What is a “great place to work”?

The workplace is on the agenda more than ever before. Hybrid work has fundamentally changed the role of the office: it is no longer a given where people work, and therefore it is no longer a given why they come to the office.

Organizations are investing heavily in office space, but often without a clear framework. The question of what actually makes a workplace effective is rarely answered systematically. Yet workplace strategy is one of the most impactful organizational issues of our time.

This article provides a scientifically grounded framework for anyone involved in workplace strategy, workplace development, or organizational change: from executives and HR managers to facilities consultants and real estate professionals. It dispels the persistent misconception that a good workplace is all about aesthetics or facilities. The workplace is not just a matter of square meters—it is an organizational issue with measurable effects on people, performance, and sustainability.

on well-being, performance, and the ability to attract and retain talent.

The workplace is not just a matter of square meters—it is an organizational issue with measurable effects on people, performance, and sustainability.

There is one fundamental condition: the workplace is not an island. A great work environment can only be created when the physical layout, the social and organizational context, the technology, and leadership are all aligned. A beautifully designed office with poor IT support, unclear behavioral guidelines, or a culture of mistrust will not live up to its promise. Workplace development is, by definition, a systemic issue—and therefore requires a comprehensive approach.

Workplace development is, by definition, a systemic issue—and therefore requires a comprehensive approach.

Based on research and practical experience, we have identified eight interrelated building blocks. These building blocks are described and scientifically substantiated below.

Not everything carries the same weight

Before we go through the eight building blocks, it makes sense to consider a fundamental design question: what do you need to get right first? Not all qualities of a workplace carry the same weight—and when faced with conflicting choices, it helps to know what deserves priority.

Based on the research literature, we distinguish four successive levels. Each level builds on the previous one. Adding a higher level while a lower level is lacking yields little benefit—and can sometimes be counterproductive. An important distinction here is that at the first two levels, the physical environment has direct, causal effects on behavior and health. At the higher levels, the influence is real but indirect—the workplace provides support, but it is not the determining factor.

• Level 1 — Prerequisites. The basic physical conditions must be right: light, air, temperature, acoustics, and ergonomics. The effects here are immediate and measurable. An office without acoustic buffering demonstrably increases stress levels and reduces the ability to concentrate—regardless of how good the culture is (Kim & de Dear, 2013). Employees without a view out the window report significantly higher rates of absenteeism due to illness than colleagues with a view of the outdoors. This is not a motivational effect—it is physiology.

• Level 2 — Functional suitability. The workplace must be suited to what people do. Here, too, the effects are immediate. An employee who needs to concentrate but can’t find a single quiet spot will perform worse—not because the culture is lacking, but because the environment makes it impossible. Conversely, a well-designed meeting area with good acoustics and video equipment immediately and measurably lowers the barrier to collaboration.

• Level 3 — Social quality. The workplace must facilitate connection: informal interaction, collaboration, and a sense of community. Here, the nature of the influence shifts. A coffee corner in the right spot increases the likelihood of chance encounters—but whether those encounters lead to trust and collaboration depends on culture and leadership. The workplace creates the conditions, not the guarantees.

• Level 4 — Meaning and Identity. The workplace reflects what the organization stands for: its mission, values, and image. An entrance that showcases the organization’s history, a workplace that embodies sustainability, an environment that exudes hospitality—these elements reinforce a sense of pride and belonging. But a sense of purpose doesn’t come from the workplace alone. That’s the work of people, not walls.

An inspiring environment can support a sense of purpose, but it cannot create it. That is the work of people, not walls.

The eight building blocks described below are divided across these four levels. This provides guidance for setting priorities—and for discussing what is most urgent in a specific situation.

• Level 1 — Prerequisites: Building Block 1 (well-being & comfort) and Building Block 4 (greenery & sustainability).

• Level 2 — Functional Suitability: building block 2 (flexible workspaces) and building block 5 (efficient management).

• Level 3 — Social Quality: Building Block 6 (Connection) and Building Block 8 (Inclusivity).

• Level 4 — Meaning and Identity: Building Block 3 (Mission & Image) and Building Block 7 (Learning & Development).

