Does office aesthetics drive job choice? Boosting employee experience and well-being perception through workplace design

Abstract

Purpose

Drawing from experiential theory and decision-making theory, this article aims to posit that workplace aesthetics acts as a driver for job choice when included with an employment offer. Whilst organisational literature has recognised that office experiential cues in general, and aesthetics in particular, affect employee performance and well-being, employer attractiveness scales have not yet incorporated office aesthetics as a component of job-offer choice.

Design/methodology/approach

A choice-based conjoint (CBC) experiment was conducted to estimate the weighted utilities of three aesthetic and three non-aesthetic employer attributes. Subsequently, the attributes' importance in the job choice decision was estimated.

Findings

The results indicate that aesthetic attributes in the workplace can be equally important in the decision-making process as non-aesthetic attributes and that aesthetic attributes deliver as much utility as non-aesthetic attributes in driving job choice.

Practical implications

These conclusions are relevant for Human Resource (HR) managers engaged in crafting job offers, who should consider that employees may improve their assessment of a job offer as a result of superior organisational aesthetics demonstrated during the recruitment process as well as in contexts where employees would be expected to combine remote and office-based work.

Originality/value

The present study represents a novel approach to understanding job applicants' preferences for aesthetic elements in the workplace. The results suggest that the workplace experience is relativistic and that considering applicants' latent preferences is crucial when designing efficient job offers.

Citation

Ronda, L. and de Gracia, E. (2022), "Does office aesthetics drive job choice? Boosting employee experience and well-being perception through workplace design", Employee Relations, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1077-1091. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2021-0253