Search results

Last week, my friend and colleague Wouter de Valk drew my attention to an op-ed by Adam Grant—an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School and one of today’s best-known management thinkers—in The New York Times. Grant’s argument was as incisive as it was provocative: many managers want employees back in the office because working from home threatens their need for power, status, and control. Grant’s analysis is thought-provoking. Power, status, and control undoubtedly play a role. Yet as I read, I couldn’t help but feel that these factors might not be the cause, but rather a reaction to a deeper issue—one that many more managers likely recognize than they would care to admit: What value does my leadership actually add anymore? Photo by Daniel Höhe on Unsplash For years, leadership and physical presence were closely intertwined. Work was assigned at conference tables, problems were solved in the hallway, and progress was monitored because people were literally visible. When hybrid work emerged, it suddenly became clear that many teams could function surprisingly well without their manager being constantly nearby. What value does my leadership really add if employees are achieving results even without my constant presence? Not everything went perfectly, but much more than expected turned out to be possible even when working remotely. This created an uncomfortable reality for many managers. Because as soon as employees can plan independently, collaborate digitally, solve problems, and achieve results without their manager’s constant presence, the question naturally arises: what exactly is the unique contribution of leadership anymore? From that perspective, it’s not surprising that some managers struggle with hybrid work. The fact that managers with narcissistic traits are more likely to resist remote work is therefore a plausible explanation for part of that resistance. At the same time, these primarily American research findings cannot be directly applied to Europe, and here too, correlation does not imply causation. “Perhaps this is why Grant’s findings explain not so much why some leaders are implementing return-to-office policies, but rather why some leaders react more strongly to a tension that is felt much more widely.” Because hybrid work confronts managers with an uncomfortable possibility: that some of what was once considered leadership may not have been leadership at all. When employees can plan, collaborate, and achieve results independently without their manager’s constant presence, the distinction between leading and supervising becomes blurred. It then becomes clear that presence is not the same as added value, that control is not synonymous with leadership, and that the true contribution of leaders lies elsewhere: in providing direction, developing people, and building trust.en. Being present is not the same as adding value. Control is not synonymous with leadership. Perhaps that is ultimately the most interesting lesson from Grant’s article. Not that working from home poses a threat to leaders’ power, but that hybrid work reveals where management and leadership actually add value. For years, many aspects of leadership could hide behind physical presence, hierarchy, and supervision. Now that these once-self-evident factors have become less self-evident, a more fundamental question arises: Where does leadership really make a difference? And the answer to that question will likely shape the future of leadership more than the question of where employees do their work. Reference Adam Grant, Marissa Shandell & Courtney Elliott (2026). The Secret Reason Bosses Want Everyone Back in the Office, Every Day of the Week, The New York Times. https://tinyurl.com/2p7k9tyw

Photo by Matthieu Joannon on Unsplash The discussion about hybrid work focuses primarily on productivity, office occupancy, and remote work policies. Much less attention is paid to the social infrastructure of organizations: the network of relationships, connections, and interactions that enables collaboration. This is noteworthy. A recent study shows that employees in roles suitable for remote work spend, on average, more time alone and have fewer social interactions than employees who work primarily on-site (Emanuel, Harrington & Pallais, 2025). The discussion then often turns to loneliness and mental health. However, the leap from reduced social contact with colleagues to loneliness is less straightforward than is often assumed. After all, work is not the only source of social relationships. For many people, their partner, family, friends, sports clubs, or neighborhood communities are more important to their well-being than their colleagues. Moreover, not all social interactions are equal. A chat at the coffee machine serves a different purpose than a meaningful relationship outside of work. The debate about working from home and loneliness therefore deserves more nuance than it currently receives. At the same time, the discussion is often wrongly presented as a choice between working from home and social connectedness. For many employees, hybrid work actually creates space for social connections outside of work. Less commute time means more time for family, friends, volunteer work, sports, or neighborhood activities. The question, therefore, is not whether working from home makes social connection impossible, but which forms of connection are disappearing, which are replacing them, and what significance they have for the functioning of organizations. A more interesting question is what role daily interactions play in how organizations function. Traditional offices were primarily designed for production, coordination, supervision, and control. At the same time, the physical concentration of employees gave rise to social processes that organizations have long taken for granted. Informal networks, knowledge exchange, mutual trust, shared norms, and organizational identity developed largely as a side effect of people meeting regularly. Hybrid work fundamentally changes these dynamics. As physical proximity decreases, organizations lose a mechanism they have long been able to rely on implicitly. This need not be a problem for individual employees, but it does raise questions about how new employees are socialized, how knowledge is transferred, how collaboration between teams emerges, and how a shared frame of reference develops. “The transition from reduced social interaction with colleagues to loneliness is less straightforward than is often assumed. It is important not to confuse social infrastructure