Non-office workplaces: A threat to innovative thinking?
A case study in officeless organizations, exploring the effect on innovative thinking.
University of Amsterdam – UvA Amsterdam Business School
Executive Programme in Management Studies – Strategy Track Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr. J. Strikwerda
Student: Nathalie Ramondt – 10481788 Original date of submission: 31-08-2016
Abstract
This study provides insights in the possible effects on innovative thinking our changing ways of
working might have, where we move away from traditional organizations, with employees
travelling back and forth to the same office environment every workday to more geographical
dispersed workplaces with a different setting every day. Existing theory predominantly describes
the trend of new ways of working as a way to increase employee satisfaction by proving the
opportunity in choosing their preferred workplace in optimizing work/life balance (Davenport et
al, 1998; Hill et al, 2003; Raghuram et al, 2001). This study goes further and focusses on this trend
as part of business strategy.
Main trigger for this study is a Dutch non-office consultancy company. This mid-sized
organization is new in its kind as it has no home-base nor workplaces, support functions are
geographical dispersed as well. Not by default a choice of employee satisfaction, but rather their
business strategy which determines this unique organizational structure. The organization has a
project-based structure. Projects are requested by the client and executed in cooperation with the
client, preferably on client-side. Project-teams are of a temporary nature and almost always a
mixture of their own and the customers’ staff. This way of working, in close contact with their
costumers, is seen as their competitive advantage. An office could distract employees from this
strategy and create barriers between the employees and their client, and diminish results.
Does this way of working effect their innovative thinking capacity? Innovative thinking matters to
consultancy firms, as it allows individuals to look for other options and solutions, to explore other
ideas, and to search for new possibilities. Results of the study show geographical dispersed
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Nathalie Ramondt who declares to take full responsibility for the
contents of this document.
I declare that the text and work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion
of the work, not for the contents.
Contents
Abstract ... 2
Statement of Originality ... 3
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1. Network effects ... 6
2. Theory and Hypothesis ... 9
2.1. Knowledge based view ... 9
2.1.1. Innovative thinking ... 11
2.1.2. Role of management ... 12
2.2. Workplace ... 13
2.2.1. Cultural function ... 13
2.3. Concept of innovative thinking ... 14
2.4. Proposed field of study ... 19
2.5. Research questions & hypothesis ... 22
2.6. Theoretical Model ... 23 3. Methodology ... 25 3.1. Target group ... 25 3.2. Sample ... 26 3.3. Measures ... 27 3.4. Statistical analysis ... 30 4. Results ... 33 4.1. Correlations ... 34 4.2. Testing Hypothesis ... 34 5. Discussion ... 38 6. Conclusion ... 42 References ... 44
Appendix I Operational Model ... 48
Appendix II Survey Questions ... 50
Appendix III Factor Analysis on Innovative Thinking (IT) ... 54
Appendix IV Reliability ... 56
“It is not simply the brightest who have the best ideas; it is those who are best at harvesting ideas from others.”
Alex Pentland.
1.
Introduction
Innovative thinking matters because there are always things which can be constantly improved –
the greatest power of the company are people who see this small details and have a will to change
them in a better way (Stachurka, 2016). It goes beyond what you can see, it is imaginative. It is
the ability to look beyond the obvious. It is creative and it is different. Innovative thinkers,
potentially any of us, by their consequent action are able to create a place where work will be
effective and matching their expectations. Companies should understand, support and appreciate
initiatives, which come from people.
How can we best facilitate the process of innovative thinking? What is the ideal environment for
stimulating innovative thinking, as traditional work preferences are shifting, face-to-face contact
is being replaced with mobile technology and a demand for individual work arrangements and
non-office workplaces is rising?
Phelps (2013) argues, economic growth is being positively influenced by the stock of new ideas
in an economy. Laterally, Martin (2009) discusses that design thinking is the new competitive
advantage. Extending that concept, we can think of a “culture of innovation” as one where we
regularly work at developing and implementing ideas that can be translated into value-adding
activities for the business and their customers. A characteristic of the knowledge economy is that
codify and transfer (Jensen, 1998). Another given is that new ideas in many cases arise from
combining different insights, different types of knowledge, e.g. combinatorial innovation.
Implying that innovative thinking not only is an individual activity, but as much may require
bringing people together in new combinations.
Recent developments in ways of working in businesses and in institutions, show these new
combinations to go beyond obvious teams and groups within organizations. The emergence of
(creative) knowledge work and especially information goods, have triggered the emergence of
virtual teams defined as team members working from different geographical position, sometimes
worldwide. Its growth and organization’s ability to benefit from it depends upon how effectively
employees are able to adjust to the transition from traditional to virtual work modes (Johns &
Gratton, 2013). The last five years the trend of declining use of offices became the subject of
studies with respect to the effect on our way of working. Massive adoption of The New Way of
Working by business, a shrinking job market and rising service costs per square meter of office
space are the main drivers of the trend. Today, we see the first truly officeless organizations arise,
operating fully geographical dispersed.
1.1. Network effects
Today’s world is hyper-connected. Virtual crowds can form in minutes and often consist of
millions of people from all over the world – and with each new day it may be different set of
millions of people contributing and commenting (Pentland, 2014). Social networks are not only
formed within the sphere of the inner-circle, but much more through interest and skills connecting
different from you, yet prepared to make a connection (Gratton, 2011). Social media conveniently
play an important role in the interconnectivity of groups of individuals who are seemingly not
otherwise involved with each other. Algorithms constantly match your profile with that of others,
based on common attributes such as connections, schools, companies and some activity based features, and make suggestions of people that you may know and may want to connect with.
Up till the 1950’s family was the predominant factor in people’s lives. Towns consisted of a few
big families, living in near distance from each other. Matters were discussed in protected settings
of the family circle. Increased mobility, the arrival of Internet, increased levels of education, the
growing role of the media and increasing accessibility of travelling changed all this and helped
decrease distances rapidly. Zudoff (2003) argues this new society spans the world, most
pronounced in the core of the global economy, but gaining dramatic headway at its periphery.
