The problem is not working from home. The problem is the office.
- Jos van der Wielen
- Aug 18
- 6 min read
What research shows about the building blocks of a work environment that works.
It is the HR trend of 2025: bringing employees back to the office. Research by EenVandaag among more than 5,000 panelists showed that 1 in 7 Dutch employees were asked by their employer last year to work from home less or not at all (EenVandaag, 2025). ING issued a public appeal to employees to come in more often; employers' association AWVN reports that 78% of employers now impose mandatory office days. Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology Fred Zijlstra (Maastricht University) called it "truly the trend of this year" and pointed out the importance of the "social lubrication" created in the office — the informal contact that working from home simply lacks.
That observation is correct. However, there is an uncomfortable side to the story that is often missing from the repatriation policy. Research by CNV (2025) among 1,200 employees shows that 6 out of 10 are more productive at home, and 4 out of 10 are more creative. The Leesman Index — the largest international database on workplace experience, with more than 1.5 million respondents — reports that the home working experience scored ten points higher on average than the office experience in 2024 (Leesman, 2025).
If working from home works structurally better, yet employers are still bringing people back, then the return can only succeed if the office compensates for that distance. And that is precisely where the problem lies.
Why most offices underperform
Research shows where the structural bottleneck lies: only 35% of employees are satisfied with noise levels, 41% with temperature control, and 40% with the availability of quiet spaces for concentrated work (Leesman, 2025). That this matters has been experimentally confirmed: in a controlled study of open-plan office noise, participants performed measurably worse on working memory tasks, felt more fatigued, and were less motivated under office noise (Jahncke et al., 2011).
These are not luxury problems. They are the basic conditions for cognitive work.
An office that fails to provide for this actively undermines the organization's performance — and vindicates employees who would rather stay at home. At the same time, the same Leesman study shows that it is possible: 41% of new work environments do deliver an excellent experience (Leesman, 2020). The difference lies not in budget alone, but in the extent to which accommodation is approached as an integrated strategy rather than as separate projects.
What makes a workplace 'great'?
Before we look at the building blocks: what do we actually mean by a great place to work? In practice, eight characteristics keep recurring. A great workplace:
provides functional support for the work and enables employees to perform better — concentrate better, collaborate better, communicate better;
is attractive to employees due to comfort, flexibility, autonomy, connectedness, and growth opportunities, and helps in finding and retaining scarce talent;
contributes to intrinsic motivation : greater commitment, mastery, and impact, reduced attrition, turnover, and absenteeism;
inspires corporate pride and projects that the organization is modern, innovative, and socially relevant;
pays attention to vitality and well-being : balance, exercise, greenery, relaxation, mental health;
is by definition sustainable : doing more with fewer square meters, smaller footprint, reuse, future-proof;
is managed effectively and efficiently : data-driven, low operating costs, professional services;
is customer-friendly to employees, partners, and visitors.
The treacherous thing about this list is not that it is ambitious. The treacherous thing is that not a single item on it is optional.
Anyone who systematically neglects one of these eight undermines the other seven. And that is precisely where the work of housing consultancy becomes a profession: not choosing from the list, but designing the coherence. Research identifies five building blocks that support this coherence.
Five building blocks, supported by research
1. Personal control and comfort. Employees who have influence over light, temperature, acoustics, and privacy perform better and are more engaged. A meta-analysis by Porras-Salazar et al. (2021) of 35 studies showed that cognitive performance measurably declines as the temperature deviates from the optimum around 22°C. Investing in controllability is investing in performance.
2. Functional and flexible work environment. An office that offers only desks is an office that supports only one type of work. Modern knowledge work requires focused work, collaboration, hybrid meetings, and informal encounters — often on the same day. Activity Based Working is therefore not a fad, but a functional necessity.
3. Psychological safety and culture. Since the groundbreaking work of Edmondson (1999), psychological safety—the feeling that one can take interpersonal risks—has become one of the best-documented predictors of team performance. A meta-analysis by Frazier et al. (2017) of 136 studies confirmed strong associations with engagement, learning behavior, and performance.
The best physical environment does not compensate for a culture in which people do not feel safe.
The workplace and organizational culture are interconnected; accommodation policies lacking regard for leadership and team dynamics are ineffective. This is precisely where Zijlstra's "social oil" belongs: not as an argument for mandatory attendance, but as a design challenge for the work environment itself.
4. Nature and sustainability. Here, the evidence is now robust. Research from Harvard indicates that employees in green-certified buildings score significantly better on cognitive tests than in conventional offices (Allen et al., 2016). Research by Human Spaces shows that employees in a green work environment are 6% more productive, 15% more creative, and score 15% higher on well-being (Cooper & Browning, 2015).
5. Efficient and data-driven management. A great workplace is also cost-conscious. Smart space utilization, occupancy sensors, and integrated management prevent unnecessary expenses and enable evidence-based adjustments. For public organizations, this is not an option, but accountability.
From facilitative to fundamental
The common thread: these five building blocks only work in conjunction. A beautiful skylight over an acoustic disaster area helps no one. An ABW concept without a culture of trust becomes a game of musical chairs. Leesman's Experience with Excellence research shows that a new work environment in itself does not guarantee success; without a well-thought-out connection between physical design and behavior, a fundamental gap remains between what the building offers and how people actually work (Leesman, 2019).
The question is not "how do we get them back," but "what experience do we want people to have here — and what does that require of space, technology, services, and culture combined?"
For public organizations, there is an additional dimension: the workplace must make the societal mission visible. Anyone working on climate policy in a drafty, energy-inefficient building with dead plants undermines their own narrative.
Finally
A great workplace is not a luxury product or an HR theme. It is an investment in people and in public value. The building blocks are known, the research is clear, and the difference between an office that works and an office that hinders is measurable. Anyone who calls employees back to the office without first putting the office in order is asking people to accept something less than perfect. That can be enforced in the short term. In the long term, it is a losing battle.
Sources
Allen, J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., & Spengler, J. D. (2016). Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers. Environmental Health Perspectives , 124(6), 805–812.
CNV (2025). Study on working from home among 1,200 employees. CNV Trade Union Federation.
Cooper, C., & Browning, B. (2015). The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workplace [Human Spaces Report]. Interface / Robertson Cooper.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 44(2), 350–383.
EenVandaag Opinion Panel (2025, December). 1 in 7 employees asked to come to the office more often this year. AVROTROS.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology , 70(1), 113–165.
Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A. M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 31(4), 373–382.
Leesman (2019). The Workplace Experience Revolution, Part 2: Do New Workplaces Work?
Leesman (2020). Workplace 2020/2021: The Workplace Reset.
Leesman (2025). The Workplace Why.
Porras-Salazar, JA, et al. (2021). Related meta-analytic work on temperature and cognitive performance in office environments, Indoor Air.
Nassau is happy to think along with you.
A new work environment often raises more questions than this article can answer. In a short, no-obligation consultation, we will look at your situation together.
