Bachelor Thesis

The Influence of Environmental Aesthetics

in the Workplace

How Architecture, Design and Other Aesthetic Elements of the

Physical Office Environment Relate to the Employee Experience

Laurin Holz
Hochschule Furtwangen University
Internationale Betriebswirtschaft B.A.

August 2019
Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Eva Kirner
Dr. Heike Stengel

Institution:
Hochschule Furtwangen University
HFU Business School
Jakob-Kienzle Straße 17
78054 Villingen-Schwenningen

Author:
Laurin Holz
Matriculation number: 251952
Dornbirner Weg 74
71522 Backnang
laurin.holz@gmail.com
Abstract

Based on the history of office design, the changing technological environment and current
business challenges, the physical workplace is an important aspect of the employee experience.
The aesthetics of the work environment are one aspect that influences well-being and satisfaction
on many different levels. This thesis provides a holistic and comprehensive perspective on the
topic, including important influential factors from several scientific disciplines.

Two main dimensions of influence on the employee experience are considered. The direct-
affective dimension deals with findings mostly from environmental psychology and neuroscience,
which includes the impact of internal environmental quality and other psychological effects.
Despite not always being consciously recognized, aesthetics and sensual perception have strong
implications for the psychological well-being of organizational members.

The indirect-cognitive dimension deals with the work environment as an expression of

organizational culture and the resulting implications of aesthetic considerations and the related
symbolic and functional dimensions of the physical work environment. Common organizational
artifacts and themes are explored as examples of the influence of aesthetic considerations for
workplace design.

Next to the employee perspective, the managerial perspective and important implications,
restrictions and issues for organizations in the creation and operation of workspaces are also
considered.

Empirical research has been conducted to evaluate the application of aesthetic considerations
and related issues in practice. Four expert interviews provide insight into the perspective of
workplace design professionals on the aesthetics and related aspects of design, implementation
processes and employee experience.

The aesthetic dimension of workplace design is often not actively considered by organizational
members and management, but the research conducted in this work provides far-reaching
evidence for the potential benefits of more considerate design choices for the aesthetics and
beauty in the workplace. Using measures on both the direct and indirect levels of influence, the
well-being and satisfaction of employees can be increased, and the attitudes and feelings held
towards the organization can be improved. The importance of the interrelated fields of
organizational culture and cultural change is explored. In addition, practical recommendations for
the optimization of the aesthetical dimension of workplace design are offered at the conclusion of
this work.
Statutory Declaration

“I hereby certify this thesis is my own work and contains no material that has been submitted
previously, in whole or in part, in respect of any other academic award or any other degree. I
testify that I have worked independently on all unlabeled parts. All ideas and works of others have
been acknowledged. To the best of my knowledge, all used sources, information and quotations
are referenced as such.”

Backnang, August 28, 2019

Laurin Holz
Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 The Concepts of Beauty and Aesthetics ............................................................................. 1

1.2 Overview and Foundations of Workplace Design ............................................................... 3

1.2.1 The Multi-Disciplinary Field of Workplace Design ........................................................ 3

1.2.2 History of Office Design ................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Research Objectives and Limitations .................................................................................. 6

2 Employee Perspective ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Direct-Affective Dimension of Influence .............................................................................. 8

2.1.1 Interior Environmental Quality Factors ......................................................................... 8

2.1.1.1 Thermal Conditions ....................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1.2 Lighting and Daylight .................................................................................................. 10

2.1.1.3 Acoustics and Noise ................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1.4 Biophilia and Views ..................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1.5 Office Layout ............................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1.6 Look and Feel ............................................................................................................. 15

2.1.1.7 Other Factors .............................................................................................................. 20

2.1.2 Impact of IEQ Factors ................................................................................................. 20

2.1.3 Other Psychological Effects ........................................................................................ 22

2.1.3.1 Personal Control and Personalization ........................................................................ 23

2.1.3.2 Privacy ........................................................................................................................ 25

2.1.3.3 Place Attachment ........................................................................................................ 26

2.1.4 Universal Beauty – Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology ............................... 27

2.2 Indirect-Cognitive Dimension of Influence ........................................................................ 30

2.2.1 Symbolic Value of the Workplace as a Cultural Artifact ............................................. 31

2.2.2 Employee’s Perception of the Workplace ................................................................... 33

2.2.3 Common Organizational Artifacts and Themes .......................................................... 35

2.2.3.1 Status Symbols ........................................................................................................... 35

2.2.3.2 Personalization and Territoriality ................................................................................ 36

2.2.3.3 Art in the Workplace ................................................................................................... 37

2.2.3.4 Creative Workspaces .................................................................................................. 38

3 Managerial Perspective ....................................................................................................... 42

3.1 Objectives of Aesthetic Considerations ............................................................................ 42

3.2 Restrictions in Workplace Design ..................................................................................... 43

3.3 Current Trends in Workplace Design ................................................................................ 44

3.3.1 Aesthetic Trends ......................................................................................................... 45

3.3.2 Data-Driven Design .................................................................................................... 46

4 Empirical Research ............................................................................................................. 49

4.1 Method: Expert Interviews ................................................................................................. 49

4.2 Results............................................................................................................................... 51

4.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 53

4.4 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 55

5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 56

5.1 Practical Implications......................................................................................................... 59

5.2 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 61

References ................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix A: Overview of Experts ........................................................................................... 74

Appendix B: Interview Guide .................................................................................................. 75

Appendix C: Transcribed Interviews ....................................................................................... 77

List of Figures

Figure 1. Influence of aesthetics on employees via organizational culture …..….……………….32

Figure 2. Emotion as a connection of physical artifacts and organizations ………………….……34

List of Abbreviations

EEG Electroencephalography
EKG Electrocardiogram
fMRI Functional magnetic resonance imaging
IEQ Interior environmental quality
VR Virtual reality
1 Introduction

This thesis sets out to explore the impact of aesthetics in the work environment and how
employees are influenced by their surroundings.

1.1 The Concepts of Beauty and Aesthetics

The concepts of beauty and aesthetics have been topics of philosophical debate since the earliest
recorded philosophers and are still subject to controversy. While philosophy has much to say on
the concepts, the relevance for the practical application has to be considered. Discrepancies are
probable between the academic and theoretical understanding of beauty and aesthetics on the
one hand and the common or generally accepted concepts on the other hand. So in order to
speak about beauty and aesthetics in the workplace, the concepts must first be discussed and
then a definition fitting and relevant to the subject matter has to be set in order to formulate more
concrete research questions.

Aesthetics are rooted in philosophy and are concerned with the concepts of beauty, taste and the
nature of art. While the term Aesthetics has only been introduced in the 18th century, the
philosophy of art has been around for much longer, encompassing many of the topics of
aesthetics. However, aesthetics includes more than just artistic judgements. The different theories
on aesthetics are usually centered around a designation of the term “aesthetic”. Some of the most
discussed topics are objects, judgments, attitudes, experiences and values. Next to the general
evaluation of beauty, which involves sensory, emotional and intellectual judgements, the
evaluation of these topics can also include judgements about the moral, political or economic
value of any of these (Shelley, 2007).
Summed up, the philosophical field of aesthetics deals with “an interesting and puzzling realm of
experience: the realm of the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, and the elegant; of taste, criticism,
and fine art; and of contemplation, sensuous enjoyment, and charm” (Munro & Scruton, 2019,
para. 1).
While there is also philosophical and ethical discussion within the field of organizational aesthetics
(Taylor, Hansen, & Hansen, 2017), these mostly theoretical considerations are not the focus of
aesthetic questions in the design of workplaces. Based on this and the assumption that most
employees or people involved in the creation of workplaces are not focused on a philosophical
concept in this context, a more literal definition of the word can be seen as more helpful. The
Oxford dictionary defines the adjective “aesthetic” as “concerned with beauty or the appreciation
of beauty” or “giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty” (“aesthetic | Oxford
Dictionaries,” n.d.). The definitions used in common language can be assumed to be closer to the

1
associations and understanding of the concept within the workplace and will therefore be used
as basis for this work.

The question on the nature of beauty, next to the nature of art, is considered one of the
fundamental concerns of philosophical aesthetics. Beauty has often been counted to the ultimate
values amongst goodness, truth and justice. The early philosophers saw beauty as an essential
and desirable element of life, establishing the importance of the concept.
Philosophers have offered many conceptions of beauty throughout history that are usually
connected to other metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological ideas. Discussing these ideas and
conceptions would not offer much benefit to the practical discussion of beauty in the workplace,
which is the reason this introduction will restrain itself to mentioning the possibly most-prosecuted
debate of philosophical beauty: The question on whether beauty is subjective or objective.

Until the 18th century, most philosophers held the opinion that beauty is not within an individual’s
particular experience. Instead beauty was an objective quality that was either part of the beautiful
object itself or its qualities. The two most significant philosophers who changed this notion were
Hume and Kant. Both came to the conclusion that the experience of beauty and the concept of
taste are profoundly subjective, changing the course of philosophical debate. Kant still recognized
that beauty can be universal and objective, but he also argued that the dimension of ‘taste’ is
involved in the interpretation of beauty. This ‘taste’ is influenced by individual parameters, such
as education, class or cultural background. The last major contribution to this discussion came
from Santayana who defined beauty as ‘objectified pleasure’, meaning that the, for some reason
experienced, emotional pleasure is attributed to an object, resulting in a highly subjective
definition of beauty. This has led to the generally accepted notion that ‘beauty lies in the eyes of
the beholder’ (Sartwell, 2007).

The same assumption about the discrepancy between philosophical theory and commonly used
language and focus of workplace design can be made in regard to the term “beauty” or “beautiful”.
Therefore, the literal definitions will also be used as foundation in this case. Beauty can be defined
as “a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses,
especially the sight” or “a combination of qualities that pleases the intellect.” (“beauty | Oxford
Dictionaries,” n.d.). The definition’s focus on sensual perception is primarily considered in chapter
2.1 on the “direct-affective dimension of influence”, while the alternate definition including the
intellectual pleasure is being reflected in chapter 2.2 on the “indirect-cognitive dimension of
influence”.

2
1.2 Overview and Foundations of Workplace Design

1.2.1 The Multi-Disciplinary Field of Workplace Design

The physical work environment, as referred to in this work, consists of buildings and their interior,
specifically office buildings as the primary setting for knowledge work. This involves the layout
and visual appearance, including architectural features, furnishings, decoration and artwork, as
well as all other levels of sensory experience of the physical environment, including ambient
conditions such as temperature, sound or the materiality experienced through touch.

Different disciplines use different terminology that acknowledge the various dimensions of the
physical environment. Architecture traditionally focuses on the two main dimensions of aesthetics
and functionality (Bodin Danielsson, 2015), while organizational research recognizes a third
symbolic dimension (Vilnai-Yavetz, Rafaeli, & Yaacov, 2005). Within organizational theory studies,
the functional dimension is often called instrumentality, but this work will use a three-dimensional
understanding of aesthetics, functionality and symbolism.

The workplace is an important area of research and discussion for several different academic
disciplines. Understanding where the focus of this work is situated requires an overview of the
different approaches to the physical workplace and the main questions of the different disciplines
working in this field.

The main fields of research that deal with the physical work environment and recognize the
aesthetic dimension of workplace design are 1) architecture and design, 2) environmental
psychology and 3) organizational-oriented research. All of these fields recognize that the physical
work environment has a significant influence on the humans working in these settings. In relation
to these other disciplines, management science considers the combination of all of them, focusing
on the outcomes relevant to business. The main interests and objectives in regard to workplace
design are the accomplishing or increasing of productivity, creativity or some other business value
or goal. Since people are at the core of most business value created, their well-being, satisfaction,
productivity and creativity are essential to long-term business success and largely determine
organizational performance. These outcomes are not determined by the physical workplace, but
all of them are influenced on some level by the aesthetic, functional or symbolic dimension and
the resulting social effects, which justifies an interest and concern with the design of the work
environment.

3
1.2.2 History of Office Design

The history of workplaces is naturally related to the history of work itself, which underwent
fundamental changes throughout the centuries. To understand the meaning and significance of
the modern office, it is worth looking at the history of knowledge work and major trends affecting
the development of the office environment.

The origins of the office are traced back to different points in time. While some point to the
medieval monks that had dedicated workspaces for the copying and studying of manuscripts,
others point to the first administrative buildings of the Medici in Florence or the British Empire that
started constructing office buildings, such as the East India House in the early 18th century to
cope with the tremendous amounts of paperwork created by the trade of the British empire. These
kinds of administrative buildings then spread around larger cities in Europe, providing a
concentrated, centralized space for workers (Williams, 2017).

By the end of the 19th century, the invention of telegraph, telephone and railway supported a
strong growth of office buildings in industrial cities in North America and Europe. The advent of
steel frame construction, along with electric lighting and air conditioning also enabled the creation
of large offices and skyscrapers (“History of Office Design,” n.d.). The wider spread of office
buildings also instilled and grew the distinction between home and work.

With the increasing number of people working in offices and factories, the early 1900s brought
about the movement of scientific management through theorists like Frederick Taylor. Based on
their principles, dense and rigid office layouts were created that followed the principles of
Taylorism through high standardization and efficiency-driven work environments, focused solely
on creating high productivity. These mostly open-plan offices featured long rows of desks and
separation of workers and managers, creating a factory-like style of office that endured for most
of the first half of the 20th century (Chevez & Huppatz, 2017).

This era also started office design as a dedicated discipline. Companies started expressing their
identities and desired corporate images through their office buildings. Architects like Frank Lloyd
Wright designed office buildings that emphasized strength, power and hierarchy. This new
discipline began to include the development of dedicated furniture for the work environment, like
the rolling chair or furniture and ceiling elements that would absorb noise created by machinery
used at the time (“History of Office Design,” n.d.).

After a turbulent first half of the 20th century with the Great Depression and two World Wars, the
‘Bürolandschaft’ created by Quickborner in Germany became a trend that highlighted a more
humane and democratic office environment. The style broke the long rows of desks into more

4
organic groups highlighting and empowering more human interaction, collaboration and
engagement. Managers were no longer sectioned off and there was a variety of styles for different
departments or needs. After becoming popular in northern Europe, this trend spread around the
world and because of its focus on the social element of work life, is often seen and referenced as
influential for modern workplace design (“History of Office Design,” n.d.).

In 1964, Herman Miller introduced the ‘Action Office’, the first modular office space system that
provided more privacy and flexibility for the individual workspace. The low dividers used to define
the space, along with an emphasis on meeting rooms decreased distractions but also social
interactions between workers. As this trend evolved, the enclosures of workers became higher
and more private, creating the ‘Cubicle’. By the 1980s, the availability of cheap modular walls to
create sections, along with a renewed focus on productivity are attributed for the spread of
‘Cubicle Farms’ that later became a symbol of suboptimal working conditions (Musser, 2009).

In 1995, Becker and Steele were some of the first to attempt linking workplace strategy to overall
business success in their book “Workplace by Design: Mapping the high-performance workscape.”
(F. D. Becker & Steele, 1995). This among other contributions lead to the development of
comprehensive workplace strategies by big companies like Deutsche Bank and Microsoft in the
early 2000s. Subsequently the concern with the work environment increased in many traditional
companies, while many of the new technology companies incorporated workplace design more
actively from their beginnings. This included analyzing and evaluating the particular needs and
challenges of companies and creating individual solutions for their workplace needs (Ellison
Schriefer, 2005).

In order to understand the more recent developments of the office environment, the changing
technological environment needs to be considered. While computers started to spread widely in
offices in the 80s and 90s, the arrival of the internet in the workplace marks a major shift in how
office work is done. Along with increasingly more mobile technology, this development lead to an
increasing flexibility of workers. The impact on the office was profound as it enabled
telecommuting and more flexible and activity-based work settings. Workers were enabled to work
from home, various places within the office or third places like coffee shops or dedicated
coworking spaces (Chevez & Huppatz, 2017).

This flexibilization brought with it a trend to return to partly open-plan office layouts and the
concept of activity-based working, which means the provision of several different types of work
stations that are each optimized for a certain activity. These work stations vary, among others,
according to openness, collaboration, noise level and equipment. The necessity for ‘hot desking’
or ‘desk sharing’, meaning the absence of permanently assigned work station, is hereby inherent
in this office concept (Appel‐Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, 2011).

5
There has been plentiful research on the effects of telecommuting with a great variety of results
including both very positive and more critical verdicts. The overall benefits, along with the growing
demand of the workforce for correlating policies, lead to the adoption of telecommuting practices
by many companies. One of these benefits on the company’s side was the potential elimination
of some of the office real-estate, because utilization of office space decreased. The impact of this
development was that many of the office space redesigns reduced the amount of available work
stations and introduced ‘desk sharing’ (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).

While there are different statistics on the growth of telecommuting, recent reports suggest that
several companies, among them technology firms like Yahoo and IBM, are reducing or ending
their telecommuting practices and placing attention on the physical presence of their workers in
the office again (Spector, 2017). The motivation for these moves vary, but the importance of
physical proximity in effective communication and the value of unplanned communication are
good reasons to reconsider the impact remote work and virtual teams have on companies’
bottom-line (Waber, Magnolfi, & Lindsay, 2014). Actions like these, that increasingly bring
employees back into the office may carefully be interpreted as indicators for a returning
significance of the physical office environment.

1.3 Research Objectives and Limitations

The following research questions have been formulated to guide the research:

a) How is the aesthetic dimension of the physical environment (in distinction to the functional
dimensions of the physical environment) perceived by employees in regard to their well-
being and satisfaction? (Are there direct or indirect implications for the health, productivity
and creativity of employees?)

b) How does the aesthetic dimension of the physical environment influence the perception
of the workplace and the organization as a whole?

c) When and in which way are employers/practitioners actively trying to use aesthetic
considerations in workplace design to influence employees?

d) What are the experiences of employers/practitioners in using aesthetic design

considerations in the creation of workplaces?

6
The first two questions are being evaluated in theory only, while the last two questions regarding
the considerations and actions of practitioners will subsequently be analyzed based on empirical
research.

The above chosen definitions for the terms “beautiful” and “aesthetic” are focused on the
understanding of employees and their experience.
This focus on the employee experience leads to the exclusion of other areas of interest in regard
to the office environment. In workplace design the image portrayed to external stakeholders like
the public, investors, customers and suppliers or potential talents is often a central consideration.
All external stakeholders are not being discussed in this work, but in practice need to be included
into certain aspects, like the question about the return-on-investment of a workplace redesign.

This work recognizes from the beginning that deterministic views of workplace design are to be
rejected and that there are many levels of influence in the work environment. The social
environment, management practices, task contents and more are all factors strongly influencing
the well-being and satisfaction as well as other outcomes. Workplace design is another dimension
of influence in this system and the aesthetic aspect of workplace design therefore another
subdimension, which is usually not discerned from the overall physical environment by employees
(Bodin Danielsson, 2010).
Because of the difficulty in isolating the effects of aesthetics, the functionality and symbolism will
also be partly considered when in direct connection to the aesthetic dimension. Solely functional
aspects are excluded from the analysis.

7
2 Employee Perspective

2.1 Direct-Affective Dimension of Influence

Considering how the environment affects emotions is very important since large parts of behavior
are based on emotions. As a result, those reflexive behaviors are very difficult to control or
override. The responses happen so quickly, people don’t realize they are happening until after
the fact and they are usually not even processed consciously.

The combination of different sensory inputs that a person experiences at a given time are together
creating a common mood or impression (Augustin, Frankel, & Coleman, 2009). When these
sensory experiences are aligned and all interpreted positively, it is likely a person will react with
positive emotions to the environment. If there are contradictory sensory experiences, the feelings
resulting from the psychological interpretation will be based on the internal weighting of sensory
inputs, strongly influenced by a person’s dominant sense (Augustin et al., 2009).

The direct-affective dimension of influence is focused on the subconscious effects of the office
environment. While most of the factors and influences mentioned here are also working on a
symbolic level and can have an influence on a cognitively conscious level, the primary focus of
this chapter is on the subconscious, psychological impact of these factors. The indirect-cognitive
dimension of influence is evaluated in chapter 2.2.

2.1.1 Interior Environmental Quality Factors

Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is concerned with the conditions inside buildings and how
humans feel and react to the physical parameters. Most studies researching IEQ are interested
in the effects on the satisfaction, health or performance of the occupants.
Which factors are included in IEQ in both practice and research varies widely, but usually focuses
on the sensual experience of the environment, which relates it to the field of aesthetics. The
factors that are mentioned the most are thermal conditions, air quality, lighting conditions and
acoustics. Depending on the definition of IEQ, some studies also consider further factors like
biophilia and views, office layout, general look and feel, ergonomics, amenities and more specific
factors like drinking water or electromagnetic radiation (Al Horr et al., 2016; Frontczak & Wargocki,
2011; Mujeebu, 2019). However, within the context of this work, only the factors that are expected
to be influencing aesthetic perception directly or indirectly are included for deeper, individual

8
analysis. The factors expected to not, or only minimally, impact aesthetic perception are
mentioned in chapter 2.1.1.7 Other Factors.

The research of IEQ has a long history and has brought forth a consensus on acceptable or ideal
ranges for most IEQ factors. This has led to the creation and implementation of IEQ standards
and guidelines for buildings and workplaces in most countries, which are central considerations
for architects, landlords and facility managers in the creation and operation of workplaces. Since
the IEQ is central to the well-being of workers, the individual factors and respective details are
explained first, before considering studies that combine IEQ factors and look at the impact on
different processes and outcomes.

2.1.1.1 Thermal Conditions

The goal in regulating thermal conditions is to reach a level of comfort with which the occupants
are satisfied. Preferences are highly subjective, and the evaluation of comfort is a cognitive
process that involves psychological, physiological and physical factors. Thermal conditions
consist of air temperature, air velocity, humidity and relative humidity and radiant temperature
(Mujeebu, 2019).

Individual and geographical thermal preferences vary as they are influenced by a wide range of
factors, such as gender, age, outdoor climate or season. Other variable factors including clothing
or dress code, changing activity or posture, e.g., walking and sitting, or mood can also influence
the perception of thermal comfort (Cena & de Dear, 2001; Quang, He, Knibbs, de Dear, &
Morawska, 2014). Despite these variations, temperatures between 21°C – 25°C are generally
recognized as a good range for office work (Seppänen & Fisk, 2006).

Thermal comfort is important in ensuring workers productivity. Dissatisfaction with the thermal
conditions has been shown to lead to a loss of productivity. There are indications that different
mental activities have different optimum temperature levels in regard to productivity and that in
some cases, the optimum temperature for comfort and the optimum temperature for performance
do not coincide (W. J. Fisk, 2000; Lan, Wargocki, & Lian, 2011). The possibility of occupants to
control or influence the thermal conditions can also help to improve productivity and is a significant
focus in the discussion around thermal comfort (Al Horr et al., 2016).

9
2.1.1.2 Lighting and Daylight

The research on the impact of lighting in the workplace has a long tradition, originally popularized
through some of the tests conducted in the Hawthorne experiments, which originally concluded
that the quality of lighting itself wasn’t a very impactful element in productivity, especially in
comparison to social aspects of the work environment. At the same time these experiments
established the Hawthorne effect, which describes that people alter their behavior based on their
awareness of being observed (Diaper, 1990; Parsons, 1974). While this originally arguably
devalued the research on the influence lighting can have on workers, later findings ascribed some
higher relevance to the topic.
In Boyce (2014) standard reference on lighting ‘Human Factors in Lighting’, he describes how
new research on the human circadian rhythms has shifted the focus of research on human
performance from mostly a concern for visibility to the inclusion of health impacts and motivational
impacts of lighting, including the human circadian timing system.

The main factors in lighting design that should be considered are the daylighting factor, the
luminance level and the glare index. As a basic principle, the goal of lighting design should be to
reach the optimum levels of illumination for each task, using as much daylight as possible, while
also offering control and adjustment possibilities to employees. The maximum use of daylight
doesn’t only improve the employee experience in regard to well-being and productivity, but is also
the most energy efficient way.

The significance of daylight for the workplace is in the regulating function for the biological clock
of human beings (Boyce, 2014). The changing color temperature and intensity of daylight help
regulate the performance and physiology of workers. There is a clear preference for windows, as
well as daylight among workers (Galasiu & Veitch, 2006). The association of windows with
hierarchy and status might contribute to the desirability of window proximity (Leslie, 2003). The
size and frequency of windows is subject to a spectrum of opinions and preferences, but often
more and larger windows are preferred over less and smaller windows (Butler & Biner, 1989),
and also depends on the illumination needs of specific spaces.

The positioning and size of windows and ability to control the daylight matters particularly when
there is direct solar radiation, since people seem to dislike excessive direct sunlight that can lead
to glare and visual discomfort (Zhang & Barrett, 2012).
In a study on the impact of daylight accessibility and views of nature on employees' sick leave
and Sick Building Syndrome, the findings suggest that there is a relevant impact that both factors
can have (Elzeyadi, 2011). The underlying causes for these benefits remain unclear, but the
empirical evidence for the existence of a beneficial effect is growing.

10
There is still a need for more evidence on the objective superiority of natural daylight over artificial
lighting in terms of measurable benefits (McCoy, 2002). Despite the ongoing academic debate,
legislators in several countries are establishing rules for worker’s maximum distances to the
nearest window (Ibid.). Newer studies are strengthening the connection between daylight and the
mood and well-being of employees (Al Horr et al., 2016). Too much light or the excessive
exposure to specific types of illuminants like fluorescent tubes can lead to negative health impacts
like headaches or eye strain (Galasiu & Veitch, 2006).

Related to the daylight are the views that windows provide. Views of nature and the surroundings
are often considered aesthetically pleasing and could also be associated with daylight by people
when thinking of the benefits of windows. The concept of views is also discussed in the section
2.1.1.4 on Biophilia and Views.

2.1.1.3 Acoustics and Noise

The goal of acoustic design of workplaces is the creation of an optimal acoustic environment. In
the case of acoustics the focus is primarily on the prevention of unwanted noise and associated
discomfort and the regulation of ambient sound to a level optimal for productivity (Frontczak &
Wargocki, 2011).

There are two types of sound sources which are usually considered. The internal sound sources
include sounds such as conversations of coworkers, noises from office equipment or air
conditioning equipment. These sources are considered in-room acoustics. The external sound
sources include noise from traffic, weather or public spaces. These sources are the focus of
building acoustics.

Research clearly shows that noise levels perceived as too high lead to both dissatisfaction with
the work environment and significant drops in performance (Al Horr et al., 2016). If the noise level
is too high, employee’s perceived concentration is severely affected, particularly ringing phones
and conversations are frequently seen as distracting (Banbury & Berry, 2005).

Based on the results of their study researching the effects of both acoustics and thermal
conditions and their interactions, Pellerin and Candas (2004) suggest that an increase of noise
level by 2.6 dB has the same impact on productivity as a 1°C increase in temperature. Generally,
both higher temperatures and higher noise levels have a negative effect on the satisfaction with
the environmental conditions and may interact and cause additive effects regarding
dissatisfaction (Ibid.). Other studies indicate that exposure to excess of both internal and external

11
sound sources can lead to increased blood pressure, stress levels and other negative health
effects (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003).

The predictability of noises can have a significant impact on the tolerance for unwanted noise. If
a noise is unpredictable, it is considered more annoying than a predictable one. The sense of
control over the noise also has an impact on the discomfort associated with that noise (Brill,
Weidemann, Allard, Olson, & Keable, 2001).

Depending on the task, some noise can be tolerated. Generally, the higher the concentration
required, the quieter and less distracting the ambient sound should be. Some researchers
suggest the installation of white noise generators, which can help eliminate distraction through
the creation of a low frequency sound scape around 45–50 dB (Augustin et al., 2009). White noise
can easily be screened out by people and other noises like conversations are less noticeable
because of the existing ambient sound. There is some research indicating that sounds of nature
might have restorative character in comparison to urban environments (Payne, 2013).

In her book on ideal interior environments, Augustin et al. (2009) suggests that music can be
appropriate stimulation and mood enhancing for some situations. Slower beats, typically slower
than the human heartbeat of 50–70 beats per minute, are considered relaxing, while faster beats
are invigorating. The use of music in the workplace is likely only appropriate for a very narrow
share office settings and tasks and carries a lot of personal and cultural dimensions.

Generally, individual preferences as well as screening ability are important factors for the
individual satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ambient sound. There are also cultural differences in
the tolerance levels of ambient sound. Research looking at noise levels of open plan offices
suggests that this office type can cause more disturbances and increased noise levels that have
negative effects on motivation, performance and fatigue (Balazova, Clausen, Rindel, Poulsen, &
Wyon, 2008; Jahncke & Halin, 2012).

In the creation of work environments, acoustic design should be an important factor to improve
employees’ well-being and performance. Minimizing noise from both external and internal sources
through the use of insulating construction materials and windows, office layout considerations
and the installation of sound-optimizing materials and acoustic panels, are all effective measures.
The overall acoustic design is highly important for the well-being of employees.

12
2.1.1.4 Biophilia and Views

The focus of biophilia is the connection between humans and their surrounding nature, to which
humans are highly responsive (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The impact of nature and its forms and
patterns on the human brain is also explored in more detail in the chapter 2.1.4 on Universal
Beauty.

