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.

The workplace is on the agenda more than ever before. Hybrid work has fundamentally changed the role of the office: it is no longer a given where people work, and therefore it is no longer a given why they come to the office. Organizations are investing heavily in office space, but often without a clear framework. The question of what actually makes a workplace effective is rarely answered systematically. Yet workplace strategy is one of the most impactful organizational issues of our time. This article provides a scientifically grounded framework for anyone involved in workplace strategy, workplace development, or organizational change: from executives and HR managers to facilities consultants and real estate professionals. It dispels the persistent misconception that a good workplace is all about aesthetics or facilities. The workplace is not just a matter of square meters—it is an organizational issue with measurable effects on people, performance, and sustainability. on well-being, performance, and the ability to attract and retain talent. The workplace is not just a matter of square meters—it is an organizational issue with measurable effects on people, performance, and sustainability. There is one fundamental condition: the workplace is not an island. A great work environment can only be created when the physical layout, the social and organizational context, the technology, and leadership are all aligned. A beautifully designed office with poor IT support, unclear behavioral guidelines, or a culture of mistrust will not live up to its promise. Workplace development is, by definition, a systemic issue—and therefore requires a comprehensive approach. Workplace development is, by definition, a systemic issue—and therefore requires a comprehensive approach. Based on research and practical experience, we have identified eight interrelated building blocks. These building blocks are described and scientifically substantiated below. Not everything carries the same weight Before we go through the eight building blocks, it makes sense to consider a fundamental design question: what do you need to get right first? Not all qualities of a workplace carry the same weight—and when faced with conflicting choices, it helps to know what deserves priority. Based on the research literature, we distinguish four successive levels. Each level builds on the previous one. Adding a higher level while a lower level is lacking yields little benefit—and can sometimes be counterproductive. An important distinction here is that at the first two levels, the physical environment has direct, causal effects on behavior and health. At the higher levels, the influence is real but indirect—the workplace provides support, but it is not the determining factor. Level 1 — Prerequisites. The basic physical conditions must be right: light, air, temperature, acoustics, and ergonomics. The effects here are immediate and measurable. An office without acoustic buffering demonstrably increases stress levels and reduces the ability to concentrate—regardless of how good the culture is (Kim & de Dear, 2013). Employees without a view out the window report significantly higher rates of absenteeism due to illness than colleagues with a view of the outdoors. This is not a motivational effect—it is physiology. Level 2 — Functional suitability. The workplace must be suited to what people do. Here, too, the effects are immediate. An employee who needs to concentrate but can’t find a single quiet spot will perform worse—not because the culture is lacking, but because the environment makes it impossible. Conversely, a well-designed meeting area with good acoustics and video equipment immediately and measurably lowers the barrier to collaboration. Level 3 — Social quality. The workplace must facilitate connection: informal interaction, collaboration, and a sense of community. Here, the nature of the influence shifts. A coffee corner in the right spot increases the likelihood of chance encounters—but whether those encounters lead to trust and collaboration depends on culture and leadership. The workplace creates the conditions, not the guarantees. Level 4 — Meaning and Identity. The workplace reflects what the organization stands for: its mission, values, and image. An entrance that showcases the organization’s history, a workplace that embodies sustainability, an environment that exudes hospitality—these elements reinforce a sense of pride and belonging. But a sense of purpose doesn’t come from the workplace alone. That’s the work of people, not walls. An inspiring environment can support a sense of purpose, but it cannot create it. That is the work of people, not walls. The eight building blocks described below are divided across these four levels. This provides guidance for setting priorities—and for discussing what is most urgent in a specific situation. Level 1 — Prerequisites: Building Block 1 (well-being & comfort) and Building Block 4 (greenery & sustainability). Level 2 — Functional Suitability: building block 2 (flexible workspaces) and building block 5 (efficient management). Level 3 — Social Quality: Building Block 6 (Connection) and Building Block 8 (Inclusivity). Level 4 — Meaning and Identity: Building Block 3 (Mission & Image) and Building Block 7 (Learning & Development). 