A Proposal for Optimising Productivity, Employee Satisfaction, and Cost Efficiency

Introduction
Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the most nations (Banwo et al., 2017; Pinkovetskaia et al., 2020), they account for most businesses worldwide and are important contributors to job creation, innovation, and global economic development (World Bank, n.d.). SMEs play a crucial role in the Australian economy, SMEs constituted over 97% of all Australian businesses in June 2022. There are 2,520,419 small businesses in Australia as of June 2023 generating $500 billions of economic activity accounting for one-third of our nation’s GDP. Small businesses provide jobs for over 5.1 million people and employ 42% of all apprentices and trainees in training – nearly double the amount employed by big businesses (ASBFEO, 2023).
Besides, SMEs enable utilizing local resources, which drive countries’ gross domestic product (Naradda Gamage et al., 2020). Despite SMEs’ significant contribution to the economy, they face the significant challenge of providing a workplace environment that drives productivity and employee satisfaction while maintaining cost efficiency. Tailoring an effective workplace environment is imperative in ensuring the profitability and sustainability of SMEs.
Small and medium businesses often face space and budget constraints when designing their workplaces, resulting in less-than-optimal work environments. Most SMEs workplaces tend to have smaller workspaces with limited facilities. Inadequate workspace design affects employee productivity and job satisfaction (Brill, Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Clements-Croome, 2000; Davis, 1984; Dolden & Ward, 1986; Newsham et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2001; Oldham et al., 1991), well-being (Newsham et al.,2009; Bodin Danielsson & Bodin, 2008 : Berström et al., 2015 : Foley et at.,2016) , lower business performance (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908). Facilities such as undisturbed workspace (Gerdenitsch et al.,2019) or meeting rooms (Bodin Danielson & Theirell, 2018) were reported to mitigate negative effects.
The workplace environment plays a vital role in determining employees’ productivity and satisfaction due to its impact on their physical and psychological well-being. First, the physical workplace environment influences employees’ comfort. The physical environment comprises the seating, lighting, and thermal conditions in office settings. These factors influence employees’ comfort in several ways, consequently dictating their productivity. For instance, according to Papagiannidis and Marikyan (2020), job performance increases when office temperatures are maintained between 21 to 22 degrees Celsius. Temperatures below this range reduce physical strength and, consequently, mental performance. Also, temperatures above this range reduce productivity by 8.9 percent (Papagiannidis & Marikyan, 2020). This implies that thermal discomfort is a key contributor to low employee performance. Lighting is also a critical factor in employees’ comfort. For instance, a lack of natural lighting is associated with psychological distress, which impedes employee productivity. Also, glare causes visual discomfort, which may lower employees’ productivity. Besides, the type of office seats is a key determinant of office comfort. For instance, ergonomic chairs effectively support the body by ensuring comfort and good posture, which translates to higher productivity. Also, Candido et al. (2018) argue that activity-based workspaces effectively enhance employee satisfaction and productivity. Activity-based workspaces minimise sedentary lifestyles in the workplace. Increased physical activity is linked to psychological well-being, enhancing individual performance (Colenberg et al., 2020).
Therefore, it is evident that the workplace environment plays an important role in influencing employee satisfaction and productivity. Physical comfort is closely linked to psychological well-being, influencing an individual’s performance (Johnson et al., 2021). Despite the proven benefits of an effective office design, SMEs struggle to provide optimized workplace environments due to financial constraints. An optimal workplace environment requires a significant financial environment. For instance, an organization may be required to invest in smart technology to enhance working conditions. For instance, natural lighting can be regulated through automatic rollers and blinds (Papagiannidis & Marikyan, 2020). Also, office layouts influence productivity among employees. For instance, although open-plan office layouts promote collaboration among employees, they may impede concentration due to distractions. A hybrid office layout that allows collaboration and autonomy is key to enhancing employee productivity and satisfaction (Candido et al., 2018). However, such office layouts would translate to more rented space, which may strain SMEs’ limited resources.
