2.1. Ethics statement

Both projects included in this paper were approved by the Regional Ethical Review Boards in Sweden (2014/226–31, 2018/768–18). An additional approval was obtained from the national Ethical Review Boards in Sweden for combining the interview data from the two projects for this manuscript (2023-02461-02). The studies complied with ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. After informing the participants about the study, written consent for the research was obtained. All personal information is fully anonymised to protect the privacy of the participants.

2.2. Study context

The two organisations that participated in this study had Activity-based Flexible Offices, both with a clean-desk policy, and unassigned work areas to encourage flexible use of spaces. The majority of spaces in both cases were open areas, intended for both individual and collaborative tasks (see Table 1 for an overview of layout differences, zoning and policies in the two cases).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Characteristics of the studied activity-based flexible offices.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335945.t001

Case 1 is based on data from a municipality with a population of 56,000 and a total of 5,500 employees. The organisation relocated to new office buildings in 2015, and approximately 219 of the administrative employees (including the economics, human resources, urban planning, and education departments) moved to an AFO (detailed description in [20]).

Case 2 involved administrative personnel in one of the provinces responsible for public services such as healthcare, culture, and transportation. The province had a population of approximately 1.7 million, and the public service organisation had approximately 50,000 employees. The organisation had implemented AFOs in two new-built office buildings, co-locating a total of approximately 1,900 employees. The relocation took place between December 2018 and June 2019 (detailed description in [21]).

2.3. Participants

All managers (Case 1: approx. 50; Case 2: approx. 200) who had relocated to AFOs were invited to participate. In total, 33 managers (Case 1: 8; Case 2: 25) volunteered to participate (See sample characteristics in Table 2). Most participants were women (n = 24), which was representative of the gender distribution of public sector employees. The majority were line managers (n = 23), while the rest were supervisors/team leaders (n = 3), middle managers (n = 6), or senior managers (n = 1). The number of employees per line manager and middle manager was obtained for 24 participants and ranged between 4 and 30 (average 14 employees/manager).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Sample characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335945.t002

2.4. Data collection procedure

We used semi-structured in-depth interviews to collect data, as this approach allows participants to answer questions freely, ensures a consistent coverage of topics, and provides an opportunity for detailed probing and follow-up questions [22]. The interview questions explored managers experiences of working in AFOs, the challenges they faced, and the support structures available to them (Appendix 2). To avoid capturing novelty effects, the interviews were held 12–18 months post-relocation (Case 1: 2017; Case 2: 2019–2020, prior to the enforcement of COVID-19 guidelines for social distancing). While the interviews in Case 1 were individual, a mix of individual and group interviews were conducted in Case 2 (group interviews were not feasible for all participants due to scheduling issues in both cases). Of the 33 participants, 13 were interviewed individually, while the remaining 20 managers were interviewed in groups of 2–5 participants (7 group interviews were held). The interviews were scheduled at a time and location convenient for the participants, with the option for face-to-face or remote interviews. Of the 33 participants, 16 were interviewed in person and 17 were interviewed remotely (some of the group interviews were hybrid with both in-person and remote participation). All interviews were led by 1–2 trained interviewers and lasted 50–145 minutes.

2.5. Data analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Our thematic analysis involved an inductive, bottom-up process (as described by Miles et al. [23], p. 62) of examining the participants’ reflections to find patterns and commonalities in how they experience and practice leadership in AFOs. Microsoft Word was used for coding the data. Our analytical steps involved:

1. Two randomly selected interviews were coded by three authors separately after an initial discussion about the granularity and types of codes. Two types of codes were agreed on: (i) descriptive codes that summarised the organisational context and the emotions, behaviours, and strategies described with respect to staff management in AFOs, and (ii) evaluative reflections that captured how the participants made sense of the risks and consequences of relocating to AFOs. A code could be based on varying amounts of text, from a part of a sentence to several sentences, and aimed to summarise something meaningful in the text in relation to the above code types. Of the transcribed interviews, only text that was perceived relevant to the research question was coded.
2. The codes from the sample interviews were compared and differences discussed. Overall, the granularity and the content of the codes were similar, and minor wording differences were harmonised. The remaining interviews were divided between three of the authors for coding and writing summaries for each interview.
3. The summaries were then read and compared by all the authors. This involved condensing the large number of codes from each interview into patterns (i.e., second-cycle codes, ibid. p.79) and sub-themes that had a characteristic meaning in relation to the research question. Before detailing the narrative descriptions of our findings, the results were refined in discussions among the authors and re-reading of the coded interviews.

