The volume of data that organisations collect about their working environment is growing rapidly. Sensors measure occupancy and indoor climate; access systems record attendance; booking systems provide insight into the use of workstations and meeting rooms; and digital platforms contain information on communication and collaboration. Artificial intelligence enhances the ability to combine these various data sources, recognise patterns and investigate correlations.. This offers interesting possibilities. Data can help us use buildings more efficiently, tailor working environments more closely to actual usage, and gain a better understanding of the conditions employees need to do their jobs effectively. At the same time, a fundamental question arises: when do we use data to better understand how the working environment functions, and when do we use that same data to interpret or assess how employees are performing? From measurement to interpretation In The Atlantic, Ellen Cushing (2026) describes the development of AI applications for employee monitoring. Whereas traditional monitoring primarily records observable activity, such as log-ins, computer usage or attendance, newer applications can, for example, analyse voice usage, facial expressions and digital communication, and attempt to draw conclusions from this about engagement, stress, mood or behaviour. In doing so, AI goes a step further than existing workplace analytics. Data from access passes, booking systems and occupancy sensors can already be combined to reveal patterns in usage and behaviour. AI expands the possibilities for analysing and interpreting a wide variety of data. It thus makes it possible not only to analyse what is happening, but also to interpret what that behaviour might mean. The risk of interpretation The risk arises when a correlation that has been identified is interpreted as a causal link. Low attendance does not automatically mean low engagement, and low use of meeting spaces does not mean that there is little collaboration. This problem is not new, nor is it specific to AI. We are already familiar with this from workplace analytics: a low occupancy rate for a workspace does not necessarily mean there is no need for it. Perhaps that space is uncomfortable, noisy or poorly located. AI does not alter this methodological principle. What AI does change is the scale on which data can be combined and patterns identified. This allows more and more complex correlations to become visible, but these do not yet constitute an explanation. The distinction between what we measure, the correlations we identify within that data, and the conclusions we draw from it therefore becomes even more important. The opportunities of AI for workplace analytics It is precisely in the combination of data sources that the potential of AI lies. Occupancy and booking data provide insight into usage and demand; employee surveys into perceived functionality, quality and support; and indoor climate data into the physical conditions. AI can reveal correlations between these data sets that would otherwise be difficult to detect. For example, a model might identify that satisfaction with certain work zones declines when occupancy is high or noise levels are high. Patterns relating to presence, communication, interactions and the use of different workspaces can also be taken into account. More advanced AI applications even attempt to infer stress, mood or engagement from signals such as voice usage, language or facial expressions. Such emotion recognition in the workplace is, in principle, prohibited under the European AI Act, with limited exceptions for medical or safety purposes (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2024). This means that workplace analytics can go beyond simply recording what happens and help investigate the circumstances under which certain patterns arise. This can help organisations identify more precisely where the working environment effectively supports work and where there is room for improvement. One key principle is essential here: use workplace analytics primarily to assess the performance of the working environment, not that of the employee. How often employees use certain workspaces is relevant information in this regard. Combined with data on availability, perceived functionality and quality, this can provide insight into how well the working environment supports the work. It is not the data itself, but the purpose, the level of analysis and the interpretation that determine what we do with it. From measurement to understanding AI makes it possible to combine more data sources, recognise more complex patterns and explore new correlations. But ultimately, the value of workplace analytics does not lie in how much data we can collect or how many patterns AI can uncover within it. The value arises when these analyses help us to better understand how the working environment supports the work and where there is room for improvement. This requires a clear distinction between measurement, correlation and conclusion. What have we actually measured? What patterns do we see in the data? And what sound conclusions can we draw from this? The most important question, therefore, is perhaps not what AI can measure about employees, but what we actually need to measure in order to improve the working environment. References Cushing, E. (2026, May). The rise of emotional surveillance. The Atlantic. The Atlantic European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. Nassau is happy to work with you to find the right solution Every working environment requires a tailored approach. In a brief, no-obligation consultation, we’ll work with you to identify your organisation’s needs and explore the options that best suit them.

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.