These new people experience themselves as unique individuals, not just anonymous members of
a mass. They search for sanctuary, voice, and connection. Sanctuary: I want to take my own life
in my own hands. I want to be the origin of my own future, my destiny, and my meaning. Voice:
I want my voice to be heard and to matter. I want unmediated influence. Connection: I seek
community, but without the old feudal demands of conformity (Zudoff, 2002). They are inclined
to connect with others who have similar interests, live styles, professions, educations and values.
Introduced by Gratton (2011) as a posse. She argues the formation of a posse as a community of
the future. A posse is a small group of people whom people know in difficult times they can call
on and trust to help them. Their similarity and shared capabilities are a great source of advantage,
One person’s posse can exist of fifteen people, linked with other posses through one or two
persons, etc. This way the interconnectivity of a posse is substantial and becomes a relevant source
to reach out to – big ideas crowd (Gratton, 2011). As capabilities are often similar within one
posse, interconnecting with others is needed to create complex, out of the box and innovative
thoughts.
Laterally, Storper and Venables (2004) argue face-to-face contact remains central to coordination
of the economy, despite the remarkable reductions in transportation costs and the astonishing rise
in the complexity of and variety of information – verbal, visual, and symbolic – which can be
communicated nearly instantly (Storper & Venables. 2004). And although building strong ties with
people is good for idea flow, strong ties also can be used to exert social pressure. Strong ties create
the conditions in which peer pressure is the most effective mechanism for promoting cooperation.
In other words, networking can lead to conservatism (Pentland, 2014).
Taking in to account the growing need for interconnecting, how do changes in office trends and
2.
Theory and Hypothesis
2.1. Knowledge based viewThe resource-based view of the firm recognizes the transferability of a firm's resources and
capabilities as a critical determinant of their capacity to confer sustainable competitive advantage
(Barney, 1986). With regard to knowledge, the issue of transferability is important, not only
between firms, but even more critically, within the firm. Increasing complexity of markets made
it difficult for firms to have all of the resources necessary to compete. According to Teece (1997),
to sustain competitive advantage, a firm needs more than a superior bundle of resources. It needs
a valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable dynamic capability that can renew and reallocate
resources to achieve business goals in continuously changing environments. Capabilities are
argued to be the pre-eminent sources of firm success (Galbreath, 2005). The know-how of
employees and managers, and the interaction between management and employees and between
personnel and tangible assets generate durable advantages because they are largely complex,
specialized and tacit (Sánchez, Pérez, Carnicer & Jiménez, 2007).
Grant (1996) argues furthermore that firms exist as institutions for producing goods and services
because they can create conditions under which multiple individuals can integrate their specialist
knowledge. Fostering coordination between individual specialists and knowledge transactions.
Foss (2010) discusses a ‘knowledge movement’ has emerged ever since 1990. A common problem
in both the knowledge-based view in strategic management and in knowledge management more
generally, is that little attention is given to formal organization. Thus, in the knowledge-based view
the distribution of capabilities across firms are often seen as somehow directly causing
organization and capabilities are surely strongly related. The links from capabilities to superior
performance are mediated by organization, specifically by such means as the deployment of
information systems, incentive schemes, and allocations of decision rights (Foss and Mahony,
2010). In extension, Strikwerda (2012) clarifies that innovation requires good conditions for
involved parties, having the opportunity to self-organize and self-coordinate, and thus for the
contractor to decide who is involved in a project. This is also referred to as organized complexity.
Important conditions for success are access to knowledge, as well as fast access to feedback and a
measuring system (performance infrastructure) for individuals to show what they have contributed
in various projects (Strikwerda, 2012).
Increasingly research has begun to examine individuals’ motivations to use, share, build and
integrate knowledge considering how their behavior and interaction in knowledge processes are
shaped by, for example, where exactly they are placed in knowledge-sharing networks
(Rothaermel & Hess, 2007). Alfred Marshall argues that industrial agglomerations exist in part
because individuals learn from each other when they live and work in close proximity, and
increasing amounts of evidence confirms this. (Glaeser, 1998) examples are e.g. North Italy.
The intersection of individual knowledge sets, also referred to as common knowledge, permits
individuals to share and integrate aspects of knowledge which are not common between them.
Different types of common knowledge fulfill different roles in knowledge integration:
- Language. The existence of common language is fundamental to integration mechanisms
which rely on verbal communication between individuals.
- Other forms of symbolic communication. Language that is defined to embody all forms of
- Commonality of specialized knowledge. The benefit of knowledge integration in meshing the
different specialized knowledge of different individuals.
- Shared meaning. Tacit knowledge can be communicated through the establishment of shared
understanding between individuals.
- Recognition of individual knowledge domains. Effective knowledge integration also requires
that each individual is aware of everyone else’s knowledge repertoire, e.g. “group
interdependence”. (Grant, 1996)
In traditional organizations recombination of knowledge across divisions and departments is
achieved through processes and projects, which therefore have become governance mechanisms
in the system of internal governance to recombine knowledge and to have accounting information
on costs and created value (Foss & Michailova, 2009). However, this implies changes to the
resource allocation process which not always are acknowledged and implemented, because
management accounting theory fails to connect to the Knowledge Based View of the firm and
therefore stick to the traditional bottom-resource allocation process, which is not capable to deal
with cross-divisional knowledge synergies (Bower & Gilbert, 2005).
2.1.1. Innovative thinking
Innovative thinking in De Bono’s (1990) opinion, consists of a combination of vertical thinking
and lateral thinking, each adding on the other and creates a strong base for new, creative ideas such
as brainstorming, lateral thinking and different stimuli, designed to ‘create break-throughs’,
‘square the circle’ and overcome barriers (Barak & Goffer 2002). Science education, which is
for many decades, gives considerable weight to mathematical-logical thinking, which is selective,
structured and advances gradually. Lateral thinking can move simultaneously in different
directions; it can ‘co-exist’ with ambiguity; it prefers ‘deferred judgement’ of ideas to sorting and
selecting them; and gives preference to richness and variety over correctness and precision of ideas
(Barak & Goffer, 2002).
