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.

Last week, my friend and fellow professional Wouter de Valk pointed me to an opinion piece by Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott in The New York Times. They argue that managers’ resistance to remote work is associated with a desire for status, power and control. In particular, leaders with stronger narcissistic tendencies appear to be less supportive of working remotely. Grant’s analysis is thought-provoking. Power, status and control can undoubtedly play a role. Yet while reading the article, I found myself wondering whether these factors are not only a cause, but perhaps also a response to a deeper issue. A question that probably resonates with more managers than we might expect: What value does my leadership actually add? Photo by Daniel Höhe on Unsplash When presence is no longer a given For many years, leadership and physical presence were closely intertwined. Work was allocated around meeting tables, problems were solved in corridors, and progress was visible simply because people were physically there. Hybrid working changed that. Many professionals proved perfectly capable of planning their own work, collaborating digitally, solving problems and delivering results without their manager constantly being nearby. That does not mean that everything works better remotely. But it does reveal something that was less visible before: part of what we used to describe as management consisted, in practice, of organising, coordinating and supervising work. When professionals can take on much of this themselves, an inevitable question arises: where does the unique contribution of leadership actually lie? Presence is not the same as added value. Control is not synonymous with leadership. From this perspective, Grant’s analysis takes on an additional dimension. Perhaps his research does not only help explain why some managers struggle with remote work, but also why some leaders react more strongly to a tension that is felt much more widely. Hybrid working does not only raise the question of where employees should work. It also raises a more fundamental question: where does leadership truly make a difference? The rise of the self-managing professional In her work on the brain, professor of clinical neuropsychology Margriet Sitskoorn highlights the importance of cognitive abilities such as attention, planning, behavioural regulation and goal setting in how we function. Modern knowledge organisations increasingly rely on professionals’ ability to manage their own work. They plan their activities, manage their schedules, monitor their progress and — particularly in a hybrid working environment — increasingly decide for themselves where and when particular activities are best carried out. Digital technology supports this development. Much of the practical coordination, planning and progress monitoring that once depended more heavily on managers can now be organised by professionals and teams themselves. But this creates a new paradox. The more independently professionals manage their own work, the more important it becomes to create coherence between all those individual choices. Self-management can also create silos After all, an organisation is more than a collection of well-functioning individuals. When everyone primarily optimises their own work, schedule and workplace, fragmentation can emerge. People meet each other less naturally, information is shared less spontaneously, teams develop their own routines, and connections with other parts of the organisation can weaken. Self-management, therefore, does not eliminate the coordination challenge. It shifts it. Self-managing professionals do not require less leadership. They require a different kind of leadership. The role shifts from directly managing individual activities towards creating the conditions in which self-managing professionals can perform collectively. I see three key challenges: 1. Providing direction and context Rather than prescribing how people should do their work, leaders need to clarify where the organisation is heading, which goals matter most and how the work of teams and professionals contributes to them. 2. Creating organisational coherence Self-management only works when organisational, social and digital structures are aligned. Leadership therefore also means removing barriers, enabling collaboration and preventing individual optimisation from resulting in organisational fragmentation. 3. Designing the workplace as part of the system The physical workplace also takes on a different role. The office no longer needs to be primarily the place where people demonstrate that they are working. Instead, it can support what is harder to organise individually or remotely: interaction, collaboration, knowledge sharing, learning, creativity and connection. The office is not the answer to an attendance question This also changes the debate about returning to the office. The relevant question is not how many days employees should be present. A more interesting question is: Why should people come to the office, and what function should that environment fulfil for the organisation? If professionals can perform certain activities effectively at home or elsewhere, there is little point in bringing them into the office simply to perform exactly the same individual work there. The office creates value when the physical environment contributes something to the functioning of the organisation as a whole. Not as an instrument of control, but as part of a broader organisational, social, digital and physical working environment. From control to coherence Perhaps that is ultimately one of the most interesting lessons to draw from Grant’s article. Hybrid working reveals that some of what we traditionally considered leadership was closely intertwined with physical presence, coordination and supervision. Now that self-managing professionals can organise a greater share of their work independently, it becomes clearer where leadership can truly add value. Not by constantly managing the individual, but by providing direction to the whole. Not by controlling where someone works, but by ensuring that people can find and connect with one another. Not by organising attendance for its own sake, but by deliberately creating the conditions in which collaboration and connection can emerge. The real challenge of hybrid working is therefore not how to keep managing self-managing professionals, but how to prevent all that individual autonomy from turning the organisation into a collection of silos. That is an increasingly important challenge for both leadership and workplace strategy. References Grant, A., Shandell, M., & Elliott, C. (2026, June 22). The secret reason bosses want everyone back in the office, every day of the week. The New York Times. Sitskoorn, M. M. (2006). Het maakbare brein: Gebruik je hersens en word wie je wilt zijn. Bakker. How Nassau can help Hybrid working requires more than agreements about office attendance. It requires alignment between the organisation, leadership, technology and the physical workplace. Nassau helps organisations understand these interdependencies and translate them into a workplace strategy that supports self-managing professionals while strengthening collaboration, knowledge sharing and connection. Would you like to explore what this could mean for your organisation and workplace?