Upon the completion of a new office, success is visible. The building is finished, the technology works, and the agreed savings are within reach. A ribbon can be cut, and the project team can look back on a concrete result. But at that same moment, an important part of the change still needs to prove itself: will people use the new environment and technology as needed to achieve the organizational goals? Photo credit Pexels - Diva Plavalaguna That question remains underexposed in many activity-based working (ABW) processes. An integrated ABW process brings together three changes: the physical work environment changes, ICT supports location- and time-independent working, and the organization develops an appropriate way of collaborating, leading, and utilizing space. These components are interdependent. A well-designed building has little value if employees do not have the right digital tools at their disposal. Good ICT solves little if the work environment does not adequately support the work. And even if the building and technology function excellently, the result remains suboptimal if the socio-organizational aspect lags behind. This aligns with the principle of joint optimization by Albert Cherns (1976): only when building, technology, and organization reinforce each other does one plus one become more than two. Only when building, technology, and organization reinforce each other does one plus one become more than two. However, in many ABW projects, most attention is focused on the physical and technical changes. These are concrete, plannable, and easily measurable. There is a design, a budget, an implementation schedule, and a moment when the building and systems are delivered. There is often no comparable delivery moment for socio-organizational change. This becomes visible in the way people use the new possibilities in their daily work: by collaborating more easily across departments, sharing knowledge better, forming new teams faster, and consciously choosing an environment that suits the activity. Delivery is not the same as utilization Whether the integrated concept works only becomes visible in daily use. With a successful implementation, employees choose an environment that suits their activity, share knowledge more easily, and collaborate more frequently across team boundaries. That result is not a given. Employees may continue working according to old routines from day one, for example because they are insufficiently familiar with the possibilities or agreements. The working method may also become diluted later on, when fixed workstations and territorial team zones emerge. The physical and digital preconditions can be the same in all these situations. The difference arises in the way the organization uses them. The physical and digital project goals may have been achieved, while the intended organizational value may or may not be created. What is quickly measurable feels like a tangible return. The returns on real estate and ICT can often be concretely determined upon completion. The number of square meters has been reduced, sustainable materials have been used, and new systems can be tested. Such results are visible, measurable, and easy to incorporate into a business case. With regard to the socio-organizational component, the return cannot be determined at a single point in time. Better collaboration, more knowledge sharing, and greater adaptability must develop in practice. Many organizations therefore treat this value as something that remains to be seen. What is quickly and objectively measurable is considered hard yield. What develops gradually is soon regarded as soft and uncertain. What is quickly and objectively measurable is considered hard return. What develops gradually is soon regarded as soft and uncertain. Therein lies a paradox: it is precisely the socio-organizational component that largely determines whether investments in buildings and technology yield their full value. A systematic review by Masoudinejad and Veitch from 2023 underscores why a broader assessment is needed. The effects of ABW on factors contributing to organizational productivity appear to be mixed. According to the researchers, organizations must therefore weigh the savings on real estate against the broader effects of their design choices on organizational functioning. Difficult to measure does not mean that socio-organizational value is unimportant or optional. These goals must also be monitored. This can be done by looking beyond costs and staffing at employee experiences, the use of the work environment, collaboration between teams, and the ability to adapt working methods to changing circumstances. The three changes must be organized together. If ABW is an integral process, the socio-organizational component cannot wait to begin until the building and ICT are virtually ready. Teams must investigate in advance which activities they perform and which physical and digital environment suits them. Within the fixed principle of non-personal workspaces, they make agreements regarding presence, accessibility, collaboration, concentration, and space usage. After implementation, there is no need to maintain a change program for this purpose. The working method becomes part of normal management and collaboration. Managers discuss what works well with their teams, practical agreements adapt as the work changes, and new employees learn how the work environment is used from the start. A building and ICT systems, too, do not continue to function without management after completion. The same applies to the socio-organizational component. Responsibility for this belongs within the day-to-day organization: with managers and teams that put the new way of working into practice. Partial success is not yet integral success An ABW project can be technically and structurally successful, yet still fall short of expectations as an integral change. The building may have been completed on time, the ICT may function excellently, and real estate costs may have decreased. However, if the organization fails to sufficiently utilize the potential of the building and technology, a significant portion of the intended value remains untapped. Physical and digital success is visible upon delivery. Social-organizational success becomes visible in daily practice. Physical and digital success is visible upon delivery. Social-organizational success becomes visible in daily work. It is precisely that success that determines whether the first two investments truly pay off. The central question is therefore: Is the organization ready to truly utilize the potential of the building and the technology? Sources Cherns, A. (1976). The Principles of Sociotechnical Design . Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602900806 Engelen, L., Chau, J., Young, S., Mackey, M., Jeyapalan, D. & Bauman, A. (2019). Does activity-based working impact health, work performance and perceptions? A systematic review . Building Research & Information, 47(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1440958 Masoudinejad, S. & Veitch, J. A. (2023). The effects of activity-based workplaces on contributors to organizational productivity: A systematic review . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101920 Nassau is happy to think along with you. Every work environment requires a unique approach. In a brief, no-obligation consultation, we will explore together what your organization needs and which options align with those needs.

