A number of particularly meaningful and useful studies related to workplace design were published in 2022.
- Appel-Meulenbroek and colleagues studied return to corporate offices post-pandemic. They identified two segments of employees, one of which preferred to do most of their future work in onsite workplaces (69% of participants) and the other of which preferred to work from home (31% of people who took part in the study). 99% of “office workers” preferred to work in the office when communicating with colleagues would be a significant part of their day, while in the same situation 34% of the “home workers” had the same preference. “Office” (75%) and “home” (90%) workers both preferred to work at home on concentration-intense days. The research team conclude that there is a “need to keep a diverse office workplace available to satisfy the needs of all employees if hybrid working policies are introduced. . . .the homeworkers group appears inclined to even do communicative work from home. . . . both pre-Covid studies . . . and studies during the pandemic . . . have shown that communication suffers from working from home. . . . Although a large proportion of respondents prefer to do their concentrative work at home, many of the office workers employee class prefer to do both concentrative and communicative work in the office.”
Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Astrid Kemperman, Make van de Water, Minou Weijs-Perree, and Jan Verhaegh. 2022. “How to Attract Employees Back to the ffice? A Stated Choice Study on Hybrid Working Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 81, 101784, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101784
- Augustin and teammates studied environments for creative thinking: “Neuroscientists have comprehensively assessed how design can support creative thinking, most often in studies that detail the effects of a single physical factor. . . . multiple factors . . . were investigated simultaneously in real-world settings. . . . many hypothesized consistencies between aspects of the physical environment previously identified as supporting creative thinking and the design of spaces where participants whose [instantaneous] creativity test scores were among the highest 25% (the “higher scorers”) completed the creativity task. Data from the higher scorers indicated that, compared with other participants, they were more likely to have answered the creativity test questions in spaces with, for example, plants in view, visible wood grain, possible natural lighting, nature sounds audible, surface colours with saturation and brightness levels that support cognitive work, comfortable environmental control, ceiling heights linked to enhanced creative performance, and that were perceived to support mental work.”
Sally Augustin, Cynthia Milota, and Cristina Banks. 2022. “Real World Spaces and Creative Thinking.” Proceedings of the 3rd Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, 7-10 September 2022 in Milan, Italy, Chiara Tagliaro, Alessandra Migliore, and Rosella Silvestri (eds.), Politecnico di Milano and TWR Network (publishers), pg. 611-620, http://www.twrnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TWR-III-Proceedings_compressed.pdf
- Backlander and Richter researched how organizations can use activity-based workplaces effectively. They found that “Whereas routine tasks pose a low cognitive load on employees and may even benefit from being performed in a more open environment as more stimulation may be welcomed and make certain arousal levels are not too low (e.g., employees become bored. . . . More complex tasks pose higher cognitive demands, and thus, it is more important for the employee not to be interrupted or distracted by a variety of stimuli like noise and movement during such tasks. Collaborative tasks benefit from face-to-face interaction as this is a high-bandwidth mode of communication, much richer than, for example, passing emails back and forth. . . . a sufficient supply of both focus and collaborative environments is important. About 55% of work tasks are of a complexity that requires more concentration . . . Some slack is necessary to create the conditions in which employees can switch environments based on needs.”
Gisela Backlander and Anne Richter. 2022. “Relationships of Task-Environment Fit with Office Workers’ Concentration and Team Functioning in Activity-Based Working Environments.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 54, no. 6, https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221115181
- Bergefurt, and colleagues “aimed to get insights in salutogenic workplace characteristics that affect employees’ workplace preference. . . . A virtual open-plan office was designed, with variations in six attributes (screens between desks, occupancy rate, window-to-wall ratio, views outside, colour palette, and plants). In an online survey, employees were asked to choose between two of these office designs, based on where they would be able to work most productively or concentrate, feel least stressed, most relaxed, and happy. . . . Plants had the highest positive effect on employees’ mental health. A window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of 60%, an occupancy rate of 25%, and a natural view outside also had a positive effect on employees’ mental health. Screens between desks were only preferred for employees’ concentration. Last, a red/warm colour palette had a positive effect on all mental health states, except for concentration and productivity.”
Lisanne Bergefurt, Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, and Theo Arentze. 2022. “The Effects of Salutogenic Workplace Characteristics on Productivity, Stress, Concentration, and Mood in a Virtual Office Environment.” Proceedings of the 3rd Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, 7-10 September 2022 in Milan, Italy, Chiara Tagliaro, Alessandra Migliore, and Rosella Silvestri (eds.), Politecnico di Milano and TWR Network (publishers), pp. 332-344, http://www.twrnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/TWR-III-Proceedings_compressed.pdf
- Bergefurt and colleagues report that “first insights in the direction of relationships between physical workplace characteristics and indicators of mental health were explored. It was found that exposure to daylight and artificial light, optimal CO2 concentration and ventilation rate, a balanced background noise and sufficient acoustic privacy, temperature and relative humidity within acceptable boundaries, the ABW [activity-based working] strategy, plants and natural views outside, and white and blue colours on the walls were all, to some extent, related to indicators of mental health.”