2.1.2. Role of management
One of the hallmarks of a great manager is the ability to identify the right person for the right job
and to train employees to succeed at the jobs they’re given (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000). The
role of management in creating a culture of innovative thinking is undoubtedly of great importance.
As Martins (2003) indicates taking risks and experimenting are behaviors that are associated with
creativity and innovation. A culture in which too many management controls are applied will
constrain risk taking and consequently creativity and innovation. The assumption that risks may
be taken as long as they do not harm the organization will encourage employees to be creative and
innovative by experimenting and taking risks. Furthermore, managers can create a culture that
supports change by looking for new and improved ways of working, creating a vision that
emphasizes change and revealing a positive attitude towards change (Martins & Terblanch, 2003)
To succeed consistently, good managers need to be skilled not just in assessing people but also in
assessing the abilities and disabilities of their organization and its systemic context suitable to the
2.2. Workplace
Adaption efficiency, also referred to as flexibility has become a catchword in recent discussions
about the new organizations of the twenty-first century. Increasing global competition,
accelerating technological change and growing customer expectations are creating a turbulent
environment. Adaption efficiency is a mechanism that enables firms to deal with this increasing
uncertainty because it facilitates a quick response (Sanchez, 1995; Volberda, 1997; De Toni &
Tonchia, 2005). A key theme of this discussion has been the organization of work. Many argue
that in tougher climate companies need to become more flexible agile or to adopt flexible
workplace practices in order to be successful (Gittleman et al., 1998). At the same time,
information and communication technologies have made work more portable and ubiquitous that
increases employees flexibility to organize work (Moen, 1996).
2.2.1. Cultural function
A workplace represents more than a building, it is part of the culture of an organization. The size
of an office, its location, the number of windows, and the quality of furnishings, for example, are
commonly used as indicators of organizational rank, prestige, and status (Sundstrom et al., 1982).
However, over the years, the function of workplace shifted to a more hybrid construct. An office
is no longer merely a place to work, it facilitates social interactions between people and cumulates
their expertise. Status markers have slowly disappeared from the office, workspace is no longer an
embodiment of artifacts indicating different levels of management. Hierarchy and status have been
replaced with expertise and co-creation. Nonetheless, workplace still plays an important role in
key component of their recruiting strategy and a platform they can use to amplify their culture. By
creating a sense of community, employees are more likely to feel that inherent sense of belonging
that gives organizations a competitive advantage. A genuine social network at the office is a real
safeguard against turnover (Chopovsky, 2015).
2.3. Concept of innovative thinking
Elaborating on De Bono’s explanation of innovative thinking as both vertical and horizontal
thinking (2.1.1.), innovative thinking and creative thinking are seemingly interchangeable terms.
Root-Bernstein (2003) as well as Guilford (1963) refer to innovative thinking as creative thinking.
Creative thinking has been defined by Kubr (2002) as the relating of things or ideas that were
previously unrelated. It combines a rigorous analytical approach with intuition and imagination. The purpose is to discover or develop something new (Kubr, 2002). Creative thinking depends to
some extent on personality characteristics related to independence, self-discipline, orientation
toward risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance in the face of frustration, and a relative
lack of concern for social approval (Amabile, 1997). Plsek (1999) elaborates on this concept,
arguing that understanding the modern theory of mind helps us to be innovative in our thinking
because it enables us to see what we are trying to accomplish when we use various techniques.
Creativity is the connecting and rearranging of knowledge in the minds of persons who allow
themselves to think flexibly to generate new, often surprising ideas that other persons consider
useful (Plsek 1999). Innovative thinking is a mental capacity that we all possess. Just as it is
possible to put a car’s transmission into reverse when necessary, it is possible to mentally “shift
2.3.1. Climate of innovative thinking
Kanter et al. (1997) argues firms consistently come up with successful new products because they
consciously strive to ensure that innovative thinking is a systematic and recurrent part of their
corporate culture and internal processes. These firms have succeeded in inculcating innovation
into the very fiber of their organizations. The danger (Christensen, Skok & Allworth, 2012), is that
leaders simply tell people that the goal is to be innovative, without changing the “structure or the
tasks that people do to allow that to happen. The following are examples of actions taken by
industry, in order to promote creativity and innovation: offering employees free time to create and
be venturesome, cross-functional product teams, open door policy, systematic instruction and
creativity centers in the workplace (Smmonline 2001). Described by Manzi as loose programming,
loose control , organic organization, trial-and-error (Manzi, 2012).
In example, Ragan (2013) describes the structural elements for fostering a culture of innovative
thinking, 1) articulate the business strategy and determine key innovation areas, 2) translate the
strategy for innovation into clear targets, 3) ensure alignment of team members and
communications, 4) implement weekly meetings for rapid feedback, 5) regularly update the plan
to adapt to reality. A culture that continually seeks to question the status quo, that embraces
experimentation and the failure that often accompanies it, that seeks and encourages feedback to
provide greater context, and that is unafraid to react to changing circumstances in the pursuit of
measurable business success, greatly improves its chances of success.
One other element, not mentioned by Ragan (2013), nor Kanter (1997) is managerial trust. Trust
safe with each other, they feel comfortable to open up, take appropriate risks, and expose
vulnerabilities. Without trust there's less innovation, collaboration, creative thinking, and
productivity, and people spend their time protecting themselves and their interests – this is time
that should be spent helping the group attain its goals.
2.3.2. Role of communication
As Ragan (2013) underlines, alignment of team members and communication is a key element for
successfully promoting a culture of innovative thinking. An organizational culture that supports
open and transparent communication, based on trust, will have a positive influence on promoting
creativity and innovation. Teaching employees that disagreement is acceptable, since it offers the
opportunity to expose paradoxes, conflict and dilemma, can promote openness in communication
(Martins, 2003). At the same time, employees must feel emotionally safe to be able to act creatively
and innovatively and should therefore be able to trust one another, which in turn is promoted by
open communication. An open-door communication policy, including open communication
between individuals, teams and departments to gain new perspectives, is therefore necessary to
create a culture supportive of creativity and innovation (Martins, 2003).