Our coding tree is presented in Appendix 3. The findings report common patterns found in both cases with themes, sub-themes, and codes. Selected quotes were translated from Swedish to English by a bilingual author to exemplify our findings. The quotes were then attributed to participant roles (TL: team leader, LM: Line manager, MM: Mid-level manager, SM: Senior manager), as well as an identifier describing the interviewee code (I) and the specific case study (C), [i.e. “Quote” (LM-I#-C#)].

3.1. Contextual conditions shaping the managers’ experience of change

Three different contextual conditions were identified that describe contextual differences in managers’ work conditions: geographical distribution of staff before and after moving to the AFOs, number of employees per manager, and the office type prior to relocation.

Some units were co-located both before and after relocation. Thus, the relocation entailed dispersion of the team members, “because you don’t have a specific place where you are always together” (LM-I5-C1). Communication became asynchronous and demands increased for locating the staff. Also, coordination and planning required more time: “There were things we could solve around the table. […] Now, you have to formalize things a bit. You can’t be as spontaneous.” (LM-I32-C2). Such challenges were particularly prevalent among managers with larger groups, while those with fewer employees found it easier to coordinate and communicate with staff.

Other units were geographically dispersed prior to the move but co-located after relocation. Co-location was appreciated by the interviewees as it meant less “rushing between sites”. Communication was improved due to increased proximity, visibility, and synchronous communication: “I really like the building because you run into each other. You can exchange a few words now and then in passing, instead of accumulating things and eventually sending an email about a certain issue. […] It’s the social aspect that I think the building works very well for, being able to eliminate unnecessary friction that builds up over time (LM-I18-C2)”.

There were also partially or fully distributed units both prior to and after relocation. Managers therefore continued to rely on digital communication and planned meetings: “For those of us who have people in other locations, […] regardless of whether I had my own room before […], I use chat and write exactly where I am (LM-I22-C2)”. Despite relying on digital communication, the participants had mixed thoughts on the challenges created by the move to the AFO. On the one hand, it made it more difficult to locate one another; on the other, it enabled spontaneous interactions: “The difficult thing is that you don’t always know where people are. And it’s not just with my staff, but with everyone I need to collaborate with. At the same time, you run into them in a completely different way too. You move around; you have more spontaneous meetings, precisely because they might not be in their room (LM-I6-C1)”.

In addition, the interviewees referred to and compared the AFO with their offices prior to relocation. Those who worked in open plan offices prior to relocation found the large scale of the AFO more difficult to navigate: “With the 1700 people [here], you don’t even have a chance to get to know everyone” (TL-I23-C2). According to those who moved from cell offices, AFOs allowed for better visual control without “the closed-off feeling in a traditional corridor”, while cell offices were more flexible regarding furnishing: “It was constantly used as a meeting room. Either for team meetings or check-ins. When I wasn’t there, my employees could use it. […]. It worked very well and efficiently. But today, this [office] doesn’t work” (LM-I28-C2).

3.2. Misalignments between AFOs and managerial tasks

The interviewees highlighted challenges related to supporting their staff while maintaining their own administrative productivity and working on tasks that require concentration.

3.3. Conflicting loyalties

The theme conflicting loyalties describes the dilemmas that the managers described in their roles. The sub-themes were limitations in fullfilling work environment responsibilities and challenges in simultaneously representing the employer and employees.

4.1. Productivity dilemmas in activity-based flexible offices

Our study shows that privacy is perceived to be crucial for productivity, and a lack of privacy can overshadow the intended communication and collaboration gains in AFOs. Our findings illustrate the broader organisational challenge of balancing short-term efficiency with long-term adaptability, known as the “productivity dilemma” (cf. Abernathy, 1978 as cited in Adler et al. [24]). Here, we found that optimising office layouts for efficiency with respect to single tasks can make the environment rigid and less adaptable to the interdependencies and transitions between different tasks of both managers and their staff. The managers’ views in our study are also in line with previous research on AFOs. For example, a recent study found that employees rated their workplace environment less favourably in terms of teamwork, concentration, and productivity when they had a higher number of desks within their field of vision and when they faced away from the room with a large area behind their back [25]. Another study found that shared workspaces lead to more distractions, less privacy, and, contrary to intentions and expectations, lower collaboration levels than cell offices [26]. Rather than increasing collaboration, distractions and a lack of privacy had a negative effect on performance [ibid.]. Similarly, lower cognitive ratings are reported in open offices due to higher noise levels [27]. Another study of AFOs showed a 20 per cent decrease in cognitive performance in collaboration zones compared to quiet zones [28]. These findings underscore the importance of providing a balance between spaces for single-task efficiency, such as quiet areas to enhance concentration and productivity, and exploring spatial solutions that cater to the overall roles of employees and the interdependencies between their tasks.

