1. Eileen Sim and Dr Christoper Heywood
Towards a holistic assessment of employees’ acceptance of innovative workplace designs
Eileen Sim and
Dr Christoper Heywood

2. Introduction/ Overview
Increasing adoption of Activity Based Working (ABW) office as an innovation
Lack of holistic evaluation method to evaluate employees’ acceptance ABW
Large-scale employees’ satisfaction surveys do not sufficiently explain why employees may be struggling to accept ABW
This study presents a holistic model for evaluating employees’ ABW acceptance that draws on the innovation adoption, technology acceptance and existing ABW literature.
First stage of research in which the model is developed from a review of the literature.
Practical implications: The model presented here can serve as a useful assessment of employees’ acceptance of an innovation, specifically, ABW acceptance. This is critical because organisations are achieving mixed outcomes from the ABW but the research community are unclear why.

3. What are innovative workplaces?
Innovation as “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or another unit of adoption” Rogers (2003, p. 12)
Activity Based Working (ABW)
1) Unassigned (non-territorial) individual workspaces; and
2) A variety of workspaces designed to support a new way of working where employees switch workplaces based on their activity (switching behaviour)
ABW is a technological innovation to organisations that are introducing the ABW to their employees
Organisations are increasingly choosing ABW as the real estate intervention to achieve their Corporate Real Estate (CRE) strategies because it addresses most of the nine value-adding CRE strategies.

4. 9 value-adding CRE strategies
Increase productivity;
Reduce and control occupancy costs;
Increase customer and employee satisfaction;
Increase asset value;
Increase flexibility;
Increase innovation;
Support image and culture;
Increase sustainability; and
Risk control
After: Gerritse, Bergsma, & Groen, (2014); Jensen & Voordt, (2016); Lindholm & Levainen, (2006); Nourse & Roulac, (1993)

5. Why ABW? Cost savings Higher space efficiency Flexibility
Real Estate Drivers
Cost savings
Higher space efficiency
Flexibility
Human Capital drivers
Attraction and retention of talent
Higher productivity
Superior communication and collaboration
(F. D. Becker & Steele, 1995; Been, Beijer, & Hollander, 2015; Brill, Weidemann, Allard, Olson, & Keable, 2001; Brunia, Been, et al., 2016; Brunia, Been, & Voordt, 2016; Fawcett & Rigby, 2009; Kim, Candido, Thomas, & de Dear, 2016; Koetsveld & Kamperman, 2011; Tagliaro & Ciaramella, 2016b; Thomson, 2006; Veldhoen + Company, 2016; T. J. M. Van Der Voordt, 2004; Warner, 2013)
(Been et al., 2015; Brill et al., 2001; Brunia, Been, et al., 2016, 2016; Kim et al., 2016; Koetsveld & Kamperman, 2011; Thomson, 2006; Veldhoen + Company, 2016; T. J. M. Van Der Voordt, 2004; Waber, Magnolfi, & Lindsay, 2014; Warner, 2013; Ekstrand, 2016; Elsbach, 2003)
The reasons why organisations adopt ABW can be broken down into real estate drivers and human capital drivers. The real estate drivers are attributable to: (i) real estate cost savings by providing less workstations than employees, (ii) using space more efficiently by increasing occupancy rate and (iii) the ability to use real estate more flexibly. For example, if a department’s size has doubled, the office can accommodate this overnight with significant less cost than traditional office solutions.
The human capital drivers are that ABW provides employees with what they want- more autonomy, flexibility, flatter hierarchies and enjoyable workplaces; thus, enabling organisations to attract and retain more talent. Additionally, since the variety of workplaces are designed to suit the activities that employees conduct, employees should be more productive in these workplaces. Organisations are also attracted to ABW with the belief that ABW can stimulate and facilitate more knowledge sharing through superior communication and collaboration supported by the workplace.
When these are compared to the value-adding corporate real estate strategies, it is unsurprising that ABW is increasingly being adopted- because the ABW addresses most of the value-adding real estate strategies that organisations aspire to achieve. If the real estate strategies are designed to align with organisational strategies, underachieving CRE strategies will also negatively affect the achievement of organisational strategies.