2.3.3. Role of the support system
Management articulates business strategy, determines key innovation areas and translate these into
clear goals. Managers in great companies understand that formal structures can be too general or
too rigid to accommodate multidirectional pathways for resource and idea flows. Rigidity stifles
innovation. Kanter (2011) indicates informal, self-organizing, shape-changing, and temporary
resources more quickly. Employees’ formal roles come to resemble the home base from which
they are continuously mobile as they carry out daily tasks and projects, develop work relationships,
and participate in team or group activities (Kanter, 2011). According to Strikwerda (2008)
self-coordination requires progressive thinking from older generations as the motivation of the new
generation is based on others than those of the generation that has created the organization
(Strikwerda, 2008). Self-coordination and effective team work requires, apart from the right
systemic, context for team play:
• One common goal and a clear hierarchy of values, internalized by key players;
• All ( core) players know the game, the operation of the game , the roles and positions in it, the
tactics and techniques etc.;
• All players have constant information on the performance and issues of other team members
so that they can anticipate and respond;
• Because of socialization players know each other’s personality and motivation, in a community
culture (intensive cooperation, in which strong, friendly, supportive relationships are
interwoven with the objectives);
• Yield as a result of collaboration will be distributed according to the equity principle.
2.3.4. Role of integration and meeting structures
To quote Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder: “No plan survives first contact with the
enemy” (Hughes, 1993). Moltke was not implying that plans were not important, but rather that it
For important strategic and operational decisions to be translated into action quickly, requires
strong execution (Neilson, Martin & Powers, 2008). Structure and positions deployed by corporate
governance are no longer leading instruments, but clear decision rights and improved flow of
information up the line of command and across the organization. Then, the right structures and
motivators tend to fall into place. The single most common attribute of successful companies is
that their employees are clear about which decisions and actions they are responsible for. Managers
communicate the key drivers of success, so frontline employees have the information they need to
understand the impact of their day-to-day actions as well as frequently revising targets and
planning.
Consequently, weekly meetings provide a mechanism for receiving regular feedback and, when
progress is slow or the expected results do not materialize, the executive team can have an
intelligent, data-driven conversation about whether the plan “as is” still makes sense or must be
changed. This weekly routine – and the degree to which the executive team embraces it – is a direct
measure of the company's management discipline (Ragan, 2013).
2.3.5. Workload and time pressure
By understanding the elements of promoting a climate of innovative thinking one should consider
the dangers to this delicate climate. Amabile (2002) indicates time pressure and high workload
undermine the thought processes that contribute to creative output in organizations (Amabile et al,
2002). One of the conditions for achieving creativity on high-pressure days is interpreting the
important, they will be more willing and able to ignore a variety of distractions in the workday.
Meanwhile, managers who feel this sense of urgency may free people from less-essential tasks.
2.4. Proposed field of study
What are current main drivers for innovative thinking? What is the role of communication? Do
both traditional and non-office organizations need to adapt their processes to stimulate and nurture
innovative thinking? Should traditional organizations be more aware of being cut-off of from the
world through closed networks? And do officeless organizations need to promote face-to-face
contact to enhance their creativity and innovation process (Storper & Venables, 2014; Pentland,
2014)?
By 2020, offices will be mobile to serve employees and team members stationed around the globe
(Meister & Willyerd, 2010). The workplace is rapidly changing to be less centralized, more
mobile, and more flexible than anything most people outside the startup and freelance economy
have experienced before. And the trend's accelerating by rapid uptake of mobile technology,
economic volatility, and the global war for top talent. New organization structures like Holocracy
are focusing on self-organization and peer-to-peer models instead of the old “command & control”
organizations. These older organization types are adjoined with the concept of fixed workspaces
whereas new organizations look for more geographic dispersed ways to organize work as work is
about serving the client in the best possible way, about output that matters and not about visibility.
What does this mean for traditional concepts? Is this decline in traditional offices a threat to
‒ There is fragmentary but fairly convincing evidence that cities are centres of innovation in the production of ideas and knowledge and in their commercialization (Jaffe, Trajtenberg, &
Henderson, 1993). The notion frequently adduced to explain these facts in that spatial
proximity must somehow improve flows of information upon which innovators depend,
creating technological “spillovers”. One avenue of inquiry has to do with the circulation of
knowledgeable workers between firms, enhancing the ability of these firms to recombine
knowledge, imitate best practices, and otherwise improve their products (Storper & Venables,
2014).
‒ In Glaeser’s model of learning (1999), people can absorb knowledge from contact with more
skilled individuals in their own industry, and the number of probable contacts an individual
makes (e.g. Silicon Valley).
‒ Interaction decreases significantly as distance increases both organizationally (teams) and physically (buildings) (Becker, 2004).
‒ “A nice office encourages better work” An article in the Dutch Financial Times (FD) of June 2015. Office décor as part of organization strategy to help increase productivity. Offices should
facilitate social infrastructure as well as focus rooms, and good coffee (Diekman, 2015).
‒ Despite our increasingly digital world – or maybe because of it – the power of in-person interactions is now more valuable than ever. Sure, social media, e-mail, video chat and other
forms of electronic communication are great for meeting new people, communicating across
distances and maintaining connections, but it's those face-to-face meetings that foster trust and
lead to solid, long-term relationships and partnerships – some of the most important factors to
Or does the decline in using traditional offices provide opportunities in innovative thinking?
‒ As mentioned earlier, Pentland argues little innovative thinking is expected from teams with
limited outside influence. Building strong ties with people is good for idea flow, but strong ties
also can be used to exert social pressure and the reason why we compromise. Closed networks
go hand in hand with conservatism. (Pentland, 2014).
‒ The rise of the independent professional. Their rise represents a major shift in the nature of work and ways of working (Leighton & Brown, 2013). It also allows businesses to find more
targeted and better qualified talent to address their needs, typically at lower costs. Rather than
bringing someone in full-time, with benefits and a salary, a company can hire a consultant
who's ideally suited to a particular project. They want more flexibility than a traditional
employee, and in many cases they're getting it, e.g. dual assignments, part-time hours, etc.
(Schrader, 2015).
