Research suggests having a ‘home base’ at work is good for us

It may appear that human workers are too advanced these days to need a territory that they can claim as their own, but research consistently shows there are benefits for both individuals and teams in providing a dedicated ‘home base’ for employees within the workplace. Space-planning, budgets and other considerations may make it difficult to assign seats to individuals; when that’s the case, spaces ‘owned’ by teams become even more important.

Such a view is borne out in new research by Colenberg and du Preez (2024), published in the proceedings of the 23rd EuroFM Research Symposium, which studied work areas developed to build community among academics. A new office floorplan was created for a 43-person community and evaluated in focus groups.

The researchers report that ‘The users’ needs included more quiet workspaces and opportunities for socialising without disturbing others. The most appreciated features of the new floor plan were the addition of small rooms, increased diversity of workspaces, a stronger social core, and a more hospitable entrance displaying the identity of the users.’

This more prominent entrance to the office floor was created with space for displaying meaningful objects, clearly signalling who owned the square feet beyond it. The study builds on earlier research which shows the benefits to individuals and teams of having a ‘home base’ at work.

Individuals

Brown (2009) studied territories at work, explaining that they ‘cannot be eliminated. Even in supposedly “non-territorial” office settings people still find ways to display their identity . . . and claim objects.’ Tann and Ayoko (2020) determined that ‘available studies indicate that territoriality is connected with employees’ creativity, performance and wellbeing’; also that ‘the sense of possession (which allows individuals to satisfy their basic needs for place, efficacy, and self-identity) is key to work-related attitudes (e.g., commitment and satisfaction), and behaviours such as performance and organisational citizenship.’

Ayoko and colleagues (2009) argued that ‘territoriality is prevalent at work and that such territorial behaviours are likely to be triggered by the design and layout of an office space, especially the open-plan office. . . employees in open-plan offices are likely to create personal territorial boundaries as a means of dealing with the real or imagined presence of others.’ Similarly, Pierce and Brown (2020) reported that ‘workspace personalisation and space appropriation behaviours increase when organisations move to denser and more open office configurations. . . which can result in conflict and territorial infringement’.

Khazanchi and colleagues (2018), via a literature review, found that ‘assigned workspace will increase the likelihood of expressive ties with coworkers. . . unassigned workspace will increase the likelihood of negative ties with coworkers’. Expressive (or friendship) ties are characterised by ‘the sharing of personal (non-work related) and confidential communication and by a sense of personal identification and emotional attachment.’

Morrison and Macky (2017) found that ‘shared work environments, and in particular hot-desking, are associated with increases in distraction, negative relationships, uncooperative behaviours and distrust.’ A common area or ‘home base’ with lockers for hot-deskers was suggested. And Kim, Candido, Thomas, and de Dear (2016) identified, via a survey, ‘a fall in occupant self-assessed productivity’ if ‘spatial factors’ (such as the office layout allowing easiness of interaction with colleagues, the ability to adjust/personalise workspace, and the amount of storage space provided) fell below occupant expectations.

Teams

Kohlert (2020) advised that ‘In non-territorial office concepts, this loss of one’s own territory should be counteracted by strengthening identity at group level.’ Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, and Janssen’s work (2011) encouraged the development of team spaces to support intra-team communication and trust building among teammates who might not spend much time near each other in an activity-based workplace (ABW).

Also in ABWs, Wohlers and Hertel (2017) found that ‘as employees have non-assigned workstations, they have limited abilities to demonstrate psychological ownership within the office, negatively affecting wellbeing and job satisfaction at the individual level.  At the team level, low levels of territoriality may negatively affect team identification, information sharing and trust within teams, resulting in low team satisfaction and performance.’

Read more of the latest research insights from Sally Augustin in Research Roundup, her regular column in the Innovation Zone for WORKTECH Academy members and partners here.

Research sources

Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Peter Groenen, and Ingrid Janssen. 2011. ‘An End-User’s Perspective on Activity-Based Office Concepts.’ Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 122-135.

Oluremi Ayoko, Neal Ashkanasy, and Karen Jehn. 2009. ‘Workplace Territorial Behaviors: A Conceptual Model of the Impact of Employees’ Territorial Behaviors on Conflict and Outcomes in Diverse Teams.’ Paper presented at the 22nd Annual International Association of Conflict Management Conference; Kyoto, Japan.

Graham Brown. 2009. ‘Claiming a Corner at Work: Measuring Employee Territoriality in their Workspaces.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 44-52.

S. Colenberg and Mathilda du Preez. 2024. ‘Developing a Community-Supporting Office Layout for Academics: A Case Study.’ In Rikka Kyro and Tuuli Jylha (eds.) Proceedings of the 23^rd EuroFM Research Symposium, pp. 202-208.

Shalini Khazanchi, Therese Sprinkle, Suzanne Masterson, and Nathan Tong. 2018. ‘A Spatial Model of Work Relationships: The Relationship-Building and Relationship-Straining Effects of Workspace Design.’ Academy of Management Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 590-609.

Jungsoo Kim, Christina Candido, Leena Thomas, and Richard de Dear. 2016. ‘Desk Ownership in the Workplace: The Effect of Non-Territorial Working on Employee Workplace Satisfaction, Perceived Productivity and Health.’ Building and Environment, vol. 103, pp. 203-214.

Christine Kohlert. 2020. ‘ The ‘Human’ Workplace – Health-Relevant Factors for Learning and Working Spaces.’ Proceedings, The Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Network Conference, September 16-19, Frankfurt Germany.

Rachel Morrison and Keith Macky. 2017. ‘The Demands and Resources Arising from Shared Office Spaces.’ Applied Ergonomics, vol. 60, pp. 103-115.

Jon Pierce and Graham Brown. 2020. ‘Psychological Ownership and the Physical Environment in Organizations.’ In Oluremi Ayoko and Neal Ashkanasy (eds.) Organizational Behaviour and the Physical Environment, Routledge: New York, pp.67-95.

Ken Tann and Oluremi Ayoko. 2020. ‘A Social Semiotic Approach to the Physical Work Environment.’ In Oluremi Ayoko and Neal Ashkanasy (eds.) Organizational Behaviour and the Physical Environment, Routledge: New York, pp. 214-231.

Christina Wohlers and Guido Hertel. 2017. ‘Choosing Where to Work at Work – Towards a Theoretical Model of Benefits and Risks of Activity-Based Flexible Offices.’ Ergonomics, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 467-486.

Sally Augustin is a practicing environmental design psychologist and editor of Research Design Connections, based in Chicago. She provides regular scientific commentary for the Academy’s Innovation Zone on new academic research in work and workplace.