Research in the UK has shown that humans generally report higher levels of well-being and
happiness when they are outdoors in nature (MacKerron & Mourato, 2013). While there are very
likely other effects and elements influencing this correlation, the association of nature with well-
being is interesting. Including greenery and other natural elements into the work environment has
significant positive effects and can help reduce stress, increase physical and psychological well-
being and occupant satisfaction (Gray & Birrell, 2014; Heerwagen, 2001; Kellert, Heerwagen, &
Mador, 2011). Views of nature through the windows can have a positive impact on workers and
potentially help reducing stress levels and anxiety while also increasing productivity and overall
well-being (Chang & Chen, 2005; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Views of the built environment do not
have as strong of an effect as views of nature.

The benefits of biophilia and views are well established and should always be included in
workplace design. While views of nature typically need to be considered in architectural planning
of windows and facades, greenery and other natural elements can also easily be introduced into
workplaces retrospectively. The introduction of biophilic design features can lead to significant
improvements in employee’s satisfaction with their offices and improve the health and well-being
of building occupants.

2.1.1.5 Office Layout

The office layout is one of the most dominant aspects of an office environment. Because it
determines the way people work and enables or inhibits organizational productivity at a
foundational level, it is important to consider the implications the layout has on other factors. All
other IEQ factors are impacted by the chosen layout and the layout often has deterministic
impacts on other dimensions, such as noise level and acoustics in open-plan layouts versus in
single cell-offices.

One often-cited categorization of office layouts has been proposed by Laing, which includes four
categories of office layouts characterized by their autonomy and interaction (Duffy, Jaunzens,
Laing, & Willis, 2003): 1) Hive, which is the large open-plan ‘cubicle farm’ offering low interaction
through high partitions and low autonomy, sometimes including cellular workplaces as well. 2)

13
Cell, which is the classic cellular office configuration with little interaction and a high focus on
individual and concentrated work, offering a high level of autonomy. 3) Den, an open-plan setting
with no partitions offering high interaction and low autonomy, suited well for teams with little
individual work. 4) Club, a layout including a wider range of workstations and hot-desking options
with high flexibility through meeting spaces and workstations for individual work, offering high
interaction and high autonomy.

Another categorization is offered by Danielsson (2009) in her research on employee satisfaction

with office layouts. She offers three main categories with subtypes according to architectural
features and functionality: 1) room offices, which are subdivided into cell-offices for a single
person and shared-room offices for several people and are often characterized by long corridors.
2) open-plan offices, which exist at different scales, subcategorizing them into small, medium and
large open-plan offices. They don’t have any permanent walls separating the different
workstations. For acoustic and privacy reasons, workstations will sometimes have screens or
partitions of different height depending on the desired level of interaction between employees. 3)
Flexible office configurations subcategorized into flex-offices, which are defined by the lack of
personal workstations (also known as hot-desking), and combi-offices that offer a variety of
workstations and meeting spaces, well-suited for different types of teamwork.

The office layout should be determined by the nature of tasks executed by employees in the office
space and the organizational structure and work process, enabling an efficient workflow and
therefore also significantly impacting productivity (Al Horr et al., 2016).
Increasingly, the flexibility of layouts and office configurations is a central issue in the planning
and operation of workspaces (Ibid.). The increasing speed of change in the business environment
and technology also requires more frequent reconfiguration of the work environment to keep pace
and cope with the challenges faced by companies.

The symbolic and cultural implications of office layouts are found in chapter 2.2 on the indirect-
cognitive dimension of workplaces.

Individual Workstations

A dimension often discussed within the context of office layout are the individual workstations.
The primary consideration in regard to workstations are the ergonomics and functionality. If the
furniture and chairs are not ergonomically suitable and don’t offer the functionality necessary to
efficiently and effectively carry out the assigned tasks, the result will be negative health impacts
and dissatisfaction (Schell, Theorell, & Saraste, 2012).

14
The aesthetic dimension of the individual workstation is discussed via the other IEQ factors,
particularly 2.1.1.6 Look and Feel. Other important effects impacting the satisfaction and
productivity based on the workstation, such as privacy, personalization and control, are discussed
in chapter 2.1.3 on other Psychological Effects.

2.1.1.6 Look and Feel

Colors

The use of colors is a very common element of almost every design in domestic, public and
professional spaces. The effects of colors have been researched for a long time, but with
moderate to little consistency of results. There are several non-universal factors that influence
the perception and effects of colors used in the physical environment. Among academics and
practitioners there are a vast variety of opinions on the appropriate use of color and the benefits
of such application.

Color is usually differentiated based on hue, saturation and brightness/luminosity. The hue is the
actual color based on the wavelength of a light beam. Saturation is the amount of grey contained
in a color or the purity of a color; the purer a color, the higher its saturation. Brightness or
luminosity refers to the amount of white or black in a color, or how light or dark a color is. In some
studies, the Munsell color system is used, which specifies colors according to the properties of
hue, value (brightness) and chroma (saturation).

When colors are mentioned, people usually think of fully saturated colors based on the color
wheel that is commonly used to categorize colors. The primary colors are red, blue and yellow
and exist in pure form, meaning they cannot be mixed through the combination of other colors.
Secondary colors are created by mixing to primary colors and are orange, purple and green. The
color wheel has been divided into cool and warm colors for several centuries. While there is some
debate around this concept and the relativity of it, there is basic agreement on the primary and
secondary colors. Warm colors are yellow, orange and red and have likely been named warm
because of their association with the sun or fire. Cool colors are blue, green and purple and have
likely been named cool because of their natural existence in water or grass.
One of the most cited studies on the effects of colors on emotions is the research by Valdez and
Mehrabian (1994). Their findings showed a very clear and predictable relationship between
emotional reactions and the brightness and saturation of colors. Surprisingly, the impact of hue
on emotional reactions was much weaker than expected. The more saturated a color is, the
stronger the effect of emotional arousal. Both brightness and saturation were predictors for the
pleasure caused by a color, with brightness having a stronger influence than saturation.

15
A comparison of preference for and performance in chromatic and achromatic rooms showed
clear differences between the settings (Öztürk, Yılmazer, & Ural, 2012). Subjects had a clear
preference for the room with the chromatic scheme, claiming that it is more attractive, dynamic
and satisfying. Performance ratings were also higher in the chromatic room than in the achromatic
room. The achromatic room was perceived as more harmonious and formal.

In regard to the effect of specific colors, there are widely varying results, sometimes even
contradictory. Research on mood and performance in different colored rooms showed a clear
impact of color on both factors. However, against assumptions, a positive mood was not linked to
higher performance, indicating that there are different underlying mechanisms for mood and
performance respectively.

Some of the more common findings are, for example, that warm colors have a more arousing
effect on both psychological and physiological level than cooler colors (Jacobs & Suess, 1975).
Other studies suggest that green in particular has a relaxing, calming and comforting effect on
people, possibly due to the association with nature (Kaya, Epps, & Hall, 2004). In this study of
college students, blue had similar positive effects on people, however, some subjects said they
felt depressed and voiced the association of ‘feeling blue’, which suggests that the symbolic
association based on language might have been the cause for this emotional response. This
theory would be supported by the findings of Saito (1996), who found in his research of color
amongst East Asian cultures that a vivid blue seems to be the preferred color across these
cultures next to the preference for white. Respondents in his study had only positive associations
with the color blue, which is in line with the theory that the symbolic meaning ascribed to blue by
the English language might have influenced the emotional perception of the subjects in the United
States. Other subjects’ responses in the study on college students also showed different
emotional reactions based on associations of positive or negative memories and symbols.

Further research topics on color include the emotional effects of color combinations (Ou, Luo,
Woodcock, & Wright, 2004) or the implications of color for productivity and performance (N.
Kwallek, Woodson, Lewis, & Sales, 1997). Particularly, the differences between red and blue on
performance, creativity and other cognitive tasks is researched often, due to the discrepancy in
results of these studies (Elliot, Maier, Moller, Friedman, & Meinhardt, 2007; Nancy Kwallek, Lewis,
& Robbins, 1988; Mehta & Zhu, 2009).

While not the focus of this work, it should be noted that differences based on gender and culture
are significant in regard to the preferences and effects of colors. While the results vary, most
studies mentioned above also confirm the fact that there are gender- and culture-based

16
differences. These findings should be considered by architects and designers when creating
workspaces for specific cultural groups or genders.

Individual preferences are also important to mention, since they are a significant predictor for
liking or not liking of specific colors. Other individual characteristics that influence how people
perceive colors include individual stimulus screening ability, meaning the ability to ignore
environmental stimuli. The impact of screening ability on performance and mood has been
researched in several studies (N. Kwallek et al., 1997; Lang, Mcclain, & Riosvelasco, 2010). The
impact of individual characteristics leads to the researcher’s suggestion that employers should
pay more attention to these, possibly through the use of more flexible work environments that
allows for personal control through individual adjustment.
In his literature review on theoretical and empirical work on the psychological effects of color,
Elliot (2015) comes to the conclusion that the existing work is still not at a mature stage that allows
for reliable generalizations. Color psychology is highly complex and needs more theoretical and
empirical work. He also advises caution in the interpretation of research results and warns
practitioners to not adopt preliminary assumptions about the effects of colors. The effects of color
also seem to be of particular interest to media and the public, and have therefore created a lot of
assumptions which are not founded on solid empirical evidence. These assumptions about the
effects of certain colors might also evoke a kind of placebo effect in space users, further
complicating the understanding of color’s effects on people.

Textures and Materials

The research on textures and materials mostly revolves around the classification of tactile
perception dimensions (Bergmann Tiest & Kappers, 2006; Okamoto, Nagano, & Yamada, 2013;
Picard, Dacremont, Valentin, & Giboreau, 2003) and the development of a language to describe
haptic experience (Guest et al., 2011). There is no final verdict on the number of dimensions for
haptic perception of materials or which dimensions are the correct ones. The most current
evaluations suggest that there are three prominent psychophysical dimensions that occur in most
studies (Okamoto et al., 2013). The three dimensions are: 1) roughness/smoothness, 2)
hardness/softness and 3) coldness/warmness. There is debate on a fourth dimension of friction
that is involved in the perception of moisture/dryness or stickiness/slipperiness. There is also a
suggestion to subdivide the roughness/smoothness dimension into fine and macro, which would
result in five total dimensions.

Textures are important in the overall aesthetic perception of objects or spaces. They are easily
remembered, similarly to colors or shapes (Al Horr et al., 2016). Psychology seems to suggest
that touching materials and textures can have an emotional effect on people. Smoother surfaces

17
feel more relaxing, while rougher surfaces feel more energizing (Augustin et al., 2009). Most
empirical research related to touch is dealing with human interaction, rather than material or
textural touch, which means that there is virtually no empirical evidence for the positive effects of
textures.

Practitioners have many assumptions regarding these benefits and different material choices are
widely applied based on these assumptions and subjective experiences. It may be assumed that
a variety of textures used in a workspace adds to the sensory richness of the environmental
experience and therefore enhances well-being through the diversity of stimuli.

Shapes and Patterns

The research on shapes and patterns is significantly less evolved than research on general colors.
This is likely due to the difficulty of evaluating the impact of highly complex visual stimuli.

In his research Nasar (1994) tried to identify visual features of architecture that would evoke
positive evaluations by viewers. He defined three aesthetic variables: 1) the formal variable, which
focuses on the aspects of complexity, order and enclosure, 2) the symbolic variable, which deals
with the style and 3) schemas, which consider the atypicality of a physical feature. Based on the
desired evaluation of an architectural space, he suggests different configurations based on these
aesthetic variables. If a space should be perceived as pleasant, he suggests the use of order,
moderate complexity and elements of ‘popular’ styles. If a design should be viewed as exciting,
he encourages low order, atypicality and higher complexity. For a calm environment, design
should exhibit high order and naturalness. While his model of aesthetic programming and
evaluation offers a novel and more science-based approach to the work of architects and
designers, the practical implications of his hypothesis are limited, and a substantial amount of
empirical research is needed to validate or develop the model for practical use.

The famous and highly influential work by Christopher Alexander on the use of a pattern language
in architecture (Alexander, 1977, 1979) has proposed the development and use of certain
patterns found in nature and historical structures. His theory is closely associated with the highly
controversial discussions on the famous golden ratio (golden section) and Fibonacci sequence.
The golden ratio seems to have a clear psychological impact under certain conditions, but the
positive effects appear to be subject to careful application of the principal and the practical benefit
is often questionable (Green, 1995).
The use of mathematical models rooted in biological proportions of nature to achieve visual
coherence in architecture has also been suggested by Salingaros (1998). He suggests the use
of a scaling hierarchy applying the factor 2.7 for differentiations from large to small. He suggests

18
that architecture applying this scaling hierarchy would be perceived as more psychologically
comfortable, giving examples of traditional and historic architecture using this model.

The use of natural elements in architecture has many proponents arguing for the substantial
benefits of biophilic design (Joye, 2007; Kellert, 2012). The main argument used for the
implementation of nature into the built environment lays in the evolution of humans and the
resulting change of environment. The ‘savanna hypothesis’ originates humans innate positive
affective reaction to nature as a result of human evolution in a savanna. However, the savanna
was unlikely the only environment which shaped the genetic predisposition, but was more likely
a result of a wider variety of natural environments (Joye, 2007). The expected benefit of using
biophilic design features is an increased well-being of occupants by bridging the gap of inherited
inclination toward nature and the modern built environment, which has largely removed humans
from natural environments.

The suggestions for the implementation of natural shapes and patterns into architecture range
from the imitation of plants and trees in architectural features like columns, over pictures or
projections of natural environments and the use of plants, water features or even fires, to the use
of fractal patterns often found in nature (Joye, 2007). The creation of cave-like architectural
features that offer a sense of refugee and prospect is also encouraged (Ibid.). Settings like these
can be created through lowered ceilings, reducing lighting and enclosure through walls. Humans
like these spaces because they are a ‘wall-hugging’ species that feels a sense of comfort and
safety if seated in an area with partial enclosure and prospect, because of the absence of threats
approaching from behind (Sussman & Hollander, 2014).
Some research has been done on the impact of natural patterns and shapes in architecture. The
study found that buildings and rooms with patterns closer to natural patterns were evaluated on
average as more aesthetically pleasing than those with patterns that had no resemblance of
nature and looked more artificial (Coburn et al., 2019).

While often difficult to describe and very dependent on the specific conditions of a particular space
and the needs of the respective occupants, the goal in creating an appropriate look and feel
revolves around balancing variety and monotony (Augustin et al., 2009). A space should be
interesting and stimulating, but not overwhelming or distracting. At the same time a place should
not be boring, sterile or void of ‘character’. The right visual quality is highly contextual and
currently cannot fully be determined through scientific methods. However, in addition to the
personal taste, experience and intuition of designers and architects, using the findings of
psychology and thinking of the impact of nature, can help create a space that works well for its
intended purpose and makes the occupants feel comfortable in their environment. The chapter
2.1.4 on the findings of neuroscience includes some more discussion about the influence of
patterns and shapes.

19
2.1.1.7 Other Factors

There are some factors, which are not directly related to the aesthetic of a workplace but are
frequently mentioned in regard to employee well-being and long-term satisfaction. The most
important factors found in literature are briefly mentioned here.

Air Quality and Smells

While the air quality in regard to pollutants or oxygen content cannot be perceived through the
senses, it is still important for employee health and therefore for the long-term well-being of
occupants.

There are some studies on the influence of different smells and their potential impact on
performance, resulting in some scholars’ suggestions to use them in the workplace to enhance
employee well-being and performance (Augustin et al., 2009). These suggestions include the use
of lemon and jasmine or lavender to improve performance on mental tasks or the use of
cinnamon-vanilla and lemon to improve creativity and mood. Despite smell being one of the five
senses, there is very little empirical research on the impacts of certain smells. Since these
suggestions seem to be without much impact in real workplace design, and the evidence through
empirical studies is scarce, these suggestions are not further considered in this work.

2.1.2 Impact of IEQ Factors

The interest in occupants’ satisfaction with their environment is of high relevance because
knowledge workers regularly spend around 40–50 hours per week in these offices.
The combined effect of considering IEQ factors in the creation of an aesthetic workplace has been
the subject of several studies. While it can be difficult to isolate the individual IEQ factors, the
impact of the combined effect can be evaluated more easily.

Several studies have attempted a ranking of factors according to their impact or significance for
occupant satisfaction. Most of the studies don’t use the same selection of IEQ factors, but the
highest-ranking factors are usually present in the other studies as well. The most often highest-
ranked factor for occupant satisfaction is the thermal conditions of a building, with the acoustics
being second overall (Al Horr et al., 2016; Frontczak & Wargocki, 2011; Kim & de Dear, 2012).

20
In researching the relationship between the overall satisfaction of occupants and the individual
IEQ factors, Kim and de Dear (2012) applied Kano’s model of satisfaction to a large and diverse
data set of post occupancy evaluations. Kano’s model of satisfaction (Kano, 1984) is a further
development of Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg, Snyderman, & Mausner, 1966), including
two more driver types. Their findings established two categories of basic factors and proportional
factors. Basic factors are seen as necessities, which when not satisfied have a negative effect
that outweighs their potential for positive impact. Proportional factors positively affect satisfaction
linear to the building performance on the respective IEQ factor. Basic factors were identified as:
“temperature, noise level, amount of space, visual privacy, adjustability of furniture, colors and
textures, and workplace cleanliness” (Kim & de Dear, 2012, p. 40). Classified as proportional
factors were: “air quality, amount of light, visual comfort, sound privacy, ease of interaction,
comfort of furnishing, building cleanliness and building maintenance” (Kim & de Dear, 2012, p.
40). These results offer a high level of relevance for practitioners, but need further exploration
and validation, particularly because it was the first study of its type. Categorizations that are based
on more specific criteria could also give insights into the needs and wants of different occupancy
groups or the importance of specific factors based on office or building type.

Another reason for the interest in IEQ factors is the fact that office buildings are a large contributor
to carbon emissions. In the effort to build more sustainable buildings and in light of an increasing
number of environmental standards, the impact on occupants needs to be considered. Mujeebu
(2019) notes that optimized IEQ factors are often in contradiction to energy efficiency, particularly
in regard to thermal conditions. Naturally ventilated buildings and passive (green) construction
methods can have negative impacts on the interior conditions when not planned and executed
with care and particular attention payed to the IEQ implications and occupant well-being (Al horr
et al., 2016). As the demands for sustainability and efficiency are increasing, occupant well-being
needs to stay in focus for architects and designers. One specific way this has been encouraged
is the inclusion of occupant satisfaction and well-being survey data in sustainability certification
processes like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or NABERS (National
Australian Built Environment Rating System) to ensure that efficiency and environmental
optimization does not happen at the expense of occupant well-being (Kim & de Dear, 2012).

In connection to energy-related operation costs are the potential economic benefits generated
through better occupant health and well-being, as well as higher productivity. Since there is no
exact data on general improvement potential, this is a highly uncertain aspect. An example cost-
benefit analyses focused on measures with the goal of optimizing indoor temperature and
ventilation indicate high cost efficiency of these measures when considering the potential resulting
financial benefits in relation to employee health and well-being (W. Fisk & Seppanen, 2007).
Analyzing the reasons for sick leave among employees also suggests that both ergonomic and

21
aesthetic improvements of offices can lead to a reduction of sick leave, resulting in overall
financial benefits for companies (Schell, Theorell, & Saraste, 2011).

As mentioned in the discussion of the individual IEQ factors, there are significant effects based
on personal or group characteristics. The IEQ perception and preference is subject to a broad
range of influences that include individual preferences and memories, weather and climate
conditions and seasonal differences, as well as substantial gender differences and a variety of
preferences based on national culture. These details will not be further discussed, but need to be
considered by managers, architects and designers when creating and operating workspaces.
Even in very homogeneous groups, the range of desired and acceptable levels for the IEQ factors
can vary significantly. This means that there are no ideal levels for all occupants, but that the final
levels need to be a compromise that is acceptable or within tolerable levels for everyone. Personal
control through individual adjustment possibilities can enhance satisfaction with the environment
as discussed in chapter 2.1.3.1 on personal control.

Despite the vast amount of research in the field of IEQ, the causality linking optimized IEQ factors
and productivity gains is still not fully established, needing further rigorous scientific evidence
(Kim & de Dear, 2012). Many studies are done under laboratory conditions that don’t reflect a
real-life workplace, while other studies struggle to isolate the effects of a single or several IEQ
factors. The workplace is a highly complex and interconnected social environment that has many
interrelated dimensions, making it explicitly difficult to collect reliable empirical evidence for such
causal connections. The attention the topic of IEQ receives and the legal implications associated
with IEQ in many countries shows the significance attributed to their impact. While the causal
connection is not always fully established, an optimized internal environment clearly shows high
correlations to the better health, subjective well-being and productivity (Al Horr et al., 2016; W. J.
Fisk, 2000; Kamarulzaman, Saleh, Hashim, Hashim, & Abdul-Ghani, 2011; Seppänen & Fisk,
2006) of occupants and must therefore be of high importance in workplace creation and operation.

2.1.3 Other Psychological Effects

Many of the IEQ factors and the overall satisfaction and well-being of employees are influenced
by other psychological effects. These concepts are often strongly impacting employees without
their cognitive comprehension. Recognizing these psychological needs and mechanisms in the
creation and evaluation of work environments can offer potential for environmental improvements
of aesthetic nature that are often not discussed or not in focus of many managers and practitioners
responsible for these environments.

22
2.1.3.1 Personal Control and Personalization

Personal control is a foundational concept in relation to the perception of IEQ factors. It describes
the belief that an individual holds in regard to the extent they can control or influence outcomes
in their life. Three main types of personal control have been identified: 1) behavioral (direct action
on the environment), 2) cognitive (the interpretation of events), and 3) decisional (having a choice
among alternative courses of action) (Averill, 1973). People’s desire for control over the
surroundings is believed to be an inherent human characteristic (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder,
1982).

Personal control can be provided in the workplace through several ways, both psychologically
and physically (Lee & Brand, 2005, 2010; Veitch & Gifford, 1996). On the psychological level,
personal control can be achieved and reinforced through a) the feeling of autonomy and
confidence at work, b) motivation in decision-making, and c) ability to take part in different
changes at work (Bodin Danielsson, 2010). On the physical level, this may be supported or
hindered through the architectural design. Examples of architectural features that could have a
negative impact are features like long interior corridors, rooms with layouts that don’t provide any
privacy through enclosers, lack of meeting spaces for larger groups, lack of space that allows for
concentrated work or poor visual surveillance (Evans, 2003). This lack of personal control over
the physical environment can lead to feelings of helplessness (Evans, 2003), which are related
to psychological distress.
Reversely, control over the physical environment can lead to better mental health and increase
people’s well-being (Bandura, 2010). Positive effects of personal control have also been found
by some studies within the work environment, exhibiting personal control as a predictor of job
satisfaction and also work performance (Greenberger, Strasser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989;
O’Neill, 1994; Sargent & Terry, 1998).

O’Neill (1994) researched the impact of adjustability, as a form of control over the workplace, on
work outcomes. His results showed that adjustability had a positive relationship
with communication, environmental satisfaction and perceived performance.
The study by Lee and Brand (2005) found that increased control over the physical workspace and
easy access to meeting places led to stronger perceived group cohesiveness and job satisfaction.
Lee and Brand (2005) also pointed to inconsistency in the definition of ‘control’ within studies
researching the topic. They also argued for the necessity of distinguishing between objective
levels of control (the actual availability and ease of adjustment of the physical and psychosocial
work environments) and subjective levels of control (the perceived personal influence on
outcomes from applying control behavior). This is of particular importance to practitioners like
architects, interior designers and ergonomists, which by providing objective levels of control

23
through some adjustment capability might think they positively impacted personal control. The
researchers suggest that such measures should always be tested for an increase in perceived,
subjective control as well, to ensure that the adjustment possibility offered also benefits the people
using the workspace.

Despite many positive findings, there are some contradictory results, such as the study by Veitch
and Gifford (1996) which found that people who had been given control over lighting reported
higher perceived control but surprisingly performed worse and slower on a creativity task than
subjects without lighting control.

The concept of personalization of the work environment can also be considered a form of personal
control. The impact of personalization on employees has seen little empirical research this far.
One of the few empirical studies on the topic has found that personalization is related to overall
satisfaction with the work environment and job satisfaction, and that company policies that allow
for personalization are associated with positive organizational outcomes like increased employee
morale and lower turn-over (Wells, 2000). While the term personalization itself suggests the
dominant influence of personality and individual factors in the concept, consecutive studies
suggests that the primary predictors of personalization are rooted in organizational factors, such
as personalization policy, norms and employee status (Wells & Thelen, 2002; Wells, Thelen, &
Ruark, 2007). However, gender does have a significant impact on personalization, exhibiting
differences in the types of items and motivations for personalization, with women generally
personalizing more than men (Wells, 2000).

Another interesting effect related to personal control is the impact of a messy work environment.
Based on the finding that people living in messy environments often feel like their lives are out of
control (Belk, Yong Seo, & Li, 2007), a study was conducted to research the impacts of disorder
in a work environment on employees. Chae and Zhu (2013) found in their study that people sitting
at messy desks are less efficient, showed less persistence in a challenging task and exhibited
more frustration than people sitting at orderly desks. These self-regulatory failures can be
explained through depletion theory which suggests that a disorderly environment is perceived as
a threat to personal control, demanding cognitive resources to cope with it (Glass, Singer, &
Friedman, 1969; Inzlicht & Kang, 2010). This depletion can then lead to self-regulatory failures in
other tasks.
Another study researching the impacts of environmental order and disorder in the workplace
found that participants in a disorderly room came up with more creative ideas than participants in
an orderly room (Vohs, Redden, & Rahinel, 2013). Chae and Zhu (2015) suggest that the
“depletion effect of disorder caused people to engage in primarily affective or divergent thinking,
which enhanced creativity” (p. 5).

24
An additional experiment by Vohs (2013) showed that subjects in an orderly setting showed
preference for an option labeled as ‘classic’, while subjects in a disorderly setting preferred an
option labeled as ‘new’. These findings are particularly interesting in light of organizations’ quest
for innovation which has often tried to be supported by workspaces specifically designed for this
purpose.

While these theories need more empirical research to support their results, they offer an
interesting perspective on the impact of an ‘aesthetic visual stimuli’ which could have significant
implications for the creation and design of workplaces. As suggested by the research findings,
there might be implications for the creation of ‘creative workspaces’ that sometimes like to use
symbols derived from the start-up narrative of the ‘messy garage’. A dedicated discussion on
creative workspaces as an example of aesthetic considerations in the workplace can be found in
chapter 2.2.3.4.

2.1.3.2 Privacy

The concept of privacy is usually understood as the regulation of the interaction between the
environment and self, particularly other people and environmental stimuli. It relates to self-identity
through the creation of personal boundaries and is a universal need of humans, but exhibits
differences in the underlying mechanisms across various cultures (Altman, 1977).

One definition offered in the context of the work environment defines privacy in two main
categories: acoustical privacy and visual privacy (E Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986).
Acoustical privacy refers to the privacy of speech and the isolation from unwanted noise. Visual
privacy means the freedom from undesired observation and the isolation from potentially
distracting visual stimuli and crowding.

The fundamental interest of the privacy concept is found in the necessity of shared workspaces
that require employees to work within close proximity to other organizational members. As the
focus on communication and collaboration is growing in the modern workplace, the balancing of
privacy on the one hand and social interaction on the other hand becomes a key objective of
office design. Haans, Kaiser and de Kort (2007) recognize this tension in the development of their
behavior-based scales expressed through 1) Need-for-privacy and 2) Need-for-socializing in the
work environment.

The link between architectural privacy, through physical enclosure that provides visual and
acoustic isolation, and psychological privacy has been established consistently by research (Eric
Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980). Reversely, the often claimed benefits of architectural

25
accessibility in open office configurations with little enclosure, namely more and better
communication and collaboration, are repeatably found to be weaker than suggested (Kim & de
Dear, 2013; Eric Sundstrom et al., 1980).

Decreases in privacy relate to a decrease in the confidentiality of conversations (Eric Sundstrom,

Herbert, & Brown, 1982), increased distraction and concentration difficulties (Kaarlela-Tuomaala,
Helenius, Keskinen, & Hongisto, 2009) and are seen as one of the key reasons for dissatisfaction
with the office environment, particularly in open-plan office configurations (Danielsson, 2009; De
Croon, Sluiter, Kuijer, & Frings-Dresen, 2005). Moreover, occupants do not seem to get
habituated to the decreases in privacy over time (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002).

Privacy is a significant factor in job satisfaction. Since privacy, expressed through dedicated
offices based on hierarchy, is also often related to status within an organization, the question
arises whether the satisfaction is only a result of the privacy offered by a dedicated office or also
of the status a dedicated office denotes. Designers and workplace planners should consider the
basic privacy needs of employees in their designs: 1) retreat from people, 2) control over
information and 3) regulation of interaction (E Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986).

As a result of recent research findings that show the negative psychological impacts of a lack of
privacy as well as complaints by employees, there are signs for a change in office design in regard
to privacy. The world’s largest manufacturer of office furniture speaks of a ‘privacy crisis’ in the
workplace (Steelcase Inc., n.d.), recognizing both the fundamental human need for privacy and
the urgency for practical solutions in this field.

2.1.3.3 Place Attachment

Place attachment is not directly related to the aesthetic dimension of the physical environment
but has a large impact on people’s emotional response to changes in the environment and
therefore a significant impact onto people’s well-being and satisfaction.
Through technological and economic changes, the workplace and setting that people work in is
also transforming. Using a relocation or redesign as a catalyst for change and to support new
ways of working has been a popular move for many organizations (Goksenin Inalhan, 2009).

Place attachment is usually created through routinized interactions with a place, which means
that an emotional bond is created between a place and an individual. When these attachments
are broken, it can cause stress and grief in people (Ibid.). Understanding these processes and
actively managing these disruptions are necessary steps to successfully overcome resistance to
change. Sennett (1999) argues in his book The Corrosion of Character that the emergence of a

26
new digital economy is generally undermining our ability to form meaningful attachments with
people, companies or places. He argues that paradoxically one of the unintended results of this
transformation is that “it has strengthened the value of place, aroused a longing for community”
(Sennett, 1999, p. 138). Despite being two decades old, this quote shows relevance to this day,
especially in light of recent developments regarding the return to the physical office, as outlined
in chapter 1.2.2 History of Office Design.

The study of place attachment and the consideration of this concept by practitioners can not only
improve retention and success rates for change initiatives, but is also suggested to help “identify
and reflect the organizational culture” (Göksenin Inalhan & Finch, 2004, p. 127).

2.1.4 Universal Beauty – Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology

Neuroscience is trying to close the gap between our physical environment and psychology
through the exploration of underlying neurological mechanisms with the goal of explaining the
different effects the environment has on people.

Neuroscience in Architectural Research

The application of neuroscience in architectural research is still in its beginning stages,

nonetheless there is great interest in the architectural implications of research findings as several
books oriented to practitioners have been published, such as the work by Robinson and
Pallasmaa (2015), Ruggles (2018) and Sussman and Hollander (2014). While there has been a
strong growth in research and resources within the field of neuroarchitecture, most findings are
preliminary, and there is still a need for a deeper understanding of the brain in general and more
specifically in the processing of our physical environment (Dance, 2017). Some of these findings
rooted in brain science confirm and support previous findings of psychology and expand the
understanding of the biological and neural foundations of our interaction with the physical
environment.

One of the areas of environmental psychology that neuroscience contributes confirming findings
to is the perception of natural environments and elements of naturalness in architecture. One
common theme in environmental psychology are the findings about the restorative effects of
natural settings in comparison to urban settings, based on subjectively rated scales. A study
conducted using electroencephalography (EEG) confirmed these findings through detecting
different emotional changes from viewing urban and natural environments (Roe, Aspinall, Mavros,

27
& Coyne, 2013). Landscape scenes correlated with higher levels of meditation and lower levels
of arousal or excitement, while urban scenes were associated with higher arousal.

Beyond that, there are more studies that explored psychological findings through neuroscience.
One study collected EEG data in two different lighting environments and found that people felt
more comfortable in an direct-indirect lighting environment than in a solely direct lighting setting
(Shin et al., 2015).

Another study set out to understand how different colors affect the mood and well-being of people.
Collecting EEG and electrocardiogram (EKG) data along with subjective measures, like self-
reported mood of subjects in different full-scale colored rooms, indicated that the color of interior
spaces affects not only the emotions and physiology of the subjects, but also the perception of
the room itself (Küller, Mikellides, & Janssens, 2009). Saturated colors, particularly red, and
strong patterns caused a more excited state of the brain. The setting strongly affected mood and
also performance. As practical implication the researchers suggest a moderate use of color, which
they believe can lead to an improvement in well-being and overall mood.

The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows the measuring of blood flow
within the brain, which, through correlations, allows deductions about which parts of the brain are
involved in the processing of certain stimuli. Subsequently this data can help to understand the
mechanisms and patterns of the brain and, in context of previous findings, give insight into how
we process our environment.

A study about different architectural styles found that visual aspects of architecture are encoded
by the human visual system, and that the neural correlates of certain architectural styles were
different than expected (Choo, Nasar, Nikrahei, & Walther, 2017). While there was no activity in
primary visual cortex (V1), which is responsible for the computation of more simple features,
surprisingly there was lots of involvement in the fusiform face area (FFA), which is specialized for
facial recognition. This finding suggests that humans potentially perceive certain architectural
features differently than other visual information.

Researching the effects of perceived enclosure and ceiling heights with fMRI scans revealed that
closed spaces activated a brain region also involved in the emotional reaction that is connected
to making exit decisions (Vartanian et al., 2015). They also found higher ceilings and more open
spaces to be more likely judged as beautiful than their counterparts.

Studies researching the neural correlates of contour and curvilinear and rectilinear forms within
architecture found that different parts of the brain are active in the processing of curvilinear and
rectilinear forms (Nanda, Pati, Ghamari, & Bajema, 2013; Vartanian et al., 2013), with a clear

28
aesthetic preference for curved interior forms (Vartanian et al., 2013). Bar and Neta (2007) found
that the amygdala was significantly more active in connection with sharp contoured and pointed
objects than with round and curved objects. The amygdala is strongly involved in fear processing,
which lead them to hypothesize that the dislike of sharp pointed objects is based in the perception
of the visual features that could on some level be associated with threat. They suggest that our
brains might have evolved to recognize these contour elements rapidly for warning signals in the
presence of a potential danger.

A study using virtual reality (VR) environments allowed subjects to physically walk through
architectural space and lead to results that demonstrate that the way people experience their
environment is also important in the perception of interior space, next to geometry, location, scale
and angle (Banaei, Hatami, Yazdanfar, & Gramann, 2017).

Neuroscience in Aesthetics Research

Neuroscience not only enhances architectural research and helps us understand how we
perceive our built environment, but is also involved in researching the perception of beauty, art
and aesthetics. The field of neuroaesthetics is interested in the neurological foundations of
aesthetic experiences and artistic activities.

There is a good foundational understanding of the main brain activities involved in aesthetic
experiences based on neuroimaging techniques, which in combination with evolutionary
reasoning can provide an integral understanding of the underlying mechanisms of aesthetic
experiences (Nadal, Flexas, Gálvez, & Cela-Conde, 2012).

One study of interest for the aesthetic perception of the physical environment researched the
differences in aesthetic judgement between trained architects and non-architects (Kirk, Skov,
Christensen, & Nygaard, 2009). The results indicate that cognitive processing of visually
presented architectural stimuli is modulated by expertise, and also involves brain activity in brain
areas related to reward for the trained architects.

Identifying the brain areas involved in the aesthetic appreciation of architectural environments
through the collection of EEG data during exposure to VR environments, the researchers suggest
that their findings may be used to test architectural hypotheses in the design process of
environments (Vecchiato et al., 2015).

The investigation of beauty and the perception of artwork has seen a particularly large amount of
research contributions (S. Brown, Gao, Tisdelle, Eickhoff, & Liotti, 2011). There are findings that

29
indicate that the perception of something as beautiful or ugly activates very specific areas of the
brain (Kawabata & Zeki, 2004). Based on their research findings, Ishizu and Zeki (2011) propose
a brain-based theory of beauty, suggesting that there might be a distinct faculty of beauty in the
brain which is activated independently of the modality through which the stimulus is conveyed. In
their study, subjects were exposed to musical and visual sources perceived as beautiful, but they
propose that the faculty can probably be activated by other sources as well.

While most of the research findings from the field of neuroscience are likely still far away from
practical implications, there are hopes that a deeper understanding of the biological foundations
of beauty and the perception of our environment and architecture will inform design decisions in
the future. The better the understanding of human behavior and cognition, the better architects
and designers can create physical environments in a way that supports and enhances human
well-being.

2.2 Indirect-Cognitive Dimension of Influence

The physical environment does not only influence humans on a direct-affective level, but also
through the process of sense-making and more conscious interpretations of the features and
symbols of the physical environment surrounding people. What the physical work environment
communicates to employees and how their interpretations of it impact their attitudes and views of
both the environment itself and the organization as a whole, is of great interest to theorists and
practitioners alike.

There is a widespread belief amongst practitioners that companies can communicate their values,
beliefs and identity to their employees through informed design and architecture and therefore
reinforce the identification with the company and support a desired behavior or a specific cultural
change (Bodin Danielsson, 2015; T. R. V. Davis, 1984; Lawson, 2007).

It is clear that the views and attitudes of the organization, as well as the behavior of employees,
is subject to an extensive realm of influences, including strong impacts in the social and
interpersonal dimension of influence, such as managerial decisions or workplace relationships.
The influence of an aesthetic workplace design decision by itself is likely less influential than many
other forms of communication toward the employees. The questions at hand are how strong this
influence is, how it works and how it could potentially be enhanced.

30
First the theoretical foundation for the understanding of the organizational perspective of
workplace design is elaborated and then subsequently, several main topics and trends that are
influential within workplace design in recent years are evaluated and discussed.

2.2.1 Symbolic Value of the Workplace as a Cultural Artifact

There are many definitions and ideas of organizational culture, but most agree on its main content.
Organizational culture reflects the history of an organization and contains symbols and rituals. It
is shaped by the organization that consists of the people forming the group. Additionally, it is often
described as difficult to change (Cartwright, Cooper, & Earley, 2001; Schein, 2010; Trice & Beyer,
1993).

Schein offers a definition for organizational culture as the “pattern of shared basic assumptions
learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which
has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be thought to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2010, p. 18).

The understanding of the workplace as a symbolic resource is based on Schein’s (2010) theory
of organizational culture. He proposes a model that offers three levels or dimensions of culture:
At the foundation are basic assumptions, above these are values and norms and at the top level
are artifacts.

Organizational culture can also be divided into the visible and invisible elements of culture.
Artifacts are the visible elements of culture, while basic assumptions and values and norms are
characterized as the invisible elements (Schein, 2010). Kaufmann argues that a strong
organizational culture may strengthen a sense of identification with an organization (as cited in
Bjerke, Ind, & De Paoli, 2007).

As both approaches suggest, artifacts are the visible layer of culture that expresses the
underlaying assumptions, values and norms. The interpretation of artifacts and other elements of
organizational culture is highly complex and challenging because of the ambiguity involved. The
uncertainty of this process makes it difficult to rely on research findings within this field.

The various expressions of physical artifacts, such as architecture and workplace design, should
reflect the core values of an organization as they suggest the underlying values and assumptions
and, therefore, these expressions may be used to maintain and confirm an organizational culture
(Cartwright et al., 2001; de Chernatony, 2001). The aesthetic expression of an organization as a

31
means of communication and the development of an aesthetic language that supports and
reflects an organization’s culture and values can enhance an organization’s effort to effectively
engage their members (Strati, 1999).

Using aesthetic expressions to influence employees’ image of the organization and to

communicate and reinforce a corporate identity is a common idea among practitioners that has
seen little research so far (Bjerke et al., 2007; Kottasz, Savani, Ali‐Choudhury, & Bennett, 2008).

Some of the most influential research in regard to this question has happened in regard to the
effects of corporate art investments on service quality at Telenor, a large Norwegian
communications provider (Bjerke et al., 2007). As a result of their research, they proposed a
framework to explain the influence of aesthetics in the form of artifacts on employees. As
illustrated in Figure 1, employee’s satisfaction, mood, creativity and identity, as well as resulting
motivation, are all outcomes of organizational culture. As described by Schein (2010),
organizational culture consists of basic assumptions, resulting values and norms and surface-
level artifacts that express the underlying elements of culture. These elements are all
interconnected and influence each other. The total experience of architecture, design and art and
its resulting effect on organizational culture is the influence of aesthetic considerations in
workplace design.

Figure 1. Influence of aesthetics on employees via organizational culture (Bjerke, Ind, & De
Paoli, 2007, p.68)

This suggests that these aesthetic considerations are always embedded in a larger construct of
organizational culture and cannot influence or benefit the employee isolated from the other
elements of culture. This is consistent with Schein’s view that the management of the physical

32
space is a secondary mechanism that can only be effective if aligned with the primary
mechanisms dealing with the fundamental assumptions, values and norms. This means other
elements of culture need to be addressed and aligned with the message of aesthetic artifacts in
order to reap the benefits of these. Consistency with the overall culture is necessary, otherwise
the contradicting messages will lead to confusion or ignorance and inhibit the effects of
communication on all levels.

2.2.2 Employee’s Perception of the Workplace

How the physical environment and particularly the aesthetic dimension influence the employee’s
identification with their organization and how it impacts the emotions and attitudes held towards
it, is a rather superficially explored question in the field of organizational theory. While there is a
general interest in the impact of physical artifacts, such as architecture and design, there is little
focus particularly on the aesthetic dimension, which can be explained through the ignorance of
researchers regarding the distinction of different dimensions of the physical environment (Bodin
Danielsson, 2015).

Gagliardi (1999, 2017) suggested that artifacts impact the behavior of an organization through
the sense-making of organizational members. How this impact works beyond the general process
of sense-making has seen little exploration with the notable exception of the work by Rafaeli and
Vilnai-Yavetz (2004). They propose a framework that offers a closer perspective at the
mechanisms that are responsible for the influence of aesthetics on employees, based on the
results of their studies of symbolic artifacts in a large public transportation organization. The
proposed core idea of this often-referenced framework is that “emotion toward artifacts blends
into emotion toward the organization” (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004, p. 1)

The model is based on their research in a large public transportation organization in which they
interviewed stakeholders regarding their view of a key physical artifact, in this case the green bus
used by the business. As seen in Figure 2, the process of sense-making includes three
dimensions of the artifact: 1) instrumentality, or functionality of the artifact, 2) aesthetics, in this
case focused on the sensory experience of the artifact and 3) symbolism, which deals with
associations evoked by the artifact.

33
Figure 2. Emotion as a connection of physical artifacts and organizations (Rafaeli & Vilnai-
Yavetz, 2004, p.678)

The process of sense-making is also based on the unsolicited emotional responses to these
dimensions. The emotions involved in the interpretation of the artifact are presented as the link to
the attitudes towards the organization. It is important to note the difficulty of using symbolism,
since there is a multitude of interpretations regarding a symbol, even in comparatively
homogenous settings. The researchers also found in their studies that interpretations showed
vast differences, including both very positive and very negative interpretations and resulting
feelings toward an artifact’s symbolic meaning (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004). This suggests that
additional and possibly explicit communication is needed regarding the interpretation of an artifact
used in an organizational environment, particularly if it is intended to benefit members’ attitude
towards the organization.

Another important aspect is the necessary inclusion of the instrumentality and aesthetics
dimension in the sense-making process. If the instrumentality is questionable and the use of an
artifact remains unclear, it might also result in ambiguous emotional responses. The aesthetic
aspect can also contribute a variety of emotional reactions, as tastes vary across individuals, and
personal associations can play a role in the aesthetic evaluation (Ibid.).
While this theory does not claim a causality of emotional transfer, it does show a link of emotions
towards the artifacts and emotions towards the organization as a whole.

34
More research is needed to validate this proposed model, but as an early theoretical contribution
to explain the impact of artifacts on employees, it offers a connection between aesthetics, as a
dimension of an artifact, and the attitudes and emotions held towards the organization, making it
particularly suited for the questions examined in this work.

A notable example for researching the impact of the physical aesthetics of the office environment
on employees is the research by Bodin Danielsson (2015) who found that the aesthetic aspect of
office design resulted in more positive emotions than the functional aspect. Additionally, the
overall attitude toward the workplace as a whole seems to be strongly impacted by the aesthetics,
concluding with the suggestions that “the general opinion that an aesthetic work environment is
unnecessary and a luxury, needs to be reconsidered” (Bodin Danielsson, 2015, p. 34).

2.2.3 Common Organizational Artifacts and Themes

Many themes and phenomena of workplace design are found in almost every organization,
usually as results of behaviors and needs, deeply rooted in humans. Some of these aspects are
more explicitly managed and considered, while others are simply happening without the active
consideration of managers or organizational members. The aesthetic and symbolic implications
of these are discussed according to reoccurring categories found in literature.

2.2.3.1 Status Symbols

Over the course of the twentieth century, workplaces were often created with the display of status
in mind. The hierarchical structure of organizations and the focus on managerial control and
power were expressed in a variety of ways through the workplace design. The status of a person
was often conveyed through the size of dedicated offices, the location of offices (e.g., on the
corner or on top of the building), the proximity to windows and the availability of attractive views,
but also through the furnishings of the office and the materials used (e.g., expensive wood or
larger chairs with armrests), or visible labels on doors (Skogland & Hansen, 2017; Trice & Beyer,
1993).

Redesigns of office environments tend to highlight more egalitarian views of organizational

structure, often abdicating elaborate status symbols like dedicated single offices for managers
(Skogland & Hansen, 2017). The changes often include a foundational redesign of offices, very
often introducing open-plan office settings that have no private offices anymore, but rather offer
a variety of workspaces (Allen, Bell, Graham, Hardy, & Swaffer, 2004).

35
The removal of these status symbols might meet particular resistance with mid-level management
that has often worked a long time for these status symbols and enjoyed these elements as
symbols of their professional achievement enhancing their sense of identity and positional power
(Bodin Danielsson, 2010).

2.2.3.2 Personalization and Territoriality

More than 70% of Americans personalized their workspaces in the early 2000s (Wells & Thelen,
2002). The exact percentage has likely changed, but personalization is still an important topic in
the workplace. Policies on personalization vary between organizations, from full freedom to create
a personal workstation, to the increasingly common ‘clean-desk policy’ as a result of desk-sharing
practices.

Independent of policies and corporate cultures, humans have innate territorial behaviors (G.
Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005) and a desire for personalization and modification of their
environment to meet their needs, which leads to higher satisfaction with the workplace (Augustin
et al., 2009). Marking the personal territory through different markers like personal belongings on
the desk (e.g. pictures of family) or the hanging of paintings on the wall can help express and
construct an individual identity.

How people personalize their space is also influenced by their motivation and desired outcome,
that can include showing signs of distinctiveness, differentiation and change, but also consistency
with, belonging to and ownership of a place and organization (G. Brown et al., 2005; Elsbach,
2004). The degree of personalization and the type of decorations used is strongly influenced by
the culture and policy within any given organization. Depending on the organization’s culture and
policy, people are more likely to express their private self (e.g., pictures of family) or their
professional self (e.g., framed diplomas) in their decorations (Wells et al., 2007).

Territoriality and personalization are not only important for individuals but also for groups and
teams within organizations. A dedicated space for a group that shows signs of ownership and
distinction through physical indicators, such as different colors or physical enclosures and
displays of group symbols can increase group cohesion and confirm group identity (Augustin et
al., 2009). Groups displaying artifacts often aim at confirming group identity, showing past
accomplishments or creating expectations for the future through symbolic cues of artifacts
(McCoy, 2002).

36
As a more foundational and preliminary form of personalization, the inclusion and participation of
individual employees and groups in the planning process is a significant contribution to employees’
satisfaction with the workplace and a valuable influence to organizational well-being (Bodin
Danielsson, 2015; Skogland & Hansen, 2017). If employees are not considered and a supposedly
great workplace strategy is implemented, the expected benefits might not materialize. In a study
of an organization that implemented a ‘modern’ and ‘fun’ workplace, highlighting low hierarchy
and creativity, the employee reactions were largely negative and the change met considerable
resistance (Warren & Fineman, 2013). The discrepancy created by the lack of regard for
employee perspectives and the top-down implementation process resulted in a very negative
outcome. When employees feel like their company cares about them and they have some form
of control or influence over the outcome, they are much more likely to be satisfied with a new
work environment.

2.2.3.3 Art in the Workplace

The corporate investment in art has a variety of reasons as identified by Bjerke and Ind (2015) in
their research of organizations investing in art. The five reasons for investing in and displaying art
in the office are: 1) executives’ interest in art, 2) financial investment, 3) corporate statements and
external branding, 4) corporate identity and values that can strengthen corporate culture and 5)
strengthening employee creativity and job satisfaction. This is in line with other researchers
suggesting that art investments and displays in offices can be seen as statements of power,
communication of organizational values and beliefs, and as symbols for corporate identity for both
employees and people outside of the company (Hoeken & Ruikes, 2005; Kottasz et al., 2008;
Magala, 2009).

The results of Bjerke’s research indicate that art in the workplace did not consistently manifest
the expected benefits and results were dependent on context and individual factors. Employees
working with customers face to face in the presence of art evaluated it as much more important
and beneficial than those that had no direct customer contact (Bjerke et al., 2007). This supports
the idea that art can be used as communication to external stakeholders, to impress or convey
specific values and ideas to people.

Employees do not perceive art as a separate concept within the design of work environments,
but see it as included in the overall aesthetic experience of a workplace, which also includes some
employees that do not notice art in the office at all (Barry & Meisiek, 2010; Bjerke & Ind, 2015;
Bjerke et al., 2007). Bjerke (2007) concludes that companies that invest in art, design and
architecture are more likely to bring the physical work environment into employee conscience
through explicit communication. In regard to art, education on the art pieces themselves may help

37
employees’ identification with the art (Ibid.), and short descriptions with basic information of
(particularly contemporary) art help make the pieces more pleasing and meaningful (Augustin et
al., 2009). So, in order to reap the potential benefits of art in the workplace, art has to be aligned
with the primary mechanisms of organizational culture and goals, as with other physical artifacts.
Additionally, active engagement of employees is needed concerning the influence of symbolic
meanings in art, especially when the art is more complex (Bjerke & Ind, 2015).

2.2.3.4 Creative Workspaces

With the rise of the internet age and the resulting disruption of many business sectors through
technology and business model innovations, the need for creativity and innovation in
organizations has risen proportionally. This focus on creativity and innovation as integral elements
of business has spilled over into workplace strategy as well, leading to a wide spread of ‘creative
workspaces’ or office environments that were designed, specifically with the goal of enhancing
creativity and providing the foundation for innovation. Since much of the attention in workspace
design seems to currently be focused on creativity and innovation, this chapter will be more
extensive than the previous ones.

Amabile’s (2012) popular componential theory of creativity highlights three components that are
based on the individual, namely a) domain-relevant skills, b) creativity-relevant processes and c)
intrinsic task motivation, and only one component which is focused outside the individual, d) the
social environment. While Amabile recognizes the influence the work environment can have on
creativity (Amabile & Conti, 1999), her work underlines the importance of factors outside the
impact of the physical environment.

The view that creativity can easily be created through a recipe is clearly too simplistic and
undermines individual differences and complex organizational processes. Based on their study
of 27 different small- and medium-sized companies, Dul, Ceylan and Jaspers (2011) conclude
that the contribution of the physical environment to creativity is less influential than that of the
social-organizational work environment and the impact of individual personality. However, there
seem to be certain elements of organizational environment and setting that can enhance the
conditions for creativity to happen. If ‘creative spaces’ are truly able to provide this effect has been
the subject of several studies, despite still being a new subject of research. This trend of creativity
enhancing workspaces is also often associated with a more community-oriented workplace
approach (Dale & Burrell, 2010) and so called ‘fun workplaces’ that focus on play and informality
(De Paoli & Ropo, 2017).

38
Creative workspaces first need certain basic functionalities to enable creative work. This includes
the necessary tools and materials, as well as a basic spatial configuration that allows for
communication and corporation. Both Doorley and Witthoft (2012) and Carlsen, Clegg, and
Gjersvik (2012) highlight in their books the importance of enabling experimentation through
providing tools and inexpensive materials, environmental flexibility and speed of adjustment, a
spatial configuration that allows for collaboration, as well as the disruption of office conventions
through artifacts, such as DIY furniture. They also mention the necessity for space to support
creativity techniques, such as design thinking, but also agile and lean methods that often require
specific tools or can be enhanced by spatial features and furniture.

Beyond the basic functionality, there are different perspectives. Some focus more on the indirect,
supporting role of workplaces in the creation of a creative organizational culture via the symbolic
meanings of workplace designs. This includes the creation of a specific identity for creative
spaces (Vignoli, Mattarelli, & Mäkinen, 2018), also more general artifacts that symbolize the
creative identity of an organization (Martens, 2011), but also openness, equality and collectivity
(Kallio, Kallio, & Blomberg, 2015).

Others argue for a more direct, inspirational impact of certain environmental aspects. Based on
their systematic literature review of 17 empirical studies of creative workspaces, Meinel, Maier,
Wagner and Voigt (2017) concluded that there are certain characteristics that are frequently found
to be inspirational and enhancing creativity, independent of the type of organization. These
include appealing sensual stimuli, particularly sound, smell and window views, but also biophilia
in the form of plants and natural materials like wood. More functional aspects linked to creativity
are open offices that provide spaces for teamwork and collaboration, but also individual spaces
for concentrated work and spaces for relaxation, as well as flexible furniture. The focus should be
on providing a space that allows for all different kinds of creative work-modes, from highly
collaborative to isolated and concentrated work. Their review also found creativity-inhibiting
factors offices should avoid, frequently mentioned among them are insufficient space size, lack
of flexibility, as well as temperature and noise levels that are too high. McCoy and Evans (2002)
express the importance of a workspace configuration that provides sufficient enclosure and
privacy, allowing for freedom from constant supervision and control as a foundational requirement
for creative work.

Thoring (2018) developed 49 design principles for creative spaces, ranging from macro-level
neighborhood principles down to furniture configurations. These patterns are developed based
on a typology of five space types and five spatial qualities relevant for creative work environments
(Thoring, Desmet, & Badke-Schaub, 2018). While the space types focus largely on the functional
dimension, two of the five spatial qualities relate directly to the aesthetics of such spaces. The
quality ‘indicator of culture’ suggests certain behaviors through the display of artifacts, labels or a

39
specific style interpreted by occupants. ‘Source of stimulation’ describes the spatial quality
providing inspiration through sensual stimuli, such as views, sounds, smells or textures and
materials. Applying these aesthetic qualities to creative spaces can enhance the well-being of
occupants and support creativity, either directly through inspirational stimuli or indirectly through
the sense-making and interpretation of specific artifacts and ‘style’.

A more critical perspective of such spaces is offered by an analysis based on pictures of creative
workspaces that identifies contradictions within these spaces (De Paoli, Sauer, & Ropo, 2017).
As a result of commonalities within the pictures of the image database, they identified five
aesthetic themes or styles that frequently reoccur: 1) Home, which is incorporated through
symbols and elements typically found in living rooms (e.g., handmade rugs, rocking chairs,
couches), large communal tables and a general atmosphere of coziness, comfort and warmth. 2)
Sport and play, embodied through elements like ping-pong tables, gyms and toys, encouraging
physical fitness, energetic activities and a balancing of cognitive work. 3) Technology, often also
introduced through retro- or futuristic-themed technology products (e.g., old computers or cellular
phones). 4) Nature and relaxation, often embodied through plants, but also entire trees or water
elements and pictures of landscapes and nature scenes. 5) Symbolism, heritage and history,
which includes a wide range of artifacts and styles, often connected to a company’s or industry’s
origins, but also local or national culture, traditions and heritage.
The researchers make the assumption that these themes can largely be seen as an embodiment
of freedom from traditional work environments and that the connection to creativity happens
mostly through the associations of non-conformity and freedom, expressing a very one-sided
perspective of creativity, being that of a “joyful, fun and energetic activity in a relaxing homely
atmosphere or in a peaceful nature-like environment” (De Paoli et al., 2017, p. 41).

That one-sided emphasis of the creative process is also expressed in the identified contradictions,
arguing that significant parts of creative processes are overlooked in these spaces. The first
contradiction is that of collective versus individual creativity. These largely open spaces highlight
the importance of interaction and collaboration, but do not provide sufficient space for focused,
concentrated individual work that is also very important for creative outcomes. This over-
emphasis of the extroverted perspective in many workplace activities is also supported by Cain's
(2012) work on introverts.

The second contradiction is the tension between professionally designed environments versus
environments created through participation. Co-creation and participation is important for the well-
being, acceptance and sense of ownership and identity of employees and can lead to higher
workplace engagement (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012; Lundström, Savolainen, & Kostiainen, 2016).
The provision of highly curated and professionally designed workplaces undermines these

40
benefits and ignores the perspective and subjective needs of employees, which can also be
interpreted negatively by the occupants of the space.

The third contradiction regards planned versus spontaneous creativity. Reports of highly creative
people and innovative ideas often include the emergence of creativity in an unplanned,
spontaneous and unexpected way and often in unlikely situations or locations (Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). The deterministic expectation of creative outcomes being a
result of a recipe-like provision of certain factors and elements is clearly flawed, but still seems to
remain on some level when considering the design of many of these workplaces.

In light of the ‘hype’ of creative workspaces, De Paoli and Ropo (2017) call for a more balanced
and informed workplace design that is based on a more holistic and considered approach to the
creative process and does not ignore several important aspects for creativity that are already
known and reoccur frequently in current research.

Despite an increasing interest in the underlying mechanisms and processes of creative work
environments, the research and understanding of these are still in their infancy and need more
empirical research, also in more controlled settings, in an effort to isolate the impact of different
physical and non-physical factors of the work environment.

41
3 Managerial Perspective

The technological and environmental changes in the business environment have caused a shift
away from a sole focus on productivity towards increased attention to innovation and creativity
that are needed to successfully compete in the marketplace of the 21 st century. This shift in
orientation is also reflected in workplace strategy of small and large corporations alike. Increased
productivity is still a concern but no longer solely at the forefront of design considerations. Instead,
the workplace strategy encompasses many more goals, such as empowering creativity, cultural
change, attracting and holding talents and flexibility.

