Author: Molly Elizabeth Bryant
Relationships between work environments and physical spaces are understudied. Components within the physical environment could have an influence on the work environment in regard to how the workers perceive group collaboration and creative output. Common changes to the physical space such as “introducing open plan offices, cubicles, and ergonomic furniture have led to increased worker performance, satisfaction, and improved communication and teamwork” (Dul et al., 2011, p. 2). Even with these basic modifications to physical space within the work environment, questions remain unanswered.
How does physical space within a work environment influence our creativity? How do physical environments contribute to our work styles and how we communicate with others within the workplace? The open office floor plan is quickly becoming the norm, but is this the only way designers should plan a workplace? Can private areas improve the fostering of creativity? Do surrounding materials within a designed environment such as the floor, wall, and ceiling finishes, even the lighting, have an influence on creativity and collaboration?
With the increase of design thinking strategies and the addition of “innovation teams” within businesses, the demand for the physical workspace to enhance these strategies and structures is growing. Knowledge workers, also known as “the creative class” by Richard Florida, “are the source of original and potentially useful ideas and solutions for a firm’s renewal of products, services, and processes”(Dul et al., 2011, p. 1).
It is the designer’s responsibility to understand what components within the physical environment can be perceived as conducive to creative thinking and what perceived components might promote collaborative work styles. With this understanding, we can implement these components within the planning and design programming phases to create spaces that support creativity and promote collaboration.
By taking an in depth look at a variety of creative service providers and the preferences and way people work within these spaces, perceptions have been identified for stimulating creativity and collaboration through the means of the physical environment can begin to be understood. With the constant change in design, this knowledge will aid in formulating a conceptual framework for physical components that may be perceived to enhance creativity and collaboration within the work environment. With the constant change of work styles, today’s technology, and the increase in the integration of “innovation teams” to foster new ideas, there is value in the understanding of how companies can contribute to physical spaces through implementing components perceived to represent creativity and promote collaboration through the designed environment. (…)
The understanding of creativity, collaboration, the various settings of the workplace environment, combined with the perceptions of creativity and collaboration according to creative professionals, can provide designers guidance on how components within the physical environment can be perceived to fuel creativity and encourage collaboration. This chapter will highlight the key findings from the literature review as well as the new findings derived from the primary research. These findings will be displayed in the form of a framework to illustrate what physical components within the work environment can influence these perceptions of creativity and collaboration.
It should be noted that these perceptions are the perceptions of creative professionals within the creative service providing field who participated in the primary research study. From this study, new questions and opportunities for future research have been discovered; these will also be discussed in this chapter. (…)
Bryant, M. (2012). Physical Environments Conducive To Creativity and Collaboration Within the Work Environment. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Alexander, B., & Reuschel, J. (n.d.). Mindscapes: Design for the Mind. Document Moved. Retrieved March 08, 2012, from http://www.haworth.com/en- us/Products/Furniture/Desks-Files-Storage/Desks/Pages/Orlando-LS.aspx
Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity: Keep Doing What You’re doing. Or If You Want to Spark Innovation, Rethink How You Motivate, Reward and Assign Work to People. Harvard Business Review, (September-October), 76-87.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: ON DOING WHAT YOU LOVE AND LOVING WHAT You Do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
Augustin, S. (2009). Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. (2000). The Handbook of Emotional intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bechtel, R. B. (1977). Enclosing Behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73-79.
Blum, A. (n.d.). Acting Like a Start-Up. 302 Found. Retrieved March 08, 2012, from http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20111115/acting-like-a-start-up
Cain, S. (2012). The Rise of the New Groupthink. Retreived January 13. 2012, from
Collaborative Spaces. (n.d.). Www.haworth.com. Retrieved from http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace-
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of Knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Drazin et. Al. (1999). Multilevel Theorizing About Creativity In Organizations: A Sense-
making Perspective. Academy of Management, Vol.24, No.2.
Dul et. Al. (2011). Knowledgeworker Creativity and The Role of The Physical Work
Environment. Human Resource Management.
Goeller, H. (2012) Personal Communications. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH Goodman (2011). An Investigation of the Relationship Between Students’ Motivation and Academic Performance Mediated By Effort. South African Journal of
Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Kopec, D. A. (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design. New York: Fairchild. Kaplan and Norton (2006). Innovation Processes. Excerpted From: Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. 117
Langhoff, J. (n.d.). PLACES. Document Moved. Retrieved March 08, 2012, from http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Products/Furniture/Systems/Panel- Systems/Pages/PLACES.aspx
Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mittleman, D. (2009). Planning and Design Considerations for Computer Supported Collaboration Spaces. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. Vol. 10, Special Issue, Article 8.
Nemeth, C. C. (1997). Managing Innovation: WHEN LESS IS MORE. California Management Review, 40(1), 59-74.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place. Marlowe & Company. New York, NY. Petty, R. (1971). The Assimilation of a New Group Member: A Laboratory Study of
Behavior Setting Theory. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Illinois. Raymond and Cunliffe. (1997). Tomorrow’s Office: Creating Effective and Humane
Interiors. E & FN Spon, London and New York.
Sanders, E. (2010). Chapter Nine: Creativity In Strategic Thinking. Enhancing the
Army’s Strategic Thinking Capability: Insights to Assess, Develop, and Retain
Strategic Thinking. Special Report Date. Nov. 04, 2012.
Sawyer, R. (2006). Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford
University Press. Oxford, NY.
Sternberg, R. J., O’Hara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1997). Creativity a Investment. California Management Review, 40(01), Fall, 8-21. 118
Sutton, R. I., & Kelley, T. A. (1997). Creativity Doesn’t Require Isolation: WHY PRODUCT DESIGNERS BRING VISITORS “BAGKSTAGE” California Management Review, 40(1), 75-91.
Tharp, B. M. (n.d.). Defining “Culture” and “Organizational Culture”: From Anthropology to the Office. Www.haworth.com. Retrieved from http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace- Library/Documents/Defining-Culture-and-Organizationa-Culture_5.pdf
Tharp, B. M. (n.d.). Diagnosing Organizational Culture. Www.haworth.com. Retrieved from http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace- Library/Documents/Diagnosing-Org-Culture_6.pdf
Tharp, B. M. (n.d.). Four Organizational Culture Types. Www.haworth.com. Retrieved from http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace- Library/Documents/Four-Organizational-Culture-Types_6.pdf
Williems, E. (1965). Participation in Behavior Settings in Relation to Three Variables: Size of Behavior Settings, Marginality of Persons, and Sensitivity to Audiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas.
Zacharias, J. (2001). Path Choice And Visual Stimuli: Signs Of Human Activity And Architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 341-352.
Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2010). Creativity in Ergonomic Design: A Supplemental Value-Adding Source for Product and Service Development. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(4), 503-525.