‒ There are now more ways to work remotely than ever before, from devices, apps, and other
personal technology that lets us communicate with one another from virtually everywhere. But
there’s another kind of technology that plays an arguably bigger role—platforms designed to
match companies with talent (Schrader, 2015).
‒ The rise of the flexible workforce. Above money or a sense of identity and belonging,
Generation Y (workforce born between 1979-’94) values personal freedom and a strong
work/life balance. They are attracted to the “free agent” opportunities a contingent position
provides. As a result, the modern contingent labor pool does not only consist of workers who
have no other choice than to contract. Rather, it is increasingly comprised of highly educated
In summary, existing literature has no clear answer on the effect of office/non-office workplaces
on innovative thinking.
2.5. Research questions & hypothesis
This study aims to add to the existing literature describing and explaining the effect of non-office
workplace on the process of innovative thinking in organizations.
Research question: “Does geographic dispersion and mobility of workplaces have an effect on the process of innovative thinking within organizations?”
Hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Non-office workplace has a positive effect on innovative thinking.
- Officeless organizations are more likely to be interconnected with others because their
employees are more likely to work in various remote workplaces, such as flex-offices, client
office, or at roadhouses (e.g. Van der Valk), where they share desks with employees from other
organizations and independent advisors.
Hypothesis 1a. The positive relationship between non-office workplace and innovative thinking is moderated by Communication, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of
Hypothesis 1b. The positive relationship between non-office workplace and innovative thinking is moderated by Meeting Structure, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of Meeting
Structure.
Hypothesis 1c. The positive relationship between non-office workplace and innovative thinking is moderated by Support System, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of Support
System.
Hypothesis 1d. The positive relationship between non-office workplace and innovative thinking is moderated by Workload, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of Workload.
Hypothesis 2. Fixed workplaces have a negative effect on innovative thinking.
- Traditional organizations, with fixed offices are similar to closed networks, e.g. posses. They
are less likely to be interconnected with other posses. The process of innovative thinking is
therewith bound.
2.6. Theoretical Model
The purpose of this study is to make a contribution to the current debate about the changing role
of traditional offices and the effect of this change on the process of innovative thinking. The study
provides us with a better understanding of the role of not having an office in the process of
innovative thinking and how traditional offices need to adapt their way of working to remain
The moderating effect, caused by communication, meeting structure, support and workload
(Ragan, 2013; Patterson, et al, 2005; Kanter, 2011; Martins, 2003), is included to make the dataset
generalizable. Arguments for this inclusion can be found in chapter 2.
Futhermore, Nussbaum (2013) argues that expert creatives don’t need to be more intelligent than
the average person. Subsequently, “education” is a control variable.
3.
Methodology
The data for this study is collected throughout an online survey. In order to make this research
substantiated, reliability, internal- and external validity are taken in account (Gibbert & Ruigrok,
2010). In order to prevent external validity issues, the questions used in the survey were derived
from literature conducted by well-established researchers such as Patterson, M.G., et al (2005),
West and Anderson (1998) as mentioned in Chapter 2.3 and the unknown author of Creative
Thinking Skills Questionnaire and Interpretive Notes.
An online survey was also chosen for the purpose to provide an opportunity to challenge
respondents in answering questions on new terms of innovative thinking they are not yet familiar
with. When using face-to-face interviews it is likely respondents will try to cover up their
unfamiliarity with the topic.
3.1. Target group
In order to draw up conclusions that are generalizable, one should have a representative group of
respondents. The use of an online survey gave the researcher the opportunity to reach a large
sample from various companies in a relatively short period of time. Most questions had to be
answered by making use of a ten point Likert scale. This method is used for several reasons. First
of all the respondents of this survey are busy professionals. Making use of an online survey and
answering the questions by a Likert scale, reduces the average time a respondent needs to complete
the survey. This increases the (complete) response rate (Jamieson, 2004). Secondly, the use of a
Likert scale provides ordinal data. Ordinal data is desirable for regression analyses. As this paper
1) and therefore investigates the relation between independent and dependent variable, regression
analyses are suitable.
Subject to research:
1. Officeless companies.
In the Netherlands there are two known officeless organizations, First Consulting B.V. a
consultancy firm with 145 employees and Call for Action an organization of 30 entrepreneurs.
Both are subject of this research.
2. Flexible workplaces.
There are several offices that provide the opportunity of remote working, it is a flourishing
market. These are offices where employees of officeless organizations and independent
advisors meet. Organizations in this branch are Regus, HNK, Spaces, etc. Subject of this
research are the Dutch offices of these organizations.
3.2. Sample
The number of respondents which completed the questions concerning the main constructs of this
study was 104. In the sample taken, 5 respondents were found to have the questions on climate of
innovation missing. These cases were excluded list-wise, so that in the final model 99 complete
responses remained. Reasons for this cut-off are unknown. Employees of the two known officeless
organizations received a personalized invitation to take the online survey. Clients of flexible
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Independent variables
Not having an office
We are in the midst of the most revolutionary transformation in the nature of work and family
since the second industrial revolution (Jänicke & Jacob, 2009; Rifkin, 2011). Times where
telecommunications and computing costs have plummeted, while their power and function
increased. These trends facilitate dramatic new alternatives for where, when and how work is
accomplished and how employees are managed and treated on the job (Hill, Ferris & Märtinson,
2003). For measuring not having an office one variable was designed by the author of this paper
as no other leading article covering this topic was found. A ten point Likert scale was used ranging
from 1 (definitely false) to 10 (definitely true). The variable selected for measuring non-office
workplace, is, I prefer working from multiple workplaces, referring to employees working in
organizations without an office.
Having an office
For measuring having an office another variable was designed as no other leading article covering
this topic was found. Similarly, a ten point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (definitely false)
to 10 (definitely true). The variable selected for measuring fixed workplaces, is, I prefer working
3.3.2. Dependent variable
Innovative thinking
Amabile (1983) suggested, "a specific definition of creativity is unnecessary, as long as the entity
under consideration can be recognized with reasonably good consensus" (p. 360). She advocated
abandoning the hope of finding objective criteria for creativity and instead suggested adopting a
definition that relies on clearly subjective criteria but which can be consensually validated. Her
proposal for rating creativity involves achieving consensual validation by domain-relevant experts.
For incorporating the construct of innovative thinking into the survey, there are not many
well-developed scales available. For measuring innovative thinking questions were derived from the
article Creative Thinking Skills Questionnaire and Interpretive Notes by an unknown author. The
scales used in the article are five point Likert items, ranging from 0 (I am poor at this) to 4 (I am
excellent at this). For the purpose of this paper and the alignment with other components of the
survey the scale was transformed in to 1 (definitely false) to 10 (definitely true). A Cronbach’s
alpha of α = 0.74 for innovative thinking was found (Appendix III & IV).
3.3.3. Moderators
The different moderators have been tested quite extensively in the context of creative and
innovative thinking (Anderson & West, 1998), however no noteworthy articles were found of
testing in context of working in multiple workplaces. For this reason the author choose to explore
Communication
The role of communication in innovative thinking was measured through four different questions
in the survey. For the purpose of this paper, a new variable was computed from these four
questions. Reliability analysis showed there is intercorrelation between the variables of α = 0.72
(Appendix IV).
Meeting structure
The role of meeting structure was measured through five questions. A first reliability analysis
showed there was insufficient intercorrelation between the variables α = 0.67. Leaving Q31, in
face-to face meetings new ideas are faster killed compared to digital meetings, out of the analysis shows sufficient intercorrelation between the variables α = 0.75 (Appendix IV). The question at
issue is an inverted control question and for purpose of this analysis, the question was recoded
before reliability was tested, nevertheless there was insufficient intercorrelation between the
variables. As the inverted question is to some extent similar to Q27, in face-to-face meetings more
new ideas are born, the author choose to omit Q31 from the reliability analysis.
Support System
Support system was measured on the basis of six various questions covering this theme. Reliability
analysis shows there is sufficient intercorrelation between the variables α = 0.84 (Appendix IV).
3.3.4. Control variables
Education
Creativity is the ability to go beyond the intelligence frame and capitalize on seemingly random connections of concepts (Christensen, 2015). To measure the role of intelligence in innovative
thinking, education was used as a variable. Education was measured as an ordinal scale consisting
of five levels, university, higher vocational education, intermediate vocational education, high
school and the option of none.
Workload
There are several reasons to suspect that time pressure and workload may have a direct negative
effect on creativity. Different creativity theorists (Campbell, Simonton, etc) have long proposed
the importance of “incubation time” in the creative process. This is the time necessary for relevant
mental elements to rearrange themselves into new patterns, and for the mind to sub-consciously
choose the most likely possibilities among them. Although processing time is not explicitly
discussed in the componential theory of creativity (Amabile, 1996), sufficient time must be
necessary for effective operation of each of the creative cognitive processes that together lead to
creative outcomes (Amabile, et al 2002). Workload was measured with two questions using a ten
point Likert scale. Reliability analysis on workload shows there is sufficient intercorrelation
between the variables α = 0.83 (Appendix IV).
3.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) edition 23.0 for Windows was used to run the
statistical analyses of the data and to test the hypotheses in this paper. First, the data was examined
reliabilities were checked, psychometric tests were performed to assess the descriptive statistics of
the different constructs and normality tests were performed. Z-scores were calculated. Skewness
(z-score -.034 to -2.44) and kurtosis (z-score .19 to 2.8) fall within the ‘moderate’ range, so
normality could be established. Except support system shows a significant positive skew (-.949)
and meeting structure significant kurtosis (2.169).
Multicollinearity could be an issue in multiple regression analysis. Therefore, the reported
VIF-values were checked to see if multicollinearity could be influencing the regression model. When
using linear regression, following (Osborne & Waters, 2002) four assumptions should be fulfilled
first. Normality is already assessed via kurtosis and skewness levels, and could be established for
most constructs. Statistical independence only needs to be checked when performing multiple tests
over time. After these preliminary tests, a multiple regression analysis with three moderators was
performed using the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2012), instead of following the causal steps
approach (Baron & Kenny, 1996). The advantage of using the PROCESS macro is that it performs
all subsequent analyses automatically and that it makes use of bootstrapping. According to Hayes
(2009) bootstrapping has much more power than the above-mentioned causal steps approach and
is less influenced by data which violates assumptions regarding its distribution. Because
PROCESS uses bootstrapping it does not supply us with a regular confidence interval, but uses a
bias-corrected confidence interval (Hayes, 2009) and accompanying p-value. If the zero does not
fall within that interval, the effect of the test is significant. PROCESS uses unstandardized
B-values for assessing the slopes of the separate variables. First, both independent variables were
tested in two independent models, secondly the two independent variables were tested in one
model and ultimately the independent variables were tested together with the control variables.
regular linear regression module in SPSS, the effect size (R2) of both the independent and control
4.
Results
The two sample groups (officeless organizations and flexible workplaces) were automatically
merged, which results in an overall response rate of 32%. The response group consists out of 71
males (74%) and 33 females (26%). 79% of the respondents has a university degree, 16% a higher
vocational education degree, 3% an intermediate vocational education degree and less then 2% has
a degree from high school or no degree at all. 91% of the respondents is currently employed, 4%
is self-employed, 3% owner and 2% is currently unemployed. The majority of the respondents
(74%) works in a workplace other than the employer’s office, favourite is the customer’s office
(64%), followed by home (5%). The majority of the respondents (56%) is between 26 and 35 years
of age, also known as Generation Y. Only 1% of the respondents is between 52 and 63 years of
age.
As sources for information are relevant in the way information is shared and obtained, respondents
were asked about their main sources for information. The response resulted in the following
distribution: main sources are internet (32%) and social media (26%), whereas books & articles
are used the least as sources for information (5%). Some other sources that were mentioned, are
‘colleagues’ (10%) and ‘other people’ (6%). Newspaper was only mentioned once as a source of
information, as were online learning platforms. Similarly, respondents were also asked about their
main sources for ideas, the outcomes resulted in the following distribution: internet (30%) and
business networks with peers (19%). Books & articles (9%) and face-to-face meetings (8%) with
friends were rated last. Few other sources mentioned, were newspaper (2%), congress (1%) and
4.1. Correlations
First of all the results from the correlation matrix will be discussed, then various regression
analyses will be assessed which will lead to the discussion section of this paper.