1. A place where you feel good and can work well

Well-being, autonomy, and psychological safety

The first building block concerns the foundation of any good work environment: employees must feel good. This means, first and foremost, physical comfort—good lighting, a pleasant temperature, quiet, and ergonomics. The effects of these factors are immediate and measurable. Employees in offices with poor acoustics consistently report higher stress levels and lower concentration (Kim & de Dear, 2013). A workplace that is too hot demonstrably reduces cognitive performance—research shows that productivity decreases significantly at temperatures above 25 degrees (Seppänen et al., 2006). Ergonomic shortcomings lead to higher absenteeism and increased healthcare costs.

Psychological safety—the feeling that you can take interpersonal risks without negative consequences—is one of the best-documented predictors of team performance (Frazier et al., 2017). The workplace plays a supporting role in this: an environment without private spaces for confidential discussions, or a layout where managers constantly have a view of employees, can undermine psychological safety. But the core is determined by behavior and culture—not by the layout.

Autonomy—the ability to decide for oneself where and how to work—is a core need in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A meta-analysis by Slemp et al. (2018) confirms that autonomy is linked to self-determined motivation and engagement. Modern flexible work concepts have made this principle central: employees choose the workspace that suits their activity and concentration needs, rather than being assigned a fixed seat.

2. An environment that suits your work

Flexible and functional workspaces

The second building block concerns functionality: the workplace must be suited to what people do. This requires a varied range of work zones—from quiet spaces for concentration to areas for collaboration and socializing—as well as robust digital support for hybrid work.

The effects of a functional mismatch are immediate. A programmer who has to concentrate on work in a noisy open space with no alternative makes more mistakes and experiences more frustration—not because they are less motivated, but because the environment objectively makes the work more difficult. Conversely, a collaboration zone with good acoustics and reliable video equipment measurably lowers the barrier to collaboration (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017).

Flexible work concepts that allow employees to choose the workspace that suits their activity demonstrably promote communication and agility—provided the concept is implemented properly. This means: sufficient variety in zones, clear usage guidelines, and a layout that truly enables focused work.

A well-designed work environment, with attention to visual ergonomics, sound insulation, and access to natural light, enhances workplace suitability and reduces frustration (Candido et al., 2019; Robertson et al., 2016).

3. A place that shows what you're working toward

Social relevance, pride, and image

Employees don’t just want a pleasant workplace—they also want to feel that their work matters. The work environment can either reinforce or undermine this. An inspiring environment that reflects the organization’s mission and values contributes to pride, motivation, and retention.

Research confirms that a sense of purpose in work is closely linked to employee engagement. When the organization’s mission resonates with personal values, employees are demonstrably more engaged, more productive, and less likely to leave the organization (Cigna Group, 2022; Harvard Business Review, 2021). That sense of purpose does not arise from the workplace alone—but an environment that makes the mission visible and radiates it does reinforce it.

A strong employer brand—shaped in part by the physical work environment and the organization’s image—reinforces the sense of pride and connection among employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Matzler et al., 2022). Research by Heidrick & Struggles shows that 73% of employees at organizations with a clear mission are engaged, compared to only 23% elsewhere.

Hospitality and professionalism—in both the design and the welcome—also contribute to the organization’s external credibility.

4. A green and future-proof place

Sustainability and Healt

Nature and natural light are not luxuries, but essential components of a healthy work environment. Biophilic design—the deliberate incorporation of natural elements into buildings—is backed by robust scientific evidence.

A major international study (Human Spaces, 2015) shows that employees in offices with more greenery and natural light are more productive and have a greater sense of well-being. Employees themselves cite natural light as the most valued environmental element. Employees with a view out the window report significantly lower rates of absenteeism due to illness than colleagues without a window.

Research published in the International Journal of Workplace Health Management confirms that exposure to natural light is associated with higher engagement and productivity. According to a study by the UK Green Building Council, employees in offices with good natural light reported 18% fewer sick days.

Biophilic elements—from plants to green walls and views of nature—reduce stress, improve focus, and increase overall job satisfaction (Kellert & Calabrese, 2015; Browning, Ryan & Clancy, 2014). Scientific research identifies a green coverage ratio of approximately 12% as the optimal level for positive psychological and physiological effects in the office (Liang et al., 2021).