The managers’ narratives demonstrate that relocation to AFOs increased proximity to other units. On the other hand, the managers also reported an increased distance with respect to their own staff. This duality may also present benefits and challenges when on-boarding new managers, as the environment may help managers gain a broader understanding of the organisation as a whole, while also posing challenges in establishing team cohesion and interacting with staff. Social relations are vital for well-being and health [19,29]. The theory on social relations and social support has primarily focused on individual and group factors and less on the importance of the physical environment. This was remedied in a study on social affordances in AFOs [30], showing that lack of space, and resulting feelings of crowding and exposure to noise, had a negative impact on social interactions. Another study showed that collaboration tends to decrease exponentially with increased physical distance in open plan environments [31]. Additionally, it has been shown that it is more difficult to form new social ties in open-plan offices, and already established work-related social ties tend to decrease in such office types [32]. Thus, the intended social benefits of AFOs may be undermined by physical factors.

Managers also feared making recruitment errors, as they tended to focus on whether prospective employees could adapt to an AFO. Flexible offices can therefore inadvertently foster groupthink if individuals who can adapt to the environment are favoured over highly skilled individuals who prefer more traditional work settings. According to one study, individual factors influencing satisfaction in AFOs are: need for belonging, need for privacy, work autonomy, social interaction, internal mobility, and age [25]. We hypothesize that brain drain can occur when the work environment does not support diverse working styles and needs, resulting in loss of institutional knowledge and expertise and productivity. To mitigate these risks, organisations should prioritise creating flexible work environments that accommodate various working styles, psychological needs, and preferences.

Our findings show that managers increasingly feel that they are “on-stage” and subject to scrutiny due to the fact that they share the premises with other units. Concerns that managers would signal weak leadership were also raised in relation to establishing new ways of working, as employees who do not follow the agreed rules can continue to do so, which affects the overall success of AFO implementation. At the same time, managers were to create conditions that would support productivity in their unit, which at times required disregarding social agreements. One study suggests that strong change-oriented leadership can mitigate productivity declines during transitions to AFOs [13]. It is therefore crucial to provide managers with organisational support so that they can effectively implement change management and navigate productivity dilemmas in AFOs.

Our results show that managers adopted various individual and organisational coping strategies to mitigate productivity losses in response to a sub-optimal work environment. Individual strategies included techniques to help manage environmental stressors and change negative thought patterns. Organisational strategies included open communication, recognition of issues, training, and support networks. The identified strategies represent both problem-based and emotionally focused strategies [26]. The managers showed well-developed executive abilities in applying problem-based strategies to solve problems that arose in the AFOs. Our findings also suggest that the effectiveness of coping strategies varied across managerial tiers. Managers with legitimate power (typically those in higher-ranking positions or those with expert power) were more successful in negotiating unit-specific spaces and influencing environmental adaptations, e.g. securing quiet zones or dedicated meeting areas for their teams, citing operational necessity. As a result, not all issues could be resolved for the line-managers, either because the physical environment did not support the solution, or in absence of legitimate power, or due to the absence of organisational support. This led to feelings of frustration and other negative emotions, which managers had to deal with themselves. The need to apply coping strategies taxes an individual’s resources, regardless of whether these are problem-based or emotionally focused [27]. Therefore, to enable managers to achieve balance, employers should review working conditions with attention to different managerial levels. This review should ensure that the energy used to cope with the challenges of an AFO does not drain managers of the energy they need to balance their work duties. Interventions may involve leadership development programs or forums for lower-tier managers, to provide avenues for support, feedback, training and access to shared resources that could help mitigate the uneven burden of AFOs across the managerial hierarchies [33–35].

