Conclusions and further research - Workplace preferences

Workplace preferences – does age make a difference?

6. Conclusions and further research

The aim of this paper was to identify the differences in the work environment preferences of different age groups. The research was done by analyzing the results of an internet questionnaire concerning office users’ preferences conducted in the Helsinki Metropolitan area.

The results indicate that there are some differences in the workplace preferences of different age groups. The biggest preference differences were found concerning personal services, commuting by car or bicycle, workspace that supports team work and innovation, the restaurant offering in the neighborhood and adjustability of the indoor climate while the smallest differences were found concerning privacy, workout services, the café and restaurant offering in the building and the image of the area and building.

The cluster with respondents born in the 1980’s stands out as valuing features that support bicycle commuting and work environments that support team work, social interaction and innovation more than the other clusters. The preference trend line of the 70’s cluster is similar to the one of the 80’s cluster but with smaller peaks.

Characteristic for the 40’s and 50’s clusters are seeing personal services more important than the other clusters. These two clusters also value sustainability features and networking possibilities in the building more than the other clusters. The virtual environment and the possibility to choose work desk based on ones tasks were preferred less compared to the other clusters but it should be noted that the differences were not significant. The preferences of the 60’s cluster seem to represent the average preferences of all respondents.

The results give new insights on what office users of different age prefer in their work environments. The information of user preferences is valuable both for user organizations and facilities management. Based on the results it is evident that the workplace is no longer a standardized product: one has to pay more attention to options provided.

There is still a need for more research with the focus on needs and preferences of office users of different generations as the matter is too often discussed based on anecdotal verification and no or diminutive academic research evidence. The main limitation of the study is the use of cross-sectional data which makes it difficult to determine if the identified differences in preferences

are due to generational differences or if these are a result of age and experience. It does however give indications whether there are differences in the workforce as it currently exists. In order to gain more knowledge on this matter, a longitudinal study should be conducted. Additionally the cultural context has to be taken into account when generalising the results as this research is limited to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area.

References

Batenburg, R.S. & Voordt, T.J.V.D., 2008. Do facilities matter? In EFMC 2008 Conference Proceedings. Manchester.

Brill, M., Weidemann, S. & The BOSTI Associates, 2001. Disproving widespread myths about workplace design, Kimball International.

Brunia, S. & Hartjes-Gosselink, A., 2009. Personalization in non-territorial offices: a study of a human need. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(3), 169-182.

Cennamo, L. & Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.

Chan, J.K., Beckman, S.L. & Lawrence, P.G., 2007. Workplace Design: A New Managerial Imperative. California Management Review, 49(2), 6-22.

Chen, P. & Choi, Y., 2008. Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), 595-615.

De Croon, E.M. et al., 2005. The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119-134.

Erlich, A. & Bichard, J., 2008. The Welcoming Workplace: designing for ageing knowledge workers. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 273-285.

Fleming, D., 2005. The application of a behavioural approach to building evaluation.

Facilities, 23(9/10), 393-415.

Giancola, F., 2006. The Generation Gap: More Myth than Reality. Human Resource Planning, 29(4), 32-37.

Haynes, B.P., 2008a. Impact of workplace connectivity on office productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(4), 286-302.

Haynes, B.P., 2008b. The impact of office comfort on productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 6(1), 37-51.

Herzberg, F., 1987. One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 109-120, including a retrospective commentary (originally published in 1968).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B., 1959. The Motivation to Work, John Wiley, New York.

Kupperschmidt, B., 2000. Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective