Psychosocial hazards of open-plan academic offices

Individual cell offices for academics can be seen as underutilised, less necessary in the digital age, and an impediment to collaboration. However, research indicates that academics are resistant to the open-plan alternative (Baldry and Barnes 2012) and that open-plan can affect productivity and wellbeing (Kim and Dear 2013; Engelen et al. 2016). Open-plan can also impede collaboration (Lansdale et al. 2011; Thompson 2013). This paper considers open-plan through the lens of psychosocial hazards. In NSW, the PCBU has the primary duty of care to provide the highest level of protection to workers to the extent 'reasonably practicable'. Exercising the duty of care requires a proactive risk management stance including for psychosocial hazards. Karasek's (and others) demand-control-support theory can be used, noting it underpins information provided by Safe Work Australia. Exposure to work environment discomforts and distractions such as noise can create a stress response. Such exposures can be ameliorated by workers having control over their work and their working environment and having social support from supervisors and co-workers. Open-plan means greater job demands (especially due to noise distraction), less control over one's working environment, and less social support because of barriers to private conversation (Morrison and Macky 2016). If expectations for performance are not adjusted in line with reduced resourcing for staff, academics may experience increased stress. Increased stress responses leads to increased sick leave, withdrawal and 'presenteeism'. This can build to mental disorders of depression and anxiety. Universities may have difficulty establishing that cell office accommodation is an unreasonable protection against psychological injury.