Lisanne Bergefurt, Minou Weijs-Perree, Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, and Theo Arentze. 2022. “The Physical Office Workplace as a Source for Mental Health – A Systematic Scoping Review.” Building and Environment, vol. 207, 108505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108505
- Cheung, Graham, and Schiavon found that “Existing studies mainly analyse the importance of environmental factors on occupant satisfaction, but often overlook the influence of personal factors. . . . We conducted a cross-sectional assessment in nine air-conditioned commercial buildings in Singapore and surveyed 1162 individuals on their satisfaction with 18 IEQ parameters. . . . we found that occupants with higher job and life satisfaction were, respectively 1.3-2.3 and 1.3-2 times more likely satisfied with the 18 IEQ parameters. . . . We speculate that occupants’ satisfaction with their job and overall environment are entertwined, meaning that a better workspace could improve job satisfaction and vice versa. . . . Due to the substantial relationship between job and overall workspace satisfaction observed in this study, we recommend including job satisfaction questions in future post occupancy evaluations.” IEQ factors studied included humidity, air movement, electrical lighting, natural lighting, glare, views from windows, odors, sound privacy, furnishings, and level of personal control.
Toby Cheung, Lindsay Graham, and Stefano Schiavon. 2022. “Impacts of Life Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and the Big Five Personality Traits on Satisfaction with the Indoor Environment.” Building and Environment, vol. 215, 108783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108783
- Koohsari and colleagues determined that “There may be a disincentive to move around the office in shared and open-plan offices because of the disruption to work or the potential to be judged. It may be possible that seeing others (shared and open-plan offices) sitting acts as a cue also to sit more (social norm)-not wanting to be seen moving around too much or being perceived as wasting time or not working.”
Mohammad Koohsari, Gavin McCormack, Tomoki Nakaya, Ai Shibata, Kaori Ishii, Chien-Yu Lin, Tomoya Hanibuchi, Akitomo Yasunaga, and Koichiro Oka. 2022. “Perceived Workplace Layout Design and Work-Related Physical Activity and Sitting Time.” Building and Environment, vol. 211, 108739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108739
- Maier and colleagues report that “creative workspace design has a positive effect on organizational attractiveness. . . . this attraction effect is stronger for highly creative (vs. less creative) individuals. . . . creative workspaces featured significantly more unconventional characteristics than the conventional offices, including cheerful colors, indoor plants, large windows, views of nature, flexible workspace arrangements, natural elements (e.g., wood, stone), fun elements (e.g., toys, table soccer . . .) and unconventional decorative elements (e.g., wall-mounted bicycles). . . . high-value workspace conditions showed high-end equipment such as designer leather chairs, comfortable workstations with the latest technologies, and premium materials (e.g., solid wood furniture). In contrast, low-value workspaces showed cheaper office equipment made of standard materials or self-assembly furniture (e.g., plywood desks) with basic technologies and standard office chairs. . . . both companies with high-value and low-value workspaces can benefit from the integration of creative elements into their office.”
Lukas Maier, Christian Baccarella, Timm Wagner, Martin Meinel, Tobias Eismann, and Kai-Ingo Voigt. 2022. “Saw the Office, Want the Job: The Effect of Creative Workspace Design on Organizational Attractiveness.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 80, 101773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101773
- Roche and colleagues report that they “examine[d] the influence of physical proximity on between-firm knowledge spillovers at one of the largest technology co-working hubs in the United States. Relying on the random assignment of office space to the hub’s 251 startups, we find that proximity positively influences knowledge spillovers. . . . This effect is largest for firms within close proximity of each other and quickly decays; firms more than 20 meters apart on the same floor are indistinguishable from firms on different floors. This effect appears driven by social interactions. While firms in close proximity are most likely to participate in social co-working space events together, knowledge spillovers are greatest between firms that socialize but are dissimilar. Ultimately, firms that are embedded in environments that have neither too much nor too little diversity perform better, but only if they socialize.”
Maria Roche, Alexander Oettl, and Christian Catalini. 2020/2022. “Co-Working in Close Proximity: Knowledge Spillovers and Social Interactions.” Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 21-024, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=58806
- Roche and Wu link optimal work configurations to particular organization types, recommending “Stand-alone office or campus: For creativity-oriented large enterprises. Your top resource is your people: your employees are the fountain of knowledge that drive the creativity you need. Thus, your workplace needs to facilitate what scholars refer to as knowledge recombination among your staff; this is the process by which innovation arises when existing knowledge is combined in novel ways. . . . knowledge recombination works best when you bring people physically together. . . . Hybrid with flexible space: For the execution-oriented large enterprise. . . . Coworking environment: For the creativity-oriented small startup. . . . Creativity-oriented startups need to make sure their workplace facilitates knowledge spillovers from and to peer firms by looking outside their own four walls. But it doesn’t need to be that far outside: perhaps just down the hall or next door. . . . Full remote: For the execution-oriented small startup.”
Maria Roche and Andy Wu. 2022. “What’s the Optimal Workplace for Your Organization?” Harvard Business Review, online edition, https://hbr.org/2022/02/whats-the-optimal-workplace-for-your-organizati…
Sally Augustin, PhD, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com). Research Design Connections reports on research conducted by social and physical scientists that designers can apply in practice. Insights derived from recent studies are integrated with classic, still relevant findings in concise, powerful articles. Topics covered range from the cognitive, emotional, and physiological implications of sensory and other physical experiences to the alignment of culture, personality, and design, among others. Information, in everyday language, is shared in a monthly subscription newsletter, an archive of thousands of published articles, and a free daily blog. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009), Designology (Mango, 2019), and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.