A meaningful working environment

The forgotten dimension of Activity-Based Working

Although people do not all experience a working environment in the same way, they often form a first impression of an organisation within a matter of moments. This is based not only on the people they meet, but also on the environment they enter. The layout, the atmosphere and the use of the space communicate what is important, how people interact with one another and what behaviour is encouraged.

A working environment is therefore more than just a place where work is carried out. It not only supports day-to-day work, but also communicates what is important, which values are central and what behaviour is encouraged. It is precisely this function of conveying meaning that has been overlooked in many discussions

Context determines behaviour

In a much-quoted speech, the late Professor Sumantra Ghoshal (London Business School) compares his summers in Calcutta – stifling, oppressive and exhausting – with his springs in Fontainebleau – light, fresh and energetic. He describes how he behaves very differently in those two environments. In Calcutta, he is mainly focused on getting through the day. In Fontainebleau, he feels more energetic, seeks out others, comes up with new ideas and views his work with greater optimism.

The person remains the same, but the context elicits different behaviour. Ghoshal uses this example to illustrate that behaviour does not stem solely from a person’s personality, but is also strongly influenced by the environment in which they find themselves. He summarised this idea in the now widely cited expression ‘The Smell of the Place’ (Ghoshal, 2006; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1999).

By ‘The Smell of the Place’, Ghoshal is not referring to the literal smell of a building, but to the overall experience of an organisation. It is what people experience as soon as they walk in, even before anyone explains the mission or hands over a policy document. It is the sum of explicit and implicit signals that indicate what behaviour is normal, desirable and safe here.

If context influences behaviour, the question arises as to what that context actually consists of. What role does the working environment play in this?

Context is designed

Environmental psychologist Franklin Becker provides an important answer to this. In *Housing Messages* (1977) and later *Workspace* (1981), he describes how buildings constantly convey messages (Becker, 1977; Becker, 1981). Not with words, but through space, light, materials, colours, art and the way in which people can interact.

A building is thus constantly communicating. The location of a boardroom, the choice between open-plan or private workspaces, the layout of meeting areas or the presence of art all say something about trust, hierarchy, autonomy and collaboration. Whether designers are aware of it or not, buildings constantly convey messages about the organisation and the way work is carried out within it.

The working environment is therefore not a neutral backdrop where work happens by chance, but an active part of the organisational context. At the same time, that context is not created solely by the design. Leadership, organisational culture and the day-to-day behaviour of staff also help determine how a working environment is ultimately experienced. After all, an open meeting space that is never used spontaneously tells a different story from the same space where colleagues naturally seek each other out. The working environment influences behaviour, but people’s behaviour also gives meaning to the working environment.

A working environment therefore fulfils two functions. It supports the work and communicates what is important, which values are central and what behaviour is encouraged. It is precisely this second function that has been overlooked in many discussions about working environments.

A meaningful working environment not only supports the work itself, but also conveys what is important, which values are central and what behaviour is encouraged.

If buildings convey meaning, they can therefore also be deliberately designed to support certain behaviours and values. This is precisely where Interpolis stood out.

Interpolis: a meaningful working environment

Interpolis in Tilburg was the first large-scale implementation of Activity-Based Working (ABW). Although the project dates back to the 1990s, the underlying design philosophy remains surprisingly relevant today. Now, more than ever, as the office increasingly becomes a place for people to meet, it deserves renewed attention.

The vision of Erik Veldhoen and his team formed the basis for an integrated approach in which people, organisation, technology and the built environment reinforced one another (Veldhoen, 1995). The variety of workspaces, the freedom of choice for staff and the more efficient use of space were important outcomes of this, but not the aim in themselves.

In subsequent writings and discussions about Activity-Based Working, the focus has often been primarily on these functional characteristics. As a result, the fact that Interpolis was also designed as an environment that communicated identity, interaction, freedom of choice, appreciation and organisational culture has been overlooked. The building did not merely support activities; it also gave expression to the organisation’s values and ambitions.

The architecture, interior design and landscape design combined to create a working environment that not only supported a different way of working, but also offered staff a completely different experience of work. Architect Abe Bonnema designed the building, whilst Nel Verschuuren (Kho Liang Ie Associates) was responsible for the interior. Various designers and artists were involved in the fit-out, including Marcel Wanders, Piet Hein Eek and Joep van Lieshout. Precisely because different designers each added their own distinctive touch, the result was not a uniform office environment but a working environment with varied atmospheres, characters and surprises. This created a working environment that not only offered choice but also invited staff to explore.

