Under scrutiny: what’s right and wrong with activity-based workplaces

As one of the most enduring and commonly adopted models for office floorspace, activity-based workplaces (ABWs) are today under unprecedented scrutiny. They have become nearly the norm at newly constructed and remodelled workplaces worldwide, and research generally supports their adoption—but not always in every respect.

A new Scandinavian study led by Melina Forooraghi and colleagues (in press) discusses limitations in the ABW approach. This research conducted post-occupancy evaluations at activity-based flexible offices in Sweden. The Gothenburg-based research team found that ‘predominantly open zones did not support units with high concentration or confidential tasks.’ Also, limitations for personalisation did not fit teams with creative tasks, and a clean-desk policy introduced challenges in maintaining team cohesion.

The research highlighted what its authors describe as a discrepancy between ‘work as imagined’ by decision-makers and designers, and ‘work as done’ by employees. They comment: ‘It is therefore relevant to pay closer attention to contextual task characteristics in pursuit of task-supportive activity-based flexible offices.’

In short, people doing different things do them better in different sorts of places and user input is needed when ABWs are designed.

Comprehensible environment

The issues raised by Forooraghi’s new study reflect the findings of earlier research. Forooraghi and colleagues (2023) reported on the potential benefits of ‘clear design cues, spatial seclusion and soundproofing’ that ‘may help create a comprehensible environment in which users are able to easily read and understand the function of [particular] workspaces.’

Rucker and teammates (2023) found that ‘ABWs can balance privacy and communication, providing optimal conditions for enhanced employee performance.’ Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen and Janssen (2011) encouraged the development of spaces owned by specific teams when ABWs are in place to support team communication and trust; without these team ‘home-bases’ teammates may not spend much time working near each other.

Similarly, Kohlert (2020) reported that ‘in non-territorial office concepts, this loss of one’s own territory should be counteracted by strengthening identity at group level.’

Psychological comfort

Research suggests that ABWs increase user psychological comfort just by providing them with a comfortable amount of choice (not too many options, say four to six, is best); and control can help counter undesirable conditions such as user burnout. Appel-Meulenbroek, Aussems, LeBlanc and Arentze (2020) defined three dimensions of burnout and advocated that ‘workers should be given the opportunity to isolate themselves from colleagues by providing various types of workplaces.’ Findings such as these indicate that ABWs can be a plus if spaces available are tuned to user needs, and not so desirable when they’re not.

ABWs can lead to better outcomes than open plan offices, although often single office workplaces optimise performance.  Gerlitz and Hulsbeck (2023) learned via a literature review that the ‘single office scores best concerning levels of distraction, interaction, satisfaction, health, and performance levels and is followed by ABW, which has a higher level of disturbance. The open plan office scores the lowest. The rationale for implementing the open plan office and ABW is cost reduction’. The same study suggests that ABW works best when activity zones for different tasks are acoustically and visually shielded from each other when concentration may be required.

Further evidence that ABWs need to be tuned to user needs can be found in a study by Gaudiino, Van den Broeck, and Verbruggen (2023 which argues that employees who frequently switch workstations may experience a better fit between their needs and the workplaces offered by ABW. The researchers explain: ‘It is necessary to consider the degree to which task variety is currently present in a usual working day and clearly explain to the employees both the added value and requirements of the new work setting. . . The ABW concept may not be appropriate for every kind of job and every type of office environment.’

Assigned seats

It seems prudent, whenever possible, to combine the traditional elements of ABWs with assigned seats in areas where users are most likely to find their usual work tasks supported. Franko, Erdelyi and Dull (2023) found that workers who share desks are less attached to their workplaces, making it less likely that they firmly bond to their teams and employers.

Wohlers and Hertel (2017), via research at ABWs, determined that ‘as employees have non-assigned workstations, they have limited abilities to demonstrate psychological ownership within the office, negatively affecting wellbeing and job satisfaction at the individual level. At the team level, low levels of territoriality may negatively affect team identification, information sharing and trust within teams, resulting in low team satisfaction and performance.’

Finally, in this era where encouraging people to return to the office can be a challenge, findings by Oseland and Raw (2024) findings are particularly noteworthy.  They determined via an online survey that’s higher proportion of respondents who have assigned or allocated desks prefer working in the office compared to those with unassigned desks.’

So, plenty to ponder for those who commission and design activity-based workplaces.

Read more of the latest research insights from Sally Augustin in Research Roundup, her regular column in the Innovation Zone for WORKTECH Academy members and partners here.

Research sources

Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Rik Aussems, Pascale LeBlanc, and Theo Arentze. 2020. ‘The Association Between Office Use and the Burnout-Engagement Continuum in Activity-Based Offices.’  Proceedings, The Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Network Conference, September 16-19, Frankfurt Germany.

Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Peter Groenen and Ingrid Janssen. 2011. ‘An End-User’s Perspective on Activity-Based Office Concepts.’ Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 122-135.

Melina Forooraghi, Annemarie Hultberg, Ingibjorg Jonsdottir, and Maral Chafi. ‘Exploring Alignments Between Design Principles and Work Unit Needs in Activity-Based Flexible Offices: A Case Study.’ Ergonomics, in press.

Melina Forooraghi, Elke Miedema, Nina Ryd, Holger Wallbaum, and Maral Chafi. 2023. ‘Relationship Between the Design Characteristics of Activity-Based Flexible Offices and Users’ Perceptions of Privacy and Social Interactions.’ Building Research and Information, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 588-604.

Luca Franko, Ajna Erdelyi, and Andrea Dull. 2023. ‘Transformation of the Office: Territorial Behaviour and Place Attachment in Shared Desk Design.’Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 229-245.

Maria Gaudiino, Anja Van den Broeck, and Marijke Verbruggen. 2023. ‘The Role of Switching Frequency, Task Variety and Motivation in Activity-Based Working:  When Does the Switch Fit?’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 89, 102039.

Andrea Gerlitz and Marcel Hulsbeck.  2023. ‘The Productivity Tax of New Office Concepts:  A Comparative Review of Open-Plan Offices, Activity-Based Working, and Single-Office Concepts.’ Management Review Quarterly, vol. 74, pp. 745-775.

Christine Kohlert. 2020. ‘The ‘Human’ Workplace – Health-Relevant Factors for Learning and Working Spaces.’  Proceedings, The Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Network Conference, September 16-19, Frankfurt Germany.

Nigel Oseland and Gary Raw. 2024. ‘The Enticing Workplace: Attracting People Back to the Office.’

Marc Rucker, Tobias Eismann, Martin Meinel, Antonia Sollner, and Kai-Ingo Voigt. 2023. ‘Balancing Privacy and Communication in Activity-Based Workspaces:  A Longitudinal Study.’  Journal of Corporate Real Estate, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 181-204.

Christina Wohlers and Guido Hertel. 2017. ‘Choosing Where to Work at Work – Towards a Theoretical Model of Benefits and Risks of Activity-Based Flexible Offices.’  Ergonomics, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 467-486. 56.