Whether the results of these efforts are delivering the desired outcomes is still partly uncertain.
Part of the reason for the uncertainty is the complexity of measuring concepts like creativity, well-
being or cultural change, which usually are limited to the subjectivity of self-reported results or
observations.

3.1 Objectives of Aesthetic Considerations

The foundational objective of any business is the profitable creation of products and services,
which means the efficient and economical use of resources, also in regard to the provision of
physical workspace for the production of these products and services. Depending on the needs
of employees to successfully accomplish their task, these workspaces need certain features. The
features and requirements for these workspaces depend on the specific objectives of each
business, which are results of strategy and business environment. Innovation and creativity are
becoming essential parts for success in many industries that are disrupted by the transformative
effects of information technology. In light of these challenges, the work environment needs to
comply with these new demands and enable employees to meet new challenges. These changes
often have a cultural dimension, which many companies are now trying to manage explicitly.
These cultural change initiatives often also use an aligned workplace strategy to support the
change process. As the business environment becomes more dynamic, the speed of future
changes will likely continue increasing, which makes a continuous adaptability and flexibility of
these workplaces an essential element for modern workplaces (Chan, Beckman, & Lawrence,
2007; De Paoli, Arge, & Hunnes Blakstad, 2013).

The experts required by organizations to successfully compete in the marketplace are highly
sought after on the job market. This competition, along with an additional generational impact of
younger workers holding different expectations and attitudes toward their workplaces, have

42
turned an attractive work environment into a relevant selling point on the job market (F. Becker &
Sims, 2001). Millennials often express different attitudes and expectations regarding the
workplace. In order to hold these employees, the workplace needs to contribute to their desires
for social interaction and personal well-being.

3.2 Restrictions in Workplace Design

While there is a lot of potential for improvement and many opportunities for a change in the work
environment, the reality of workplace design is often strongly restricted by a variety of factors.
Depending on the situation of a workplace redesign, different levels of influence impact the
outcome of such an initiative. In an ideal situation, the optimal design is within legal and budget
limitations. In most cases however, one or several levels of restrictions need to be considered.

In larger corporations, there is often a central department responsible for real estate and
workplace design. The goal of these departments is typically to ensure conformity and compliance
with all restrictions, but also a certain amount of uniformity of workplace design to align with
corporate identity and management goals. These central departments often have more power
and influence than an individual manager who would like to create a certain type of workspace
for his team or department (Bodin Danielsson, 2010).

Cost Saving

The cost of workplaces is and will remain highly relevant, since the profitability of any business is
dependent on the balancing of earnings and expenditure. The most relevant metric is the cost per
square foot or cost per square meter of office space. This includes all relevant expenses for the
provision of the workplace. Real estate costs are an important factor in this calculation, particularly
in expensive locations, such as downtowns (F. Becker & Sims, 2001). Another important factor
are the workstation density and the utilization rates. This generally motivates organizations to
increase density, i.e., decrease the space per individual worker and introduce measures to
increase utilization, such as desk sharing (Ibid.). Since the benefit generated by less space-
efficient designs is difficult to measure in financial terms, there is the tendency to overlook these
benefits in highly cost-driven business environments.

43
Legal Considerations

Legal restrictions and requirements differ substantially from country to country, but the amount of
them is generally increasing and improving worker conditions, but also sometimes limiting the
possibilities of workplace solutions and concepts. Among the different kinds of relevant legal
frameworks are usually laws regarding the protection of workers, such as workplace ordinances
and general health and safety acts (e.g., the German ‘Arbeitsstättenverordnung’), but also a
variety of building regulations regarding the planning, construction and operation of buildings,
such as fire safety regulations and codes.

Beyond obligatory legal regulations, the meeting of certain energy and efficiency standards is
becoming increasingly important for certification processes, such as the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, additionally restricting and regulating the planning
and construction of offices (Al Horr et al., 2016).

Changing Environment

Lastly, the increased speed of environmental change in technology and society is also a
significant factor that requires certain restrictions. The increasing automation of work tasks
through the use of artificial intelligence means the elimination of certain jobs entirely or partly and
the creation of new jobs, changing the work tasks performed in office environments. Also,
increased turnover rates among employees, meaning that new people with different expectations
and needs are entering the organizations more frequently, lead to the requirement of higher levels
of flexibility and adaptability of both individual workstations and the general work environment.
The rise of the internet and social media, and therefore the consumption of highly visual and
stylized content, has also caused an acceleration of trends and fads within fashion and design,
leading to the need for more timeless designs or a more frequent change of workplace designs.

3.3 Current Trends in Workplace Design

As described in 1.2.2. History of Office Design, the current most popular office designs are so
called ‘activity-based’ office designs. These offer a variety of different workstations according to
the different work tasks in modern offices, mostly in an open-plan layout, but also with secluded
rooms for teams and isolated workstations for individual concentrated work (Lohr, 2017). This
office design tries to expand on the benefits of open-plan layouts, such as easier communication
and collaboration, while eliminating some of the common problems, such as lack of privacy and

44
increased noise levels (Kim & de Dear, 2013), decreased workplace satisfaction (Danielsson,
2009) and frequent distractions (Maher & von Hippel, 2005).

These offices are created with a specific ‘office geography’ that seeks to increase ‘collisions’ or
coincidental meetings between different employees to increase communication, collaboration and
the cross-fertilization of ideas. The benefit of these interactions has been explored and quantified
through studies with sensors worn by employees, measuring their encounters and subsequent
collaboration, creativity and performance (Waber et al., 2014). To encourage this behavior, space
layouts often encourage moving around through attractive and prominent staircases, casual
meeting spaces with coffee machines or elevated work benches that encourage conversations
with passerby through equal eye level between both parties (Ibid.).

Focus on employee well-being and workplace flexibility are two more significant trends that are
frequently incorporated into new office designs. As a more human-centric approach, how people
feel about their workplaces is increasingly considered in an effort to create a ‘place identity’ that
increases worker engagement and satisfaction through a positive emotional bond to the worker’s
workspace (Pearce & Hinds, 2018).

3.3.1 Aesthetic Trends

Based on their work on office designs, Arge and De Paoli (as cited in Bjerke et al., 2007) found
that aesthetic decisions in workplaces are typically based on fads and trends within architecture
and design. A look into popular media and the publications by large workplace planners and office
furniture producers such as Steelcase, Haworth, Herman Miller, Knoll or Vitra allow for a
deduction of some significant current trends in workplace design regarding style and aesthetics.

Many of these trends seem to be influenced by the style first developed in successful technology
companies, often located in Silicon Valley. A community-oriented and social understanding of the
office environment along with larger societal trends towards health and well-being contribute to
the popularity of office designs that seem to incorporate these aspects.

There is no academic literature or research known to the author, which analyses general aesthetic
trends. The aesthetics of ‘creative workspaces’ have been discussed in chapter 2.2.3.4 based on
the research of De Paoli et al., (2017) and are a major trend in the aesthetics of workplaces.
Other common themes center around comfort and relaxation, featuring expansive canteens,
coffee shops and ‘hang-out spaces’ as well as design elements reminiscent of cafés and living

45
rooms. This includes furniture like couches and comfortable chairs, warm colors and lighting, and
a material selection supporting the style, including materials like wood, felt and other textiles.
Another trend is the inclusion of biophilic elements. Many new office buildings try to create more
connection with the outdoors through access to natural light and air, but also through the
placement of plants and greenery inside the office.

This is not a complete or comprehensive list, but mentions some major trends. Since stylistic
trends tend to change often and are seemingly arbitrary, a more detailed analysis might be of
unclear value and would need a dedicated research effort.

3.3.2 Data-Driven Design

The revolution of big data has already started to transform industries and is set to continue to do
so for the foreseeable future (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013). It changes how we relate to
our environment and also how our environment relates to us. The possibility of mass
personalization is already a reality in many digital products, and while this personalization trend
might not be as easily translated to the physical work environment, there are many signs that big
data analytics is going to shape the future of workplaces and which type of work environment will
be offered to workers.

The expectation of the transformative impact of the use of big data for the architecture,
construction and operation industry is large and has seen some attention in recent years (Deutsch,
2015). However, as an extensive review by Loyola (2018) has indicated, the use and application
of big data in the AECO industry (architecture, engineering, construction and operation) is
comparatively underdeveloped. There are mostly experimental use cases, and there are few
practical transfers of findings and knowledge gained from data analytics. Three areas of particular
interest, based on potential benefits and opportunities, have been identified by Loyola (2018) in
his review: 1) Gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of a particular design problem
through the analysis of different design conditions, particularly data on future use and occupants;
2) the prediction and simulation of designs to gain a more holistic perspective on the complexity
of these solutions, particularly beyond classical engineering and construction metrics. Complex
simulations regarding currently unpredictable aspects like future occupant behavior, or impact on
well-being based on daylight availability or ambient acoustics may be done through the use of
advanced statistical models obtained through the application of machine learning methods; 3) the
continuous and integral evaluation of designs throughout the lifecycle of design solutions. These
post-occupancy evaluations may contribute to the continual improvement of a particular design

46
and also inform the development of future solutions based on the collection and evaluation of
multivariable metrics.

The collection of data is at the foundation of big data analytics and is increasingly happening
through different methods and sources. Performance data that is largely used for engineering
purposes and post-occupancy evaluations of technical building metrics are already available and
in use. In contrast, data on occupants and specific use contexts is usually provided through the
self-perception and assumptions of clients and designers, which don’t necessarily offer high
accuracy and are subject to biases. This is suboptimal, since the occupants should be the central
consideration in the design process. While many other industries have a strong focus on end-
users, the AECO industry is often not sufficiently concerned with how their products affect the
people having to live and work within them (Loyola, 2018). Buildings have a growing number of
smart devices and sensors embedded in them that constantly produce data about ambient factors,
user patterns and other information. Also, data from video surveillance or user devices, such as
smartphones and smartwatches, are potential sources of relevant data. The concern for privacy
of the affected people is very legitimate and must be a significant consideration in the collection
and use of data.

Another important step is the selection of the right raw data amongst the overflow. Only if the
correct data type is selected, will it render useful and reliable results. Arriving at this step often
takes an industry-wide trial-and-error-approach until reliable methods are consolidated. The next
aspect is the integration of data from various sources, which needs unified standards that are
currently not developed within this field. The challenge of this process is the involvement of the
entire industry in addition to the support and involvement of IT and other involved industries.

How reliable and meaningful the findings of statistical models are is another question, that
typically involves time and a lot of effort to consolidate. Generalizations should not easily be drawn,
and the transfer of assumption needs a lot of caution to not produce faulty results.

Currently the people responsible for the planning and construction of work environments are often
cut off from the performance of their products and are not held responsible for their designs. This
means the feedback loop that is an essential part of design processes and allows for reiteration
and improvement is not given and results in a lack of learning from past mistakes within the design
and architecture profession (D. Davis, 2016).

If common standards and metrics are established within the industry, many new opportunities will
open for the design and operation of buildings. Designers and architects will be enabled to receive
continuous feedback on how their products perform and what results they produce. This could
provide a new quantitative dimension of predictability and more objective evidence-based design

47
(Loyola, 2018). Analyzing aspects like the user patterns of specific rooms or efficiency of space
use could offer specific insights on how to improve an office layout even after completion. In
combination with sufficiently flexible furniture and structural solutions, better workplaces could
become available.

The first studies with controlled data sets have been done and offer promising results. Using
machine learning to evaluate office layouts, a study trained a machine learning algorithm with
data from 3,276 offices. The goal was to predict the lowest performing offices, which the method
was able to accomplish with a 60–70% accuracy (Bailey, Phelan, Cosgrove, & Davis, 2018).
While this is no surprising result, it indicates the practical possibilities of machine learning
applications.

Another study trained an artificial neural network to predict the use of meeting rooms based on
data from 56 buildings. The predictions made by this program were better than those of human
designers, showing that technological tools might soon enhance architectural practice (Turrin,
Davis, & Anderson, 2017).

Comparing the desk layout created by human designers with those generated by a suite of
procedural algorithms, the software achieved a match rate of 97% when using the same space
standards as an architect, within a significantly shorter time span (Anderson, Bailey, Heumann,
& Davis, 2018).

Some companies like WeWork have started collecting quantitative and qualitative (e.g., through
feedback surveys in a room-booking app) data about their work environments to improve their
spaces and come to data-driven conclusions about what people prefer in regard to their physical
work environment and which aesthetic works best for a given setting (Marble, 2018). This trend
called workplace analytics is also becoming more popular as a consulting service and will likely
be integrated into overall workplace strategies in the future.

48
4 Empirical Research

Research Objective

The two last research objectives of this work deal with the situation and state of office design in
practice. Since theoretical work does not allow for such insights and the availability of secondary
data on this issue in particular is quite limited, conducting empirical research and collecting
primary data allow for better insights. Based on the literature review, there seem to be substantial
differences between the theory and practice of environmental aesthetics in the workplace. The
two questions formulated in the research objectives in regard to the practice are:

c) When and in which way are employers/practitioners actively trying to use aesthetic
considerations/actions in workplace design to influence employees?
d) What are the experiences of employers/practitioners in using aesthetic design
considerations/actions in the creation of workplaces?

The purpose of the interviews is to explore and evaluate the implementation of aesthetic
considerations in practice and close the gap between theoretical understanding and practical
application. Since the collection of quantitative data is rather complicated on this issue and would
likely also only provide a narrow perspective of the practice, a qualitative research method was
selected. The research is not preliminary to the theoretical work, but a subsequent exploration of
practitioners’ opinions, practices and views of the topic.

4.1 Method: Expert Interviews

The expert interview is an inquiry with a specialist from any given field, allowing for the collection
of in-depth qualitative insights and exploration of a new field through a structured conversation
(Flick, 2009). It was picked as the research method because of the potential to gain in-depth
insights by having a conversation with the expert, which is comparatively simple and cost-effective
in execution. The flexibility to react to answers with further inquiry, as well as the more open
character of a conversation were the other reasons for the use of this method.

Selection of Experts

49
As the sample is supposed to focus on practitioners, researchers or other experts with solely
theoretical knowledge were not considered. The criteria applied for the selection of relevant
experts was limited to one: The expert has to be working full-time in the field of office design.

Based on responses and availability of experts, as well as due to the necessary time needed for
conducting and evaluating the interview, the sample consists of four experts working for two large,
multi-national office furniture producers that also offer a variety of workplace planning and
consulting services. The overview of interviewed experts can be found in Appendix A.

Interview Guide

The interview guide was developed based on the researchers’ understanding of the topic
developed from the theoretical work and secondary data analyzed in this paper. The developed
interview guide is an approximate collection of several questions and areas of interest, serving
as a guideline for further exploratory questions, since the different backgrounds and expertise of
the experts offered a variety of potential insights according to each specific interview. Due to the
open interview design and the potential for further inquiry, not all questions asked during the
interviews were included in the interview guide. The interview guide is included in Appendix B.

Data Collection

The experts received a short, written overview of the topic and content of this work, as well as the
main areas of interest, ahead of time. The final interview questions were not provided to the
experts ahead of time.

The interviews were conducted in early July 2019. Three interviews were conducted in person
and one interview was conducted via phone call. All interviews were audio-recorded to allow for
a transcription of the content. The interview language was German due to the experts’ native
language preference.

Evaluation

The relevant parts of the interview have been extracted and paraphrased and subsequently
summarized and translated into English. Based on the main points and reoccurring information,
several categories have been created. The full, transcribed interviews can be found in Appendix
C.

50
4.2 Results

The most important and relevant statements were extracted from the interviews, categorized and
subsequently summarized and translated. The two main topics identified are 1) The reasons,
processes and best practices of creating or changing the physical work environment and 2)
Aesthetics in the physical work environment and its issues and benefits. Both categories have
several subcategories that each include aspects relevant for one or several of the involved groups:
employees, organizations, and suppliers and service providers.

1) Process and reasons for creating and changing the physical work environment

Reasons for changing the physical work environment:

• Wanting to become more transparent, increase communication, innovation pressure
and need to remain competitive, attracting talent, meeting employee expectations,
change in leadership
• Limitations: Work environment can only support change, but not initiate or solely drive
change
• Benefits: Visible and tangible reminder of change, style can reflect corporate identity
and culture

General recommendations:
• Variety: Providing diverse set of spaces for different tasks, functional requirements and
preferences, including space enabling privacy. ‘Choice-and-control’ principal allows
occupants to select their preferred workstation based on current needs and wants.
• Flexibility: Changing and expanding offices quickly and frequently is important; Open-
space with zoning through furniture allows for that. Additionally allows for continual
adjustment and personalization on individual and group level.
• Efficiency: Cost per square meter is still an important metric. Open-space solutions and
desk-sharing don’t create ‘dead space’ that sits idle, increasing overall efficiency and
allowing for more variety on smaller footprint.

Individual solutions:
• Functional individualization: Based on analysis of organizational processes.
• Core challenge: Balancing communication and collaboration vs. privacy and
concentration.
• Stylistic individualization: Based on organizational culture and corporate identity.

51
Process and change management:
• Change management: Explaining reasons for change is necessary, casting vision and
showing substantial benefits are important for creating excitement and buy-in, ideally
allowing employee participation.
• Common employee challenges: Generational tensions; Middle management particularly
resistant to desk sharing and open-space solutions.
• Common challenges of organizations: Discrepancy between expressed requirements
and actual requirements, value of investment is questioned (ROI hard to calculate), risk
avoidance and compromises lead to mediocre results, evaluation of changes happens
rarely.

Participation of occupants:
• Surveys: Surveying all employees first is best practice.
• Workshops: Including all types of employees (also based on like or dislike of change) is
important, selection of associative pictures as foundation for style.
• Generally too little employee participation in the creation/change process.
• Acceptance of new work environment is substantially higher when occupants get to
participate during design phase.

2) Aesthetics in the physical work environment:

Trends and common elements:

• Spaces encourage creativity through differentiation from the regular workplace, change
of perspective important.
• Biophilia: Diversity of plants, natural colors and materials (wood, leather, textiles and
rough surfaces), smells, more naturalistic shapes based on new production methods.
• Architecture: Views, light and ceiling height are important.
• Growing significance of aesthetics and beauty in society (e.g., book ‘Beauty’ by
Sagmeister & Walsh).
• Clean desk policy, no individual personalization policy, accessory-, decoration- and
plant-concept by company (artifacts relating to groups and organization).
-> Consistency in style, representing desired company image.
-> Allowing readability of space and deductions regarding culture for outsiders (e.g.,
customers, potential employees).

52
Issues of aesthetic considerations:
• Trends and fads go out of style (e.g., certain colors).
• ROI: Difficult to measure, uncertain benefit for end-users.
• Cost: Customization (e.g., prints, colors), natural materials (e.g., wood) are more
expensive and have higher environmental impact than alternatives.
• Trade-offs: The more emotional a design, the more polarizing and possibly disliked.

Benefits of aesthetic considerations:

• Subconscious ‘memory effect’ of liking and desiring to return to a place (experiencing
contrast to poorly designed places increases the effect).
• Benefits of biophilia (e.g., plants): Increased employee well-being (plants).
• People feel better in an environment they perceive as beautiful.
• High quality materials age well (e.g., leather, wood) and might need less repair and
later replacement.

4.3 Discussion

The results of the interviews are largely in line with the literature, particularly around the
awareness of common IEQ factors. The answers indicated that biophilia is an important
contribution to improving workplace well-being, and that research findings from this field are
applied in practice. Establishing activity-based work environments are seen by literature as
currently the best solution for most modern workplaces (Wohlers & Hertel, 2017) and are being
suggested by both companies represented in these interviews. The variety available through
these spaces provides a sense of control and meets privacy needs of employees, which are both
significant elements for satisfaction and well-being (Bandura, 2010; Evans, 2003). One expert
suggested that the visual variety provided by a set of different workspaces would also benefit
creativity by offering different environments throughout the workday. There is no literature known
to the researcher that directly supports this claim, indicating that further research would be
needed to validate this suggestion.

However, there are some results that seem to be contradictory to research findings. The explicit
stance against individual decoration seems to go against the suggestion that individualization of
the workstation increases employee satisfaction (Wells, 2000; Wells et al., 2007). However, the
experts indicated that these policies try to increase a unity and consistency of design through
accessories, plants and other decorations selected by the company to represent the company
identity and culture, subsequently strengthening a sense of community and identification in

53
employees. Whether these effects are accomplished by these measures and offset the potentially
negative impact of a lack of individualization is unclear.

The beneficial effects of participation in decoration are supported by findings of Knight and
Haslam (2010) who found that increased participation in the decoration of workspaces lead to
higher levels of well-being and satisfaction with the workplace. The importance of active change
management and involving employees in the process of changing the work environment, ideally
through participatory measures like surveys or workshops, was frequently mentioned and is
strongly supported by literature (Pearce & Hinds, 2018; Skogland & Hansen, 2017). One expert
suggested that the value of aesthetic and beautiful environments and the attention paid to the
subject within society is generally increasing, referring to the work of Sagmeister and Walsh on
the significance of beauty.

In regard to the research questions, the insights were limited to mostly general statements about
common practices, mainly noting that individual solutions might vary. Companies seem to be
increasingly concerned with the workplace, but usually apply aesthetic considerations more
based on suggestions of design professionals rather than their own understanding of its potential.
Regarding research question c), this indicates that many companies don’t actively try to use
aesthetic considerations to influence employee well-being and satisfaction, and if they do, it is
usually based on the suggestions and experience of designer or service providers.

Several experts also mentioned the difficulty of measuring the benefits and return of general
workplace and especially aesthetic investments. The result of that challenge is an inhibiting of
investments into such measures, particularly in very cost-driven and less profitable companies.
Theory widely confirms this challenge, but there are also attempts to quantify the impact through
technology, such as wearable sensors that collect data to show correlations between employee
interaction and subsequent performance improvements (Waber et al., 2014). There also seems
to be a distinct lack of post-occupation evaluation of workspace designs and both companies
represented admitted that such evaluations don’t happen frequently enough. Regarding research
question d), the results of these interviews provide very little concrete results, since post-
occupancy evaluations rarely happen. To evaluate the experiences of companies and
practitioners in greater depth, more specific, case-based research is needed.

The critical statements in regard to the problem of overly polarizing designs and the concern with
sustainability in the ecological context, but also in respect to the longevity of trend- and fad-based
designs, were new insights to the researcher. The future possibility of implementation of biophilia
through new production methods that can more easily and cheaply produce organic forms and
shapes was also previously unrecognized by the researcher.

54
4.4 Limitations

There are several limitations to the insights provided by the interviews.

Firstly, the selected experts have different educational and professional backgrounds, which allow
for a collection of different perspectives, but also limit the comparability of their statements, since
contradictions or conflicting views can to an extent also be the result of a different approaches
and perspectives. It should also be noted that this research was conducted with experts mostly
working in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. This means that the data collected primarily applies
to these regions and cannot simply be generalized.

Secondly, all experts interviewed are practitioners and three of the experts had no design or
psychology expertise, which seems to be important for a deeper understanding of the effects of
aesthetics, given the theoretical foundations explored in this work. The people selected might
rather be categorized as ‘specialists’ rather than ‘experts’ (Bogner, Littig, & Menz, 2014). Since
the purpose of this research was to explore the practitioner perspective of this field, the selection
was appropriate, but needs to be considered when evaluating the statements.

Thirdly, there is a potential conflict of interest on the side of the experts, since all of them work for
companies, developing and selling office furniture, that, for business reasons, have a particular
interest in an increased importance of office design. Both companies represented also do some
of their own research and communicate their perspectives of the work environment to their
employees frequently. This could potentially lead to a representation of company opinions rather
than personal or professional opinions. Additionally, the in-person interviews were held in the
companies’ facilities that are used to showcase their products and the companies’ view of what
work environments should be like. Holding the interviews in this environment could potentially
lead to bias on both the interviewer’s and experts’ sides. This assumption is supported by frequent
referrals to the immediate environmental setting by the experts during the interviews.

Lastly, the methodological limitations of an open interview design include the resulting lack of
comparability, the many influential factors before, during and after the interview, the potential of
subjectivity and bias in both the interviewer and the expert during the interview, as well as during
the subsequent evaluation, and the inability to generalize any findings.

55
5 Conclusion

The physical workplace design has undergone many changes throughout its history and
continually evolves. As the societal and technological environment and the challenges faced by
business are continually changing, the design of the workplace needs to keep pace, comply with
the demands and ideally also support and enhance the people and the tasks accommodated
within it. The aesthetic dimension within this framework has received some attention from design
specialists but has seemingly been treated with mostly incidental and secondary attention by
organizations. With signs of returning significance of the physical office to enhance collaboration,
and office design as a selling point in competition for the best workers, the aesthetics of offices
are also of growing interest to researchers and practitioners alike. Since the perception of beauty
and aesthetics is highly complex and the workplace itself an intricate system of influences, many
different aspects need to be considered in the evaluation.

On the direct-affective level of influence, environmental psychology has explored the mostly
sensually perceived IEQ factors and many of the findings are applied in workplace design and
even regulated by law in many countries. There is a fair amount of agreement on the findings
regarding lighting and daylight, acoustics and thermal conditions and their importance for a
satisfactory environment. However, in many areas there is ambiguous research findings and a
broad spectrum of opinions and recommendations by both theorists and practitioners. These
include topics, such as the application and benefits of colors and other elements, such as smells.
While biophilia and views are also universally considered as beneficial, their use in the workplace
has been growing more recently. Considering the findings of neuroscience, it seems that their
importance and potential benefit for occupants’ health and well-being are currently still
underestimated or not commonly applied in practice. While plants and greenery are often applied,
biophilic design and the consideration of nature in forms and shapes, textures and materials and
entire design elements such as cave-like architectural features are not as widely used but seem
to offer large potential improvements. Mimicking or leaning on the natural environment in design
can help increase the well-being of occupants, mostly subconsciously.

Other psychological effects seem to be very important for the perception of the physical workplace
and the aesthetic aspects of office design. The ability to control ambient conditions and aspects
of the environment can improve occupants’ satisfaction with IEQ factors and the workplace as a
whole. Next to direct adjustment features for lighting or temperature, the ability to personalize or
participate in the creation or decoration of the office can substantially enhance the satisfaction
and well-being of organizational members. Related to that is the importance of privacy and the
ability to control social interactions through withdrawing and having visual and acoustical privacy.

56
As aesthetics is inextricably linked with other aspects of workplace design, such as the functional
and symbolic dimensions, these psychological effects need to be considered in both the functional
and stylistic planning and execution of offices. Additionally, this is a result of the usual inability to
divide or compartmentalize different aspects of the physical workplace by occupants. Therefore,
an aesthetic design decision that might suggest lack of control or privacy to some people, either
consciously or subconsciously, can result in negative impacts on satisfaction, well-being and
subsequently on performance.

The indirect-cognitive dimension of influence is of interest due to the understanding of workplace

design as an expression of organizational culture. As many organizations are concerned with
their culture and how to change it, the physical workplace plays a significant role in this process
as a very visible artifact of culture that organizational members constantly interact with.

This means that the design of offices can become an expression of a company’s culture, of how
valuable the members are to the organization or of how serious a company is about a cultural
change. Investing money into the environment that constantly confronts employees with the
messaging of that design on a visible level can be very powerful if aligned with the underlying
layers of culture.

If an office redesign is supposed to support a cultural change, the organization also needs to
address deeper levels of culture. It needs to also change the underlying values, norms and
assumptions, then, the surface-level expressions, like the aesthetics of the workplace can fall in
line and reconfirm the change happening at a deeper level. However, if the design and aesthetics
of a place are supposed to be interpreted consistently with the organization’s perspective, explicit
and direct communication is needed to avoid ambiguity in the organizational member’s sense-
making process. If embedded in a consistent system of communication, the aesthetic and style
of a workplace or other artifacts within it can be a supporting aspect in the creation, maintenance
and change of organizational culture. A strong, positive organizational culture can likely
strengthen employees’ sense of identification with the organization and seems to support
satisfaction, creativity and mood and subsequently also motivation and performance of
organizational members. This also means that a consistent stylistic language aligned with the
organizational culture and identity needs to be developed and cannot be arbitrary or changing
regularly. This process requires careful analysis and work by the organization itself and design
specialists, ideally including the representative participation of organizational members.

How people feel about the design and aesthetic elements of the physical workplace also seems
to blend into the emotions and attitudes held towards the organization. Participation in the process
of creating the aesthetic aspect of the workplace increases satisfaction, and the careful selection

57
of artifacts perceived as beautiful will likely result in positive emotions and attitudes toward the
organization.

It seems the logical and right step to pay more attention to the aesthetics of workplace design in
order to reap some of the described potential benefits. However, the aesthetical considerations
and optimizations face several challenges and restrictions in practice, which have hindered more
widespread attention and concern for the topic.

The foundational issue is the difficulty of measuring the effects of such initiatives or investments
and the resulting lack of a clear return on investment, which generally drives business decisions.
Connected to this is the complexity of involved influences and factors, making it difficult to analyze
the interrelated effects. Often, the people in charge of creating or changing the physical work
environment are managers or business leaders that have many other tasks demanding their
attention, leading to decision makers feeling overwhelmed and choosing to outsource many of
these decisions to design professionals and service providers. Additionally, the fast-changing
business environment further complicates such decisions, as they are usually more permanent
and often last for many years.