Table 1 provides information on the correlations of the different constructs used in this study. All
independent variables are significant correlated (P<.05) to innovative thinking. Communication,
meeting structure and support system are positively correlated to innovative thinking.
Table 1. Correlations between constructs and innovative thinking
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Highest level of education completed 1.29 .664
2. Fixed workplace 4,13 2.61 ,000 3. Multiple Workplaces 6,96 2.17 -,073 -,378** 4. Communication 24,67 5.97 -,080 -,111 ,196 (.721) 5. Meeting Structure 22,96 5.33 ,038 ,130 ,162 ,349** (.745) 6. Support System 38,13 8.69 -,033 ,020 ,165 ,700** ,515** (.842) 7. Workload 10,73 4.66 -,004 ,078 ,027 ,209* ,181 ,170 (.833) 8. Innovative thinking 32,87 7.50 -,144 -,109 ,294** ,215* ,202* ,244* ,072 (.740) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
Note: N = 98; The coefficient on the diagonal in bold are the Cronbach’s Alpha of each scale
4.2. Testing Hypothesis
In order to test the stated hypothesis a hierarchical regression is examined. These analyses made it
possible to examine the relation between the independent variables and the dependent variable.
Before adding the independent variables, the two control variables were added: education and
workload, to make sure the actual effect of the independent variable included in the stated
formulated in the literature review part of this thesis. First a preliminary analysis was performed
to check for multicollinearity. Second, a regression analysis was performed to test the effect of the
independent variables on the two separate scales of (not) having an office. Third, PROCESS macro
was used for testing all three moderators.
From table 2, the VIF-values and tolerance levels can be checked of the different independent
variables and potential moderators. From the table we can conclude that all VIF-values fall within
the acceptable range (VIF <3), so do the tolerance levels (>.01). Multicollinearity should not be
an issue in the final regression model.
Table 2: collinearity statistics
Variable Tolerance VIF
Fixed Workplace .807 1.239
Multiple Workplaces .807 1.240
Communication .498 2.007
Meeting Structure .705 1.419
Support System .427 2.340
Table 3 – Independent variables with regards to innovative thinking
Model 1 Model 2
Independent variables Hypothesis B SE β B SE β
Highest level of education completed -1,613 1,141 -,142 -1,334 1,105 -,118
Workload ,117 ,165 ,072 ,106 ,160 ,064
Fixed workplace -,020 ,303 -,007
Multiple workplaces 1,013* ,367 ,292
R² .026 .086
R²adj .005 .068
Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).* Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**
Table 3 provides the output of the hierarchical regression analyse with regards to the conducted
hypothesis.
Model 1, which includes the control variables, provides a non-significant effect (p=.289).
Education and workload both show no significant effect on innovative thinking.
Model 2, which includes the two elements of workplace as independent variables, provides a
significant effect (p=.005) effect (R2 = .086, adj R2 .068) on the outcome variable “prefer working
in multiple workplaces”. With regards to the first hypothesis, “Non-office workplace has a positive
effect on innovative thinking”, one can state there is evidence that non-office workplace has a
significant positive effect on innovative thinking. These elements predict 8,6 % of the variance in
innovative thinking. Fixed workplace shows no significant negative effect (.985), on innovative
thinking, therewith hypothesis 2 “Fixed workplaces have a negative effect on innovative thinking”,
is disproven.
4.2.1. Indirect effects
Table 4 provides the output of the bootstrapped regression analysis, via the PROCESS macro.
This paper hypothesizes that the direct effect between not having an office and innovative thinking
is moderated by communication, meeting structure and support system. This potential moderating
effect is tested through bootstrapped regression analysis, via the PROCESS macro by Hayes
(2012). The results in table 4 relate to the moderating effect of communication, meeting structure
and support system on innovative thinking. From the data shown by the PROCESS macro, it can
be concluded that none of the mediators have moderating effect on the relationship between not
having an office and firm performance. This can be inferred from the bootstrapped confidence
intervals showing the indirect effect from communication (BC95 = [-.29, .40]). The assumed
workplace on the dependent variable is not been influenced by communication. Similarly, meeting
structure (BC95 = [-.21, .44]) does not show a significant moderating effect on the relationship
between non-office workplace and innovative thinking. As the zero falls within the interval of
support system (BC95 = [-.15, .37])support system equally does not have a significant moderating
effect on the relationship between non-office workplace and innovative thinking.
Table 4 – Summary of bootstrapped multiple regression analysis for moderating variables
Moderating variables B SE B p LLCI ULCI
Communication -,0583 ,1738 .7382 -.2868 .4034 Meeting Structure -,1143 ,1621 .4825 -.2076 .4363 Support System -.1089 .1294 .4019 -.1479 .3658 R² ,1348 F 3.6224
Note: listwise exclusion (N = 98), bias-corrected confidence intervals (95%), bootstrapped sample 1000 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**
5.
Discussion
In this paper it was examined if non-office workplace does effect innovative thinking. From the
results section it can be deduced that hypothesis 1 is confirmed, non-office workplaces indeed have
an effect on innovative thinking. As argued by Pentland (2014) officeless organizations are more
likely to be interconnected with other firms because their employees are more likely to work in
various remote workplaces (H1), where they share a desk with employees from other organizations
and independent advisors. In addition, the ease of virtual communication has facilitated knowledge
sharing and social participation, which in turn has created a powerful type of community that
breaks geographical barriers and schedule limitations and where members can share information
and knowledge for mutual learning or problem solving in a virtual way.
Nonetheless, experts’ opinions are unanimous in maintaining that place is important, even in a
world of highly distributed workers. There will be less space devoted to workplaces, due to
increases in distributed work. Certainly, there will be fewer “personal workplaces” as work
becomes more distributed both outside and inside of corporate offices. But workplaces will be
even more important as a means of maintaining relationships, working collaboratively, sparking
innovation, and fostering employee engagement (Langhoff, 2007). Another explanation is about
defensive identity, an identity of retrenchment of the known against the unpredictability of the
unknown and uncontrollable. Suddenly defenceless against a global whirlwind, people stick to
themselves: whatever they had, and whatever they were, becomes their identity (Sennet, 2000).