with physical presence. An office is, at most, a means to an end—not an end in itself. Connection does not arise automatically simply because people are in the same building. Nor does it automatically disappear when employees work remotely. The relevant question is not how many days people are present in the office, but whether organizations create sufficient opportunities for meeting, knowledge exchange, collaboration, and relationship-building. "Hybrid work brings to light social processes that organizations have long taken for granted.” Research on community building shows that sustainable social bonds do not arise on their own. They require, among other things, a shared purpose, regular interaction, trust, reciprocity, a shared identity, and a social infrastructure in which relationships can develop (Wenger, 1998; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This presents an important challenge for organizations and leaders. The focus is not only on organizing work, but also on creating conditions in which trust, knowledge sharing, and collaboration can flourish. In a hybrid context, the focus thus shifts from supervision and presence to strengthening relationships, networks, and connections among employees. Social cohesion is not an end in itself. Research shows that a sense of connectedness is associated with higher engagement, greater motivation, increased job satisfaction, and a lower intention to leave among employees (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Gallup, 2024). For organizations, however, it is primarily the indirect effects that are relevant. Social networks serve as vehicles for knowledge exchange, informal coordination, social integration, and the creation of collective meaning. It is precisely these processes that become more important as work becomes less dependent on physical proximity and is organized in ways that are increasingly independent of time and place (Wenger, 1998; Van der Wielen, 2010). "The biggest challenge of hybrid work is not productivity or office occupancy, but the deliberate organization of an organization's social infrastructure.” Ultimately, the future of hybrid work isn’t about where people work, but about how connection is organized. The need for community hasn’t disappeared; it has simply shifted. Some people find that sense of community in their neighborhood, at a sports club, through volunteer work, or in an online network. Others find it partly within their organization. Organizations that want to make hybrid work a success would therefore be wise to focus not on physical presence, but on the quality of the relationships employees build with one another. The biggest challenge of hybrid work is therefore likely not productivity, technology, or office occupancy. The biggest challenge is that organizations are, for the first time, becoming aware of social processes that for years seemed self-evident, but which are now proving to be crucial for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and organizational commitment. References Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. Emanuel, N., Harrington, E., & Pallais, A. (2025). The Rise of Remote Work: Evidence on Loneliness, Mental Health and Social Connection. Science. Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024. McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

The transition from a conventional work environment to activity-based working is both a spatial and an organizational change. A traditional office layout is a spatial reflection of a hierarchical structure: fixed workstations, fixed departments, and private offices as visible markers of status. The floor plan mirrors the organizational chart. Activity-Based Working (ABW) breaks down that translation. Spaces are shared, departmental boundaries blur, and the logic of the work—not the logic of hierarchy—determines where someone sits. This implicitly presupposes an organization that functions as a network: less vertical, more horizontal, driven more by collaboration and context than by position. This is not a new insight. The shift from location- and time-bound structures to distributed organizational forms has been a subject of research since the 1990s (Van der Wielen et al., 1993; Jackson & Van der Wielen, 1998). Yet the same pattern emerges in every new initiative—not because the field has stagnated, but because every organization is making this transition for the first time. The real challenge of virtually every ABW initiative lies elsewhere. The project is introduced as a spatial concept—more efficient use of square meters, better support for various activities—but it touches on something more fundamental: the way in which meaning is created within an organization. What is perceived as resistance is usually something else: a shift that the employee must still make themselves. From ownership to use. From individual to collective. From a place that reflected status to a place where status is created through collaboration. Employees usually do not take that step on their own. That is where the change process has a clear role to play. The Workplace as a Source of Meaning A workplace is not a neutral tool. Research in environmental and organizational psychology has shown the same thing for decades: people derive their identity, status, social connectedness, and sense of control from their workplace. A workplace is therefore simultaneously a physical space, a social signal, and a position within the system. In a conventional environment, this is largely invisible because the meaning is embedded in the space itself. The executive office, the name tags, the layout of the hallways—they do the job without needing to be discussed. Only when that structure is broken down does it become clear how many functions a workplace fulfilled beyond the one inherent in the furniture. To make this visible—and open to discussion—an analytical framework is needed that looks beneath the surface of behavior. Three levels consistently emerge in this context: the individual, the group, and the organization. Three Levels Underlying Every Type of Workplace Behavior The personal level concerns the individual and their immediate work environment. The underlying question is: What do I need to work comfortably and effectively? Factors such as certainty, autonomy, safety, and predictability come into play here. This level aligns with what is known in environmental psychology as “environmental control”—the degree to which a person can influence their immediate physical environment—and with the importance of territoriality, or having