To summarize and give a short and comprehensive overview, the following statements offer the
insights gained regarding the formulated research questions:

a) How is the aesthetic dimension of the physical environment (in distinction to the functional
dimensions of the physical environment) perceived by employees in regard to their well-
being and satisfaction? (Are there direct or indirect implications for the health, productivity
and creativity of employees?)

The aesthetic dimension of the workplace is often not consciously distinguished from the
functional and symbolic dimensions by occupants and mostly analyzed separately in
theory only or by occupants with specialist knowledge or education (Bodin Danielsson,
2010). It seems that a positive aesthetic experience increases satisfaction and well-being
and via organizational culture also positively impacts other factors like productivity and
motivation (Bjerke et al., 2007).

b) How does the aesthetic dimension of the physical environment influence the perception
of the workplace and the organization as a whole?

The emotions toward artifacts such as the physical workplace, of which the aesthetic
dimension is a part, seem to blend into the emotions and attitudes held towards the
organization (Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004). A positive reaction to the beauty and

58
 aesthetics of the workplace therefore results in a positive impact on the perception of the
workplace and organization as a whole, and reversely (Bodin Danielsson, 2015).

c) When and in which way are employers/practitioners actively trying to use aesthetic
considerations in workplace design to influence employees?

Based on the primary data collected for this research, most companies seem to rely on
the expertise of design specialists. The more time and money companies are willing to
invest into the design of workplaces, the more likely they are to actively consider the
impact of aesthetic choices on employees. Most organizations want to increase
satisfaction and well-being of occupants through aesthetic considerations. Some
organizations also try to communicate a corporate culture and identity through the style
and the accessories or decorations selected. In some cases, such as creative
workspaces, the aesthetic choices are also used to encourage certain behaviors through
legibility of the aesthetics, or support creativity more directly. Additionally, companies also
typically consider other stakeholders, like customers, when making aesthetic choices,
which have not been considered in this work.

d) What are the experiences of employers/practitioners in using aesthetic design

considerations in the creation of workplaces?

The literature and research on this topic provide a wide range of results, typically
highlighting the necessity for a holistic approach to workplace design and corporate
culture and the need for good change management to reap the benefits of aesthetic
design considerations. The primary data collected did not allow for in-depth insights in
regard to this research question.

5.1 Practical Implications

The need for individual workplace solutions to meet unique organizational needs and
requirements are highlighted by both theorists and practitioners. This means that a thorough
analysis and careful and considerate design process should always be the foundation for any
aesthetical considerations. Beyond the consultation of specialists and the provision of sufficient
time and resources for the process, there seem to be some concepts that are universally
beneficial in today’s workplaces.

59
Implementing a high measure of flexibility in the design of workplaces makes a lot of sense, both
because changing tasks require new spatial configurations, but also because aesthetic trends
evolve and a constantly changing workforce always requires adaptation of the work environment,
both in functional but also aesthetic terms. Therefore, modular furniture, adjustable and
reconfigurable architectural elements are all great tools to keep the workplace flexible and useful
for an extended time. This also allows individuals and teams to go through adjustment processes
that allow them to arrive at a custom workplace that suits their specific needs. The provision of a
standardized work environment might have never been ideal but is less and less suitable for
today’s business challenges.

Besides that, human-centric design can really enhance well-being and satisfaction. This includes
providing different workstations and environments that offer different functionalities and
aesthetics, allowing people to choose based on their needs and wants. This focus also includes
the consideration of privacy as a significant contributor to the well-being of people. Including
biophilia in the work environment and providing a budget for aesthetic enhancements of the
workplace can also greatly contribute to the satisfaction of organizational members. Overall, the
design should be conscious and careful, also paying attention to the aesthetic quality of the office.
If possible, the application of data-driven solutions can additionally improve the design process
and help continually improve the office environment post-occupancy.

Finally, the process of design should involve the future or present occupants. Participation in the
design, configuration and decoration of the work environment greatly supports satisfaction.
Considering occupants’ opinions makes them feel valued and seen. This also includes a proactive
change management, making sure people know why and how things are changing and how to be
successful in a new environment.

Managers should not allow the ambiguity of many aspects of workplace design to result in a form
of resignation and felt powerlessness that might hinder them and their organizations’ from
regularly engaging with the topic of workspace design. A continuous effort is needed and a
willingness to reevaluate and adapt current solutions to create a better workplace. Paralysis in
sight of this challenging task is not the right reaction. Only through engagement with
organizational members and a genuine desire to create a place that serves every occupant and
the organization alike, will there be solutions that actually empower people through the aesthetic
and the functional aspects of design, and make the workplace a better place.

60
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should focus on in-depth analysis of aesthetic changes in the workplace and
further evaluate occupants’ attitudes and feelings regarding these measures and how they
influence the overall satisfaction with the work environment. As neuroscience progresses, new
ways of evaluating and understanding the physical environment may open new chances for more
human-centric design.

The implementation of sensors in buildings and the collection of data for workplace analytics
might also give new foundations for aesthetic decisions based on user patterns and preferences.
The availability of data on more levels might also allow for better evaluations of the ROI of
investments in the physical work environment.

As the internet, social media and other societal and technological trends continue to shape society
and the workplace, further discussion around aesthetic perception and expectations, and the
concepts of beauty in regard to the physical environment is needed. This includes the increasingly
visual nature of media and the creation of fads and trends.

61
References

aesthetic | Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2019, from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aesthetic
Al horr, Y., Arif, M., Katafygiotou, M., Mazroei, A., Kaushik, A., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Impact of
indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 1–11.
Al Horr, Y., Arif, M., Kaushik, A., Mazroei, A., Katafygiotou, M., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Occupant
productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building and
Environment.
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford university press.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
Allen, T., Bell, A., Graham, R., Hardy, B., & Swaffer, F. (2004). Working without walls - An insight
into the transforming government workplace. London: Office of Government Commerce.
Altman, I. (1977). Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific? Journal of Social
Issues, 33(3), 66–84.
Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential Theory of Creativity. Retrieved from
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/componential-theory-of-creativity
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the Work Environment for Creativity During
Downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work
Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Anderson, C., Bailey, C., Heumann, A., & Davis, D. (2018). Augmented space planning: Using
procedural generation to automate desk layouts. International Journal of Architectural
Computing, 16(2), 164–177.
Appel‐Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I. (2011). An end‐user’s perspective on activity‐
based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), 122–135.
Augustin, S., Frankel, N., & Coleman, C. (2009). Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior
Architecture. Wiley.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.
Psychological Bulletin, 80(4), 286–303.
Bailey, C., Phelan, N., Cosgrove, A., & Davis, D. (2018). This Room Is Too Dark and the Shape
Is Too Long: Quantifying Architectural Design to Predict Successful Spaces. In Humanizing
Digital Reality (pp. 337–348). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Balazova, I., Clausen, G., Rindel, J. H., Poulsen, T., & Wyon, D. P. (2008). Open-plan office
environments: A laboratory experiment to examine the effect of office noise and temperature
on human perception, comfort and office work performance. In Proceedings of Indoor Air,

62
 2008.
Banaei, M., Hatami, J., Yazdanfar, A., & Gramann, K. (2017). Walking through Architectural
Spaces: The Impact of Interior Forms on Human Brain Dynamics. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 11, 477.
Banbury, S. P., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying
causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48(1), 25–37.
Bandura, A. (2010, January 30). Self-Efficacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala
activation. Neuropsychologia, 45(10), 2191–2200.
Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing More and Seeing Differently: Sensemaking, Mindfulness,
and the Workarts. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1505–1530.
beauty | Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2019, from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beauty
Becker, F. D., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance
workscape. Workplace by Design: Mapping the High-Performance Workscape. San
Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, F., & Sims, W. (2001). Offices That Work Balancing Communication, Flexibility and Cost.
Retrieved from http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu
Belk, R., Yong Seo, J., & Li, E. (2007). Dirty Little Secret: Home Chaos and Professional
Organizers. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(2), 133–140.
Bergmann Tiest, W. M., & Kappers, A. M. L. (2006). Analysis of haptic perception of materials by
multidimensional scaling and physical measurements of roughness and compressibility.
Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 1–20.
Bjerke, R., & Ind, N. (2015). The influence of aesthetic investments on employees. EuroMed
Journal of Business, 10(2), 214–233.
Bjerke, R., Ind, N., & De Paoli, D. (2007). The impact of aesthetics on employee satisfaction and
motivation. EuroMed Journal of Business, 2(1), 57–73.
Bodin Danielsson, C. (2010). The Office - An Explorative Study : Architectural Design’s Impact on
Health, Job Satisfaction & Well-being. Trita-ARK. Akademisk avhandling NV - 10:02. KTH,
Architecture, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), KTH.
Bodin Danielsson, C. (2015). Aesthetics Versus Function in Office Architecture : Employees’
Perception of the Workplace. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 27(2), 11–40.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Interviews mit Experten. Eine praxisorientierte
Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Boyce, P. R. (2014). Human Factors in Lighting. CRC Press.
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditional versus Open Office Design: A
Longitudinal Field Study. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279–299.
Brill, M., Weidemann, S., Allard, L., Olson, J., & Keable, E. B. (2001). Disproving Widespread
Myths about Workplace Design. Kimball International.

63
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in Organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 30(3), 577–594.
Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S. B., & Liotti, M. (2011). Naturalizing aesthetics: Brain
areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. NeuroImage, 58(1), 250–258.
Butler, D. L., & Biner, P. M. (1989). Effects of Setting on Window Preferences and Factors
Associated with Those Preferences. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 17–31.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Quiet: The power
of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New York, NY, US: Crown
Publishers/Random House.
Carlsen, A., Clegg, S., & Gjersvik, R. (2012). Idea work.
Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. L., & Earley, P. C. (2001). The international handbook of organizational
culture and climate. London: Blackwell Publishers.
Cena, K., & de Dear, R. (2001). Thermal comfort and behavioural strategies in office buildings
located in a hot-arid climate. Journal of Thermal Biology, 26(4–5), 409–414.
Chae, B., & Zhu, R. (2013). Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(6), 1203–1218.
Chae, B., & Zhu, R. (2015). Why a Messy Workspace Undermines Your Persistence. Harvard
Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5.
Chan, J. K., Beckman, S. L., & Lawrence, P. G. (2007). Workplace Design: A New Managerial
Imperative. California Management Review, 49(2), 6–22.
Chang, C.-Y., & Chen, P.-K. (2005). Human Response to Window Views and Indoor Plants in the
Workplace. HortScience HortSci, 40(5), 1354–1359.
Chevez, A., & Huppatz, D. (2017, August 14). A short history of the office. Retrieved June 5, 2019,
from https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-the-office-82000
Choo, H., Nasar, J. L., Nikrahei, B., & Walther, D. B. (2017). Neural codes of seeing architectural
styles. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 40201.
Coburn, A., Kardan, O., Kotabe, H., Steinberg, J., Hout, M. C., Robbins, A., … Berman, M. G.
(2019). Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 62, 133–145.
Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2010). All together, altogether better’: The ideal of ‘community’ in the
spatial reorganization of the workplace. Organizational Spaces: Rematerializing the
Workaday World, 19–40.
Dance, A. (2017). Science and Culture: The brain within buildings. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(5), 785–787.
Danielsson, C. B. (2009). Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in
different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), 241–257.
Davis, D. (2016). Evaluating Buildings with Computation and Machine Learning. In ACADIA //
2016: POSTHUMAN FRONTIERS: Data, Designers, and Cognitive Machines [Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture

64
 (ACADIA). Ann Arbor. Retrieved from
http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/acadia16_116.pdf
Davis, T. R. V. (1984). The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices. Academy of
Management Review, 9(2), 271–283.
de Chernatony, L. (2001). A model for strategically building brands. Journal of Brand
Management, 9(1), 32–44.
De Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The effect of office concepts
on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48(2),
119–134.
De Paoli, D., Arge, K., & Hunnes Blakstad, S. (2013). Creating business value with open space
flexible offices. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(3/4), 181–193.
De Paoli, D., & Ropo, A. (2017). Creative workspaces – a fad or making real impact? Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 19(3), 157–167.
De Paoli, D., Sauer, E., & Ropo, A. (2017). The spatial context of organizations: A critique of
‘creative workspaces.’ Journal of Management & Organization, 1–22.
Deutsch, R. (2015). Data-driven design and construction: 25 strategies for capturing, analyzing
and applying building data. John Wiley & Sons.
Diaper, G. (1990). The Hawthorne Effect: a fresh examination. Educational Studies, 16(3), 261–
267.
Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration.
John Wiley & Sons.
Duffy, F., Jaunzens, D., Laing, A., & Willis, S. (2003). New Environments for Working. Taylor &
Francis.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers’ creativity and the role of the
physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
Elliot, A. J. (2015). Color and psychological functioning: a review of theoretical and empirical work.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 368.
Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007). Color and
psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 154–168.
Ellison Schriefer, A. (2005). Workplace strategy: What it is and why you should care. Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 7(3), 222–233.
Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office décor. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 99–128.
Elzeyadi, I. M. K. (2011). Daylighting-Bias and Biophilia: Quantifying the Impact of Daylighting on
Occupants Health. US Green Building Council.
Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4),
536–555.
Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their

65
 relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,
25(1), 537–566.
Fisk, W., & Seppanen, O. (2007). Providing better indoor environmental quality brings economic
benefits. United States. Retrieved from https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/924794
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research, 4th ed. An introduction to qualitative
research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Frontczak, M., & Wargocki, P. (2011). Literature survey on how different factors influence human
comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment, 46(4), 922–937.
Gagliardi, P. (1999). Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In S. Clegg & C. Hardy
(Eds.), Studying Organization: Theory & Method (pp. 169–184). SAGE PublicationsSage
UK: London, England.
Gagliardi, P. (2017). Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape. Routledge.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology. Gajendran, Ravi S.: Department of Management and
Organization, Pennsylvania State University,
Galasiu, A. D., & Veitch, J. A. (2006). Occupant preferences and satisfaction with the luminous
environment and control systems in daylit offices: a literature review. Energy and Buildings,
38(7), 728–742.
Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., & Friedman, L. N. (1969). Psychic cost of adaptation to an
environmental stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. US: American
Psychological Association.
Gray, T., & Birrell, C. (2014). Are Biophilic-Designed Site Office Buildings Linked to Health
Benefits and High Performing Occupants? International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health.
Green, C. D. (1995). All That Glitters: A Review of Psychological Research on the Aesthetics of
the Golden Section. Perception, 24(8), 937–968.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of
personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 43(1), 29–51.
Guest, S., Dessirier, J. M., Mehrabyan, A., McGlone, F., Essick, G., Gescheider, G., … Blot, K.
(2011). The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch
perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 531–550.
Haans, A., Kaiser, F. G., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2007). Privacy Needs in Office Environments.
European Psychologist, 12(2), 93–102.
Heerwagen, J. (2001). Building biophilia: Connecting people to nature in building design.
Herzberg, F., Snyderman, B. B., & Mausner, B. (1966). The Motivation to Work: 2d Ed. J. Wiley.
History of Office Design. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2019, from
https://k2space.co.uk/knowledge/history-of-office-design/

66
Hoeken, H., & Ruikes, L. (2005). Art for Art’s Sake?: An Exploratory Study of the Possibility to
Align Works of Art With an Organization’s Identity. Journal of Business Communication,
42(3), 233–246.
Inalhan, Goksenin. (2009). Attachments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(1), 17–37.
Inalhan, Göksenin, & Finch, E. (2004). Place attachment and sense of belonging. Facilities,
22(5/6), 120–128.
Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. K. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social
identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Ishizu, T., & Zeki, S. (2011). Toward A Brain-Based Theory of Beauty. PLOS ONE, 6(7), 1–10.
Jacobs, K. W., & Suess, J. F. (1975). Effects of Four Psychological Primary Colors on Anxiety
State. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41(1), 207–210.
Jahncke, H., & Halin, N. (2012). Performance, fatigue and stress in open-plan offices: The effects
of noise and restoration on hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Noise and
Health, 14(60), 260–272.
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic
Architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305–328.
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic
environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study
during relocation. Ergonomics, 52(11), 1423–1444.
Kallio, T. J., Kallio, K.-M., & Blomberg, A. J. (2015). Physical space, culture and organisational
creativity – a longitudinal study. Facilities, 33(5/6), 389–411.
Kamarulzaman, N., Saleh, A. A., Hashim, S. Z., Hashim, H., & Abdul-Ghani, A. A. (2011). An
Overview of the Influence of Physical Office Environments Towards Employee. Procedia
Engineering, 20, 262–268.
Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality, The Journal of
Japanese Society for Quality Control), 14, 39–48.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. The
experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Kawabata, H., & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural Correlates of Beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4),
1699–1705.
Kaya, N., Epps, H. H., & Hall, D. (2004). Relationship Between Color and Emotion: A Study of
College Students. Retrieved from http://irtel.uni-
mannheim.de/lehre/expra/artikel/Kaya_Epps_2004b.pdf
Kellert, S. R. (2012). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection.
Island press.
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2011). Biophilic design: the theory, science and
practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.

67
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2012). Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall
workspace satisfaction. Building and Environment, 49, 33–40.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off
in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic
expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69(2), 306–315.
Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices:
An experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-
being and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Haslam, S. Alexander:
School of Psychology, The University of Exeter.
Kottasz, R., Savani, S., Ali‐Choudhury, R., & Bennett, R. (2008). The role of corporate art in the
management of corporate identity. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
13(3), 235–254.
Küller, R., Mikellides, B., & Janssens, J. (2009). Color, arousal, and performance-A comparison
of three experiments. Color Research & Application, 34(2), 141–152.
Kwallek, N., Woodson, H., Lewis, C. M., & Sales, C. (1997). Impact of three interior color schemes
on worker mood and performance relative to individual environmental sensitivity. Color
Research & Application, 22(2), 121–132.
Kwallek, Nancy, Lewis, C. M., & Robbins, A. S. (1988). Effects of Office Interior Color on Workers’
Mood and Productivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66(1), 123–128.
Lan, L., Wargocki, P., & Lian, Z. (2011). Quantitative measurement of productivity loss due to
thermal discomfort. Energy and Buildings, 43(5), 1057–1062.
Lang, W., Mcclain, A., & Riosvelasco, C. (2010). Color and Visual Comfort. Retrieved from
https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default/disk/urban_ecosystems/urban_ecosystems/09_03_fa_
kwallek_riosvelasco_ml.pdf
Lawson, B. (2007). Language of Space. Routledge.
Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the
work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323–
333.
Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease
distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53(3), 324–335.
Leslie, R. P. (2003). Capturing the daylight dividend in buildings: why and how? Building and
Environment, 38(2), 381–385.
Lohr, S. (2017). Don’t Get Too Comfortable at That Desk. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/business/the-office-gets-remade-again.html
Loyola, M. (2018). Big data in building design: a review. Journal of Information Technology in
Construction (ITcon) (Vol. 23).
Lundström, A., Savolainen, J., & Kostiainen, E. (2016). Case study: developing campus spaces
through co-creation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6), 409–426.

68
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 992–1000.
Magala, S. (2009). The management of meaning in organizations. Springer.
Maher, A., & von Hippel, C. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan
offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 219–229.
Marble, S. (2018). Everything That Can Be Measured Will Be Measured. Technology|Architecture
+ Design, 2(2), 127–129.
Martens, Y. (2011). Creative workplace: instrumental and symbolic support for creativity. Facilities,
29(1/2), 63–79.
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live,
work, and think. Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
McCoy, J. M. (2002). Work environments. In Handbook of environmental psychology. (pp. 443–
460). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
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.
Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. J. (2009). Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task
performances. Science (New York, N.Y.), 323(5918), 1226–1229.
Meinel, M., Maier, L., Wagner, T. F., & Voigt, K.-I. (2017). Designing Creativity-Enhancing
Workspaces: A Critical Look at Empirical Evidence. Journal of Technology and Innovation
Management, 1(1), 1–12.
Mujeebu, M. A. (2019). Indoor Environmental Quality. (M. A. Mujeebu, Ed.). IntechOpen.
Munro, T., & Scruton, R. (2019). Aesthetics. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia
Britannica, inc. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics
Musser, G. (2009). The Origin of Cubicles and the Open-Plan Office - Scientific American.
Retrieved June 5, 2019, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origin-of-
cubicles-an/?redirect=1
Nadal, M., Flexas, A., Gálvez, Á., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2012). Neuroaesthetics: Themes From
the Past, Current Issues, and Challenges for the Future. Rendiconti Lincei, 23(3), 247–258.
Nanda, U., Pati, D., Ghamari, H., & Bajema, R. (2013). Lessons from neuroscience: form follows
function, emotions follow form. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(sup1), 61–78.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban Design Aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401.
O’Neill, M. J. (1994). Work Space Adjustability, Storage, And Enclosure As Predictors Of
Employee Reactions And Performance. Environment and Behavior, 26(4), 504–526.
Okamoto, S., Nagano, H., & Yamada, Y. (2013). Psychophysical Dimensions of Tactile
Perception of Textures. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 6(1), 81–93.
Ou, L.-C., Luo, M. R., Woodcock, A., & Wright, A. (2004). A study of colour emotion and colour
preference. Part II: Colour emotions for two-colour combinations. Color Research &
Application, 29(4), 292–298.

69
Öztürk, E., Yılmazer, S., & Ural, S. E. (2012). The effects of achromatic and chromatic color
schemes on participants’ task performance in and appraisals of an office environment. Color
Research & Application, 37(5), 359–366.
Parsons, H. M. (1974). What Happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne
effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies. Science (New York, N.Y.),
183(4128), 922–932.
Payne, S. R. (2013). The production of a Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale. Applied
Acoustics, 74(2), 255–263.
Pearce, B., & Hinds, P. (2018). How to Make Sure People Won’t Hate Your New Open Office
Plan. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–6.
Pellerin, N., & Candas, V. (2004). Effects of steady-state noise and temperature conditions on
environmental perception and acceptability. Indoor Air, 14(2), 129–136.
Picard, D., Dacremont, C., Valentin, D., & Giboreau, A. (2003). Perceptual dimensions of tactile
textures. Acta Psychologica, 114(2), 165–184.
Quang, T. N., He, C., Knibbs, L. D., de Dear, R., & Morawska, L. (2014). Co-optimisation of indoor
environmental quality and energy consumption within urban office buildings. Energy and
Buildings, 85, 225–234.
Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Emotion as a Connection of Physical Artifacts and
Organizations. Organization Science, 15(6), 671–686.
Robinson, S., & Pallasmaa, J. (2015). Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the
future of design. MIT Press.
Roe, J. J., Aspinall, P. A., Mavros, P., & Coyne, R. (2013). Engaging the Brain: The Impact of
Natural versus Urban Scenes Using Novel EEG Methods in an Experimental Setting.
Environmental Sciences, 1(2), 93–104.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A
two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1),
5–37.
Ruggles, D. H. (2018). Beauty, Neuroscience, and Architecture: Timeless Patterns and Their
Impact on Our Well-Being. Fibonacci, LLC.
Saito, M. (1996). Comparative studies on color preference in Japan and other Asian regions, with
special emphasis on the preference for white. Color Research & Application, 21(1), 35–49.
Salingaros, N. A. (1998). A Scientific Basis for Creating Architectural Forms. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research. Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.
Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. J. (1998). The effects of work control and job demands on employee
adjustment and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
71(3), 219–236.
Sartwell, C. (2007). Beauty. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 200). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/beauty/

70
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schell, E., Theorell, T., & Saraste, H. (2011). Workplace aesthetics: Impact of environments upon
employee health? Work, 39(3), 203–213.
Schell, E., Theorell, T., & Saraste, H. (2012). Workplace aesthetics: impact of environments upon
employee health as compared to ergonomics. Work, 41, 1430–1440.
Sennett, R. (1999). The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new
capitalism. 1998. New York: Norton.
Seppänen, O. A., & Fisk, W. (2006). Some Quantitative Relations between Indoor Environmental
Quality and Work Performance or Health. HVAC&R Research, 12(4), 957–
Shelley, J. (2007). The Concept of the Aesthetic. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 200). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/aesthetic-concept/
Shin, Y.-B., Woo, S.-H., Kim, D.-H., Kim, J., Kim, J.-J., & Park, J. Y. (2015). The effect on emotions
and brain activity by the direct/indirect lighting in the residential environment. Neuroscience
Letters, 584, 28–32.
Skogland, M. A. C., & Hansen, G. K. (2017). Change your space, change your culture: exploring
spatial change management strategies. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(2), 95–110.
Spector, N. (2017). Why Are Big Companies Calling Their Remote Workers Back to the Office?
Retrieved June 5, 2019, from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/why-are-
big-companies-calling-their-remote-workers-back-office-n787101
Stansfeld, S. A., & Matheson, M. P. (2003). Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British
Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 243–257.
Steelcase Inc. (n.d.). The Privacy Crisis - Multi Tasking & Employee Privacy - Steelcase.
Retrieved June 18, 2019, from https://www.steelcase.com/research/articles/privacy-crisis/
Strati, A. (1999). Organization and Aesthetics. Sage.
Sundstrom, E, & Sundstrom, M. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment
in offices and factories. Cambridge University Press.
Sundstrom, Eric, Burt, R. E., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job
Satisfaction and Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 101–117.
Sundstrom, Eric, Herbert, R. K., & Brown, D. W. (1982). Privacy and Communication in an Open-
Plan Office: A Case Study. Environment and Behavior, 14(3), 379–392.
Sussman, A., & Hollander, J. (2014). Cognitive architecture: designing for how we respond to the
built environment. Routledge.
Taylor, S. S., Hansen, H., & Hansen, H. (2017). Finding Form: Looking at the Field of
Organizational Aesthetics. In The Aesthetic Turn in Management (pp. 17–37). Routledge.
Thoring, K., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2018). Creative environments for design education
and practice: A typology of creative spaces. Design Studies, 56, 54–83.
Thoring, K., Mueller, R. M., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2018). Design principles for creative
spaces. Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN.

71
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. The cultures of work
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Turrin, M., Davis, D., & Anderson, C. (2017). Evaluating architectural layouts with neural networks.
In Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design (p. 304).
Society for Computer Simulation International.
Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of Color on Emotions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General (Vol. 123).
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., … Skov,
M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived
enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 41, 10–18.
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., … Skov, M.
(2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in
architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Supplement 2), 10446
LP – 10453.
Vecchiato, G., Tieri, G., Jelic, A., De Matteis, F., Maglione, A. G., & Babiloni, F. (2015).
Electroencephalographic Correlates of Sensorimotor Integration and Embodiment during
the Appreciation of Virtual Architectural Environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1944.
Veitch, J. A., & Gifford, R. (1996). Choice, Perceived Control, and Performance Decrements in
the Physical Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 269–276.
Vignoli, M., Mattarelli, E., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2018). Experimenting with innovation in creative
spaces. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 2(1), 1–2.
Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Yaacov, C. S. (2005). Instrumentality, Aesthetics, and Symbolism
of Office Design. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 533–551.
Vohs, K. D., Redden, J. P., & Rahinel, R. (2013). Physical Order Produces Healthy Choices,
Generosity, and Conventionality, Whereas Disorder Produces Creativity. Psychological
Science, 24(9), 1860–1867.
Waber, B., Magnolfi, J., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Workspaces That Move People. (cover story).
Harvard Business Review, 92(10), 68–77.
Warren, S., & Fineman, S. (2013). ‘Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun here, but …: ambivalence and
paradox in a ‘fun’ work environment. In Humour, Work and Organization (pp. 98–118).
Routledge.
Wells, M. (2000). Office Clutter or Meaningful Personal Displays: The Role of Office
Personalization in Employee and Organizational Well-Being. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 20(3), 239–255.
Wells, M., & Thelen, L. (2002). What Does Your Workspace Say about You?: The Influence of
Personality, Status, and Workspace on Personalization. Environment and Behavior, 34(3),
300–321.
Wells, M., Thelen, L., & Ruark, J. (2007). Workspace Personalization and Organizational Culture:

72
 Does Your Workspace Reflect You or Your Company? Environment and Behavior, 39(5),
616–634.
Williams, J. (2017). A Brief History of the Workplace of the Future. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from
https://workdesign.com/2017/01/brief-history-workplace-future/
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.
Zhang, Y., & Barrett, P. (2012). Factors influencing occupants’ blind-control behaviour in a
naturally ventilated office building. Building and Environment, 54, 137–147.

73
Appendix A: Overview of Experts

Interview Name Company Position

1 Carsten Lemberger Vitra International AG Workplace Development and
Consulting
2 Pascal Hien Steelcase AG Industrial Designer
3 Lisa Glassner Steelcase AG VP Regional Sales DACH
4 Birgit Fuchs Steelcase AG Sales Consultant Design
Portfolio

74
Appendix B: Interview Guide

Einleitung

- Dank für Bereitschaft zum Interview

- Zeitrahmen erfragen – Zur Planung der Interviewfragen
- Einverständnis zur Audioaufnahme einholen
- Hinweise zu Anonymität und Datenschutz

- Vorstellung des Themas:

Englischer Titel „The influence of environmental aesthetics in the workplace – How architecture,
design and other aesthetic elements of the physical office environment relate to
the employee experience”.

Eine Isolation der Ästhetik von funktionalen Aspekten ist nur bedingt möglich, jedoch geht es
speziell um diese Dimension der Arbeitsumgebung. Gerade wie eine bestimmte Ästhetik zur
Kommunikation, speziell an die Mitarbeiter, genutzt werden soll ist von Interesse.