The workplace is on the agenda as rarely before. Hybrid working has fundamentally changed the role of the office: it is no longer a given where people work, and so it is no longer a given why they come into the office. Many organisations are investing heavily in their premises, but often without a clear framework. The question of what actually makes a workplace effective is rarely answered systematically. This is a missed opportunity — and a risk. A workplace that does not meet people’s needs demonstrably leads to higher absenteeism, lower engagement and higher staff turnover. TThis article provides a scientifically grounded framework for anyone involved in accommodation strategy, workplace development or organisational change: from directors and HR managers to facilities advisers and property 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 metres — it is an organisational issue with measurable effects on people, performance and sustainability. The workplace is an organisational system A great working environment only emerges when physical design, social context, technology and leadership are seamlessly aligned. To set the right priorities in this regard, Nassau works with the Hierarchical Framework (4 Levels) and the 8 Interconnected Building Blocks of the Workplace: Level 1: Basic Requirements (Physiology & Basic Comfort) Level 2: Functional Suitability (Alignment with daily tasks) Level 3: Social Quality (Connection & Interaction) Level 4: Meaning & Identity (Culture & Ambience) If you invest in an inspiring ambience whilst the basic conditions (such as acoustics or lighting) are lacking, an office refurbishment loses its impact. Would you like to read the full framework and the scientific evidence? In our comprehensive white paper, we explore the eight building blocks, the impact of neurodiversity, biophilic design and efficient IoT management — underpinned by 34 international studies.

Nassau Workplace Strategy & Design | Linkpage van Nassau Link page Oxebu LLP

Expertise in Het Nieuwe Werken | Hybride werken | Activity Based Working | New World of Work | Neem vrijblijvend contact op EXPERTISE From question to solution Every organisation faces its own challenges in terms of premises, the working environment and change. Nassau supports organisations in developing and implementing future-proof solutions that contribute to better collaboration, greater job satisfaction and a more efficient use of the working environment. We combine research, scientific insights and practical experience with knowledge from various disciplines, such as occupational and organisational psychology, management, accommodation, technology and design. By bringing this expertise together, we develop integrated solutions that are not only substantively sound but also aligned with practical reality. Whether it concerns research, strategy, concept development, implementation or evaluation: depending on the requirements, we support organisations throughout the entire process or at a specific stage. We work for organisations in the public sector, healthcare and the private sector, ranging from small-scale accommodation issues to organisation-wide change programmes. OUR METHOD From insight to result Sustainable change to the work environment is not achieved in a single step. Together with our clients, we go through a structured process in which research, strategy, design, implementation, and evaluation are aligned. This creates a solution that fits the organization and delivers lasting results. Research and insight A good process begins with a clear understanding of the question. We explore the background, the context and the ambitions, and examine the current situation: how the organization works, collaborates and uses the work environment. This creates an objective picture of opportunities, bottlenecks and needs. 01 Resources and methods Organizational and working-style analyses Workplace and occupancy research Interviews and workshops Activity and work-process analyses User and employee research Office environment / home workspace monitor 02 Strategy and vision Based on the research findings, we develop a coherent vision and strategy, which we translate into a future-proof accommodation and working environment concept that aligns with both the organisation’s objectives and day-to-day practice. Resources and methods Organizational and workplace strategy Real estate strategy Governance and working agreements Vision development Hybrid working strategy Scenario and capacity development 03 Accommodation and working environment A working environment must be tailored to the organisation’s activities, people and ambitions. Together with clients, users, designers and other stakeholders, we develop the concept into a concrete, feasible solution; where necessary, we also provide guidance on the decision-making process, the further development and the implementation. Means and methods Accommodation and work environment concepts Program of requirements Interior design concepts Design guidance Activity-related work (ABW) Functional design Capacity and occupancy issues User participation 04 Implementation and change A new working environment can only be successful if staff understand, use and embrace it. That is why we guide the organisation through the implementation process, using communication, co-creation, workshops, training sessions and support for managers and ambassadors. Means and methods Project and program management Change communication Ambassador programs Coaching of managers Change strategy Implementation guidance Training and workshops User participation 05 Evaluation and embedding By evaluating how the working environment is used and experienced, we gain an understanding of what works well and where there is room for improvement. We support organisations in monitoring results, evaluating the working environment and embedding new working practices, so that the investment continues to add value in the long term. Means and methods Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Occupancy rate study Monitoring Follow-up and optimization strategies User evaluations Impact measurements Ensuring compliance with the working method Governance approach BUILDING BLOCKS What a project with Nassau delivers A project with Nassau delivers more than a beautifully designed office. Research and our own practical experience consistently point to the same eight factors. These are the building blocks we use to develop work environments, and this is where your organization makes concrete progress. Wellbeing Employees work in a healthy, safe, and comfortable environment that supports vitality, concentration, and job satisfaction. Efficient Employee experience, occupancy, flexibility, and real estate costs are brought into optimal balance with each other. Functionality Workspaces and facilities align with diverse activities, working styles, and forms of collaboration. Connection Meeting, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and social cohesion among employees are given room in the work environment. Identity The work environment makes the organization's identity, culture, and ambition visible and is inspiring for employees. Development The environment stimulates curiosity, innovation, knowledge exchange, and the personal development of employees. Sustainable The work environment is future-proof, with attention to health, circularity, energy use, and social responsibility. Inclusive The work environment is accessible to everyone and offers room for diverse working styles, needs, and talents . The building blocks are not a checklist, but a framework for consideration. Which building blocks take priority depends on the organization, the people, and the ambitions. That's why we don't develop standard solutions, but future-proof work environments in which organization, people, technology, and the physical environment reinforce each other. FEATURED PROJECT Real innovation starts with people "The future of work is about developing an attractive working community, by promoting involvement, cooperation and creativity." Nassau developed, together with the CCPA department of Tata Steel, an innovative, flexible work environment concept, focused on more digital and location-independent working and better connection between departments. Read the case study GET TO KNOW US Successful change starts with a good conversation Whether it concerns a strategic real estate question, a new work environment, or guidance through a change process: every organization has its own challenges and ambitions. We would be happy to get to know you, listen to your question, and think along about an approach that suits your organization. Schedule a no-obligation conversation