6. How are ABWs performing?
Increase in organisational flexibility was the only CRE strategy which outperformed the organisation’s expectations (Baalen, Heck, Muelen, & Oosterhout, 2011) in (Appel-Meulenbroek, Oldman, & Susante, 2016).
Mixed outcomes about employee productivity:
(Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2016; Candido, Zhang, Kim, Dear, & Thomas, 2016) (Voordt, 2004a)
Struggling to accept switching behaviour (Kim et al., 2016; Mosselman et al., 2009; Tagliaro & Ciaramella, 2016a, 2016b); (Kim et al., 2016; Voordt, 2004b); (Brunia & Hartjes-Gosselink, 2009; Tagliaro & Ciaramella, 2016b).
Issues with past office concepts are still present (Brunia et al., 2016; Kim, Candido, Thomas, & de Dear, 2016).
I like this one best – interesting graphic distinguishes it from other slides with lots of words
Mixed outcomes on employee satisfaction in regards to employee interaction and support for collaboration:
(Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2016; Been et al., 2015; Candido et al., 2016) ( Ekstrand, 2016) (Kim et al., 2016).
The strategy to improve the corporate image seems to be achieved (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2016)

7. Existing methods to evaluate ABW
Large scale post-occupancy evaluation questionnaires assess employees’ agreement with subjective statements or satisfaction level
Surveys does not normally capture the ‘why’ and the behavioural responses – other methods are required
Key issue: NOT THE METHODS but what they’re capturing.
Existing measures attempt to provide proxies of employees’ acceptance. They do not specifically evaluate employees’ acceptance of the ABW features and policies. They are not holistic – employee’s affective, cognitive and behavioural responses.
Why is it important?
Employees’ acceptance of the ABW is critical. They are the end-users that the ABW is designed for and their acceptance of the workplace affects the achievement of both CRE and organisational strategies.
Satisfaction arguably both an affective and cognitive response
ARE these satisfaction level questions in relation to ABW concepts and policies?

8. Research Question and Method
How can employees’ acceptance of innovative workplace be evaluated?
Method:
In-depth literature review and development of theoretical framework

9. Background theories: Employee Acceptance model
Diffusion of innovation: Success = the accumulated number of adopters over time BUT ABW diffusion is two-fold. Organisational adoption of ABW does NOT equate to employees’ adoption/ acceptance
Technology acceptance model: realising potential benefits of new technological innovations is relies on users’ acceptance (Davis, 1985). Acceptance is determined by: cognitive, affective and behavioural responses
Employee Acceptance
Behavioural response
Cognitive response
Affective response
ABW acceptance as a success measure is typically only discussed in relation to employees’ behavioural response to NWOW and awareness of the benefits (cognitive) (Becker et al., 1994).

10. Evaluating intended AND unintended reactions
Intended and unintended reactions to innovation are equally important but unintended reactions tend to get neglected (or are thought to be bad).
Intended reactions: The anticipated employee reactions that align with and facilitate achieving the organisation’s intended outcome and yield the potential benefits expected from the innovation.
Unintended reactions: reactions that may not align with the intended organisational outcomes which are not just negative but may also be positive.
Comments that elaborate
Definition of intended reactions: the anticipated employee reactions that align with and facilitate achieving the intended outcome by the organisation to yield the potential benefits expected from the innovation, such as, the value-adding CRE strategies in the context of ABW.
Definition of unintended reactions: reactions that may not align with the intended organisational outcomes which are not just negative but may also be positive (Fisher & Howell, 2004).
For example, attractive, elaborate kitchen areas were initially adopted to improve employees’ satisfaction and commitment but an unintended reaction was the positive knowledge spill-over and cross-pollination of ideas from more interactions at the kitchen from employees of different departments (Bajaj, 2016).

