? Change/Transition Manage-
ment White Paper, 5.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus open
office design: A longitudinal field study. Environment and Behavior,
34(3), 279–299.
Cao, B., Ouyang, Q., Zhu, Y., Huang, L., Hu, H., & Deng, G. (2012).
Development of a multivariate regression model for overall satisfac-
tion in public buildings based on field studies in Beijing and Shang-
hai. Building and Environment, 47(1), 394–399.
Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and interactive effects
of the physical work environment on attitudes. Environment and
Behavior, 24(5), 579–601.
Çağatay, K, Yıldırım, K, Gökbulut, N, Subaşı, T. (2017). The effects
of interior design in open offices on employee’s motivation. Mugla
Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 20–26.
Charles, K. E., & Veitch, J. A. (2002). Environmental satisfaction in
open-plan environments: 2. Effects of workstation size, partition
height and windows. Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction.
Clements-Croome, D. (2006). Creating the productive workplace
(2th ed.). Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Group Ltd.
Collett, P., & Furnham, A. (Eds.). (2013). Social psychology at work
(psychology revivals): Essays in honour of Michael Argyle.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
De Been, I., & Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on sat-
isfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities
Management, 12(2), 142–157.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-
environment fit theory. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Organiza-
tional Stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
El-Zeiny, R. M. A. (2012). The interior design of workplace and its
impact on employees’ performance: A case study of the private
sector corporations in Egypt. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 35, 746–756.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
American Psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon-
don. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367–1378.
SAMANI et al.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden
the scope of attention and thought action repertoires. Cognition &
Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster
creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of
feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687.
Haque, A., & Anwar, S. (2012). Mediating role of knowledge creation
and sharing between organizational culture and performance: An
empirical analysis of Pakistan’s banking sector. Canadian Social
Science, 8(1), 121.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the
workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of
the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing:
The positive person and the good life (Vol. 2, pp. 205–224).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hoff, E. V., & Öberg, N. K. (2015). The role of the physical work envi-
ronment for creative employees–A case study of digital artists.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(14),
1889–1906.
Höppe, P., & Martinac, I. (1998). Indoor climate and air quality. Inter-
national Journal of Biometeorology, 42(1), 1–7.
Hua, Y. (2007). Designing open-plan workplaces for collaboration:
An exploration of the impact of workplace spatial settings on space
perception and collaboration effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation).
Carnegie Mellon University.
Huizenga, C., Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., & Arens, E. A. (2006). Air
quality and thermal comfort in office buildings: Results of a large
indoor environmental quality survey. Proceedings, Healthy Buildings
2006 (Vol. III, pp. 393–397). Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved October 4,
2017, from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7897g2f8.
Hwang, T., & Kim, J. T. (2013). Assessment of indoor environmental
quality in open-plan offices. Indoor and Built Environment, 22(1),
139–156.
Karlsson, T., Wijk, K., & Bänziger, T. (2011). A description of work
environment management in successful companies. Paper presented
at the Wellbeing and Innovations Through Ergonomics: Proceedings
of NES2011, September 18–21, 2011, Oulu, Finland.
Katzev, R. (1992). The impact of energy-efficient office lighting strategies
on employee satisfaction and productivity. Environment and Behavior,
24(6), 759–778.
Larsen, L., Adams, J., Deal, B., Kweon, B. S., & Tyler, E. (1998). Plants
in the workplace: The effects of plant density on productivity,
attitudes, and perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 30(3),
261–281.
Lee, Y., S. (2006). Expectations of employees toward the workplace and
environmental satisfaction. Facilities, 24(9/10), 343–353.
Lee, Y., S, & Brand, J., L. (2005). Effects of control over office work-
space on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323–333.
Lee, Y., S, & Brand, J., L. (2010). Can personal control over the physi-
cal environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics,
53(3), 324–335.
Lee, Y., S, & Guerin, D., A. (2009). Indoor environmental quality
related to occupant satisfaction and performance in LEED-certified
buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 18(4), 293–300.
Luck, G. (2004). The relationship of an innovative thinking style, locus
of control on job satisfaction, and Workspace preferences among
knowledge workers. Dissertations Abstracts International: Section
B: The Sciences and Engineering, 4(1), 2133.
47
MacMillan, C. (2012). The effects of physical work environment satis-
faction and shared workspace characteristics on employee behav-
iors toward their organization: Using environmental control as
a mediator (Master’s thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton,
New Zealand. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from http://hdl.handle.
net/10289/7042.
Marquardt, C. J. G., Veitch, J. A., & Charles, K. E. (2002). Environ-
mental satisfaction with open-plan office furniture design and lay-
out (Research Report RR-106). Ottawa: Institute for Research in
Construction.
Martin, A. J. (2005). The role of positive psychology in enhancing sat-
isfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 24(1–2), 113–133.
McCoy, J. M. (2003). Work environments. In R. B. Bechtel &
A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Navai, M., & Veitch, J. A. (2003). Acoustic satisfaction in open-
plan offices: Review and recommendations. Ottawa: Institute for
Research in Construction.