Sustainable offices also reduce operating costs and strengthen organizational credibility—especially for organizations that prioritize sustainability.

5. An efficient and well-managed environment

Cost-conscious and efficiently organized

The fifth building block links the previous four to a responsibility that every organization has: the efficient use of resources. Space and facilities must be utilized effectively.

International research estimates that, on average, 64% of office space is underutilized (IPG Space Efficiency Report, 2024). This represents a substantial waste of energy and housing costs. Smart occupancy data—collected via sensors and space management systems—makes it possible to better align the supply and demand for workspaces.

Scientific research shows that reducing space usage through more efficient occupancy can lead to energy savings of approximately 200 kWh/m² per year in operational energy, in addition to significant savings on the energy involved in constructing new buildings (Mjörnell et al., 2024).

Smart building technology—such as automated climate control, IoT sensors, and data-driven cleaning schedules—contributes to lower operating costs and reduces the carbon footprint. HVAC systems account for 25–50% of office buildings’ energy consumption; effective management yields the greatest gains in this area (Hamdan et al., 2023).

An efficiently managed environment is not an end in itself. It is a prerequisite for being able to continue investing in employee well-being and in the organization’s impact.

6. A Place That Brings People Together

Social cohesion and community

In a hybrid work environment, the physical workplace is increasingly becoming the place where social connections are formed. Informal interactions—the chance encounter at the coffee corner, the brief conversation between two meetings—have proven to be one of the most powerful drivers of collaboration, trust, and innovation.

Research by Leesman (2023), based on more than one million respondents worldwide, shows that the need for collaboration and social interaction is the main reason employees come to the office. A workplace that does not facilitate this lacks a raison d’être in a hybrid model.

Social capital theory (Putnam, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) demonstrates that informal relationships within organizations strengthen knowledge sharing and increase teams’ adaptability. A coffee corner at the intersection of walking routes increases the likelihood of chance encounters between people who would not otherwise cross paths—a small design choice with potentially significant social effects. Whether those encounters lead to trust and collaboration, however, depends on the culture: the workplace creates the opportunity; behavior determines the outcome.

Research by Microsoft (Work Trend Index, 2022) confirms that spontaneous interactions in the office significantly contribute to a sense of belonging and to the transfer of tacit knowledge, particularly for new employees. A workplace without social infrastructure is a missed opportunity.

7. A place that encourages learning and growth

Knowledge Sharing, Growth, and Innovation

A great workplace can foster growth. Employees learn not only through formal training, but above all from one another: through observation, informal knowledge transfer, and collaboration on complex issues. The workplace can either facilitate or hinder this—but a learning environment is first and foremost a matter of organizational culture and leadership. A library of professional literature and an open workspace next to a senior colleague increase the likelihood of knowledge transfer; whether that colleague is willing to share, however, is a cultural factor.

Research on learning environments (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) shows that organizations that actively support informal learning—including through workplace design—report significantly higher innovation scores and employee satisfaction. Spaces that enable experimentation, facilitate prototyping, and encourage knowledge exchange are a direct investment in the organization’s capacity to learn.

The relationship between workplace design and creativity is well documented empirically. Research by McCoy & Evans (2002) shows that physical environmental characteristics—such as openness, variety in workplace types, and access to informal meeting spaces—are directly linked to creative output. Biophilic elements reinforce this effect: offices with strong biophilic features increase employee creativity by 15% compared to conventional offices (Human Spaces, 2015).

For knowledge-intensive organizations, the workplace is therefore not just a means of production, but a learning environment. This requires conscious design choices: visibility of knowledge, accessibility of colleagues, and space for reflection alongside action.

8. A place that works for everyone

Inclusivity and Accessibility

A great workplace is a place where everyone can work effectively—regardless of physical abilities, neurodiversity, work style, or stage of life. Inclusive design is not merely a matter of ethics or legal obligation; it is also a measure of the quality of the workplace as a whole.

Universal Design (Mace, 1997) is based on the principle that environments must be usable by the widest possible range of people, without the need for retroactive modifications. Applied to the workplace, this means: barrier-free access, adjustable furniture, sufficient quiet zones, subdued acoustics, and manageable sensory stimuli.

