Can Different Types of Non-Territorial Working Satisfy Employees’ Needs for Autonomy and Belongingness? Insights From Self-Determination Theory

Organizations are increasingly adopting non-territorial organizational models with unassigned desks. However, previous research has: (1) shown mixed results regarding the impact of non-territorial working on employees, (2) largely examined non-territorial working in its purest sense without considering the nuanced differences in non-territorial working, and (3) not understood the mechanisms underlying the relation between non-territorial working and employee outcomes. To address these research gaps, we apply self-determination theory, which argues that meeting basic psychological needs of autonomy and belonging allows optimal human development, to the physical environment of office spaces. Specifically, we investigated whether the relationship of two types of non-territorial working with employee work engagement, emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, and affective commitment is mediated via autonomy over office spaces and belongingness. Data were collected from 127 working New Zealanders who have adopted two types of non-territorial working (i.e., work arrangement 1 and work arrangement 2) in an organization. We found that although workers with work arrangement 2 did not report higher belongingness than those with work arrangement 1, workers with work arrangement 1 reported higher autonomy over office spaces than those with work arrangement 2. Moreover, belongingness was related to higher work engagement, job satisfaction, and affective commitment but lower emotional exhaustion, while autonomy over office spaces was related to increased job satisfaction and affective commitment but decreased emotional exhaustion. We also found that autonomy over office spaces, but not belongingness, mediated the relationship of non-territorial working with emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction.