Delft University of Technology
The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the productivity of
knowledge workers
Palvalin, Miikka; van der Voordt, Theo; Jylhä, Tuuli
DOI
10.1108/JFM-03-2017-0010
Publication date
2017
Document Version
Accepted author manuscript
Published in
Journal of Facilities Management
Citation (APA)
Palvalin, M., van der Voordt, T., & Jylhä, T. (2017). The impact of workplaces and self-management
practices on the productivity of knowledge workers.
Journal of Facilities Management
,
15
(4), 423-438.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-03-2017-0010
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.
For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
1
The impact of workplaces and self-management practices on the
productivity of knowledge workers
Miikka Palvalin
Department of Industrial and Information Management, Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Theo van der Voordt
Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands and
Center for People and Buildings, Delft, The Netherlands
Tuuli Jylhä
Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
To cite this document:
Miikka Palvalin, Theo van der Voordt, Tuuli Jylhä, (2017) "The impact of workplaces and
selfmanagement practices on the productivity of knowledge workers", Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 15 Issue: 4, pp.423-438, https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-03-2017-0010
Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-03-2017-0010
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the impact of (1) workplaces, which support concentration and
communication, and (2) self-management practices on individual and team productivity. The
underlying hypothesis is that the impact of these variables on the two levels of productivity (individual
and team) and the two dimensions of productivity (quantity and quality) may be different.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on survey data from 998 Finnish knowledge
workers. Factor analysis was used to test the dimensions of the conceptual model. Insights into the
impact of workplaces for concentration and communications and self-management practices on
productivity were obtained by multiple-regression analyses.
Findings – The findings show that self-management practices have a larger impact on the quality and
quantity of individual output and the quantity of team output than workplaces for communication
and concentration. Improving self-management skills is key to increase all productivity dimensions
and in particular the quality of the output.
2
Practical implications – This paper contributes to a better understanding of the impact of workplace
characteristics and self-management practices on different levels and dimensions of productivity. It
offers valuable lessons for managers, as they are able to recognize how productivity can be
approached from several perspectives. Different dimensions can be enhanced using different
workplace settings. For example, the quantitative output of employees can be increased by adding
more space for concentration while quantitative team productivity can be increased by providing
appropriate space for collaboration. An important means to enhance a higher quality of the output is
to improve self-management skills. The findings also suggest that collaboration between different
disciplines – corporate management, corporate real estate management, human resource
management and IT – is needed to optimize individual and team productivity.
Originality/value – This paper explores work environment experiences of Finnish office workers and
connects both workplace appraisal and work practices to perceived productivity support, on individual
level and team level. It also adds insights into the different impacts on quantity and quality.
Paper type – Research paper
Keywords – productivity, workplace, workplace management, knowledge workers, self-
management, office
1 Introduction
Knowledge workers are the most important wealth creators in the current economy (Drucker, 1999;
Bakker, 2014; Appel-Meulenbroek, 2014; Kastelein, 2014). The shift from an industry-based society to
a knowledge-oriented society is going on for some decades. Private and public organizations are still
searching for ways how to cope with this structural change. The workplace is one of the factors that
may influence knowledge workers’ productivity. According to Bakker (2014), in order to ensure that a
knowledge worker is optimally productive, it is important that he or she can attain personal objectives
and that facilities and services fit with personal needs. An appropriate physical environment should
3
optimally facilitate different job activities, communication and concentration, informal and formal
meetings, and different moods such as being calm and relaxed or being stressed or excited. Strategic
decisions about workplaces can have a long-term impact on the experience and use of real estate. In
2015 the Finnish Government updated its real estate strategy and adopted activity-based working to
increase flexibility and productivity (Ministry of Finance, 2015). The role of Senate Properties, which
is a state-owned real estate management organization with a real estate portfolio of EUR 4.4 billion
and profiled as a work environment expert (Senate Properties 2016), is to implement the strategy
across the nation and across the governmental branches of administration. The aim of this paper is to
explore how the Finnish employees working for the government respond to their work environment,
if/how this environment influences their productivity, and what lessons can be learned from these
experiences.
1.1 Individual and team productivity - quantity and quality
The origins of measuring productivity are in industrial manufacturing and agriculture (Tangen, 2005).
In the fields of facilities management (FM) and corporate real estate management (CREM),
productivity of knowledge workers has gained a lot of attention as well (e.g., Morgan and Anthony
2008; Appel‐Meulenbroek et al. 2011; Jensen et al. 2012). Most authors define productivity as the
ratio between output and input (Tangen, 2005). According to Misterek et al. (1992), the ideal form of
productivity improvement is to increase the output while decreasing the input. Other ways to increase
productivity are managing growth by increasing both output and input in such a way that the increase
in output is larger than in input, working smarter by increasing the output with the same input, or
establishing greater efficiency by decreasing input but having the same output,. The focus here is on
quantity. However, another dimension of productivity i.e. quality matters as well (Drucker, 1991;
Parasuraman, 2002; Ramirez and Nembhard, 2004; Laihonen et al., 2012). In the current research, a
distinction is made between quantitative and qualitative output of the employees. In addition, a
distinction is made between two productivity levels – individual productivity and team productivity.
4
This is considered to be crucial, because a FM intervention may have a positive impact on team
productivity but at the same time have a counterproductive impact on individual productivity and vice
versa. For instance, an open setting makes it easier to exchange knowledge, but it also results in more
distractions.
1.2 Independent variables in this research
In addition to the workplace, other factors may have an impact on knowledge workers’ productivity,
such as technology, leadership, team spirit, self-management practices and the workers intrinsic
motivation (Van der Voordt, 2003; Vartiainen, 2007; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2009). It is impossible to
include all possible impact factors in one study. As part of an ongoing PhD study of the first author,
self-management was chosen as the second independent variable for this paper.
1.3 Research questions
This paper focuses on answering three research questions:
1. What is the impact of workplaces (in particular space for concentration and space for
communication) and self-management practices on productivity?
2. Is this impact similar or different for individual versus team productivity?
3. Is this impact similar or different for quantitative versus qualitative output?
The next section presents the findings of a literature review on the impact of workplaces on labour
productivity. It is concluded that too little attention is being payed to the role of the worker itself. The
literature review results are visualized in a conceptual model that is tested empirically. The empiric
part includes a description of the research methods and the research findings. The paper ends with
reflections and conclusions from an academic and a practical point of view and some suggestions for
future research.