a recognizable, personal space (Vischer, 2008). Both have been shown to be consistently linked to concentration, well-being, and performance. The group level concerns relationships with others. The question is: how do I relate to my colleagues? Recognition, a sense of belonging, and mutual trust play a role here. In this regard, a workplace rarely functions solely in a utilitarian sense; it serves as a social signal. Where a team is located, how visible it is, and who one interacts with on a daily basis all influence group identity and collaboration. This level aligns with social identity theory and with research on the role of physical proximity in team cohesion. The organizational level concerns one’s position within the system. The question is: What does this position say about my role, influence, and place in the structure? The themes are status, authority, influence, hierarchy, and fairness. The allocation of spaces—who gets their own office, who shares, and based on what criteria—is, in virtually every organization, also a distribution of symbolic capital. This is the level that is most vehemently denied in conversations yet plays the greatest role in behavior. Perceptions of fairness prove to be decisive here: it is not the outcome itself, but the perceived procedural fairness that determines whether people accept a change. Level Central question Underlying themes Person What do I need to work comfortably and effectively? Certainty, autonomy, safety, predictability Group How do I relate to my colleagues? Recognition, belonging, trust Organization What does this place say about my role and place within the structure Status, authority, influence, position, fairness Table 1: Workplace Behavior at Three Levels The levels can be distinguished, but not separated. In any workplace behavior, all three often come into play simultaneously, with varying emphases. What an ABW transition actually changes Against the backdrop of these three levels, it becomes clear what an ABW transition sets in motion simultaneously. At the individual level, territoriality disappears, and with it an important source of predictability and control. What feels like the loss of a desk is, in psychological terms, a loss of environmental control: the certainty that someone knows where they’ll be sitting tomorrow, with what supplies, and next to whom. That loss is real, regardless of how much choice the new environment offers. At the group level, visible team cohesion shifts. In a conventional environment, a team is a recognizable cluster—a collection of desks in a corner, a department sign, a shared coffee machine. In an ABW environment, the team is a scattered group whose cohesion must be reestablished every day. For some, this is liberating; for others, it means the loss of a self-evident social infrastructure. At the organizational level, the visible distinction between positions disappears. Those who no longer have their own office lose not only a physical space but also a symbol of their role and influence. This is typically the least discussed yet most decisive shift. Meaning that was previously conveyed through physical space must now be established in a different way—through behavior, collaboration, and visibility within the network. No longer conferred by position, but earned through interaction. This is precisely why ABW and network organization are mutually dependent. The spatial transition can only succeed if the organizational logic shifts accordingly: from position to contribution, from vertical scarcity to horizontal collaboration, from assigned status to visible role. Where this does not happen, an ABW environment emerges that has been spatially renovated but remains organizationally unchanged—with the predictable result that hierarchical patterns reestablish themselves, no longer in the floor plan but in informal claims and unwritten rules (Perin, 1991). Why the discussion Doesn’t Begin Until After the Design Phase In most ABW projects, decision-making proceeds in two separate phases. During the design phase, the floor plan and usage agreements are established: the concept is set. This happens top-down—and that is a deliberate choice. A guiding principle such as “no one has a fixed workstation” cannot be negotiated without negating itself. The quote attributed to Henry Ford sums up the logic: if he had asked his customers what they wanted, they would have said, “a faster horse.” It is only in the phase that follows—the change process—that employees are given a voice. Not to change the concept, but to learn how to work with it. And that is where the three levels manifest themselves. Not as design input, but as a reaction to something that has already been built. People experience what they are losing: their desk, their view of colleagues, their visible position within the organization. In that discussion, the change process needs its own language. Without an analytical framework, every reaction is judged on its own terms: a protest about a desk is about a desk; a complaint about the executive office is about that office. With the three-level framework, it becomes clear that the desk is actually about predictability (person), the executive office about hierarchy (organization), and the vanished team zone about belonging (group). Often, all three are at play simultaneously, in varying proportions—and organizations tend to select a single level, usually the most concrete one. This is where ABW initiatives run into trouble: not because the design is flawed, but because the wrong conversation is being had. In conclusion An ABW transition is not a housing project with a behavioral component. It is an organizational change with a spatial component. What is at stake is not the workplace itself, but what the workplace represented: identity, connection, and status. The rest is just interior design. References Jackson, P.J. & Van der Wielen, J.M.M. (Eds.) (1998). International perspectives on telework: from telecommuting to the virtual organisation. London: Routledge. Perin, C. (1991). The moral fabric of the office: Panopticon discourse and schedule flexibilities. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 8, 241–268. Van der Wielen, J.M.M., Taillieu, T.C.B., Poolman, J.A. & Van Zuilichem, J. (1993). Telework: dispersed organisational activity and new forms of spatial-temporal coordination and control. The European Work & Organisational Psychologist, 3(2), 145–162. Vischer, J.C. (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: How people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review, 51(2), 97–108.

