Recently, the New York Times published articles about what the writers referred to as the new “Envy Offices”. The U.S. Green Building Council in recent years espoused the benefits of green buildings, including environment, economic and health and community benefits. In other studies, various office designers declared that open-plan spaces are actually lousy for workers. Nevertheless, in the last couple of decades, employers across industries embraced creative open floor plan offices as a way to convey their culture and attract fresh talent. However, among employees, especially introverts, open office concepts became an increasing source of frustration as the lack of privacy, noise and other distractions made it harder for workers to concentrate.
For those of us who worked in offices where the use of cubicles was common place, the biggest issue tended to be related to poor “air quality” due to inadequate ventilation systems and the resulting volatile organic compounds captured in enclosed buildings. Such buildings constructed during the seventies and eighties were fully enclosed and pressurized due to the focus on “energy conservation” and associated costs at the time. As a result, it became clear that such buildings have a higher percentage of workers reporting symptoms such as irritated eyes, nose and throat, fatigue, headache and respiratory symptoms. In 2007, a U.S. survey found that one quarter of office workers perceived indoor air-quality problems in their offices, and about 20 percent reported their work performance was hampered by air quality. Experts suspected those figures were conservative, and I fully agree. Employing modular office furniture, space usage was given a priority whereby a maximum number of workers were squeezed into cubicles, again further reducing air quality. The use of cubicles also reminded people of their place in the power structure, with higher-ups typically allocated more space and enclosed offices. People would even tussle over having a cubicle near a window, especially given bad, glare producing and predominately fluorescent lighting found in many buildings. However, with cubicle walls one at least had the perception that one had some privacy.
Subsequent to the pandemic, all that has changed. With more employees working remotely from home and the arrival of “hybrid working arrangements” requiring workers to be in the office a specified number of days each week, employers are having to reconsider office designs. Open office concepts may actually offer a better alternative under current circumstances given a more itinerate workforce and the need to reduce required costly work space and associated expenditures to the employer. Mobile technologies have greatly facilitated the use of new office designs, which did not readily exist two or three decades ago and initially were very costly.
Historically, the evolution in office designs has been governed by many different considerations over the years, most related to the perceived needs of organizational hierarchies and their priorities. This often meant that worker needs and the impact on their health and safety were often overlooked. Studies have shown that poor office building design and poor air quality leads to poorer productivity. For this reason, it will be interesting to see what office designers have in store for workers in the coming years.
Hopefully, employers and office building designers can learn from their past mistakes and experiences. Today’s younger workers may not be so forgiving. With skilled labour shortages across North America, recruitment and retention issues are even more significant. The first thing that a potential employee will see is the building and its interior workplace design. With more prevalent remote working arrangements available, making the office more inviting, healthy and aesthetic has become even more important. This will help determine how one views work and one’s relationship to it. Think about it, when it comes to today’s workplace, where and how would you want to work?
FROLITICKS 