Verbeter uw werkomgeving met Nassau - Workplace Strategy & Design. Experts in hybride werken en Activity Based Working. Neem contact op! A new work environment is more than a real estate project Nassau supports organizations with real estate, workplace and change challenges. From research and strategy to implementation, evaluation and embedding. Get in touch, no obligation IN PRACTICE Change goes beyond the building itself A selection of the issues organizations face in practice STRATEGY AND INSIGHT HOUSING AND SURROUNDINGS ORGANIZATION AND CULTURE The work environment no longer reflects the way people work. Hybrid working, digitalization, and changing work activities require a work environment that aligns with practice. Many organizations are not yet set up for this. The office adds insufficient value A physical change offers opportunities to improve collaboration, service delivery, and employee experience. Hybrid working requires new agreements A new work environment alone is not enough. Hybrid working requires new ground rules, leadership, and a shared vision of collaboration. Insufficient insight into space usage and needs Well-founded housing choices begin with insight. Research and data provide a picture of activities, occupancy, and needs. Moving, renovation, or redesign coming up A physical change offers opportunities to improve collaboration, service delivery, and employee experience. Housing and development are coming under pressure Collaboration, knowledge sharing, and development require conscious attention in hybrid organizations. OUR APPROACH From insights to results 01 Research and insight We map out how employees work, collaborate, and use the work environment, so that decisions are based on facts, not assumptions. 02 Strategy and vision We translate the insights into a clear vision, in which organizational goals, user needs, and the future way of working come together. 03 Accommodation and work environment We develop a work environment that supports collaboration, concentration, knowledge sharing, and flexibility, with people at the center, not the building. 04 Implementation and change A work environment only works when employees and managers embrace it. Therefore, there is a strong focus on communication and guidance. 05 Evaluation and quality assurance A new work environment is not an endpoint. We evaluate and make adjustments so that it remains aligned with the organization. Read more HOW WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE The power of an integrated approach A work environment is more than a building. Only when housing, technology, organization and behavior align does a work environment emerge that truly works. That's why we combine research, strategy, design and change management into one approach, tailored to every organization, proven within complex organizations in government, healthcare and business. Read more about our approach PROJECTS In practice A few of the projects in which we put this approach into practice. 1/3 POLICE THE HAGUE From a new building to a new way of working Nassau is overseeing the implementation of Anders Werken for over 2,300 employees of the The Hague Police. Not only is the building changing, but the way of working is as well. Read the case study GOVERNMENT RVO | Utrecht From traditional to hybrid working. Nassau supported RVO in the development of activity-based work environments and the redesign of office locations. Read the case study CARE tanteLouise | Bergen op Zoom A future-oriented service location. Together with WorkWire, Nassau guided the implementation of activity-based working within the tanteLouise service bureau. Read the case study INDUSTRY Tata Steel | IJmuiden For the Corporate Communications department at Tata Steel, Nassau developed a work environment that supports collaboration, knowledge sharing, and flexibility. Read the case study Read more Trusted by organisation in government, industy and care KNOWLEDGE AND INSIGHTS Recent publications These are the most recent articles. More publications can be found on our knowledge page. The hurdle that the next colleague no longer has to overcome Change doesn't always start with major decisions or visible results. Sometimes it begins with a single colleague who is the first to show different behaviour. In Activity-Based Working, ambassadors and frontrunners can lower the social threshold for others in this way. What initially feels unusual can, step by step, become normal and accepted behaviour. 6 days ago 4 min read Is the organization ready for the building? An integrated Activity-Based Working (ABW) trajectory only succeeds when work environment, ICT, and socio-organisational change reinforce each other. A new office can be technically, sustainably, and financially successful, while the intended collaboration, knowledge sharing, and flexibility fail to materialise. This article explains why the socio-organisational component must be organised from the start and become part of day-to-day management. 6 days ago 5 min read The problem is not working from home. The problem is the office. 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. Aug 18 6 min read Read more Curious to find out what an integrated approach means for your organisation? Read more