Verbeter uw werkomgeving met Nassau - Workplace Strategy & Design. Experts in hybride werken en Activity Based Working. Neem contact op! Is your work environment ready for the future? Een nieuwe werkomgeving verandert niet vanzelf de manier waarop mensen werken Your work environment can either sustain, promote or hinder desired behavior, thereby influencing your employees' performance. A well-considered, balanced work environment fosters the development of satisfied, engaged, and energetic employees who perform better. READ MORE SMARTER, BETTER AND COST-EFFECTIVE Reimagining the Workplace Further Further Further Een verhuizing, renovatie of nieuwe inrichting lijkt in eerste instantie een huisvestingsvraagstuk. In de praktijk raakt zo'n verandering vaak ook samenwerking, leiderschap, werkprocessen, technologie en organisatiecultuur. Daarom ondersteunen wij organisaties niet alleen bij de ontwikkeling van een nieuwe werkomgeving, maar ook bij de verandering die daarbij hoort. De werkomgeving sluit niet meer aan op de manier waarop mensen werken Hybride werken, digitalisering en veranderende werkzaamheden stellen nieuwe eisen aan de werkomgeving. Veel organisaties merken dat hun huidige inrichting daar niet meer optimaal op aansluit. Er is onvoldoende inzicht in ruimtegebruik en toekomstige behoefte Beslissingen over huisvesting worden vaak genomen op basis van aannames. Zonder inzicht in activiteiten, bezetting en behoeften is het lastig om de juiste keuzes te maken. Met onderzoek en data helpen wij organisaties om onderbouwde besluiten te nemen. Er komt een verhuizing, renovatie of herinrichting aan Een fysieke verandering biedt kansen om samenwerking, dienstverlening en medewerkerbeleving te verbeteren. Tegelijkertijd vraagt dit om een zorgvuldige voorbereiding en begeleiding, zodat medewerkers de verandering begrijpen, ondersteunen en omarmen. Hybride of activiteitgerelateerd werken vraagt om nieuwe afspraken Een nieuwe werkomgeving alleen is niet voldoende. Succesvol hybride of activiteitgerelateerd werken vraagt om duidelijke spelregels, passend leiderschap en een gedeeld begrip van wat effectief samenwerken betekent. Het kantoor voegt onvoldoende waarde toe Aanwezigheid op kantoor is minder vanzelfsprekend geworden. De uitdaging is om een werkomgeving te creëren die ontmoeting, samenwerking en kennisdeling stimuleert. Kennisdeling, samenwerking en ontwikkeling komen onder druk te staan Veel kennis ontstaat door samen te werken en ervaringen uit te wisselen. In hybride organisaties vraagt dat om bewuste aandacht voor samenwerking, kennisdeling en ontwikkeling. SMARTER, BETTER AND COST-EFFECTIVE Reimagining the Workplace 'The work environment is a means to an end. It’s a tool to attract, support, engage and inspire valuable talent.’ Nassau is an independent consultancy firm specializing in the development of innovative work environments that are responsive to business challenges and designed to improve business performance. Innovative work environments We work closely with our clients to provide dedicated workplace solutions that are not only cost-efficient and sustainable but at the same time accelerate performance, engage & empower staff, boost moral & increase workforce vitality enhance flexibility & collaboration, encourage cross-fertilization of ideas, creativity & innovation and make it easier to attract and retain talent. Multidisciplinary We believe that modern workplace challenges can not be solved within a single domain or discipline. READ MORE SMARTER, BETTER AND COST-EFFECTIVE Today, organizational success depends largely on the ability to adapt to new circumstances, not only by being at the forefront of the latest technologies, but also by making the organization more 'agile' and further develop the potential of employees. Organizational dynamics A modern work environment is expected to provide effective support for organizational dynamics. Whether it concerns the ever-changing space needs of teams that grow and shrink according to the circumstances, the opportunities to learn and experiment with new working methods, or the possibilities to share information and knowledge with each