Interview

Informationen zum Befragten und zur Firma

I.
1. Person
Name, Firma, Position, Erfahrung, Ausbildung / Studium / Fachlicher Hintergrund,
Tätigkeitsbereich

2. Firma
Angebotsumfang, Angebotene Dienstleistung, Welche Prozessschritte werden
begleitet

II. Universelle Ästhetik

Das (allgemein-gültige) Schaffen von Wohlbefinden bzw. guten Arbeitsbedingungen

durch die Optimierung von Umgebungsfaktoren (Biophiles Design, Tageslicht, etc. )

1. Vergangenheit / Bestand
a) Was sind übliche Probleme in Bestandsbüros, die Sie antreffen?
b) Gab es Trends in der Vergangenheit die jetzt rückgängig gemacht
werden?

2. Aktuelle Trends / Neugestaltung

a) Was sind die wichtigsten Elemente in der Arbeitsumgebung um das
Wohlbefinden von Mitarbeitern zu erhöhen?
b) Welche Trends gibt es zur Zeit? Was wird häufig gemacht?
c) Woher kommen die Trends? Werden Forschungserkenntnisse genutzt?

75
III. Spezifische Ästhetik

Das individuelle Gestalten/Anpassen der Arbeitsumgebung basierend auf

Anforderungen/Zielen des Kunden oder bestimmte Organisationsziele (z.B.
Kreativität, Kulturwandel, Markenbotschaft, Wertschätzung der Mitarbeiter, etc.)

1. Grad der Individualisierung (Wie spezifisch?)

a) Wie spezifisch sind die Kundenwünsche i.d.R.?
b) Welches Level der Individualisierung empfehlt ihr den Kunden?

2. Trend / Zeitgeist (Effekte)?

a) Welche Trends gibt es zur Zeit? Was wird häufig gemacht?
b) Woher kommen die Trends? Werden Forschungserkenntnisse genutzt?

3. Einfluss der Maßnahmen

a) Kann eine veränderte Arbeitsumgebung die Kultur verändern?
b) Welcher Stellenwert hat die Arbeitsumgebung in einem
Veränderungsprozess?

IV. Prozess & Erfahrungen

1. Prozess - Wie gestaltet sich die Konzept-Entwicklung mit dem

Kunden? (Workshops, Einbeziehung der Mitarbeiter, …)
a) Welche Erwartungen und Annahmen haben Kunden häufig bezüglich der
Gestaltung der Arbeitsumgebung? Welche Ziele verfolgen Kunden bzw.
welche Effekte hoffen diese durch eine Umgestaltung zu erreichen?
b) Wer trägt die Verantwortung auf Unternehmensseite?
c) Werden Mitarbeiter im Prozess miteinbezogen? Sind die Auswirkungen
auf Mitarbeiter im Fokus der Planung? Wie wichtig oder bewusst ist dem
Unternehmen diese Maßnahme?
d) Wie werden die Parameter und Anforderungen bestimmt/erhoben auf
denen die Planung beruht?
e) Wie lange dauert der Umgestaltungsprozess? Wie häufig gestalten
Unternehmen um?

2. Maßnahmen - Durch welche ästhetischen Maßnahmen werden diese Ziele

erreicht? (Architektonische Elemente, Wohnzimmer-Feeling, flexible Möbel,
Materialien, Symbole, …)
a) Flexibilität / Anpassbarkeit
b) Sind gesetzliche Grenzen dabei ein Problem? Budget des Kunden ein
Problem?

3. Erfahrungen – Welche Erfolge bzw. auch Misserfolge gibt es?

a) Welche Maßnahmen ergreifen Unternehmen um die Umgestaltung zu
unterstützen? (Change Management)
b) Wie reagieren Mitarbeiter auf die Veränderungen? Placebo-Effekt?
Abnutzung?
c) Welche Effekte haben die Unternehmen erzielt? Kurzfristig/Langfristig?
Messbar?

76
Appendix C: Transcribed Interviews

1. Interview mit Carsten Lemberger (Vitra)

Interviewer:
Wo liegt denn dein fachlicher Hintergrund?

Carsten Lemberger:
Ich komme ursprünglich aus dem Vertrieb, immer im Möbelbereich, aber bin jetzt seit zweieinhalb
Jahren bei Vitra in der Architekten Beratung und Betreuung tätig und seit drei Monaten im Bereich
Workplace Development tätig. Dabei geht es im Grunde genommen darum, dass wenn ein Kunde
mehr als nur ein Tisch Stuhl oder Schrank braucht, sondern sich auch damit beschäftigt wie denn
der Arbeitsraum aussehen soll, oder wie er in Zukunft arbeiten will. In diesem Bereich bin ich jetzt
tätig und kenne die Prozesse, die wir machen ganz gut und falls ich die ein oder andere Sache
nicht genau beantworten kann, könnte ich das dann aber noch klären.

Interviewer:
Bevor wir zum Thema des Prozesses kommen, möchte ich zunächst einmal über das Thema
universelle Ästhetik sprechen. Was macht einen guten Arbeitsplatz aus, gibt es da Grundsätze,
nach denen ihr euch richtet?

Carsten Lemberger:
Wir gehen da ein bisschen anders vor. Im Grunde genommen hast du was das betrifft die
Arbeitsstättenverordnung, die im Grunde genommen alles regelt was wichtig ist. Also die Themen
Akustik, Licht und Arbeitsplatzgröße etc. Wir sind Verfechter vom Open-Space, dabei reden wir
von eine offene Bürolandschaft, in der viele Bereiche abgedeckt werden. Wir sind ein Fan davon,
wenn sich die Bürolandschaft an den Prozessen des Unternehmens orientiert. Damit komme ich
jetzt auch schnell zu dem Prozess. Wir schauen uns im Grunde an, wie die Arbeitsprozesse im
Unternehmen sind, auf einer Metaplanwand und wie kann ich diese dann in den Raum
übersetzen. Wenn der Mitarbeiter dann eine Erleichterung in seiner Arbeitsweise hat, dann fühlt
er sich automatisch schon wohler. Er muss zum Beispiel keine langen Wege gehen, er hat direkt
wichtige Ansprechpartner in Sichtweite und wir sind auch ein Freund davon - ich persönlich
genieße das auch sehr wenn ich in Weil am Rhein bin; viele verschiedene
Arbeitsplatzmöglichkeiten innerhalb der Bürofläche zu haben - Da reden wir nicht mehr über die
klassischen festen Arbeitsplätze, wo ich dann 8 Stunden am Tag sitze und alle
Arbeitsplatz-.Richtlinien einhalten muss, sondern wo ich eventuell Rückzugsmöglichkeiten habe,
wo ich mich hinsetzen kann und nur durch die Wahl des Platzes Mitarbeitern und Kollegen
signalisiere, ich brauche jetzt eine Stunde Ruhe, auch wenn der Platz nicht die

77
Arbeitsstättenrichtlinie einhält. Und das sind im Grunde genommen die Zielsetzungen, viele
Arbeitsplätze zur Verfügung zu stellen, abgesehen vom normalen Arbeitsplatz. Gleichzeitig kann
man es nicht pauschalisieren, also muss man sich pro Unternehmen und pro Abteilung
verschiedene Bereiche anschauen das eine ist sicherlich die Organisation als solche, also wie
sind die Prozesse und wie ist die Kultur des Unternehmens. Es gibt Kollegen bei uns, denen
kannst du mit Activity-Based Working den Buckel runterrutschen Die brauchen einen festen
Rechner, die brauchen dauerhaft ein festes Telefon und für die macht es überhaupt keinen Sinn
den Arbeitsplatz zu wechseln. Es gibt wiederum andere Kollegen, die haben ein sehr hohes
Mobilitätspotenzial und da macht es total viel Sinn. Also weg von der Pauschalisierung hin zu der
genauen Analyse der Arbeitsweisen und das nicht nur pro Unternehmen sondern auch pro
Abteilung.

Interviewer:
Als Nächstes würde ich dich gerne bezüglich der alten Arbeitsumgebungen befragen, welche ihr
bei den Kunden antrefft. Welche Trends gab es in der Vergangenheit oder welche Situationen
findet ihr jetzt vor, bei denen ihr vielleicht denkt: Das ist jetzt suboptimal?

Carsten Lemberger:
Im Grunde genommen gibt es bei 80 % der deutschen Unternehmen den klassischen Mittelgang
und rechts und links die Mitarbeiter Schließfächer, also Einzelbüros, Doppelbüros oder
Viererbüros. Das sind so 80 % der vorhandenen Fläche derzeit.

Interviewer:
Aus diesem Kontext kommen ja jetzt auch die meisten Mitarbeiter in Deutschland. Jetzt sind
Menschen natürlich ein hohes Maß an Privatsphäre gewohnt und gerade in Deutschland
schätzen das die Menschen ja häufig auch. Wie geht ihr jetzt damit um, dass auch in neuen Büro
Umgebungen natürlich solche Rückzugsorte oder die Möglichkeit zur Privatsphäre benötigt
werden? Also wie geht ihr mit dem Mitarbeiter-Bedürfnis um, nicht dauerhaft der subjektiven
Überwachung anderer ausgesetzt zu sein?

Carsten Lemberger:
Also wenn wir in so ein Prozess starten, dann beginnen wir damit, dass die Leute erst mal zu uns
nach, Weil am Rhein fahren und wir denen unser Büro zeigen. Wir haben bei uns auf dem
Campus vier unterschiedliche Büros, die alle geprägt sind von offenen Bürolandschaften, die
neben festen Arbeitsplätzen auch eine Vielzahl an anderen Arbeitsmöglichkeiten anbieten. In so
einen Prozess einzusteigen macht dann Sinn, wenn die Leute erst einmal grundsätzlich davon
begeistert sind was sie bei uns sehen. Ansonsten, wenn die bei uns reinkommen und sich auf
der Hacke schon wieder umdrehen und sagen „das ist nicht unsere Welt“, dann können wir sehr
gerne Möbel liefern, weil wir natürlich auch ein Möbelhersteller sind, aber dann macht der Einstieg

78
in den Prozess nicht so viel Sinn und da gibt es dann vielleicht auch andere Anbieter, die da
besser sind.
Wenn man so viele unterschiedliche Arbeitsplätze und so eine Vielfalt auf so einer Fläche haben
möchte, dann hat das auch einen gewissen Preis und der Preis ist dann das Einzelbüro oder das
Doppelbüro - wobei das Doppelbüro akustisch gesehen eigentlich das schlimmste ist was es gibt,
weil ich der Stimme gegenüber nicht ausweichen kann - aber auf das Einzelbüro muss ich dann
verzichten. Oder ich muss darauf verzichten für immer einen festen Arbeitsplatz zu haben, weil
es zum Beispiel Richtung Desk-Sharing geht. Vermitteln kann man es dann gut, wenn es
entweder von den Arbeitsplatzmöglichkeiten Spaß macht und das die Leute sehen, oder der
zweite Punkt ist, vom Arbeitsprozess her absolut Sinn macht, weil ich nicht mehr mein Büro
verlassen muss und drei Büros weiterlaufen muss um den nächsten Mitarbeiter zu sprechen,
sondern die Leute mit denen ich wirklich in einem engen Abstimmungsprozess bin in Sichtweite
sind. Und wenn ich merke, dass mein Arbeitsprozess dadurch erleichtert wird, das sind die
Faktoren, wo dann der Nutzer wirklich erkennt, es macht total Sinn, dass ich dafür auf mein
Einzelbüro verzichte, oder mein 2x2m Eck Schreibtisch, die man früher nach brauchte und heute
aber gar nicht mehr braucht. Aber man muss natürlich irgendeinen Mehrwert bieten, damit der
Mitarbeiter auch darauf zu verzichten bereit ist.

Interviewer:
Nun gibt es ja verschiedene Möglichkeiten so eine neue Bürolandschaft umzusetzen. Ich habe
mich im Vorfeld natürlich auch noch mal bei euch auf der Website über die bestehenden Projekte
und Produkte informiert und dabei ist mir ein spezielles Produkt aufgefallen: Ihr habt ja diese
Serie „Hack“, welche durch ihre Ästhetik mit OSB-Platten eine „Ästhetik des Unfertigen“ und der
Flexibilität vermittelt. Welche Bedeutung hat die Ästhetik dabei diese Zielsetzung der Flexibilität
auch noch mal zu unterstreichen?

Carsten Lemberger:
Also das Möbel ist nachher eigentlich nur noch die logische Konsequenz. Wenn wir jetzt über den
Prozess sprechen und ein Kunde zu uns kommt und sagt: hey das Büro finde ich super, das will
ich genauso haben, dann ist unsere erste Aussage: Das hier ist das Vitra-Büro, das gibt es nicht,
sondern lass uns deine Prozesse anschauen und zwar die Prozesse anschauen, unabhängig
vom Möbel, und sehen wie sind die Arbeitsprozesse und diese vielleicht auch auf einer
Metaplanwand abbilden und dann zu schauen, wie bekomme ich diese Prozesse abgebildet in
den Raum hinein. Also, dass ich dann eine wirklich individuelle Lösung für den Kunden finde.
Und zum Beispiel beim Büro ist es ganz wichtig raus zu finden, dient die große Fläche der
Kommunikation und muss ich mich für Ruhe zurückziehen oder ist es genau das Gegenteil, die
große Fläche dient eigentlich der konzentrierten Arbeit und ich muss mich für Kommunikation
zurückziehen. Das sind Fragestellungen der Arbeitsweisen in der Abteilung und des Büros. Und
bei dem Produkt „Hack“ ist es so, dass wir es auch schon einmal in einem anderen Material

79
gemacht haben und das sieht einfach langweilig aus. Es ist ein Produkt was polarisiert, total, vor
allem mit den OSB-Platten, aber es lebt wirklich davon, dass es sich weiterentwickelt, es lebt
davon, dass du etwas ran pinnst, dranschreibst oder drannagelst und man merkt, dass das
Produkt davon lebt.

Interviewer:
In Bezug auf die Neugestaltung der Arbeitswelt geht es ja häufig auch darum, dass ein
Unternehmen seine Kultur ändern möchte. Die Arbeitsumgebung ist ja auch immer ein Ausdruck
der Unternehmenskultur. Hierbei ist häufig das Ziel dynamischer und flexibler zu werden. Welcher
Stellenwert hat so eine Arbeitsumgebung oder wie groß ist der Einfluss von so einer
Arbeitsumgebung, um diese Kulturwandel zu erreichen, beziehungsweise diese Veränderung zu
erreichen?

Carsten Lemberger:
Wenn man in dem Unternehmen eine wirkliche Veränderung erreichen möchte, also wir hören
die Begriffe wir möchten Kommunikation steigern, wir wollen informelle Meetings, wir wollen
flexibler und dynamischer werden, das sind Schlagworte die immer fallen, Wenn man Fläche
verändern will oder einen Neubau oder Umbau macht, und dabei muss man aber hinterfragen,
was steckt wirklich dahinter, denn dann stellt sich heraus dass sie so dynamisch eigentlich gar
nicht werden wollen und so viel flexibler wollen sie auch nicht werden und eigentlich möchten Sie
nur eine Verdichtung auf der Fläche haben und deswegen das Schering einführen. Also muss
man wirklich fragen was da dahinter steckt, wenn dabei ein Unternehmen getrieben ist und einen
wirklichen Schmerz hat und sagt etwas muss sich verändern und eine Veränderung herbeiführen
will weil man neue Leute braucht und man sich mit neuen Themen beschäftigen muss und im
Bereich Innovation wirklich wieder etwas erreichen muss. Oder wenn man in die
Automobilbranche schaut dann sieht man dass ich Mercedes nicht mehr nur mit dem klassischen
Auto beschäftigt, wo die bisherigen Mitarbeiter unterwegs sind, sondern beschäftigt sich auch mit
dem Transportwesen generell als wie werden Pakete zugestellt und das wird in zehn oder 20
Jahren wahrscheinlich nicht mehr nur der Sprinter sein, sondern es wird auf eine andere Art und
Weise erfolgen. Und dafür brauche ich sicherlich andere Person als Mitarbeiter als die, die ich
heute habe. Wenn ich also eine Veränderung haben möchte, dann ist es natürlich gut, wenn man
das gleichzeitig mit einer räumlichen Veränderung macht. Wenn ich am alten Arbeitsplatz sitzen
und so ein Change kommt, dann ducke ich mich und warte bis der Change vorbei ist und dann
tauche ich wieder auf. Das ist, wie ich mich nicht wirklich verändere und das zweite ist eine
räumliche Veränderung zu machen, ohne die Mitarbeiter mitzunehmen, ohne den tatsächlichen
Change in den Prozessen und dann werden die neuen Konzepte gerne torpediert. Dann kann die
Fläche in der Theorie noch so gut sein, wenn sie nicht gelebt wird, dann wird sie nicht
funktionieren. Aber das wirklich zu kombinieren und gemeinsam mit einem Change-Berater die
Mitarbeiter im Vorfeld und auch im Nachgang mitzunehmen, ist absolut sinnvoll.

80
Interviewer:
Gerade wie eben erwähnt gibt es bei großen Konzernen natürlich auch wieder eine gewisse
Einheitlichkeit aufgrund des Corporate Designs bei der Gestaltung neuer Arbeitsumgebungen.
Jetzt gibt es sicherlich unterschiedliche Unternehmen, bei den einen wird von oben herab
entschieden wie die Umgestaltung der Arbeitsumgebung zu geschehen hat, aber vielleicht gibt
es ja auch Unternehmen, die ihre Mitarbeiter mit hinein nehmen in den Veränderungsprozess.
Habt ihr dort bei euren Kunden auch Beispiele dafür?

Carsten Lemberger:
Das ist natürlich ganz klar unser Favorit, wenn wir in diesem Prozess starten, dort auch die
Mitarbeiter mitzunehmen. Dann gibt es Leitplanken, die werden von oben entschieden, einerseits
harte Leitplanken, die auch nicht zu widerrufen sind, wie zum Beispiel hat ein Abteilungsleiter
einen Anspruch auf ein Einzelbüro, ja oder nein. Und dann gibt es eine klare Entscheidung und
dann gibt’s aber auch einen Freiheitsgrad, wo die Mitarbeiter auch entscheiden dürfen und wo
dann auch in der Abteilung eine tolle Dynamik entsteht, wenn die dann in solchen Nutzer
Workshops sind und dann entschieden wird, dass man sich allgemeine Teile teilen kann, zum
Beispiel Besprechungsräume oder die Küche oder Aufenthaltsräume, um einfach Platz für
alternative Geschichten zu schaffen.

Interviewer:
Und wie kommt das denn bei dir mit Arbeiten an? Beziehungsweise, wie groß sind die
Unterschiede, wenn ein Unternehmen seine Mitarbeiter beteiligt oder auch nicht beteiligt?

Carsten Lemberger:
Die Akzeptanz ist natürlich viel höher, wenn man es mit den Mitarbeitern gemeinsam macht. Ganz
klar.

Interviewer:
Jetzt vielleicht noch einmal zum Prozess. Jetzt haben wir gerade schon ein paar von den Schritten
angerissen, also es werden Leitplanken definiert und idealerweise werden die Mitarbeiter
mitgenommen, man schaut sich die Prozesse im Unternehmen an, man schaut was will das
Unternehmen wirklich, nicht nur was es sagt was es will. Was gehört da vielleicht noch dazu, was
wir gerade noch nicht angesprochen haben?

Carsten Lemberger:
Im Grunde genommen ist es so, dass wir mit dem Unternehmen ein Gespräch führen und die
Ziele und Leitplanken definiert werden. Und dazu auch immer alle Entscheider auch die
Geschäftsführer nach Weil am Rhein holen, damit wir alle die gleichen Bilder im Kopf haben und

81
auch die gleichen Vokabeln, wenn wir über die spezifischen Konfigurationen sprechen, also dabei
das gleiche Verständnis haben. Dann steigen wir in Nutzer-Workshops ein, wo dann Vertreter
der tatsächlichen Siedler auch nach Weil am Rhein kommen. Und dann gibt es in den Workshops
eigentlich einen guten Querschnitt der Leute, die dann später dort einziehen. Also auch
unterschiedliche Geschlechter, Alters-Klassen und Abteilungen, und auch Leute, die pro
Veränderung sind, beziehungsweise auch gegen Veränderung sind. Dann geht man in einer sehr
abstrakten Weise vor, mal die Prozesse an der Metaplanwand aufzuzeigen, und diese dann
abstrakt in den Grundriss zu übersetzen. Dort werden aber keine Tische und Stühle geschoben,
weil dann würden sich alle prügeln darum wer jetzt am Eckfenster sitzt. Das bedeutet es wird
sehr abstrakt gemacht und dann gehen wir in eine grobe Siedlungsplanung und so übersetzen
wir das in den Prozess.

Interviewer:
Wenn das Konzept dann steht, wie sehen dann die nächsten Schritte aus?

Carsten Lemberger:
Dann geht es häufig auch mit dem Architekten oder Innenarchitekten weiter, wir haben ja dann
die Metaebene geschaffen und dann geht es wirklich um die Ausgestaltung der Fläche und die
Feinplanung und die Möblierungsplanung etc.

Interview:
Die grundlegende Konfiguration der Fläche basiert also auf der Funktionalität beziehungsweise
dem Prozess, aber letzten Endes ist natürlich auch noch einmal die Ästhetik, also der „Anstrich“,
welche Materialien, welche Farben, von Relevanz. Wie bewertest du den Einfluss von dieser
Ästhetik am Ende auf die Mitarbeiter?

Carsten Lemberger:
Enorm stark in Bezug auf Ihr Wohlbefinden. Das habe ich auch noch vergessen zu erwähnen: In
den Workshops arbeiten wir mit assoziativen Bildern, wenn dann zum Beispiel 15 Leute in so
einem Workshop sind, müssen Sie sich auf neun Bilder einigen. Das heißt, ich kann nicht sagen,
jeder nimmt einfach eins, sondern die müssen das begründen. Begründen bedeutet also in erster
Linie, wie möchten sie in Zukunft arbeiten, wie sehen sie sich als Unternehmen oder wie ist die
Kultur des Unternehmens. Aber dabei kommt automatisch auch raus, wie wollen sie denn
aussehen, denn sie sprechen ja auch über Farben und sie sprechen über Empfinden und anhand
der Bilder sieht man auch in welchem Umfeld an sie sich wohl fühlen. Also wollen sie zum Beispiel
warme Farben oder kalte Farben, oder vom Stil her eher technisch oder eher organisch. Das
erkennt man daraus ganz gut. Auch die Architekten oder Innenarchitekten sind dann in diesem
Prozess dabei und hören ganz genau zu und nehmen eben die eigenen Schlüsse daraus mit.

82
Interview:
Spricht man dann in diesem Kontext vielleicht auch schon von der Symbolik verschiedener
Materialien oder Aspekten, also zum Beispiel Kunst?

Carsten Lemberger:
Also wir machen das in der Regel erst in einem nächsten Schritt, wenn wir dann wirklich in die
Feinplanung gehen. In Bezug darauf wird dann häufig auch im Kontext der Leitplanken
entschieden, wie personalisiert darf der eigenen Arbeitsplatz sein, also darf jeder seine Yucca
Palme von zu Hause mitbringen, wenn sie zu Hause kurz vorm sterben ist, so fürs letzte Jahr
noch in die Firma und darf ich ein Bild von Hund, Katze, Maus mitbringen oder ist das dann Clean-
Desk und es gibt ein Pflanzenkonzept vom Unternehmen und es gibt ein Accessoire-Konzept
vom Unternehmen. Aber das kommt dann zum Schluss. Wir reden wirklich erst über eine
Geopolitik und dann von einer Siedlungsplanung und erst dann geht es wirklich in die Feinheiten.
Das sind so drei Schichten, wo wir wirklich nach und nach vorgehen.

Interviewer:
Jetzt hattest du eben erwähnt, dass gerade die Personalisierung ein Thema ist was vorher
festgelegt wird. Was ist denn da so der Trend, gibt es noch Unternehmen die ausgiebige
Personalisierung zulassen? Und falls ja, wie viele sind das?

Carsten Lemberger:
Das kann ich nicht pauschalisieren. Die Idee geht eigentlich weg von Personalisieren, sondern
das Ziel ist, das ist ein einheitliches Bild gibt, und da ist in der Regel die Frage wie standhaft sind
die Leitplanken, oder wie lassen sich Unternehmen von ihren Mitarbeitern umstimmen. Aus
meiner Sicht ist es gerade wenn man über ein Accessoire-Konzept oder ein Pflanzenkonzept
spricht, eigentlich unabdingbar, dass sich das Unternehmen darum kümmert, und die Mitarbeiter
dort kein Mitspracherecht haben. Oder zumindest nicht ihre individuellen Sachen mitbringen,
denn dann sieht jeder Platz anders aus und es ergibt kein einheitliches Bild. Und es sollte schon
ein einheitliches Bild sein, in der Hoffnung, dass man dann den Geschmack eines Großteils der
Arbeitnehmer trifft. Ich finde es immer wichtig, dass wenn man in ein Büro kommt, dass man
erkennt wofür denn das Büro steht, vielleicht für welche Branche arbeiten sie, also sind das
Kreative, oder ist es ein diskretes Unternehmen, wo viel Beratung ist oder wie auch immer und
wie ist auch die Kultur des Unternehmens. Wenn man auf unserer Fläche kommt sind das 2500m²
und nur vier geschlossene Besprechungsräume und der Rest ist offen und der Geschäftsführer
hat einen Desk-Sharing Schreibtisch, so wie alle anderen auch, oder wie die meisten anderen
auch. Es gibt ein paar Ausnahmen, die haben einen festen Schreibtisch, weil es für die keinen
Sinn macht Desk-Sharing einzuführen. Und für alle Bewerber, die über die Größe ihres
Einzelbüros ihren Status zeigen wollen, die werden bei uns sofort wieder rauslaufen. Das wären
dann aber auch nicht die passenden Arbeitnehmer für uns, deswegen finde ich es immer gut,

83
wenn man auch das erkennt. Also wichtig ist, dass man erkennt wie die Kultur im Unternehmen
ist und vielleicht auch wie wollen wir zusammenarbeiten, wie sehen wir uns gegenseitig. Und
wenn man das aus der Ästhetik des Büros erkennt, ist das meiner Meinung nach ein großes
Geschenk.

Interviewer:
Jetzt wollen viele Unternehmen natürlich in eine egalitäre Richtung, aber mich würde
interessieren, habt ihr auch noch viele Unternehmen, die noch ein aktives Interesse daran haben
auch Status abzubilden und die aufgrund dessen auch noch sehr viel Wert auf die Einzelbüros
legen?

Carsten Lemberger:
Ja klar gibt es das natürlich auch nach wie vor, in der Regel ist es das mittlere Management, wo
es im Bezug darauf die größten Herausforderungen gibt, die dann immer sagen zu ihren
Mitarbeitern: „jaja, ihr könnt auf die große Fläche, aber ich habe vertrauliche Gespräche zu führen,
ich brauche mein Einzelbüro“. Die hänge natürlich auch an ihrem Status, was bis zu einem
gewissen Punkt auch verständlich ist. Die haben 20 Jahre dafür gearbeitet, um so ein Büro zu
erkämpfen und wollen das jetzt auch gerne zeigen und dazu gehört auch der Parkplatz vorne am
Eingang. Die Frage ist wie innovativ bleiben Sie und wie zukunftsträchtig ist das und da gibt es
unterschiedliche Ansichten, und das wird sich dann auch zeigen.

Interviewer:
Jetzt noch eine letzte Frage zu euren Erfahrungen: Habt ihr auch Kunden, mit denen ihr im
Nachhinein noch Kontakt habt und die Maßnahmen evaluiert. Und falls ja, gibt es Kunden, die
dann aus ihrer Erfahrung heraus sagen: „Ja, diese Veränderung hat total viel
bewirkt“ beziehungsweise vielleicht auch Kunden die sagen „Ja, das war am Anfang ganz schön,
aber es hat sich doch recht schnell abgenutzt und jetzt ist es die gleiche Situation wie vorher nur
in einem neuen Raum“?

Carsten Lemberger:
Wir sind immer in Kontakt mit den Unternehmen, speziell auch wenn wir in der Beratung tätig
sind. Entweder haben wir Situationen, wo die Unternehmen sagen „Ja, das Konzept funktioniert
gut“, das ist immer ein bisschen schwierig zu messen. Mitarbeiter-Zufriedenheit ist schwierig zu
messen, das kann man dann über Krankheitstage sehen oder auch die Fluktuation bei den
Mitarbeitern, das sind so Indikatoren. Natürlich nicht eins zu eins, der Arbeitsplatz ist da nur ein
Baustein und da sind andere Faktoren auch noch wichtig. Aber es gibt auch Fälle, wo man dann
im Nachhinein sagt „Da muss man noch mal nachjustieren“ und dann wird nochmal neu justiert.
Also versuchen wir schon auch über den Prozess, den wir haben, nicht nur so viel Möbel wie

84
möglich zu verkaufen und dann ist gut, sondern wir möchten ein Büro schaffen, welches dann
auch bei dem Auftraggeber funktioniert. Dann spricht sich das natürlich auch rum.

Interviewer:
Okay, ich glaube wir sind jetzt schon am Zeitlimit und ich möchte dich nicht länger aufhalten.
Vielen Dank für deine Zeit und deine Bereitschaft zum Interview. Ich schätze das wirklich sehr.