Rationale of Study
The rationale for this study is rooted in the need to provide a framework for designing effective workplace environments for SMEs that promote employee satisfaction, productivity, and cost efficiency. SMEs face the challenges of financial constraints and limited resources needed to develop state-of-the-art offices. Therefore, there is a need to develop creative frameworks that allow for developing conducive work environments for SMEs under limited resources. Also, SMEs need to strike a balance between promoting employee collaboration and employee autonomy through creative office layouts. Also, given the significant contribution made by SMEs to economic development, it is paramount to design effective workplace environments that promote employee performance. Besides, given the need to ensure cost efficiency among SMEs, designing effective workplace environments can promote sustainability by reducing energy consumption. For instance, office layouts with sufficient natural lighting reduce the need for artificial lighting. Consequently, this contributes to environmental sustainability.
Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to provide a framework that SMEs can adopt to design optimal workplace environments while ensuring cost efficiency. The following are the research objectives:

1. To explore the impact of workplace physical environment on employees’ productivity: This objective will aid in identifying the practical solutions to improving employee productivity through workplace design. Such factors include ergonomics, office layout, heating, and lighting conditions.
2. To assess the impact of workplace design on employee satisfaction: This objective will be geared toward investigating the relationship between physical and psychological well-being. The link between physical and psychological well-being will guide in tailoring SMEs’ work environments for autonomy, collaboration, and comfort.
3. To investigate ways of ensuring cost-efficiency while optimizing SMEs’ workplace designs: Given the financial constraints faced by SMEs, this study will explore creative solutions for designing state-of-the-art workplace designs under minimal costs.
   Methodology
   This study will apply a qualitative study design by interviewing SMEs and their employees. Qualitative study design aids in enhancing an in-depth understanding of the study topic. The study will investigate ways of designing an effective workplace for SMEs that optimizes productivity, employee satisfaction, and cost efficiency.
   In addition to face-to-face interviews, virtual interviews will also be utilized to enhance the study’s rigor by allowing for a large sample size (Johnson et al., 2020). A large sample size enhances the study findings’ generalizability, enhancing data validity (Morse, 2015). Virtual interviews remove geographical barriers (Saarijärvi & Bratt, 2021). A snowball sampling technique will be used to identify interview participants. The initially selected participants will recommend others willing to be interviewed for the study (Leighton et al., 2021). Interviews allow the interviewer to explore the interviewee’s perspectives in great detail through follow-up questions (Alamri, 2019). Systematic literature reviews will also be included in the study to gather and synthesize the existing knowledge related to the research question (Paul & Barari, 2022).
   The data collected through interviews will be synthesized through thematic analysis. Thematic analysis will involve three levels of data coding, open, axial, and selective coding, to develop a theory and derive constructive meaning from the collected data (Williams & Moser, 2019).
   Various ethical considerations will be applied to this study. First, all selected interviewees must provide informed consent before participating in the study. For confidentiality purposes, pseudonyms will be used to ensure the anonymity of the study participants (Husband, 2020). Also, when reporting data from a systematic literature review, the sources will be well-cited to credit the authors.
   Limitations
   Several limitations may flaw this qualitative study approach. First, the data collected through interviews may be inaccurate due to the dishonesty of some interviewees. Also, researcher bias may affect the quality of the collected data.
   Conclusion
   The proposed study provides a framework for designing an optimal workplace design for SMEs that promotes productivity and employee satisfaction while ensuring cost efficiency. SMEs contribute significantly to economic development, which drives the need to enhance their productivity and efficiency. A qualitative research design will be applied in this study.

References
ASBFEO. (2023). Numbers of Small Businesses in Australia. Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. https://www.asbfeo.gov.au/small-business-data-portal/number-small-businesses-australia
Alamri, W. A. (2019). Effectiveness of qualitative research methods: Interviews and diaries. International Journal of English and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v2i1.4302
Banwo, A.O., Du, J. and Onokala, U. (2017), “The determinants of location specific choice: small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1186/S40497-017-0074-2.
Bergstr.m, J., Miller, M. & Horneij, E. (2015) Work environment perceptions following relocation to open-plan offices: a twelve-month longitudinal study. Work (Reading, Mass.), 50, pp.221–228.
Bodin Danielsson, C. & Bodin, L. (2008) Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environment and Behavior, 40, pp. 636–668.