1. A place where you feel good and can work well Well-being, autonomy, and psychological safety The first building block concerns the foundation of any good work environment: employees must feel good. This means, first and foremost, physical comfort—good lighting, a pleasant temperature, quiet, and ergonomics. The effects of these factors are immediate and measurable. Employees in offices with poor acoustics consistently report higher stress levels and lower concentration (Kim & de Dear, 2013). A workplace that is too hot demonstrably reduces cognitive performance—research shows that productivity decreases significantly at temperatures above 25 degrees (Seppänen et al., 2006). Ergonomic shortcomings lead to higher absenteeism and increased healthcare costs. Psychological safety—the feeling that you can take interpersonal risks without negative consequences—is one of the best-documented predictors of team performance (Frazier et al., 2017). The workplace plays a supporting role in this: an environment without private spaces for confidential discussions, or a layout where managers constantly have a view of employees, can undermine psychological safety. But the core is determined by behavior and culture—not by the layout. Autonomy—the ability to decide for oneself where and how to work—is a core need in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A meta-analysis by Slemp et al. (2018) confirms that autonomy is linked to self-determined motivation and engagement. Modern flexible work concepts have made this principle central: employees choose the workspace that suits their activity and concentration needs, rather than being assigned a fixed seat. 2. An environment that suits your work Flexible and functional workspaces The second building block concerns functionality: the workplace must be suited to what people do. This requires a varied range of work zones—from quiet spaces for concentration to areas for collaboration and socializing—as well as robust digital support for hybrid work. The effects of a functional mismatch are immediate. A programmer who has to concentrate on work in a noisy open space with no alternative makes more mistakes and experiences more frustration—not because they are less motivated, but because the environment objectively makes the work more difficult. Conversely, a collaboration zone with good acoustics and reliable video equipment measurably lowers the barrier to collaboration (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017). Flexible work concepts that allow employees to choose the workspace that suits their activity demonstrably promote communication and agility—provided the concept is implemented properly. This means: sufficient variety in zones, clear usage guidelines, and a layout that truly enables focused work. A well-designed work environment, with attention to visual ergonomics, sound insulation, and access to natural light, enhances workplace suitability and reduces frustration (Candido et al., 2019; Robertson et al., 2016). 3. A place that shows what you're working toward Social relevance, pride, and image Employees don’t just want a pleasant workplace—they also want to feel that their work matters. The work environment can either reinforce or undermine this. An inspiring environment that reflects the organization’s mission and values contributes to pride, motivation, and retention. Research confirms that a sense of purpose in work is closely linked to employee engagement. When the organization’s mission resonates with personal values, employees are demonstrably more engaged, more productive, and less likely to leave the organization (Cigna Group, 2022; Harvard Business Review, 2021). That sense of purpose does not arise from the workplace alone—but an environment that makes the mission visible and radiates it does reinforce it. A strong employer brand—shaped in part by the physical work environment and the organization’s image—reinforces the sense of pride and connection among employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Matzler et al., 2022). Research by Heidrick & Struggles shows that 73% of employees at organizations with a clear mission are engaged, compared to only 23% elsewhere. Hospitality and professionalism—in both the design and the welcome—also contribute to the organization’s external credibility. 4. A green and future-proof place Sustainability and Healt Nature and natural light are not luxuries, but essential components of a healthy work environment. Biophilic design—the deliberate incorporation of natural elements into buildings—is backed by robust scientific evidence. A major international study (Human Spaces, 2015) shows that employees in offices with more greenery and natural light are more productive and have a greater sense of well-being. Employees themselves cite natural light as the most valued environmental element. Employees with a view out the window report significantly lower rates of absenteeism due to illness than colleagues without a window. Research published in the International Journal of Workplace Health Management confirms that exposure to natural light is associated with higher engagement and productivity. According to a study by the UK Green Building Council, employees in offices with good natural light reported 18% fewer sick days. Biophilic elements—from plants to green walls and views of nature—reduce stress, improve focus, and increase overall job satisfaction (Kellert & Calabrese, 2015; Browning, Ryan & Clancy, 2014). Scientific research identifies a green coverage ratio of approximately 12% as the optimal level for positive psychological and physiological effects in the office (Liang et al., 2021). Sustainable offices also reduce operating costs and strengthen organizational credibility—especially for organizations that prioritize sustainability. 