2. Interview mit Pascal Hien (Steelcase)

Interviewer:
Zunächst einmal zu deiner Person als Industriedesigner, was ist dein Werdegang
beziehungsweise deine derzeitige Aufgabe hier bei Steelcase?

Pascal Hien:
Ich bin deutscher Designer und habe in Berlin und Paris Design studiert. Der Hintergrund ist eher
experimentell, gar nicht unbedingt so wie ich jetzt arbeite, sondern das sind beides Kunst-
Universitäten gewesen. Dann war ich in Italien nach der Uni, für 1,5 Jahre und bin dort in so eine
Art Think-Tank gewesen, das war so eine Art Stipendium und da ging es viel um lokale
Produzenten, Ausstellungsdesign, poetisches Design, also mit Galerien arbeiten, also gar nicht
Industriedesign, sondern eher in kleinen Serien. Nach der Zeit war dann im Prinzip ein
Umorientierungsprozess, und der Gedanke: Ich muss eigentlich auch mal in die Industrie und
lernen was es bedeutet ein Produkt in einer großen Stückzahl in einem Team mit langer
Entwicklungszeit auf den Markt zu bringen, was dann auch erfolgreich ist. Und da hat sich dann
eben Steelcase angeboten und das war zu einem Zeitpunkt wo es die hier in München noch nicht
einmal das Gebäude hatten. Das war vor dreieinhalb Jahren und das war sozusagen auch mit in
der Anfangsphase. Es gab bestehenden Standorte in Europa die zusammengeführt wurden, also
es gab Standorte in Spanien, in Frankreich, in Rosenheim und viele verschiedene Fabriken, und
das wurde alles hier in München zusammengeführt und in das Entwicklungszentrum umgebaut
und damit auch forciert. Der Hebel, den wir hier in Europa haben an der Produkt Entwicklung ist
dadurch gewachsen. Deshalb arbeite ich jetzt hier und war damals einer der ersten der angestellt
wurde im Design Team und jetzt sind wir so 15-20 Leute hier in Europa. Und das globale Team
sind so ungefähr 60 Leute, also in den USA gibt es noch eins und in Hongkong.

Interviewer:
Natürlich sind bei einem Produkt die Ergonomie und Funktionalität sehr wichtig, gerade im
Arbeitsumfeld muss ein Produkt natürlich funktionieren, sonst macht es keinen Sinn. Weil ich
mich jetzt aber auch auf die Ästhetik fokussiere, was akademisch gesehen gar nicht so einfach

85
ist, interessiert mich jetzt was du denkst: Was für eine Rolle spielt die Ästhetik bei so einem
Produkt im Arbeitsumfeld? Denkst du das spielt eine wichtige Rolle? Beziehungsweise, was denkt
man als Designer darüber wie der Endnutzer es bewertet?

Pascal Hien:
Als Designer, ja. Als Designer ist das Aussehen natürlich extrem wichtig. Es gibt da so zwei
Felder: Ich denke für den Endnutzer muss es am Ende des Tages funktionieren und der macht
sich eigentlich gar nicht so viele Gedanken darüber, wie das Produkt jetzt aussieht. Ein gutes
Produkt-Design ist ästhetisch auf eine Art und Weise, die man vielleicht gar nicht bemerkt. Wenn
man sich nicht aufregt über ein Produkt als Nutzer, dann ist es eigentlich ein gutes Produkt-
Design. Was man jetzt dazu sagen kann, es gibt halt so die Minimalisten, oder die Verfechter der
Einfachheit, die für langlebige Produkte sprechen, d.h. die Simplifizierung eines Produkts ist
eigentlich so die Hauptaufgabe eines Designers. Du willst ja immer ein Problem lösen, und auf
dem Weg dahin fallen dir immer viele unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten ein, das zu tun. Aber am
Ende des Tages geht es darum, wie können wir all diese Entscheidungen oder Einflüsse soweit
runter reduzieren, dass es irgendwie den Kern trifft. Und ein gutes Produkt trifft halt sau-hart
diesen Kern. Und das beweist sich dann meistens nicht durch die Ästhetik oder das Aussehen
etc. Das kann man am Anfang auch überhaupt nicht bewerten. Das einzige wie sich Sachen
wirklich bewerten lassen denke ich, ist über die Langlebigkeit: Je länger ein Produkt auf dem
Markt ist, desto größer ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass es auch irgendwie gut gestaltet ist und
einen ästhetischen Anspruch hat. Eine andere Bestrebung im Design ist der Ansatz: Je simpler
ein Design, desto mehr Leute mögen das. Und das ist natürlich hier bei Steelcase, bei so einem
großen Unternehmen mit vielen verschiedenen Zielgruppen sehr wichtig. Man kann aber auch
sagen, Design ist extrem persönlich, genauso wie mein Charakter ist anders ist als deiner, haben
wir zwei Grund verschiedene Verständnis von Ästhetik und das ist auch völlig okay so. Deshalb
hat auch zum Beispiel ein florales Design oder ein minimalistisches Design genauso eine
Daseinsberechtigung. Es geht also eigentlich um „Beauty“, hast du mal das Buch von Stefan
Sagmeister gelesen?

Interviewer:
Das Buch habe ich nicht gelesen, aber ich habe mich mit der Ausstellung beschäftigt und ich
wollte eigentlich auch in die Ausstellung nach Frankfurt, habe aber noch nicht die Zeit dazu
gefunden.

Pascal Hien:
Also ich würde sagen, dass er momentan einer der großen Beiträge zur Diskussion ist und er
bringt dieses Thema wieder ganz gut ins Gespräch, in Bezug auf seine Bedeutung. Das ist
natürlich teilweise unquantifizierbar, was Beauty eigentlich ist, aber wir können uns grundsätzlich
auf Sachen einigen, also wir können uns auf Farben einigen oder Formen und es gibt da schon

86
so eine Art Pattern, was man beschreiben kann. Und was Sagmeister sagt und was auch viele
der Modernisten oder auch Minimalisten, angefangen von Wiener Schule bis Bauhaus und
heutzutage eigentlich auch, eingesehen haben mit der Zeit, ist dass der alleinige Fortschritt durch
Optimierung und Kostenreduzierung etc. eigentlich nicht zielführend ist, sondern das Schönheit
eigentlich noch eine gleichwertige Position haben sollte in den Produkten. Und die ist halt leider
doch sehr schwer zu definieren. Und ein Designer ist meiner Meinung nach gut, wenn er diese
ganzen Bausteine kombinieren kann. Und „form follows function“ ist halt so eine Aussage, die
würde ich teilweise aber auch hinterfragen. Wenn es nur um Funktion geht vergisst man teilweise
auch ein paar Knackpunkte, wo man noch mitspielen kann. Jetzt als Designer, wenn du dir über
Materialien Gedanken machst etc., dann hat es natürlich einen riesigen Einfluss auf das
Wohlbefinden eines Menschen, hat aber auch einen Preis. Und den muss man innerhalb eines
großen Unternehmens natürlich immer auch rechtfertigen.

Interviewer:
Jetzt hast du natürlich gerade das Thema Materialien angesprochen und es gibt ja zurzeit den
Trend der Biophilie, bei der man versucht zurück zu natürlichen Materialien zu gehen, die den
Menschen an seinen ursprünglichen Lebensraum erinnern. Wie wichtig ist dieses Thema für euch
Designer aktuell und wie bewertet ihr die Unterschiede der Materialien für den Nutzer? Gibt es
da große Unterschiede?

Pascal Hien:
Auf jeden Fall, das hat eine große Wirkung auf den Nutzer. Was glaube ich bei Biophilie oft etwas
falsch verstanden wird, ist dass es nicht nur irgendwie darum geht einen Wald ins Büro zu bringen,
sondern es können auch ganz einfache Symbole sein, die einen an Natürlichkeit erinnern und
das teilweise auch sehr unterbewusst. Und da geht es auch um neue Produktionsmethoden, also
Themen wie generatives Design und wo sich Design gerade allgemein hin entwickelt. Und auf
einmal beginnen Dinge auch natürlich auszusehen, weil wir andere Produktions-Methoden
anwenden und es muss nicht unbedingt immer alles aus Holz sein. Aber was man natürlich sagen
muss wenn man eine Echtholzplatte benutzt, statt so einer Plastikholzplatte, ist, dass es für ein
anderes Wohlbefinden sorgt, es hat eine andere Raum Ästhetik, einen anderen Geruch, das sind
plötzlich wieder ganz viele Faktoren die eine Rolle spielen. Was wir halt über Jahre gemacht
haben, gerade mit solchen Melamin-Platten, das ist zum einen Optimierung, denn es ist ja die
Industrie, denn ganz realistisch gesehen macht es einfach keinen Sinn jedem Arbeiter eine
Holzplatte hin zu stellen, weil es einfach unglaublich viel Geld kostet und auch nicht gut für unsere
Umwelt ist etc. Also da sind diese Platten unschlagbar. Aber was wir leider auch kreiert haben,
ist so eine Art Sterilität und diese Regeln haben wir uns teilweise auch selbst geschaffen. Du hast
hier halt auch eine Abrieb-Thematik und diese Idee von Patina wird eigentlich seit Jahren
ausgeblendet. Dass Dinge sich verändern und vielleicht auch sogar wertiger mit der Zeit werden,
anstatt unwertiger, also dass man es wertschätzt, dass das Holz irgendwann halt vergilbt oder

87
dass ich das Leder abgreift und ein bisschen speckiger wird, oder dass der Stein halt kalkt. Also
diese ganzen Veränderungen und diese Patina, die auch eine natürliche Weiterentwicklung sind,
das ist durch solche Plastikgeschichten etwas in den Hintergrund geraten und auch teilweise
zerstört worden. Denn wenn so eine Plastikplatte kaputt geht, dann sieht sie einfach nur kaputt
aus und dann willst du sie eigentlich austauschen.

Interviewer:
Mich interessiert auch das Thema Symbolik: Häufig versuchen Unternehmen ja auch eine
einheitliche Stilrichtung zu etablieren und ihre Identität und Kultur durch den Arbeitsraum zu
verkörpern. In wieweit lassen sich eure Produkte individualisieren und in Bezug auf Farbe und
Materialien anpassen, um eben diesen Prozess zu unterstützen, beziehungsweise macht das
Sinn in euren Augen?

Pascal Hien:
Also die Meinung hierzu ändert sich immer in Zyklen. In den letzten drei Jahren geht es bei
Steelcase sehr viel um Diversität, um Kreativität, auch weil sich die Arbeit als solche verändert.
Es wird also nicht mehr versucht einen möglichst homogenen Arbeitsplatz zu erschaffen, sondern
viele diverse unterschiedliche Zonen zu bieten. Das führt dazu, dass man in vielen Gebäuden
unglaublich viele Farben hat und viel Individualisierung also auch was die Prints angeht. Auch
viele Stühle kann man anpassen und einen individuellen Print drauf machen. Einerseits wollen
wir den Kunden natürlich miteinbeziehen und auch spezifische Individuallösungen liefern, aber
das ist auch häufig im Kontrast mit der Optimierung, die wir auch vorantreiben wollen. Dabei gibt
es dann häufig einen Zielkonflikt und dabei nimmt die Individualisierung manchmal etwas
Überhand, habe ich das Gefühl. Also diese Idee wir müssen jetzt alle Farben reinbringen und
immer noch mehr, mehr, mehr. Aber ob das am Ende die Lösung ist, weiß ich nicht, sondern es
gibt auch andere Wege. Man kann auch mit einer subtilen Art ein Wohlbefinden erzeugen. Man
muss nicht immer alle Farben anbieten. Es ist ja auch lustig, zum einen verkaufen wir hier alle
Farben, die es gibt, man kann 1000 verschiedene Sachen auswählen auch glaub ich über 30
verschiedene Lacke, die du bei Stahlmöbel verwenden kannst. Wenn wir uns aber die Zahlen
ansehen, dann sehen wir, dass der allergrößte Teil wirklich nur Schwarz und Weiß ist, also
Farben sind dann häufig nur bei so circa 1% der Verkäufe. Bei Stoffen ist das ein bisschen anders
da gibt es mehr Diversität und diese wird auch gekauft, aber gerade bei Laminat-Farben und
Stahlfarben ist es witzig zu sehen wie wenig Mehrwert die Auswahl eigentlich bringt. Und dann
merkst du, es geht vielleicht erst mal darum Emotionen zu erzeugen und Leute an ein Produkt zu
binden, also wenn da jetzt ein rotes Produkt steht, dann sticht das zunächst einmal in die Augen
und es entsteht ein Gesprächsthema, aber am Ende bestellen Sie wahrscheinlich das Weiße.
Aber das ist halt ein Tool, um Emotionen zu erzeugen und so ein bisschen auf hau drauf zu
zeigen Diversifizierung ist auch gut. Meiner Ansicht nach muss Man es nicht übertreiben, sondern
man kann auch viel mit wenig erreichen. Zum Beispiel spielt im Büro auch gerade die Architektur

88
eine Riesenrolle, klar können die Möbel auch etwas dazu beitragen, aber was für eine Farbe die
Wand hat oder was für eine Struktur oder welche Art Boden verbaut ist, wie das Licht im Gebäude
ist das sind viel stärkere Faktoren. Oder auch die Höhe der Decke das hat erst mal einen Riesen
Einfluss und dann kommt erst die Akustik dazu und die Möbel und am Ende des Tages sind die
Möbel auch nur da um Leute zueinander zu führen und Gespräche zu fördern oder nicht zu
fördern, Kommunikation zu beeinflussen oder nicht so beeinflussen und am Ende des Tages
musst du dich halt wohl fühlen als Mensch und das Vertrauen aufbauen können und nur dann
kannst du auch wirklich gut zusammenarbeiten. Auch wenn es um die Gewichtung geht, ist
glaube ich das zwischenmenschliche und die Unternehmenskultur ausschlaggebend für Erfolg
und das Interior-Design des Gebäudes hat darauf einen Einfluss, der teilweise auch gravierend
sein kann, aber im Endeffekt geht es darum die richtigen Menschen aneinander zu führen.

Interviewer:
Welche Bedeutung misst du der Arbeitsumgebung in einem Veränderungsprozess der
Unternehmenskultur zu?

Pascal Hien:
Es macht halt keinen Sinn zu sagen wir haben jetzt Firmenkultur XY und jetzt wollen wir irgendwie
dynamisch und modern sein und irgendwie wie ein Start-up und deswegen stellen wir uns jetzt
verrückte Möbel rein und sind auf einmal genauso. Nein, das wird niemals funktionieren, sondern
das ist nur eine Pseudo-Veränderung. Du musst die Leute mitnehmen und die müssen gewillt
sein diese Veränderung zu haben und die müssen es auch verstehen, das ist eine Denkweise,
die sie auch verändern müssen und da hilft Steelcase ja auch. Steelcase versucht das natürlich
vor allem über die Möbel zu erreichen, aber wir versuchen natürlich auch Unternehmen darin zu
coachen, was jetzt der beste Weg zur Veränderung ist. Und für Manche ist das eben nicht die
schicke Barista Bar, sondern du musst auch erst mal das Unternehmen verstehen und
analysieren, um zu sehen was der richtige Weg ist, um Veränderung auch wirklich wirksam
voranzutreiben. Möbel sind halt eine sehr greifbare und direkte Weise das zu zeigen und was dir
direkt was zurückgibt, aber wenn du dich nicht änderst, dann brauchst du nicht anfangen damit
und das ist glaube ich auch die Message, die wir hier vertreten, dass es um die Menschen geht
am Ende des Tages. Das siehst du auch bei unseren Foto-Shootings immer, du siehst nie nur
das Objekt alleine für sich, sondern du siehst es immer im Raum mit Leuten, da gibt es ganz
verschiedene Firmen Philosophien, aber hier ist es ganz stark auf den User fokussiert und das
ist am Ende des Tages immer um den Menschen geht, auch bei dem Produktdesignern geht es
um den Menschen. Man muss es in einem Veränderungsprozess halt schaffen alle mitzunehmen.
Ich denke das Möbel manchmal ein bisschen überschätzt werden, für das was sie eigentlich
können, oder auch Designer irgendwie denken, dass wir Welt-Veränderer sind. Und klar wir
haben Einfluss da drauf und können helfen, aber es wird auch viel Quatsch gemacht.

89
Interviewer:
Welche Trends siehst du gerade im Möbelbereich?

Pascal Hien:
Also wovon ich überzeugt bin ist das Arbeit nur funktionieren kann, wenn man sich irgendwo face-
to-face treffen kann. Also vor allem in einem großen Team merkst du immer wieder, dass die
Distanz nicht wirklich, oder zumindest im Moment noch nicht, durch Technologie irgendwie
aufgehoben werden kann, sondern es braucht am Ende des Tages immer noch kleine Gruppen,
die vor Ort miteinander reden und irgendwo einen Raum dafür haben sich zu treffen. Und ich
kann mir im Moment nicht vorstellen, dass das ersetzbar ist. Was glaube ich ersetzbar ist, ist wo
es stattfindet und es muss nicht unbedingt in einem Büro sein, sondern vielleicht auch in einem
Zug, unterwegs im Auto oder in einem ganz anderen Umfeld. Also ich glaube wo wir arbeiten wird
sich verändern, wie gravierend weiß ich noch nicht. Ich denke der Einfluss von Technologie und
neuen Produktions-Methoden wird extrem gravierend sein und ich denke auch, dass sich dadurch
allgemein die Ästhetik von Gebäuden und Möbeln verändern wird. Das kommt jetzt langsam so
zum Vorschein und es wird noch ein bisschen dauern und ich denke man wird es zuerst in der
Architektur sehen und dann in den Möbeln und ich denke das hat einen großen Einfluss. Ich
denke wir werden uns auch noch von diesem 9-5 Ding befreien, klar das hat auch seine Vor- und
Nachteile und das ist natürlich auch arbeitsrechtlich toll, dass es so abgesteckt ist und Leute darin
auch so beschützt sind, aber gerade, wenn es jetzt darum geht, dass Arbeitsplätze ersetzt werden
durch Roboter, müssen wir uns davon befreien, dass wir zum Beispiel nur fünf Tage die Woche
arbeiten. Im Moment ist so der heilige Gral: Habe ich hier zum Beispiel ein Gym, habe ich hier
eine Yoga Class, kriege ich hier das Essen umsonst und ich glaube die nächste
Erwartungshaltung wird sein, habe ich hier eine Kita und kann ich mich selbst noch irgendwie
anderweitig verwirklichen, also nicht mehr nur definiert über die Arbeit. Also wenn ich will dann
ja, wenn nicht, dann auch okay. Also gerade im kreativen Umfeld ist das so, dass viele Leute
nicht mehr fünf Tage die Woche an einer Sache arbeiten wollen, sondern das es tatsächlich eher
zur Drei- oder Vier-Tage-Wochen geht und dann an zwei Tagen noch was anderes und das wird
glaube ich so die nächste Flexibilität wo Arbeitgeber damit rechnen müssen, also dass wir
produktiver in kürzerer Zeit werden. Ich glaub momentan sind wir noch gefangen in zu viel
Information und wir müssen lernen wieder zu filtern und vielleicht auch Entscheidungsfinder zu
definieren.

3. Interview mit Lisa Glassner (Steelcase)

(Konversation begann bereits vor Aufnahmestart und mündet dann in das Interview)

90
Lisa Glassner:
[...] Wenn du einen Menschen für eine lange Zeit in eine sterile Umgebung bringst und ihm das
offen lässt, dass er da etwas machen kann, dann fängt die Person an Dinge zu verändern und
deswegen war unser Clou zu sagen, du kannst es auch hier sehen [Referenz zur
Interviewumgebung], das sind auch sehr personalisierte Sachen die hier stehen, die auch
teilweise Mitarbeiter einfach mitgebracht haben, zum einen Bücher, die wir mit ausgesucht haben,
aber auch so Artefakte, die wir auch mit reingebracht haben wo man sich selber wieder erkennt,
die aber keine Individualisierung in Bezug auf eine Person darstellen. D.h. nicht, dass mir jetzt
der Stuhl gehört, weil ich ein Buch ausgesucht habe, sondern ich benutze den Stuhl jetzt und in
zwei Stunden jemand anders.

Interviewer:
Es gibt ja auch den Ansatz ganz bewusst Artefakte zu benutzen, um die Identität eines
Unternehmens zu kommunizieren und zu stärken, denkst du, dass das Sinn macht?

Lisa Glassner:
Was ich daran spannend finde ist, dass jemand natürlich Individualisierung betreibt auf einer
privaten Ebene, jemand fühlt halt die Sterilität und Dinge, die diese [Sterilität] dann wegnehmen
sind häufig Sachen die man von zu Hause mitbringt und das sind ja auch Anzeichen dafür, dass
das Arbeiten und auch Kreativität eine andere Atmosphäre brauchen, die halt durch Artefakte
bessere präsentiert werden. Das ist dann kein Durcheinander, wo jeder sein eigenes Foto
mitbringt, und das hat ja dann auch eine Auswirkung darauf wie ich den Raum nutze, und dabei
stellt sich ja auch die Frage, wie kann ich Ästhetik und Individualisierung übertragen in
Raumnutzung. Dass ich nicht sage jeder braucht jetzt einen gemütlichen Stuhl und einen eigenen
Arbeitsplatz und einen persönlichen Rückzugsort, sondern dieses Prinzip des Teilens, wie kann
ich das auch noch einmal verstärken.

Interviewer:
Wie sind die Reaktionen der Mitarbeiter in der Praxis, wenn Unternehmen diese Dekoration für
Sie oder gemeinsam mit ihnen vornehmen?

Lisa Glassner:
Das ist auf jeden Fall ein Thema was nicht auf die leichte Schulter genommen wird. Und wo man
dann sagt, ja wunderbar dann machen wir das halt so. Sondern das muss man begleiten, und
wenn man das nicht begleitet und kommuniziert, dass dann auch Verwirrung herrscht und die
typischen Fragen, wie zum Beispiel „Warum machen wir das denn nicht mehr?“, oder „Wie mir
wird etwas weggenommen?“. Also das ist eher als etwas Negatives, als etwas Positives erlebt
wird. Also dass man dabei sehr überlegt vorgeht, ist glaube ich ein wichtiger Aspekt, um
erfolgreich zu sein.

91
Interviewer:
Kurz zu deiner Person, was ist dein Hintergrund und welche Aufgaben hast du hier in der Firma?

Lisa Glassner:
Ich bin zuständig für globale Kunden, die ihren Stammsitz im deutschsprachigen Raum haben,
dazu gehören also große Unternehmen aus dem Bereich Automobil, Pharma, Chemie und
Versicherungen und Banken. Diese Kunden begleiten wir dann in der Regel bei ihrer
Transformation der Arbeitsumgebung. Ich komme selbst auch aus dem BWL-Bereich und habe
große Teile meiner Karriere im Bereich Learning und Development verbracht und mich sehr stark
auch mit dem Thema Change auseinandergesetzt. Und dann bin ich vor drei Jahren wieder
zurück in den Vertrieb gegangen, einfach weil mich die Praxis gereizt hat und zu sehen, wie
passiert denn so eine Veränderung, gerade in Bezug auf das was Steelcase als Business macht
hat mich das besonders gereizt, enger an unseren Kunden dran zu sein und mit denen zu arbeiten.

Interviewer:
Ich denke da hast du schon ein sehr gutes Verständnis von meinem Zugang zu diesem Thema.
Wie du gerade erwähnt hast, begleitet ihr die Firmen dann auch in diesem Veränderungsprozess.
Was sind denn die Bestandssituationen bei den meisten Kunden?

Lisa Glassner:
Also ich denke das ist ganz unterschiedlich gelagert, der Großteil ist noch in irgendwelchen
Strukturen. Und wenn ich Strukturen sage, dann kann das ein Einzelbüro sein oder auch Doppel-,
Dreier- oder Viererbüros sein, die akustisch natürlich noch eine größere Herausforderung sind,
weil sobald ich geschlossene Wände habe, die nah dran sind, wird normal einfach Lärm
produziert. Die meisten kommen aus einem engeren Format und vor allem auch zugeteilten
Format, was ja auch noch einmal nicht so unwichtig ist. 70-80% sind noch in einem traditionellem
ein bis vier Personen Format und der Rest ist dann schon in einem offenen Umfeld, und bei
beiden sieht man natürlich Herausforderungen. Also bei den Geschlossenen ist das Thema
natürlich Zusammenarbeit. Arbeit wird halt häufig mit dem Ort des Arbeitsplatzes verbunden, und
nicht mit anderen Orten, die ja dann auch trotzdem angeboten werden. D.h. in dem Moment wo
ich dann auf dem Sofa sitze, wenn das dann auch zur Verfügung stände, dann ist das eine Pause,
und das stellt natürlich eine große kulturelle Herausforderung dar. Etwas anderes ist, dass ich
natürlich eine insgesamt sehr große Nutzungsherausforderung habe, weil letzten Endes dann
keine effektive Nutzung des Arbeitsraumes da ist. Bei offenen Strukturen sehen wir häufig
Herausforderungen im allgemeinen Design, da ist natürlich dann das Thema Lärm eines was
nicht so unwichtig ist, also wie zum Beispiel habe ich das bedacht in der Planung, in der Auswahl
dessen, was ich an Produkten reinmache, aber viel mehr auch zu verstehen, wie nutzen
Menschen eigentlich einen Raum und wie muss dafür letztlich dann auch das Design und die
Planung aussehen.

92
Interviewer:
Gerade bei großen Unternehmen, gibt es ja häufig auch Experten innerhalb der Firma. Mit
welchen Erwartungen oder Anforderungen treten diese dann an euch heran? Was sind die
Motivationen der Unternehmen? Was wollen sie erreichen?

Lisa Glassner:
Also vor allem schon die Veränderung, denn viele dieser Unternehmen haben einen enormen
Druck, was die Innovation angeht und die Digitalisierung und da ist ganz klar die Erwartung,
‚bringt mich als Unternehmen näher an ein Verhalten, dass ich brauche, um innovativ zu sein‘.
Da sind wir schon ganz stark. Es gibt aber auch noch Unternehmen, die so genannte Experten
haben. Das sind dann aber eher Produktexperten, die noch nicht soweit sind, diesen
konzeptionellen Schluss oder die konzeptionelle Verbindung zu machen zu diesem Thema. Und
der Kulturdruck ist in diesen Fällen dann auch noch nicht so vorangeschritten. In diesen
Abteilungen sieht man dann so, da passt das Eine nicht mit dem Anderen zusammen, also
einerseits die Anforderung an die Mitarbeiter kreativ zu sein und andererseits die
Arbeitsumgebung, die dann zur Verfügung gestellt wird.

Interviewer:
Was ist denn euer Prozess, um diese Anforderungen heraus zu arbeiten?

Lisa Glassner:
Also es gibt zum einen Workshop-Formate, es gibt aber auch diesen klassischen Piloten, dass
man einfach mal mit einer Fläche anfängt. Ich hatte jetzt gerade einen interessanten Kunden, der
sehr langfristig plant für ein neues Gebäude, was erst in vier Jahren dann wirklich realisiert wird
und die jetzt auch noch in alten Strukturen Leben, aber gesagt haben ‚jetzt fangen wir mal mit
einem Piloten an und das erste was ich bei uns verändern musst ist die Meeting Kultur‘. D.h. die
müssen weg von diesem klassischen Meeting wo ein Tisch steht und drum herum die Stühle, und
dann zu denken man kann kreativ sein. Die haben erst mal mit dem kreativen Hub angefangen
und jetzt bewegen Sie sich zu dem nächsten Schritt, zu sagen ‚wir nehmen jetzt mal eine Fläche
wo dann auch tatsächlich drei Abteilungen setzen, und für die wird jetzt mal was gemacht‘ und
dann müssen wir natürlich erst mal verstehen wie arbeiten die, was sind deren
Herausforderungen in ihren Aktivitäten, also sprich wie viel Rückzugsorte brauchen Sie
tatsächlich, wie viel Zusammenarbeit. Und wenn man da ein ganz gutes Verständnis hat, dann
kann man da auch eine passende Möblierungsplanung machen.

Interviewer:
Bezieht ihr dabei die Mitarbeiter ein? Ist das grundsätzlich auch ein Interesse der Kunden?

93
Lisa Glassner:
Das ist ganz unterschiedlich. Wir haben teilweise Kunden, die sehr modern sind und die gesagt
haben „nein das ist definiert und unsere Mitarbeiter finden unseren Space sowieso toll“. Und dann
wird ein relativ kleiner Anteil der Mitarbeiter eingebunden in der Definition, dann wird vielleicht
noch ein bisschen Change Management gemacht, um einfach so zu sehen, die Leute sind
informiert, zu sehen wie sie den Raum nutzen, aber bei der eigentlichen Definition des Raumes
sind die nicht dabei, sondern das findet dann in einer Experten-Runde statt. Dann gibt es andere
Modelle, wo eine viel stärkere Einbindung stattfindet, weil einfach auch eine größere Sorge da
ist, wie ist die Reaktion. Aber ich würde mal sagen, bei einem Großteil der Kunden, da haben wir
das eigentlich so, dass es definiert wird mehr oder weniger und dann muss es halt funktionieren.