Our findings indicate risks posed to managers’ productivity and health, and consequently, the achievement of organisational goals. Having the same level of responsibility with inadequate physical resources creates an imbalance between job demands and resources [see JD-R in 36]. A sustained imbalance between high job demands and low resources leads to increased effort depletes employees’ physical, emotional, and cognitive resources and may lead to exhaustion, burnout, turnover, and poor service quality, particularly in human services [37]. The rise of flexible and hybrid work arrangements necessitates a re-examination of JD-R model’s applicability in contemporary work environments [38]. New ways of organising work introduces novel demands on both employees and managers, including increased cognitive load, fragmented communication, and the need for self-regulation and boundary-setting. Organizational support emerges as a critical resource in hybrid contexts. Without sufficient investment in digital tools, training, and inclusive leadership practices, the potential benefits of hybrid work may be undermined.

It is relevant to emphasize that our participating organisations operate within the public service sector, where evidence points to hazardous psychosocial working conditions and high levels of stress and sick leave [39,40]. Managers, in turn, constitute part of the subordinates’ work environment and impact employee health and turnover rates [41,42]. Research has also shown that managers experiencing poor working conditions are more likely to make less informed decisions and provide insufficient support for their subordinates, which can negatively influence the organization’s productivity [43,44]. Therefore, when modifying physical work environment, we recommend prioritizing improvements to managers’ working conditions, as a key strategy for promoting both employee well-being and organizational performance.

4.2. Conflicting loyalties

In the narratives, an experience of ethical stress is expressed. Ethical or moral stress can be defined as a psychological state arising from a person’s uncertainty about fulfilling relevant moral obligations [45] and is a frequently studied phenomenon among healthcare professionals [46]. Among managers, this uncertainty often emerges when managers face competing demands for limited resources from multiple stakeholders or across various role identities [47]. Similarly, our study shows that managers in AFOs deal with competing demands and limited resources (e.g. distraction-free spaces), simultaneously balancing the needs of their own staff with staff in other units and defending the organisation’s decision to implement AFOs without clear guidance. Our results are in line with two other case studies of AFOs, where managers reported a lack of support for making workplace adjustments [17,48]. Thus, fulfilling the legal requirements for the management of occupational health and safety in Sweden is more complicated for managers in AFOs, resulting in ethical stress.

On an organisational level, a broad range of challenges are at play in terms of workplace design. In particular, societal and environmental challenges (e.g. the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda with its sustainable development goals) add another layer of complexity. From an environmental perspective, these goals require the efficient use of energy and workspaces, particularly when staff work from multiple locations both within and outside of an organisations’ facilities. However, our results indicate that transitioning to AFOs imposes risks related to productivity loss and work-related health problems, presenting a conflict between environmental and social sustainability goals. Organisations must recognise and manage these “wicked problems”, which involves navigating complex trade-offs, fostering collaboration, and understanding that progress in one area may impact others. Despite the rhetoric of staff empowerment when implementing AFOs, the dominant organisational agenda for implementation has been cost management. Parker [6] stressed the importance of highlighting and further examining several aspects of these competing goals.

Creating a satisfactory physical work environment when it comes to lighting, furnishings, acoustics, and layout improves employees’ perception of organisational support. This allows employees to participate in both job crafting and decision making, and in turn increases workers’ engagement and organisational citizenship behaviour [49]. Thus, investing in well-thought-out, employee-centred office design is crucial when planning new offices, as it is less expensive to make changes on blueprints than to alter physical structures at a later date.

4.3. Study relevance and practical implications in the post-pandemic era

Conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, our study show that remote work was used to cope with the shortcomings of AFOs. Regardless of the degree to which remote work was practiced, managers in AFOs struggled due to a limited overview of the office, increased asynchronous communication, and the need for more scheduled meetings. These challenges align with findings from studies on remote work. For instance, one study shows a decrease in synchronous communication among remote workers [50]. A recently published study [51] describes how remote work in the post-pandemic era requires changes in communication patterns for collaboration, employee engagement, and the sense of belonging. The authors also emphasise the importance of leadership in creating a successful remote work culture in remote or hybrid work. In line with this, we found that managers who had partially or fully distributed units both prior to and after relocation had developed leadership strategies to rely more on digital communication and to strive for a balanced approach between trust and control. Despite these strategies, they reported that the AFO setting made it more difficult to locate staff and other colleagues when at the office. Working as a manager in an AFO environment that is combined with hybrid work could therefore pose even more challenges to the development of successful leadership strategies. We argue that organisations should be aware of and find ways to support managers to develop their leadership strategies when combining flexible offices with hybrid work. For example, organisations can offer leadership training that focuses on managing distributed teams, fostering team cohesion across physical and digital spaces, and navigating the challenges of reduced face-to-face interaction in flexible offices. Other examples may include support from supervisors for prioritization of work by means of a dialogue about what should and should not be done when physical and technical resources are inadequate. Peer forums or mentoring programs can also provide managers with opportunities to share experiences and learn adaptive strategies from colleagues in similar roles. Additionally, organisations can implement clear communication protocols and digital collaboration tools that help managers maintain visibility and engagement with their teams, regardless of location. Apart from these recommendations, the physical environment should provide access to quiet zones or bookable private spaces within flexible offices for supporting managers’ tasks. By combining environmental adjustments with strategic leadership support, organisations can help managers lead effectively in increasingly flexible and complex work settings.