Staff could hold meetings in spherical pods, work on raised platforms or meet up in a bright red, cave-like space reminiscent of a womb. Sculptures by Joep van Lieshout, rich colours, diverse materials and varied textures shattered the image of the traditional office as a place centred primarily on rules and routines. Each of the ten catering units was given its own identity, giving staff a literal choice. Even the surrounding park, designed by landscape architect Adriaan Geuze (West 8), formed part of that experience.

This was not merely decoration. The design constantly reminded staff that work could be more than just carrying out tasks. It conveyed that interaction was important, that experimentation was valued, that diversity was a given, and that staff were given the freedom to make their own choices. Freedom was not only organised, but also visualised.

An office concept is not the goal, but the spatial translation of a broader design philosophy.

Perhaps even more important was the message the working environment conveyed about the staff themselves. The attention to design, art and quality showed that people were worth working in an inspiring environment. This not only invites different behaviour, but also evokes feelings of appreciation, pride and connectedness.

Interpolis shows that a working environment can be more than a functional facility. By deliberately using architecture, interior design, art and landscape, an environment was created that not only supported the work, but also communicated what was important and what behaviour was encouraged. This gave Ghoshal's The Smell of the Place a tangible, physical translation.

The changing function of the office

Interpolis shows that a working environment can be much more than a functional workplace concept. Yet in many later projects, the functional side of Activity-Based Working has become dominant. Attention has focused mainly on different types of workstations, occupancy rates and more efficient use of the available space. These are important topics, but they tell only part of the story. As a result, the question of what meaning a working environment communicates has often faded into the background.

Perhaps that explains why many modern working environments, despite their functional quality, are nevertheless experienced as uninspiring. Many working environments are still designed from a logic rooted in the industrial era (Duffy, 1997). That logic revolves around efficiency, standardisation, manageability and control. When the office was primarily a production environment, the emphasis was naturally on as efficient a layout as possible.

These starting points are still relevant. Organisations need to manage space, resources and costs carefully. But the function of the office has changed dramatically (Myerson & Ross, 2003). Many activities can nowadays be carried out just as well elsewhere. As a result, the office is increasingly less a place where people have to be to do their work, and increasingly more a place where they meet one another, exchange knowledge, collaborate and maintain the organisation's social infrastructure. This calls for a different design philosophy. Not only focused on efficiency, but also on meaning. Not only on activities, but also on encounter, identity and connectedness.

More than an office concept

Perhaps that is the most important lesson. We still often talk about an office concept, as if it were mainly about the layout of a building. This risks losing sight of the fact that an office concept is ultimately the spatial translation of a much broader design philosophy.

That was precisely the strength of Interpolis. It was not the office concept that was central, but the design philosophy of which the office concept was the visible translation. Perhaps that is also the most important lesson for the future. The central question should not be how an office should be laid out, but what meaning a working environment should convey, what values it makes visible and what behaviour it invites.

This makes the working environment far more than a collection of square metres. As employees become less dependent on the office to carry out their work, the office becomes more important as a place where organisations show who they are. It becomes the place where new colleagues get to know the organisation, where culture becomes visible, where the social infrastructure is maintained, and where employees experience that they matter.

Perhaps that, ultimately, is the power of a meaningful working environment. Not that it changes people, but that it invites them to show the best of themselves.

In the BBC documentary The Secret Life of Buildings (2011), Erik Veldhoen gives a tour of the Interpolis headquarters in Tilburg to architectural historian and presenter Tom Dyckhoff. The clip shows how the design philosophy of Interpolis was experienced at the time.

The video can be viewed here.

Sources

• Becker, F. D. (1977). Housing Messages. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

• Becker, F. D. (1981). Workspace: Creating Environments in Organizations. Praeger.

• Duffy, F. (1997). The New Office. Conran Octopus.

• Ghoshal, S. (2006). The Smell of the Place. Toespraak, World Economic Forum, Davos.

• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1999). The Individualized Corporation. Harper Business.

• Myerson, J., & Ross, P. (2003). The 21st Century Office. Laurence King.

• Veldhoen, E. (1995). Kantoren bestaan niet meer / The Demise of the Office. 010 Publishers.

• Veldhoen Company. Various publications on the development of Activity-Based Working and the Interpolis project.

• West 8. Project documentation, Interpolis Headquarters Landscape.

• Additional documentation on the interior design of Interpolis (Nel Verschuuren/Kho Liang Ie Associates) and contributions by Marcel Wanders, Piet Hein Eek and Joep van Lieshout.