When we talk about impact, we tend to think straight away of measurable results: different policies, lower emissions, reduced costs. But change often begins earlier than that. Not with the result itself, but with a shift in what people consider normal, acceptable and self-evident. In an opinion piece in De Volkskrant on topics including meat consumption, fast fashion and Black Lives Matter, Melodi Tamarzians refers to this as ‘support impact’ (Tamarzians, 2026). An individual may not change the system straight away, but they can help to make certain behaviour less unusual, make a topic easier to discuss, or make a new choice feel more natural. This lowers the threshold slightly for those who follow. When I read that, I immediately recognised something from my own field. When introducing Activity-Based Working (ABW), too, impact is often sought in the big, visible changes: the new office concept, the number of workstations, the occupancy rate or agreements on hybrid working. But perhaps a significant part of the change takes place much earlier and on a much smaller scale: with the first colleague who starts behaving differently — and thereby shows that it is, apparently, possible. What ‘acceptance impact’ is Acceptance impact is not the change itself, but a prerequisite for it. It is not: ‘we now have fewer desks’, but: ‘it has become the norm not to claim a fixed workspace’. It is not about policy or square metres, but about what people within their team come to regard as normal, desirable and accepted behaviour. This is consistent with what we know from research into social norms within organisations. A distinction is made between what people actually see others doing — the descriptive norm — and what they believe to be appropriate or accepted behaviour within the group — the injunctive norm (Dannals & Miller, 2017). It is precisely within organisations that such norms can be particularly powerful, because colleagues’ behaviour constantly provides information about ‘how we apparently do things here’. Sociologist Mark Granovetter demonstrated, through his threshold model, that people can also differ greatly in the threshold at which they are prepared to exhibit certain behaviour. That threshold is partly determined by the number or proportion of others who are already exhibiting that behaviour. For some, a few pioneers are enough; others only take action once a much larger proportion of the group has already done so (Granovetter, 1978). Subsequent experiments by Damon Centola and his colleagues demonstrate just how powerful such a shift can be. In their experimental setting, a committed minority of around a quarter of the group proved sufficient to overturn an existing social convention (Centola et al., 2018). This most certainly does not mean that 25 per cent is always required within organisations. The critical mass required depends on the social context. Above all, the experiment shows that individual behavioural changes can accumulate until a tipping point is reached, at which point what was initially deviant can become the new norm. What was once considered unusual may eventually become the new norm. What this looks like in ABW schemes Take the first employee who, in the morning, does not automatically claim the same desk, but actually chooses a workspace that suits the task at hand. This does not, in itself, change the organisation. Nothing changes in terms of the building, the property policy or the occupancy figures. But socially speaking, something does happen. Colleagues notice it. They realise that it is apparently possible. Perhaps they ask about it or try it themselves the next day. This creates precisely the mechanism described by social norm theory: the visible behaviour of others provides information about what is normal within the group and what is apparently accepted (Dannals & Miller, 2017). Behaviour that initially feels unusual thus becomes slightly less so. And that is precisely the impact on acceptance: not the ultimate change itself, but the lowering of the threshold for participating in it. That is also why ambassadors and frontrunners in an ABW programme can do more than simply inform or try to convince their colleagues. They make new behaviour visible. In doing so, they demonstrate that a different way of working is not only possible, but can also be accepted within the group. Every colleague who then follows suit can in turn lower that threshold for the next colleague. In this way, behaviour that initially deviates from the existing norm can, step by step, develop into behaviour that becomes second nature within a team. Why this matters Buy-in is therefore not a side issue that simply follows once a building has been completed. It is part of the change process itself. And it has its own dynamics that you can recognise, organise and reinforce — regardless of what happens to the property. This also changes how you might view the role of ambassadors and trailblazers. Their significance lies not only in how many colleagues they manage to convince. Perhaps their most important contribution is much simpler: being the first to visibly do what still feels unfamiliar to others. The first employee doesn’t have to change the whole organisation. They just need to make it a little easier for the next colleague to take the plunge. Many changes begin right there. References: Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116–1119. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas8827 Dannals, J. E., & Miller, D. T. (2017). Social norms in organizations. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford University Press. Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707 Tamarzians, M. (2026, 29 augustus). Waarom jouw keuze wél iets betekent voor verandering. de Volkskrant. Nassau is happy to work with you to find the right solution Every working environment requires a tailored approach. In a brief, no-obligation consultation, we’ll work with you to identify your organisation’s needs and explore the options that best suit them.

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.

Why more and more organizations are reverting to mandatory office days. The FD reports today on ABN AMRO's intention to have employees work in the office for more than half of their workweek again. The bank expects this to lead to, among other things, greater connection and creativity. ABN AMRO is certainly not alone in this. More and more organizations are implementing similar policies. In doing so, they also look to one another: if large employers mandate two, three, or four office days, that quickly becomes the new norm. Hybrid working has changed not only where we work, but also how we organize and manage work. Physical presence, visibility, and direct management were for a long time naturally linked. Now that work is more digital and less location-bound, an attendance standard brings back a familiar anchor: employees are visible and physical proximity is once again becoming the starting point. But that does not mean the work is better organized. The concern behind ABN AMRO’s decision is aptly articulated in the FD: “Young employees have to search on Teams for someone to ask questions to; that breaks my heart.” That touches upon a real issue. Young employees need to be able to find experienced colleagues, learn from them, and become part of a professional community. Greater simultaneous presence increases the chance of encounters and knowledge exchange. However, physical proximity does not organize that interaction automatically. People can work on the same floor without truly collaborating, and still sit individually behind their screens even with a full office occupancy. Organizing chance is something different from organizing collaboration. The question is therefore not only how many people are in the office, but above all who is there when, for what purpose, and what happens there subsequently. Managing attendance An attendance standard reduces a complex organizational issue to a simple rule: 50% in the office. With this, we manage by presence, whereas ultimately it is about collaboration, knowledge sharing, connection, and creativity. Employees can dutifully meet the standard and still work individually at the office or spend the day on video calls. In that case, we focus on input, whereas we want to achieve impact. A standard is not optional. Implementing an attendance standard has consequences. The expected benefits lie primarily at the organizational level – increased connection, knowledge sharing, and culture – while a significant portion of the costs falls on employees: extra travel time and expenses, reduced autonomy and flexibility, and increased pressure on the work-life balance. From a societal perspective, too, increased commuting leads to increased mobility. That is precisely why it is important to think carefully in advance about what an attendance standard should achieve and how that return is actually organized. Simply prescribing that people come to the office more often is insufficient. The actual task The question is not whether physical proximity has value, but how that value is organized. This calls for deliberate agreements on who needs each other for what and when, targeted knowledge transfer and guidance, appropriate leadership, and a work environment that supports the desired activities. The office is then not an instrument to enforce presence, but a means to provide targeted support for collaboration, meetings, and knowledge sharing. The real challenge is not bringing people back to the office, but making the office relevant to today's work. Sources ABN AMRO. (2026, May 26). Proposals ABN AMRO collective labor agreement negotiations 2026. ABN AMRO proposal letter. De Unie. (2026, June 9). ABN AMRO: The second round of collective labor negotiations . De Unie. Rotteveel, M. (2026, August 12). ABN Amro wants employees to come to the office more often again . Het Financieele Dagblad .

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.