Neurodiversity deserves specific attention in this context. Research shows that employees with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or sensory sensitivity are disproportionately affected by open-plan office environments with high noise levels, bright lighting, and visual distractions (Rashid & Zimring, 2008). Flexible work concepts offer a partial solution here—but only if quiet, screened-off zones are sufficiently available and easily accessible.

Inclusive design also enhances the overall quality of the workplace. Areas designed for people with heightened sensory sensitivity are found to be perceived as calmer and more pleasant by all employees (Imrie, 2012). Inclusivity is therefore not an add-on, but a quality enhancer.

Conclusion: The Workplace as a Strategic Investment

The eight building blocks are not simply the sum of individual wishes—they are interconnected. Well-being and autonomy require a functional environment. Functionality presupposes an inspiring context. Pride and image are more credible in a sustainable building. Sustainability requires efficient management. And all these layers are strengthened when the workplace also fosters connection, encourages learning, and works for everyone.

Scientific research supports each of these building blocks. Together, they define what a great workplace truly is: not a luxury, but a smart investment in people, performance, and organizational value.

Two caveats deserve fair consideration. First, the eight building blocks are a framework for ambition, not a measurement model. They guide decision-making, but not all building blocks can be fully realized at the same time. Efficiency and inclusivity can clash: more quiet, screened-off zones for neurodiversity take up space that an efficiency drive is precisely trying to save. Sustainability and comfort can also be at odds: an energy-efficient climate control system isn’t always the most comfortable. Which trade-off is the right one depends on the organization, its people, and its resources.

Second: a good concept does not guarantee a good result. Flexible work concepts are demonstrably effective—but only if they are carefully designed and implemented. Insufficient quiet zones, unclear guidelines, or a lack of employee involvement during implementation lead to frustration rather than freedom. The quality of the implementation is at least as critical as the quality of the design.

Sources

• Ashkanasy, N.M., Ayoko, O.B., & Jehn, K.A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1169–1184.

• Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517.

• Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., & Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green, New York.

• Candido, C., et al. (2019). Designing for wellbeing: Post-occupancy evaluation of workplace environments. Building Research & Information.

• Chafi, M.B., et al. (2021). Hybrid working in the post-pandemic: Challenges and design implications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

• Cigna Group (2022). Purpose-Driven Organizations More Likely to Have Engaged, Committed Employees. Newsroom.

• Frazier, M.L., et al. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.

• Hamdan, M., et al. (2023). Towards energy efficiency: retrofitting existing office buildings using smart technologies. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science.

• Harvard Business Review (2021). Making Work Meaningful: A Leader's Guide.

• Human Spaces (2015). The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workplace. Interface/Haworth.

• Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873–882.

• IPG (2024). Office Space Efficiency Reduces Costs and Waste. IPG Space Efficiency Report.

• Kellert, S.R., & Calabrese, E.F. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green.

• Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.

• Lahtinen, M., et al. (2015). Activity-based flexible office design and ergonomics. Work, 52(3).

• Leesman (2023). The Leesman Review: The World's Largest Workplace Experience Study. Leesman Index.

• Liang, H., et al. (2021). A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity. Journal of Cleaner Production.

• Mace, R. (1997). Universal Design: Barrier-Free Environments for Everyone. Designers West.

• Marmaras, N., & Nathanael, D. (2012). Workplace design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (4th ed.).

• Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.

• Matzler, K., et al. (2022). Employer brand reputation and employee engagement. Journal of Business Research.

• McCoy, J.M., & Evans, G.W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426.

• Microsoft (2022). Work Trend Index Annual Report: Great Expectations: Making Hybrid Work Work. Microsoft Corporation.

• Mjörnell, K., et al. (2024). Measuring space efficiency and estimating the potential for reduced energy use for office spaces. Sustainability, 16(1).

• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

• Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.

• Rashid, M., & Zimring, C. (2008). A review of the empirical literature on the relationships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151–190.

• Robertson, M., et al. (2016). Visual ergonomics in the workplace. Ergonomics, 59(3).

• Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

• Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J., & Lei, Q.H. (2006). Effect of temperature on task performance in office environment. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

• Slemp, G.R., et al. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 706–724.

• UK Green Building Council (2016). Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices: The Next Chapter for Green Building.

• Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60(4), 467–486.