And although an effect was confirmed, the study does not provide an explanation. Surprisingly
none of the moderators have a moderating effect on the relationship between office workplace and
amongst others, there are two other ingredients of successful innovation: guidance and support. In
these supportive relationships, they discuss ideas, brainstorm hypotheses, share successes and
disappointments, and commit to challenges.
Similarly, it was not confirmed from the results that fixed workplace has a negative effect on
innovative thinking. It is likely, this has to do with changes happening already with the rapid uptake
of mobile technology, the Internet and use of social media, information is up for grabs. Also the
nature of the researched organization might play a role. And although there was no proven effect
between innovative thinking and education, the majority of the respondents has a university degree
(79%) and is between 26 – 35 years of age (56%). Currently generation Y (1979-‘94; HBR) - is
the most interconnected and technology savvy generation in the workplace.
Managerial implications
We are all products of the agricultural and industrial eras, in which there was no choice but to
bring all the workers to the workplace. Those earlier eras created a series of norms and assumptions
about how people work together, and how support services had to be provided to them (Gordon,
1997). Today we are dealing with major implications in our way of working. Offices are moving
away from traditional workplaces and are choosing for flexible solutions. It is vital to realise that
the process of innovative thinking is changing and requires additional attention to foster. This
study shows non-office workplace has a positive effect on and innovative thinking. Yet, new ways
of working require managerial attention to harvest its full potential. Managers should analyse the
synergism between different non-office workplace practices in order to further enhance workplace
possible ways to stimulate the process of innovative thinking. One aspect to consider is stimulating
the formation of posses by your employees (Gratton, 2011). Their similarity and shared capabilities
are a great source of advantage to the posse since it is this that brings speed and depth. As
capabilities are often similar within one posse, interconnecting with others is needed to create
complex, out of the box and innovative thoughts. Nevertheless, one should ensure these posses are
invigorated with new ideas e.g. other people every once in a while.
And while, the finding that communication, meeting structure and support system exert neither
positive nor negative effect on innovative thinking does not imply that managers can ignore these
factors. As Ragan describes (2.3.1.) all structural elements for fostering a culture of innovative
thinking, mention communication, meeting structure and support system as key to success.
Limitations and directions for future research
Although the researcher of this study has done everything within her limits to make sure a dataset
was created that is generalizable, limitations within this study are present. This study researches
the role of non-office workplaces on innovative thinking. And although this paper shows
workplace dispersion has a positive effect on innovative thinking, additional research to better
understand how this can be effected would be valuable as none of the studied moderators show a
significant moderating effect to this finding.
As mentioned earlier, we know from theory al moderators have some effect on the process of
innovative thinking. As all three researched moderators, communication, meeting structure and
support system do not show a significant moderating effect on innovative thinking it is however
thinking. From this research it is therefore unspecified how dispersed workplaces influence the
process of innovative thinking.
The majority of the respondents of this research worked for one officeless organization. In general
they are more highly educated, have higher salaries, and have more experience with mobile
technology than the general population (Hill et al., 2003). For these reasons, the degree to which
these results may be generalized to other companies is uncertain, and additional research is
6.
Conclusion
The research question of this paper was to assess if geographical dispersion and mobility of
workplaces has an effect on innovative thinking. The paper took a quantitative approach to make
that assessment via a questionnaire distributed amongst employees of officeless organizations and
self-employed workers who make use of flexible offices. Results from the 99 respondents, show
that non-office workplace has a significant effect on innovative thinking. The research question is
answered. Nonetheless, the reasons for this effect are not explained from this study, as the effect
of the three measured moderators, communication, meeting structure and support system are
non-significant. So it can be concluded that no evidence was found to support hypotheses 1a, 1b and
1c. One potential answer, partially supported by literature is the overlap between communication,
meeting structure and support system and innovative thinking as is shown by the correlation.
From this study and the theory we now know the importance of building multidisciplinary teams
and stimulating interconnectivity with others to create complex, out of the box and innovative
thoughts. Leonard-Barton (1995) describes how intellectual diversity leads to creative abrasion,
and challenges conservatism. In a highly diverse group, even if individual members are thinking
within the boundaries of their own experience, collectively they will have numerous perspectives
and those perspectives which can be combined in novel and useful ways. What needs to be done
is to embrace appropriate, cultural, disciplinary and thinking style, build diversity into groups and
then manage effectively the resulting abrasion for creativity. There should be people who are
different and who can challenge others. These “aliens” should be protected. When groups meet,
they must avoid the pitfall of premature convergence i.e. coming to an agreement quickly
Moreover, organizations need to realise creating a culture of innovative thinking is not just about
changing management styles. It is inextricably linked to the structure of an organization. An
example is to be found in multinational entertainment company Netflix, Netflix specializes in
providing streaming media and video on demand online and DVD by mail. Their form of
organizational control makes them unique in the corporate world. Netflix’ motto is “Context, not
Control” (Siegler, 2010), implying that very little control is given to employees. As argued by
Martins (2003), a culture in which too many management controls are applied will constrain risk
taking and consequently creativity and innovation. Rather employees are held responsible for their
actions and are expected to work efficiently independently. Although there is very little control
from management in the organizational structure, there are still tests and policies to make sure that
employees are not abusing their freedom and are remaining innovative and productive.
And as individual firms increasingly become the node in an interconnected web of formal and
informal relationships with external entities organizations should broaden their horizon (Quinn,
1992), their capacity to generate, integrate and leverage knowledge and relationships extends
considerably beyond the resources they own and control (Srivastava, Fahey & Christensen, 2001).
Managing talents, expertise and productivity exceeds the existing boundaries of employed
personnel. It is through an understanding of networks as knowledge encoding coordination within
and between specialized firms in specific cooperative and competitive structures that the “missing”
sources of value can be found (Kogut, 2000).
“You cannot mandate productivity, you must provide the tools to let people become their best.” Steve Jobs