Interviewer:
Wenn das jetzt vorgegeben wird, wie ist dann die Annahmerate bei den Mitarbeitern? Ist die
Miteinbeziehung der Mitarbeiter ein Faktor, der für eine stärkere Akzeptanz sorgt?

Lisa Glassner:
Grundsätzlich natürlich ja, wir sehen immer häufiger, dass wir im Dialog mit dem Kunden von
zwei Gruppen sprechen. Es gibt diejenigen die es brauchen und diejenigen die es wollen. Und
dann wird eine ungefähre Generationenzugehörigkeit daran geknüpft, also junge Leute möchten
es gerne modern und die Älteren haben eine große Skepsis. In dieser Sandwichposition befinden
sich dann die Unternehmen und fragen sich, ja was machen wir denn jetzt? Und da etwas zu
definieren ist natürlich schon sinnvoll, damit auch dieser Dialog da ist, „weil du meinst ja du
brauchst es nicht, aber du hast es ja noch nicht ausprobiert, also wie kannst du sagen, dass es
so ist“? Junge Leute haben halt häufig schon die Erfahrung aus anderen Situationen, weil zum
Beispiel auch Lernen sich verändert hat. Der Weg in die Arbeitswelt, der ist ja heutzutage auch
anders, als er noch vor 30 Jahren war, also diese Erlebnisse bringt ja ein junger Mensch mit, in
der Suche nach einer Arbeitsstelle oder auch Ausbildungsstätte und diese Person ist sich ja
bewusst, ich kann von überall aus arbeiten. Und jetzt eine Zuteilung zu einem bestimmten
Arbeitsplatz, in einem bestimmten Raum zu bekommen macht ja gar keinen Sinn. Ich habe ja für
mein Abitur auch in einem Café gelernt, oder hatte da einen Kreativraum in der Schule. Also da
glaube ich ändern sich die Ansprüche und damit aber auch der Einbezug, allein weil es einen viel
stärkeren Dialog gibt zwischen ganz unterschiedlichen Gruppen in einem Unternehmen. Wir
haben ja da teilweise drei oder vier Generationen an einem Arbeitsort, und sich dessen bewusst
zu werden für das Thema Arbeitsraum-Gestaltung, da auch einen Dialog herzustellen,
wahrscheinlich auch über die tatsächliche Raum-Lösung hinaus.

94
Interviewer:
In diesen Planungen und Umgestaltungen werden ja auch individuelle Bedürfnisse berücksichtigt.
Wenn ein Team oder eine Gruppe jetzt aber im Nachhinein noch Dinge verändern oder anpassen
möchte, wie viele Möglichkeiten haben diese dann in der Regel? Ist das vorgesehen?

Lisa Glassner:
Das sehen wir auch immer häufiger und im Grunde genommen geht es dabei ja um eine
Flexibilisierung, dass wir halt viel stärker sehen, dass es bestimmte Elemente braucht und denen
auch eine Flexibilisierung zu geben, mit der Absicht eine Individualisierung zu ermöglichen, auf
Einzel- aber auch Gruppenebene. Was sehr stark auch durch neue Arbeitsmethoden
vorangetrieben wird, also diese Themen wie Agilität oder Design-Thinking, oder Projektarbeit, die
stattfindet. Auch da ist einfach die Notwendigkeit da zu reagieren, nicht nur auf Wunsch, weil die
Team sagen „oh wir sind kreativ und wir wollen anders sein“, sondern um die agile Methoden im
Unternehmen umzusetzen, wird dieses Prinzip „ich habe einen Arbeitsplatz einen Tisch und einen
Stuhl und Stauraum und dazu habe ich noch ein Meeting Raum mit einem runden Tisch und
Stühlen“, das wird nicht reichen. Deswegen sehen wir auch das Angebot der Flexibilisierung, bei
der die Teams im Nachhinein anpassen können, als eine sehr gute Lösung. Man hat zum Beispiel
fünf unterschiedliche Teams auf eine Fläche, die alle immer wieder die Möglichkeit haben sollen,
ihre Raumgestaltung verändern und anpassen zu können.

Interviewer:
Inwiefern schlägt sich diese Flexibilisierung auch in eurem Produktportfolio nieder? Und geht es
dabei auch um eine ‚Ästhetik des Flexiblen‘?

Lisa Glassner:
Also ich weiß nicht, ob du da schon davon gehört hast, aber wir haben eine ganz neue Produkt
Lösung, die heißt Flex Kollektion und da ging es zum einen um das Thema Funktionalität und
auch Ergonomie und Akustik. Gleichzeitig geprägt durch die Beobachtungen, die wir auch
gemacht haben, wie stark Ästhetik eine Rolle spielt, sehr stark auch dort mit Farben und
Materialität gearbeitet, um zu sagen, natürlich kann ich etwas flexibles auf Rollen zur Verfügung
stellen, aber wenn die Ästhetik und die Qualität nicht dabei sind, dann sieht sowas sehr schnell
billig aus und auch nicht ansprechend und unterstützt nicht wirklich die Kreativität. Da haben wir
sehr viele Optionen so etwas auch mit einer entsprechenden Ästhetik oder einem
entsprechenden Design zu individualisieren.

Interviewer:
Wenn Unternehmen jetzt gerne ihre Marke oder ihre Kultur durch die Arbeitsraum-Gestaltung
ausdrücken möchte, welche Optionen der Individualisierung bietet ihr da?

95
Lisa Glassner:
Da gibt es interessanter Weise auch eine sehr große Veränderung. Früher hat man ja ihr gesagt:
welche Farbe hat mein Logo und davon abgeleitet die Hauptfarbe zu definieren und
Komplementärfarben abzuleiten. Aber der Druck, den sich interne Abteilungen, die so etwas
definieren dann aussetzen, der ist so enorm, dass die Mitarbeiter dann jetzt erreichen, dass es
häufig viel offenere Farbpaletten gibt. Und da gibt es auch noch mal Unterschiede zwischen
Consumer- und B2B-Unternehmen, aber gerade bei den B2B-Geschäften ist die Tendenz da,
auch in Naturbild-Farben zu gehen und da offener zu sein und vielfältiger, als das was man vorher
gemacht hat.

Interviewer:
Gerade in diesem Bezug zu Biophilie, die du eben auch erwähnt hast, würde mich interessieren
welche Elemente ihr für besonders wirksam haltet?

Lisa Glassner:
Definitiv Holz, also Echtholz macht einen großen Unterschied, aber auch grobe oder nicht glatte
Oberflächen, und auch eine besondere Auswahl von Pflanzen. Es gibt ja auch die typischen Büro-
Pflanzen, die man kaum gießen muss und die ewig halten. Aber diese haben häufig auch einen
Anmut, der nicht wirklich ansprechend ist und deswegen gehen wir auch davon weg und hin zu
Pflanzen, die wesentlich mehr Kreativität ausstrahlen und bei denen es auch eine höre
Kleinteiligkeit und Entdeckung gibt, also andere Blattstrukturen andere Grüntöne und die ganz
andere Assoziationen haben, also mehr Natur, mehr Wald, als nur der Gedanke „Jetzt haben sie
versucht noch ein bisschen grün mit reinzubringen“.

Interviewer:
Du hast eben den Begriff der Entdeckung erwähnt und für uns Menschen ist es ja normal, dass
wir neugierig und auch leichter begeistert sind, wenn etwas neu ist. Daher die Frage: Denkst du
dieser Gestaltungseffekt der Arbeitsumgebung unterliegt auch eine Abnutzung, wenn man sich
daran gewöhnt?

Lisa Glassner:
Also ich denke die Gestaltung verliert ihren Effekt in der bewussten Wahrnehmung, aber in der
unterbewussten Wahrnehmung sicher nicht, weil ich ja immer wieder Kontraste habe. Ich gehe
ja auch immer wieder aus meiner Umgebung heraus, also ich bin nicht immer hier im Büro und
merke dann auch den Kontrast zu anderen Orten. Oder den Kontrast, den ich erlebe, zum Beispiel
zwischen einem schönen lokalen Café, was sich viel Mühe gegeben hat mit der Gestaltung, und
dann gehe ich zum Imbisswagen. Das wären so Kontraste, die in der Gestaltung ganz
unterschiedlich sind, und auch da würde ich nicht sagen es gibt eine Abnutzung, sondern eher
eine Anziehung, die bleibt. Weil ich ja ein gewisses Gefühl assoziiere mit einem Ort und mit der

96
Gestaltung. Dass ich jetzt nicht jedes Mal reingehe und so diesen Überraschungseffekt habe, wie
beim ersten Mal, das ist auch klar, aber das Gehirn speichert ab was kann ich hier machen und
ich fühle mich hier wohl und dahin will ich zurück.

Interviewer:
Welche anderen ästhetischen Trends gibt es denn zurzeit, bei denen vielleicht auch
Unternehmen auf euch zukommen und sagen „Genau so etwas hätte ich gerne“ beziehungsweise
Trends, die ihr in euren Portfolio mitaufnehmt, weil ihr diese für sinnvoll erachtet?

Lisa Glassner:
Also ich denke auf jeden Fall einen hohen Grad der Individualisierung was Materialien und
Oberflächen angeht, da sehen wir zum Beispiel auch mal ausgefallen ist. Zum Beispiel eine
Glasplatte, die wir auf einen unserer Tische drauf gemacht haben, die ist aus recyceltem Glas
gemacht, aus Einzelstücken und da sieht man noch mal eine ganz besondere Oberfläche. Oder
wir haben verschiedenfarbiges recyceltes Plastik, was dann auch zu einer Tischplatte verarbeitet
wurde, also da sehen wir schon ein generelles Interesse auch an ausgefalleneren Dingen und
eine ganz besondere Reaktion darauf, weil es anders ist und besonders ist, aber nicht so anders,
dass ich es mir nicht bei mir selber vorstellen kann. Auch vor allem im Licht-Design, aber generell
alles was weggeht vom Standard, merkt man, dass das eine Anziehungskraft hat, also in allen
Elementen die einen Raum ausmachen.

Interviewer:
Wie viel davon denkst du ist Zeitgeist oder Trend? Und wie viel denkst du ist universelle Ästhetik,
die immer gültig ist?

Lisa Glassner:
Also Zeitgeist wären für mich so Trendfarben, die natürlich auch vorkommen und wo man sagt
okay, das empfindet man zu einer bestimmten Epoche vielleicht als eine schöne Farbe, oder eine
Farbe, die einen anzieht, da spielt Trend eine größere Rolle. Bei dem Thema Biophilie würde ich
eher sagen ich bin vor 100 Jahren schon gerne in den Wald gegangen und ich gehe heute noch
gerne in den Wald, also die Assoziation dazu würde ich auf jeden Fall belassen, also das Prinzip
Natur auf den Raum zu übertragen und dann natürlich zeitgeistige Anpassungen zu machen, was
ja natürlich auch zum Beispiel in der Kunst passiert. Ich denke auch die Architektur oder
Innenarchitektur nähert sich mehr der Kunst an, weil ja auch die Kunst mit universellen Mitteln
arbeitet. Es gibt ja viele Künstler, die eine universelle Sprache haben, die Menschen begeistert,
egal ob sie vor 100 Jahren, 200 Jahren gelebt haben oder wir jetzt heute. Und ich denke das
überträgt sich auch mehr in die Innenarchitektur.

97
Interviewer:
Wie viel Bereitschaft existiert auf Unternehmensseite wirklich in die Arbeitsumgebung zu
investieren? Sehen Unternehmen den Mehrwert in der Arbeitsumgebung?

Lisa Glassner:
Klar irgendwann kommt immer der CFO oder CEO dazu, und wenn derjenige nicht den Wert sieht,
also ich denke, dass häufig die Begeisterung am Anfang da ist und man hat die Vision und dann
wird aber in dem weiteren Prozess immer wieder weggeschnitten und am Ende des Tages kommt
man dann mit einem Me-Too-Produkt wieder raus. Also ich habe im Grunde genommen das was
ich vorher gemacht habe und dann haben wir aber häufig auch die Enttäuschung, dass es nicht
so wirklich funktioniert, weil natürlich auch viel damit verbunden ist, zum einen wie gestalte ich
das Ganze, aber zum anderen auch, was kann das Möbel an sich leisten. Und bei uns ist das
Wissen in diesem Bereich natürlich sehr tief, aber häufig bei den Entscheidern gibt es dann eine
Unkenntnis darüber und die haben auch nicht die Zeit dazu, sich damit zu beschäftigen und dann
ist es natürlich immer schwierig. Also in vielen Bereichen ist noch ein großes Fragezeichen und
häufig wird auch der Return-on-Investment noch nicht so ganz gesehen, beziehungsweise wird
auch nicht immer konsequent durchdacht und berechnet und dabei verglichen was habe ich denn
von der einen, und was habe ich von der anderen Lösung.

4. Interview mit Birgit Fuchs (Steelcase)

Interviewer:
Zunächst einmal zu deiner Person, was ist dein Hintergrund und was ist deine Aufgabe hier bei
Steelcase?

Birgit Fuchs:
Ich bin jetzt seit zwei Jahren bei Steelcase und meine Funktion nennt sich Sales-Consultant
Design Portfolio, also da geht es um ein Produktportfolio, welches sich auf die Mittelzonen bezieht,
Mittelzonen, Sonder-, und Mehrwertzonen die im Unternehmen gelten, also alles was nicht Tisch,
Stuhl, Schrank ist würde ich sagen. Und um da die Mehrwerte besser herausarbeiten zu können,
leisten wir halt eine Übersetzungs-Arbeit von den Anforderungen des Kunden in den Grundriss
und Applikationen der Möbel hinein. Ich selbst bin für den Bereich DACH Süd verantwortlich. Im
Sales-Team sind wir noch mehr Personen, aber für diesen Spezialbereich sind wir zu zweit.

Interviewer:
Wie ist euer Prozess mit dem Kunden? Wie beratet ihr, beziehungsweise welche Produkte und
Module sind häufig gefragt oder sehr beliebt?

98
Birgit Fuchs:
Grundsätzlich haben wir dieses Prinzip ‚Choice-and-Control‘, also ähnlich zu Activity-based
Working. Man hat dann unterschiedliche Räume zur Verfügung und der Mitarbeiter hat die
Möglichkeit den Raum auszuwählen, basierend auf dem was er gerade tun muss, also welche
Aufgabenstellung er hat, wie er sich fühlt, also welche Atmosphäre er braucht und dann eben ob
er sitzen, stehen oder loungen möchte, das ist eigentlich das Prinzip von ‚Choice-and-Control‘.
Da haben wir natürlich unterschiedliche Zonen, zum Beispiel eine Social-Zone oder eine Meeting-
Zone, mit dem Fokus Kommunikation, oder Fokus Kollaboration und das kommt in jedem
Unternehmen vor, das ist einfach so, nur in unterschiedlichen Abstufungen beziehungsweise
unterschiedlich gewichtet. Das ist mal das Grundprinzip, aber vom Prozess und der
Vorgehensweise, ist es sehr unterschiedlich. Es kommt manchmal der aufgeklärte Kunde, der
vielleicht auch schon sehr weit ist im Projekt, der hat einen Innenarchitekten und einen Berater
schon an der Seite und bitte sagen Sie uns wie sie es umsetzen würden, das was wir wollen.
Meistens kommt man mit der Aufgabenstellung „wir müssen etwas verändern“ und dann gibt es
bestimmte Aufgaben, die verändert werden müssen, die wir brauchen, zum Beispiel mehr
Kommunikation, mehr Transparenz, wir müssen schneller werden etc. und dann fangen wir in der
Regel ziemlich einfach an, indem wir Möglichkeiten aufzeigen. Wir bieten Workshops an, also
Beratungsplanung, ziemlich konzeptionell oder wenn der Kunde schon Architekten hat, der für
das Konzept zuständig ist, dann arbeiten wir mit dem zusammen.

Interviewer:
Jetzt haben natürlich alle Unternehmen die klassischen Arbeitsplätze und in der Regel auch
Meeting Räume, aber wie ist die Haltung beiden Unternehmen bezüglich der Sonderzonen, die
vielleicht in den klassischen Arbeitswelten noch nicht existieren? Sind die Unternehmen einen
Mehrwert in diesen neuen Konzepten?

Birgit Fuchs:
Es gibt natürlich schon die ganz konservativen. Wenn in einem traditionellen Maschinenbau
Unternehmen 80% der Mitarbeiter Ingenieure sind und die arbeiten alle an ihrem Schreibtisch mit
Ihrem Bildschirm und da arbeiten die auch schon seit 20 oder 25 Jahren, die kennen es nicht
anders, die haben keine Veranlassung warum sie jetzt etwas verändern sollten. Da muss erst
mal einer kommen und sagen wozu, warum jetzt? Und da muss auch ein Hintergrund da sein
finde ich und das ist ja auch immer Unternehmensentscheidung, dass man sagt man muss etwas
verändern, weil zum Beispiel jeder arbeitet vor sich hin und ich habe hier Spitzenleute, aber jeder
für sich und dann treffen die sich zweimal, alle vier Wochen und stellen fest „ach ja, das habe ich
auch schon gemacht und wenn ich gewusst hätte dass du das machst, dann hätte ich das auch
so gemacht“, also das sind ja Dinge die vernichtend sein können für ein Unternehmen, also für
die Schnelligkeit und die Effizienz. Es muss also schon ein Schmerz da sein, damit man etwas

99
verändern will und dann denke ich, ist diese Bereitschaft schon da, und die muss auch immer
von oben kommen und auch einen Grund haben. Ich hatte einmal einen Kunden, der hat mir
zehnmal am Tag gesagt „ich möchte hier kein schöner Wohnen, ich will hier kein schöner Wohnen,
das muss alles ganz funktional sein, klar kann das gut aussehen aber es muss funktional sein“.
Und da stimme ich ihm natürlich zu, es wäre sehr unglücklich, wenn man nur eine Lounge Ecke
hinstellt und sagt „da habt ihr jetzt, könnt ihr nutzen“. Das funktioniert nicht.

Interviewer:
Wie ist der Prozess in Bezug auf die Einbeziehung der Mitarbeiter bei solchen Unternehmen?

Birgit Fuchs:
Also wir machen es eigentlich nicht ohne Mitarbeiter-Beteiligung, aber es ist trotzdem immer die
Frage, inwiefern dann diese Kommunikation ins Unternehmen getragen wird. Wenn du mit den
Nutzern jetzt etwas arbeitest, also was brauchen die, dann kannst du dir ja nur eine Handvoll
Nutzer rausnehmen. Oft machen wir aber auch erst mal eine Umfrage unter allen Mitarbeitern,
dann wird das ausgewertet und dann macht man einen Workshop mit einigen Ausgewählten,
dann kann man immerhin sagen man hat alle miteinbezogen. Aber die Frage ist schon: Wissen
die alle was dann da vor sich geht und können die sich einbringen. Also die Formen der
Beteiligung halte ich für unglaublich notwendig. Ohne würde ich es gar nicht machen und es kann
aber trotzdem immer noch zu wenig sein, das hängt natürlich sehr stark an dem Unternehmen
selber, wie ernst die das nehmen die Mitarbeiter mitzunehmen.

Interviewer:
Hat diese Miteinbeziehung dann auch Auswirkungen auf die Akzeptanz der Mitarbeiter?
Beziehungsweise wie sind die Reaktionen ohne Miteinbeziehung der Mitarbeiter?

Birgit Fuchs:
Das kann natürlich grauenhaft enden, vor allem wenn man vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt wird
und es geht um meinen Arbeitsplatz und jemand will mir sagen, wie ich am besten zu arbeiten
habe und hat mich nicht mal vorher gefragt. Also so viel Empathie muss man haben, dass man
sicher sein kann, dass das schief geht. Man denkt natürlich häufig auch, man hat doch alle
informiert, und hat erzählt wie toll alles wird und der große Schritt in die Zukunft und alle werden
glücklich, aber manchmal ist dann dieser Schritt für die Mitarbeiter zu groß, und die können es
dann nicht nachvollziehen und haben Angst, weil sie ihren Arbeitsplatz aufgeben müssen. Ich
denke, dass 90% der Unternehmen auch versuchen ihre Mitarbeiter miteinzubeziehen, aber
trotzdem kann man da noch viel falsch machen.

100
Interviewer:
Bekommt ihr von den Unternehmen im Nachhinein noch Feedback zu den neuen
Arbeitsumgebungen, beziehungsweise evaluiert ihr auch die Maßnahmen?

Birgit Fuchs:
Ja man mach das viel zu selten, aber gerade bei den großen Unternehmen, da wo Großprojekten
in einem Konzern sind zum Beispiel, da ist man ohnehin schon immer vor Ort und immer am Puls
und da bekommt man das schon eher mit, aber auch da muss man sagen, nicht so häufig.
Meistens ist man schon froh, wenn man alles fertig hat und die Mitarbeiter ziehen ein, manchmal
macht man noch mit den Mitarbeitern sowas wie einen Workshop, für Verhalten auf der neuen
Fläche, wenn das gewünscht wird und dann lässt man sie meistens laufen.

Interviewer:
Wie bewertest du die Individualisierung für ein bestimmtes Unternehmen?

Birgit Fuchs:
Natürlich muss man individualisieren. Der Grundriss ist anders und wenn Kunden herkommen
und sich hier unsere Räume anschauen, dann kommunizieren wir auch, dass das hier das Büro
für Steelcase ist und das ist für uns gemacht und dafür das wir hier arbeiten können. Hier arbeiten
300 Leute und wir haben ein spezielles Arbeitsgebiet und so weiter und es ist für uns gemacht.
Und d.h. aber nicht, dass dieser Steelcase-Einrichtungsstil überall angewendet wird, sondern
wenn es einer kühl haben möchte, oder es stringent und puristisch haben möchte, oder verspielt
haben möchte, oder Wärme und Offenheit vermitteln möchte, dann eben so. Also Corporate
Identity heißt nicht, dass die Farbe des Unternehmenslogos in allen Möbeln vorkommen muss,
sondern Corporate Identity heißt, wir wollen unsere Kultur auch irgendwo räumlich
wiedergespiegelt haben und deswegen muss es immer individualisiert sein. Und d.h. nicht, dass
es jetzt immer ein individuell hergestelltes Sofa sein muss, aber was Farben und Materialien
angeht, kann man das auf jeden Fall anpassen. Den Tisch, der jetzt hier steht [Bezug zu
Interviewumgebung], den kann man im Glas oder in Holz haben und dann hat er auf einmal einen
ganz anderen Effekt und eine andere Ausstrahlung. Und das ist total wichtig und das ist auch die
planerische Leistung, dass wir uns auf den Kunden einlassen und dass wir für den Kunden
spezifisch etwas planen und nicht sagen „das sind die Möbel, da sind die Stoffe, such dir etwas
aus“.

Interviewer:
Unternehmen haben heute häufig die Zielsetzungen innovativer und kreativer zu werden. Durch
welche Maßnahmen unterstützt ihr diese Zielsetzungen in der Arbeitsumgebung?

101
Birgit Fuchs:
Wenn ich kreativ sein möchte, kann ich das manchmal auch in einem leeren Raum, der ganz
weiß ist und der mich nicht ablenkt, also wie ein weißes Blatt Papier, der mir alle Möglichkeiten
gibt, oder ich kann mich insofern inspirieren, indem ich zum Beispiel durch Biophilie und
natürliche Materialien und eine insgesamt schöne natürliche Ausstattung ein Gefühl von
Entspannung gestalte, damit Leute sich stressfrei auf etwas Neues einlassen können. Kreativ-
Raum heißt eigentlich, dass es vor allem anders sein muss als der normale Arbeitsplatz. Ich muss
also die Perspektive ändern, also wenn ich zum Beispiel mal in die Weite blicke anstatt auf
meinen Bildschirm, habe ich eine ganz andere Perspektive und empfinde andere Impulse. Das
ist auch eine Form der Kreativität, aber im Grunde genommen muss es ein Wohlfühl-Ort sein und
entweder einer der mir Ruhe gibt, durch wenig Farbe, oder eine Umgebung, die mich so inspiriert
und stimuliert, durch viel Farbe und Details, aber einfach etwas was mir guttut. Jeder Mensch hat
einen Lieblingsort, und da kommen einem häufig gute Gedanken. Und ich denke aber auch, die
Vielfalt der Orte ist wichtig, da sich ja auch jeder in einer anderen Umgebung wohlfühlt.

Interviewer:
Auf welche Weise wird auch das Bedürfnis nach mehr Flexibilität in der Arbeitsumgebung bedient?

Birgit Fuchs:
Flexibilität drückt sich natürlich auch durch die Anpassbarkeit der Möbel aus, und dass ich einen
Raum so konfigurieren kann, wie ich es im Moment brauche und dass mir der Raum alle
Möglichkeiten bietet auf unterschiedlichste Weise zu arbeiten. Wenn wir insgesamt Flexibilität
berücksichtigen in unserer Planung, dann denken wir an die Flexibilität des Unternehmens. Ich
habe zum Beispiel eine Fläche, die ist ganz gut geeignet für 80 Mitarbeiter, aber momentan sind
es nur 60 Mitarbeiter und dann berücksichtigen wir natürlich schon ein eventuelles Wachstum,
dass wenn weitere 20 dazukommen, man sehr leicht anpassen kann. Natürlich kann man es sich
in vielen Unternehmen auch nicht leisten sehr viel leere Fläche zu haben, weil Mitarbeiter nicht
vor Ort sind. Da geht es auch um Effizienz und das Bereitstellen von vielen verschiedenen
Arbeitsmöglichkeiten. Wenn ich jetzt also lauter Einzelbüros habe, dann kann ich nichts
verändern oder anpassen und dann entsteht toter Raum, wenn die Büros nicht besetzt sind. Und
das ist eigentlich nicht mehr vermittelbar, gerade wenn es um die Kosten geht. Man muss so viel
Flexibilität schaffen, dass man untereinander tauscht, das kann genauso kreativ sein, dass man
sich einfach seinen Arbeitsort sucht und dann aber auch immer einen findet. Aber das funktioniert
auch erst ab einer bestimmten Größenordnung, mit 20 oder 30 Mitarbeitern ist das dann eine
andere Art von Darstellung. Für mich ist flexibel, wenn ich eine große Fläche habe die
hauptsächlich über Möbel zoniert wird, und vielleicht ein bisschen Innenausbau, aber keine
Wände, also das wäre für mich flexibel.

102
Interviewer:
Welche Elemente in der Arbeitsumgebung wirken besonders stark auf Mitarbeiter in Bezug auf
ihre Ästhetik?

Birgit Fuchs:
Das ist schwierig, aber es ist natürlich nicht mehr nur der Ledersessel, der hat natürlich immer
noch seine Berechtigung und das gibt es, dass sich jemand hinsetzt und dann sagt „wow ist das
toll hier, einen Ledersessel, ihr habt es aber gut“. Ich denke aber es geht darum Funktionalität
und Ästhetik in Einklang zu bringen und desto besser das geschieht, desto beliebter sind Räume
und Arbeitsplätze. Auch solche Sitzmöbel, die einen umfassen und gleichzeitig abschirmen
haben häufig einen ganz tollen Effekt, weil man das Gefühl hat, man ist isoliert obwohl man mitten
im Raum ist. Das ist manchmal ein toller Effekt.

Interviewer:
Wie häufig erlebt ihr es, das Unternehmen ganz bewusst versuchen die Arbeitsraumgestaltung
beziehungsweise eine Umgestaltung zu benutzen, um eine Kulturwandel zu unterstützen?

Birgit Fuchs:
Das wird immer häufiger, ist aber sicherlich noch unter 30-40%. Diese Unternehmen haben dann
in der Regel wirklich eine Motivation etwas zu verändern, weil sie merken, dass ein Zwang dazu
besteht. Häufig sind das auch Mitarbeiterthemen, weil sie gute Leute brauchen und dann eben
die Umgestaltung benutzen, um Bewerber anzuziehen. Oder auch, wenn da ein
Generationswechsel ansteht, innerhalb eines Unternehmens, dann wird häufig auch kräftig
umgestaltet.

Interview:
Ist die Akzeptanz für solche ‚neuen Bürowelten‘ bei verschiedenen Generationen unterschiedlich?

Birgit Fuchs:
Nein, das würde ich nicht sagen. Alle nutzen diese neuen Arbeitsumgebungen sehr gerne, aber
vielleicht mit einer anderen Zielsetzung oder auf eine andere Weise. Die Älteren benutzen zum
Beispiel ein Work-Café eher, um lockere Gespräche zu führen, während die Jüngeren häufiger
auch wirklich dort am Laptop arbeiten. Wenn jetzt natürlich einer 40 Jahre lang an seinem
Schreibtisch gesessen hat, dann sieht er nicht immer unbedingt die Notwendigkeit für eine
Veränderung. Ich würde aber sagen, dass man es wirklich nicht verallgemeinern kann. Ich habe
jetzt auch gleichzeitig wieder gehört, dass viele junge Menschen von der Uni kommen und sagen
mein Ziel ist es ein Einzelbüro zu haben. Mir fällt es schwer das vorzustellen, aber es ist wohl so,
dass gerade Menschen, die ins Management wollen, dann auch ein Stück weit ihr eigenes Reich
haben wollen. Grundsätzlich denke ich natürlich schon, dass wir uns noch in der Sharing-

103
Economy befinden und dass Teilen das neue Haben ist, aber ich denke, dass gerade bestimmte
Branchen auch jüngere Menschen anziehen die gedanklich anders ticken.

104