5. An efficient and well-managed environment Cost-conscious and efficiently organized The fifth building block links the previous four to a responsibility that every organization has: the efficient use of resources. Space and facilities must be utilized effectively. International research estimates that, on average, 64% of office space is underutilized (IPG Space Efficiency Report, 2024). This represents a substantial waste of energy and housing costs. Smart occupancy data—collected via sensors and space management systems—makes it possible to better align the supply and demand for workspaces. Scientific research shows that reducing space usage through more efficient occupancy can lead to energy savings of approximately 200 kWh/m² per year in operational energy, in addition to significant savings on the energy involved in constructing new buildings (Mjörnell et al., 2024). Smart building technology—such as automated climate control, IoT sensors, and data-driven cleaning schedules—contributes to lower operating costs and reduces the carbon footprint. HVAC systems account for 25–50% of office buildings’ energy consumption; effective management yields the greatest gains in this area (Hamdan et al., 2023). An efficiently managed environment is not an end in itself. It is a prerequisite for being able to continue investing in employee well-being and in the organization’s impact. 6. A Place That Brings People Together Social cohesion and community In a hybrid work environment, the physical workplace is increasingly becoming the place where social connections are formed. Informal interactions—the chance encounter at the coffee corner, the brief conversation between two meetings—have proven to be one of the most powerful drivers of collaboration, trust, and innovation. Research by Leesman (2023), based on more than one million respondents worldwide, shows that the need for collaboration and social interaction is the main reason employees come to the office. A workplace that does not facilitate this lacks a raison d’être in a hybrid model. Social capital theory (Putnam, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) demonstrates that informal relationships within organizations strengthen knowledge sharing and increase teams’ adaptability. A coffee corner at the intersection of walking routes increases the likelihood of chance encounters between people who would not otherwise cross paths—a small design choice with potentially significant social effects. Whether those encounters lead to trust and collaboration, however, depends on the culture: the workplace creates the opportunity; behavior determines the outcome. Research by Microsoft (Work Trend Index, 2022) confirms that spontaneous interactions in the office significantly contribute to a sense of belonging and to the transfer of tacit knowledge, particularly for new employees. A workplace without social infrastructure is a missed opportunity. 7. A place that encourages learning and growth Knowledge Sharing, Growth, and Innovation A great workplace can foster growth. Employees learn not only through formal training, but above all from one another: through observation, informal knowledge transfer, and collaboration on complex issues. The workplace can either facilitate or hinder this—but a learning environment is first and foremost a matter of organizational culture and leadership. A library of professional literature and an open workspace next to a senior colleague increase the likelihood of knowledge transfer; whether that colleague is willing to share, however, is a cultural factor. Research on learning environments (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) shows that organizations that actively support informal learning—including through workplace design—report significantly higher innovation scores and employee satisfaction. Spaces that enable experimentation, facilitate prototyping, and encourage knowledge exchange are a direct investment in the organization’s capacity to learn. The relationship between workplace design and creativity is well documented empirically. Research by McCoy & Evans (2002) shows that physical environmental characteristics—such as openness, variety in workplace types, and access to informal meeting spaces—are directly linked to creative output. Biophilic elements reinforce this effect: offices with strong biophilic features increase employee creativity by 15% compared to conventional offices (Human Spaces, 2015). For knowledge-intensive organizations, the workplace is therefore not just a means of production, but a learning environment. This requires conscious design choices: visibility of knowledge, accessibility of colleagues, and space for reflection alongside action. 