Newsham, G., Brand, J., Donnelly, C., Veitch, J., Aries, M., & Charles,
K. (2009). Linking indoor environment conditions to job satis-
faction: A field study. Building Research & Information, 37(2),
129–147.
Niemelä, R., Rautio, S., Hannula, M., & Reijula, K. (2002). Work envi-
ronment effects on labor productivity: an intervention study in a
storage building. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42(4),
328–335.
Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., & Stepina, L. P. (1991). Physical envi-
ronments and employee reactions: Effects of stimulus-screening
skills and job complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4),
929–938.
Rashid, M., Wineman, J., & Zimring, C. (2009). Space, behavior,
and environmental perception in open-plan offices: A prospective
study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(3),
432–449.
Roelofsen, P. (2002). The impact of office environments on employee
performance: The design of the workplace as a strategy for pro-
ductivity enhancement. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(3),
247–264.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Sofian, S. (2014). A workplace to support
creativity. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, 13(4),
414–420.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Sofian, S. (2015a). Individual control
over the physical work environment to effect creativity. Industrial
Engineering & Management Systems, 14(1), 94–103.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Sofian, S. (2015b). perceived level of per-
sonal control over the work environment and employee satisfaction
and work performance. Performance Improvement, 54(9), 28–35.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Sofian, S. (2017a). The effect of open-
plan workspaces on behavior and performance among Malaysian
creative workers. Global Business and Organizational Excellence,
36(3), 42–52.
Samani, S. A., Rasid, S. Z., & Sofian, S. (2017b). The influence of per-
sonal control and environmental distraction in open-plan offices
on creative outcome. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(1),
5–28.
Tanabe, S.-i., Haneda, M., & Nishihara, N. (2015). Workplace produc-
tivity and individual thermal satisfaction. Building and Environ-
ment, 91, 42–50.
 48
Thatcher, A., & Milner, K. (2012). The impact of a ‘green’building on
employees’ physical and psychological wellbeing. Work: A Journal
of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 3816–3823.
Truxillo, D. M., Cadiz, D. M., Rineer, J. R., Zaniboni, S., & Fracca-
roli, F. (2012). A lifespan perspective on job design: Fitting the job
and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and perfor-
mance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 340–360.
Ulrich, R. S. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and
recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design,
3(1), 97–109.
Van der Voordt, T. J. (2004). Productivity and employee satisfaction
in flexible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(2),
133–148.
Veitch, J. A. (2011). Workplace design contributions to mental health
and well-being. Healthcare Papers, 11, 38–46.
Veitch, J. A., Bradley, J. S., Legault, L. M., Norcross, S., & Svec, J.
(2002). Masking speech in open-plan offices with simulated ventila-
tion noise: Noise level and spectral composition effects on acous-
tic satisfaction (Internal Report IRC-IR-846). Ottawa: Institute for
Research in Construction.
Veitch, J. A., Charles, K. E., Farley, K. M., & Newsham, G. R. (2007). A
model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field
findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 177–189.
Veitch, J. A., Charles, K. E., Newsham, G. R., Marquardt, C. J., &
Geerts, J. (2003). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environ-
ments: Workstation and physical condition effects. (Research Report
RR-154). Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction.
Vischer, J., C. (2007a). The concept of environmental comfort in work-
place performance. Ambiente Construido, Porto Alegre, 7(1), 21–34.
Vischer, J., C. (2007b). The effects of the physical environment on job
performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress.
Stress and Health, 23(3), 175–184.
Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays:
The role of office personalization in employee and organizational
well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 239–255.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2012). Everyday working
life: Explaining within-person fluctuations in employee well-being.
Human Relations, 65(9), 1051–1069.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to
creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 44(4), 682–696.
View publication stats
SAMANI et al.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Sanaz Ahmadpoor Samani, PhD, is an assistant professor
in the Department of Management at the Varamin-Pishva
Branch of Islamic Azad University in Varamin, Tehran, Iran.
She earned her doctoral degree in management at Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia, and her research inter-
ests include human resources, creativity, and innovation. She
can be reached at sanaz.ahmadpoor@gmail.com.
Alireza Eskandari, PhD, is an assistant professor in the
Department of Accounting at the Varamin-Pishva Branch of
Islamic Azad University. He earned his doctoral degree in
accounting at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, and his research
interests include accounting, corporate finance, and manage-
ment. He can be reached at aeskandari1354@yahoo.com.
Farahnaz Orojali Zadeh, PhD, is an assistant professor in
the Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran
in Niavaran. She earned her doctoral degree in accounting
at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, and her research interests
include accounting, corporate finance, and human resources.
She can be reached at falizadeh56@yahoo.com.
Jamshid Ebrahimpoor Samani, PhD, is a deputy dean in the
Department of Management at the Prand Branch of Payame
Noor University in Parand, Tehran, Iran. His research inter-
ests include management and human resources. He can be
reached at Ebrahimpoor.Samani@yahoo.com.
How to cite this article: Samani SA, Eskandari A,
Zadeh FO, Samani JE. The impact of environmen-
tal design on employee performance at PNPI Group.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence.
2018;37:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21841