Reflecting on our findings in the post-pandemic era, the increased opportunity for remote work could compensate for an office environment that does not meet employees’ needs for privacy and concentration. In such cases, remote work could protect against the lack of supportive office environments or unwanted social interactions. On the other hand, all staff may not have the spatial or social conditions for remote work, which means that employers still need to offer supportive office environments. The increased autonomy associated with remote work has been shown to lower the risk of burnout [52], and remote work could be a suitable strategy for employees who struggle to be productive in the office. Another recent study found that staff who worked more remotely than they would like reported worse well-being compared to those who worked less remotely than they preferred [53]. These studies suggest that remote work should be carefully managed [52,53]. If remote work increases, this will likely also influence managers’ strategies for fostering strong communication and collaboration in the workplace. This shift could also complicate the sense of belonging while exacerbating inequalities among people with disabilities [51,52]. We believe that it is essential that the work environment provides the necessary conditions, so that remote work does not have to be used to manage one’s tasks.

4.4. Methodological considerations

One of the strengths of our study is the choice of interview method, which allowed us to capture managers’ experiences in AFOs, adressing a knowledge gap in workplace studies. Another strength is our sample of two organisations, with a total of 33 managers from different work contexts.

To assess the rigor of our study, four methodological criteria relevant for obtaining trustworthiness in qualitative research will be discussed (see Miles et al. [23], p. 304). First, credibility and neutrality were ensured by using multiple interviewers in the two case studies and by performing several re-readings of the transcriptions. This allowed for careful labelling and comparison of codes and themes. Second, confirmability was achieved through frequent discussions among all co-authors and through presentations and discussions of results within the research group. Third, dependability was strenghtened by recruting participants 12–18 months post-relocation. This ensured that we would capture long-lasting aspects of managers’ work conditions in AFOs and avoid capturing initial impressions of working in AFOs. Despite mixing individual and group interviews, we found similar narratives and a saturation of data from both case organisations. Individual interviews tend to generate a broader range of unique responses per person [54], likely with more sensitive information than group interviews [55,56]. As the purpose of our study was exploratory, we found that mixing these methods allowed us to uncover different types of experiences and capture both moderately and very sensitive topics. Another consideration in terms of dependability is self-selection bias, as our participants volunteered to share their insights and experiences, and may have overrepresented certain viewpoints. As our participants from both cases represented a variety of departments, we found that their in-depth and detailed narratives reflected how it is to lead different types of work groups in AFOs which corresponds to our exploratory aim. A purposive sampling would have been devised if we did not have representation from different parts of the organisation, or if our focus was on a certain managerial level. It is important to note that we have an overrepresentation of line-managers in our sample (portraying the organisational structure), and therefore experiences of mid- and top-level management are underrepresented in our study.

To achieve transferability, efforts were made to obtain a rich variation in the study sample with respect to the recruitment of managers with different characteristics. This included prior experience as a manager, number and distribution of employees, type of work unit, and office type prior to relocation. In addition, we recruited interviewees from two public sector organisations with different assignments, AFO layouts, and geographical locations. The timing of our data collection prior to COVID-19 presents a risk for limited transferrability of our findings to AFO contexts in which remote work is common today. However, it is important to note that remote work was raised as a strategy by some managers for coping with distractions. In additon, some of our interviewees were responsible for geographically distributed units and thus managed remote workers. The physical distribution of staff in the AFOs and the resulting challenges identified in our study are similar to the challenges of increased distance between remote workers and their managers, which is why we believe that our findings are also transferable to managers in AFOs in the hybrid era.