11. Employee Acceptance model – Affective responses
Affect is the ‘emotional interpretation of perception, information or knowledge’. (Sailer & Penn (2010, p. 8)
Workplace relocations may cause employees to experience different affective responses such as denial, anger, bargaining and acceptance.
In the ABW literature, affective responses are rarely captured except in the joined affective and cognitive response captured by post-occupancy evaluations’ ‘employee satisfaction’.
Proposed methods
Forms of self-report
Inalhan (2009) explains that workplace relocation events such as a delay in moving in may trigger changes in employees’ affective reactions, for example, a loss of enthusiasm and buy-in.
An exception: Tagliaro & Ciaramella (2016b) who asked employees to tick the checkbox for doubts and worries pre-move and post-move feelings

12. Employee Acceptance model – Cognitive responses
Cognition is the mental process of generating information or knowledge (Sailer, 2014).
Cognition is not solely based on incoming information but also dependent on the individual’s existing knowledge, memory, motivation, visual and spatial processing and attention.
3 proposed and existing cognitive measures:
Knowledge of ABW: because employees’ behavioural responses are limited by their knowledge on how to use the innovation.
Perceived support for each activity conducted within the ABW.
Commitment to use.
The inclusion of open-ended and less structured questions enable researchers to capture unintended cognitive reactions.
1) Knowledge of ABW: because employees’ behavioural responses are limited by their knowledge on how to use the innovation. Existing studies have found that employees lack knowledge in aspects such as the adjustment of their furniture and knowledge on the appropriate uses of certain workspaces (Been et al., 2015; Ekstrand, 2016; Ekstrand & Hansen, 2016; Voordt, 2004b) but assessing employees’ knowledge is new in the ABW field.
2) Perceived support for each activity conducted within the ABW: currently assessed in existing ABW studies. (For example, Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2016; Brunia et al., 2016)
3) Commitment to use: cognitive strategies to indicate individuals’ intent to continue using the innovation because collective individual ong

13. Employee Acceptance model – Behavioural responses
Behaviour “… how individuals overtly act in the presence of others; actions that are observable and measurable, including verbal expression”. Includes action or inaction.
Proposed behavioural measures:
Extent of use observations and self-reports:
Territorial behavioural observations and residual markers
Extent of use:
simplest form in a binary response- use or non-use but the extent of use may vary depending on the innovation’s complexity.
Assessing degrees of use accounts for the different employees’ adoption and/or adaption the innovation to a variety of uses (Klein & Sorra, 1996; Shih & Venkatesh, 2004) and various innovation configurations (Hall & Hord, 2015).
The extent of use of the ABW can be evaluated based on the variety of activities that employees conduct at the different workplaces that the employees use and their compliance with the workplace policies.

14. ABW innovation acceptance model
ABW innovation acceptance
Acceptance Level 1: Limited or Non-Use
Acceptance Level 2: Compliant Use
Acceptance Level 3: Sporadic and inadequate Use
Acceptance Level 4: Adequate Use
Acceptance Level 5: Committed and Creative Use
Affective Responses
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Knowledge of ABW
Low
High
Perceived support from the ABW
Commitment of use
Moderate-High
More than compliant but less than committed use.
Extent of Use
Moderate
Territorial Behaviour
Low-moderate
Non-existent
2 possible models that provide ‘levels of innovation use’:
Hall & Hord (2015) model from the education innovation field where the nature of the innovation and the roles are very different, thus, the evaluation is also very different and unsuited to assessing the ABW.
Klein and Sorra (1996)’s model was adopted but adapted because it was a multi-level unit of analysis including both organisational or collective-employee level and employee level indicators; unlike the employee acceptance model that is only for individual employee level indicators.
Source: Author adapted from (Klein & Sorra, 1996)
2 possible models that provide ‘levels of innovation use’:
Hall & Hord’s (2015) from the education innovation field was too different
Klein and Sorra’s (1996) model was a multi-level unit of analysis including both organisational or collective-employee level and employee level indicators; unlike the employee acceptance model that is only for individual employee level indicators.

15. Next steps – operationalizing the model
Proposed methods to test the model
Field work Phase
Affective outcomes
Cognitive outcomes
Behavioural outcomes
Focus Group Interviews X
Method 4: Interview with Janitor and janitor’s photo-record
Method 5: Non-participant observation
Qualitative data
Thematic Content Analysis (Attride-Stirling, 2001)
Nvivo
Quantitative data
Simple statistical analysis (eg. Mean, median, mode, percentages)

16. Thank you! Any questions? Contact: Dr. Chris Heywood
&
Eileen Sim

17. © Copyright The University of Melbourne 2017