Bodin Danielsson, C. & Theorell, T. (2018) Office employees’ perception of workspace contribution: a gender and office design perspective. Environment and Behavior, 51, pp. 995–1026.
Brill, M., Margulis, S., & Konar, E. (1985). Using office design to increase productivity (2 vols.). Buffalo, NY: Westinghouse.
Candido, C., Thomas, L., Haddad, S., Shang, F., Mackey, M., & Ye, W. (2018). Designing activity-based workspaces: Satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Building Research & Information, 47(3), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1476372
Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.) (2000). Creating the productive workplace. London: E & FN Spoon.
Colenberg, S., Jylhä, T., & Arkesteijn, M. (2020). The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being – a literature review. Building Research & Information, 49(3), 352-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1710098
Davis, T. (1984). The influence of the physical environment in offices. Academy of Management Journal, 9(2), 271–283.
Dolden, M., & Ward, R. (1986). The impact of the work environment on productivity: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation and Architectural Research Centers Consortium.
Foley, B., Engelen, L., Gale, J., Bauman, A. & Mackey, M. (2016) Sedentary behavior and musculoskeletal discomfort are reduced when office workers trial an activity-based work environment. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58, pp. 924–931.
Gerdenitsch, C., Korunka, C. & Hertel, G. (2018) Need–supply fit in an activity-based flexible office: a longitudinal study during relocation. Environment and Behavior, 50, pp. 273–297.
Harney, B., Gilman, M., Mayson, S. and Raby, S. (2022), “Advancing understanding of HRM in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): critical questions and future prospects”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 16, pp. 3175-3196, doi: 10.1080/09585192. 2022.2109375.
Husband, G. (2020). Ethical data collection and recognising the impact of semi-structured interviews on research respondents. Education Sciences, 10(8), 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080206
Johnson, B., Simmermann, T., & Bird, C. (2021). The effect of work environments on productivity and satisfaction of software engineers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(4), 736-757. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2019.2903053
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
Leighton, K., Kardong-Edgren, S., Schneidereith, T., & Foisy-Doll, C. (2021). Using social media and snowball sampling as an alternative recruitment strategy for research. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 55, 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.006
Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212-1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
Naradda Gamage, S. K., Ekanayake, E., Abeyrathne, G., Prasanna, R., Jayasundara, J., & Rajapakshe, P. (2020). A review of global challenges and survival strategies of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Economies, 8(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8040079
Newsham, G.R., Veitch, J., Charles, K.E., Clinton, J.G., Marquardt, J.G., Bradley, J.S., Shaw, C.Y., & Readon, J. (2004). Environmental satisfaction in open plan environments: Relationships between physical variables. Technical Report RR-153, Ottawa, Institute for Research
Papagiannidis, S., & Marikyan, D. (2020). Smart offices: A productivity and well-being perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 51, 102027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.012
Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta‐analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? Psychology & Marketing, 39(6), 1099-1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657
Pierce, J.L.&Brown,G. (2019) Psychological ownership and the physical environment in organisations. In: Ayoko, O.B. & Ashkanasy, N.M. (Eds) Organizational behaviour and the physical environment. London: Routledge, pp. 67–95.
Pinkovetskaia, I.S., Lyubovtseva, E.G., Arbelaez-Campillo, D.F. and Rojas-Bahamon, M.J. (2020), “Small and medium enterprises in Russia and other countries”, Amazonia Investiga, Vol. 9 No. 25, pp. 99-106.
Rehman, N., Çela, A., Morina, F. and Sulçaj Gura, K. (2019), “Barriers to growth of SMEs in western balkan countries”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/ JMD-09-2018-0273.
Saarijärvi, M., & Bratt, E. (2021). When face-to-face interviews are not possible: Tips and tricks for video, telephone, online chat, and email interviews in qualitative research. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(4), 392-396. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/svab038
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55. http://www.imrjournal.org/uploads/1/4/2/8/14286482/imr-v15n1art4.pdf
World Bank. (n.d.). Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Finances. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/smefinance
Yerkes, R.M. and Dodson, J.D. (1908), “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation”, Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 459-82.