other, always and everywhere. Workplace Strategy Determine work environment strategy, vision, ambitions and objectives Workplace Analytics Analyzing and inventorying relevant data Workplace Concepts Integral plan for the development of a customized work environment Workplace Design & Build Design and realization of the physical & virtual working environment Workplace ICT & IM ICT / IM tools; physical and digital information distribution and governance Workplace Training & Development Innovating working methods and social organization; training, coaching and organizational development GO TO PROJECTS SMARTER, BETTER AND COST-EFFECTIVE Reimagining the Workplace The list of projects we have been involved in is extensive. We have significant experience with work environment projects across almost all business sectors. Here, we would like to highlight a number of projects that we are especially proud of. IJmuiden - The 'cellular office concept' in the 'Dudokhuis' was up for revision. Sustainability was one of the starting points. READ MORE GO TO PROJECTS De Meern - With the move to the new office and the introduction of a new working style, a new phase began for SRA. READ MORE OUR CLIENTS Our clients are the reason of our existence and we pride ourselves they have trusted us to work with them. Over the years we have enjoyed working on challenging assignments for a wide variety of clients. Each client faces a different challenge and therefore all of our projects are unique. Below we have highlighted a number of our clients. RECENT PUBLICATIONS Is hybrid work a threat to leadership? Jos van der Wielen 1 day ago 3 min read ABW programs rarely focus on the workplace itself Jos van der Wielen 6 days ago 6 min read The Overlooked Challenge of Hybrid Work: The Social Infrastructure of Organizations Jos van der Wielen 6 days ago 4 min read What is a “great place to work”? Jos van der Wielen 6 days ago 13 min read

Nassau ontwikkelt en realiseert flexibele kantoorconcepten | Minder m2 | Minder Exploitatiekosten | Meer Werkplezier Is your work environment ready for the future? CONTACT Do you have a question or comment? Are you interested in our integrated design approach? Do you want to know what we can do for you? Feel free to contact us. Neem contact op Ik ga ermee akkoord dat Nassau mijn gegevens mag opslaan en verwerken. SEND Sending successful! We will contact you soon. DETAILS Jos van der Wielen Arbeids- en Organisatiepsycholoog Werkplekstrateeg +31 (0) 70 223 00 75 info@nassau-ws.com

Nassau ontwikkelt en realiseert flexibele kantoorconcepten | Minder m2 | Minder Exploitatiekosten | Meer Werkplezier Is your work environment ready for the future? CONTACT Do you have a question or comment? Are you interested in our integrated design approach? Do you want to know what we can do for you? Feel free to contact us. Ik ga ermee akkoord dat Nassau mijn gegevens mag opslaan en verwerken. SEND Sending successful! We will contact you soon. DETAILS Elandstraat 2 2513 GR The Hague info@nassau-ws.com +31 (0) 70 223 00 75 ROUTE By car You will find Nassau | Workplace Strategy & Design at the 'gate' of the city near the Peace Palace: at the beginning of Laan van Meerdervoort, Javastraat and Scheveningseweg. From the A12 and N44 you follow the Utrechtsebaan towards the Javastraat or the Mauritskade. Plan your route with Google Maps. Parking Park at the Zeestraat or at the Plein 1813 (paid parking). Or in the parking garage 'Parkking Mauritskade' (Mauritskade 4). From this parking you can walk to Zeestraat 100 in about 3 minutes . Traffic information ANWB The Hague Public transport Check 9292.n l for the correct route by public transport. The nearest stops are Peace Palace, Mauritskade, Javastraat / Alexanderplein. From The Hague Central Public transport bicycle: click here for an updated list of available bicycles. Bus: take lines 22, 24 or 28 (from The Hague Central Station) Get off with bus 22 at the Mauritskade or Javastraat stop. Get off at bus 24 at the Mauritskade / Alexanderplein stop. Get off at bus 28 at Alexanderplein. From The Hague Holland Spoor Public transport bicycle: click here for an updated list of available bicycles.