8. A place that works for everyone Inclusivity and Accessibility A great workplace is a place where everyone can work effectively—regardless of physical abilities, neurodiversity, work style, or stage of life. Inclusive design is not merely a matter of ethics or legal obligation; it is also a measure of the quality of the workplace as a whole. Universal Design (Mace, 1997) is based on the principle that environments must be usable by the widest possible range of people, without the need for retroactive modifications. Applied to the workplace, this means: barrier-free access, adjustable furniture, sufficient quiet zones, subdued acoustics, and manageable sensory stimuli. Neurodiversity deserves specific attention in this context. Research shows that employees with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or sensory sensitivity are disproportionately affected by open-plan office environments with high noise levels, bright lighting, and visual distractions (Rashid & Zimring, 2008). Flexible work concepts offer a partial solution here—but only if quiet, screened-off zones are sufficiently available and easily accessible. Inclusive design also enhances the overall quality of the workplace. Areas designed for people with heightened sensory sensitivity are found to be perceived as calmer and more pleasant by all employees (Imrie, 2012). Inclusivity is therefore not an add-on, but a quality enhancer. Conclusion: The Workplace as a Strategic Investment The eight building blocks are not simply the sum of individual wishes—they are interconnected. Well-being and autonomy require a functional environment. Functionality presupposes an inspiring context. Pride and image are more credible in a sustainable building. Sustainability requires efficient management. And all these layers are strengthened when the workplace also fosters connection, encourages learning, and works for everyone. Scientific research supports each of these building blocks. Together, they define what a great workplace truly is: not a luxury, but a smart investment in people, performance, and organizational value. Two caveats deserve fair consideration. First, the eight building blocks are a framework for ambition, not a measurement model. They guide decision-making, but not all building blocks can be fully realized at the same time. Efficiency and inclusivity can clash: more quiet, screened-off zones for neurodiversity take up space that an efficiency drive is precisely trying to save. Sustainability and comfort can also be at odds: an energy-efficient climate control system isn’t always the most comfortable. Which trade-off is the right one depends on the organization, its people, and its resources. Second: a good concept does not guarantee a good result. Flexible work concepts are demonstrably effective—but only if they are carefully designed and implemented. Insufficient quiet zones, unclear guidelines, or a lack of employee involvement during implementation lead to frustration rather than freedom. The quality of the implementation is at least as critical as the quality of the design. Sources Ashkanasy, N.M., Ayoko, O.B., & Jehn, K.A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1169–1184. Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517. Browning, W.D., Ryan, C.O., & Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green, New York. Candido, C., et al. (2019). Designing for wellbeing: Post-occupancy evaluation of workplace environments. Building Research & Information. Chafi, M.B., et al. (2021). Hybrid working in the post-pandemic: Challenges and design implications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Cigna Group (2022). Purpose-Driven Organizations More Likely to Have Engaged, Committed Employees. Newsroom. Frazier, M.L., et al. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. Hamdan, M., et al. (2023). Towards energy efficiency: retrofitting existing office buildings using smart technologies. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science. Harvard Business Review (2021). Making Work Meaningful: A Leader's Guide. Human Spaces (2015). The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workplace. Interface/Haworth. Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873–882. IPG (2024). Office Space Efficiency Reduces Costs and Waste. IPG Space Efficiency Report. Kellert, S.R., & Calabrese, E.F. (2015). The Practice of Biophilic Design. Terrapin Bright Green. Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26. Lahtinen, M., et al. (2015). Activity-based flexible office design and ergonomics. Work, 52(3). Leesman (2023). The Leesman Review: The World's Largest Workplace Experience Study. Leesman Index. Liang, H., et al. (2021). A quantitative study for indoor workplace biophilic design to improve health and productivity. Journal of Cleaner Production. Mace, R. (1997). Universal Design: Barrier-Free Environments for Everyone. Designers West. Marmaras, N., & Nathanael, D. (2012). Workplace design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (4th ed.). Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151. Matzler, K., et al. (2022). Employer brand reputation and employee engagement. Journal of Business Research. McCoy, J.M., & Evans, G.W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426. Microsoft (2022). Work Trend Index Annual Report: Great Expectations: Making Hybrid Work Work. Microsoft Corporation. Mjörnell, K., et al. (2024). Measuring space efficiency and estimating the potential for reduced energy use for office spaces. Sustainability, 16(1). Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. Rashid, M., & Zimring, C. (2008). A review of the empirical literature on the relationships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151–190. Robertson, M., et al. (2016). Visual ergonomics in the workplace. Ergonomics, 59(3). Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Seppänen, O., Fisk, W.J., & Lei, Q.H. (2006). Effect of temperature on task performance in office environment. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Slemp, G.R., et al. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 706–724. UK Green Building Council (2016). Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices: The Next Chapter for Green Building. Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60(4), 467–486.