Page 129 - AIT0426_E-Paper

special collaboration with the Department of Business Psychology at the University of Freiburg. One
project, three studies, three different methods and the overarching question: what is the ideal office
for today’s world? The results show with astonishing clarity that the multi-space office, with its
diversity, is superior to the classic cubicle office in many respects. For example, 75 percent of partici-
pants in the laboratory study stated that they felt more comfortable in the multi-space office. When
asked about their impressions of the new multi-space office, employees emphasized the increased
“cohesion”, “pride” and “sense of belonging”. This finding not only refutes the prejudice against the
unpopular open-plan office, it can also be translated into figures: Those who feel more connected
to the company are more committed and stay longer. We come to the office to be together. This is
exactly what the multi-space office focuses on. In terms of design, this means that inviting social spa-
ces are the strategic core of the office. High-quality environments foster exchange, community and
resilient connections that provide support even in stressful moments. This requires centrally located
areas that invite people to linger, convince with a pleasant atmosphere and signal that encounters
are welcome here. In times of desk sharing, when the personal desk is no longer an anchor point,
social spaces take on a new function: they replace the territorial with the collective. Not “my desk”,
but “our place”. This can only succeed if these spaces are on a par with the work areas in terms of
quality and design, or even surpass them. A poorly lit break room with four plastic chairs sends the Unternehmens-DNA als permanente räumliche Botschaft • CI as a permanent spatial message
opposite message.
Partizipativ entwickelte Identität – täglich erlebbar • identity that manifests itself daily in space
Change as an emotional journey – architecture and corporate culture

In the “escape-game experiment”, teams were subjected to a joint problem-solving task and indi-
vidual tasks under different spatial conditions. The result was significant: groups in the variable,
activating room configuration interacted more often and more quickly, with fewer irritating work
interruptions than groups in the static individual office environment. The following hypothesis can
be formed from this: open, flexible spaces promote collaboration and consideration and increase the
capacity for collective intelligence. The second finding in this section is counterintuitive and therefore
particularly valuable for communication with decision-makers. Yes, the multi-space office can be
more stressful than the quiet individual office. The social density, the diversity of impressions, the
demands of self-management – all of this increases the level of arousal. And yet, the mood at the end
of the working day was better in multi-space environments than in cubicle offices. The explanation
may lie in the psychology of social embedding. Those who have spent the day in close proximity to
other people, with valuable interactions and noticeable progress in the team, are likely to go home
feeling more fulfilled. While individual offices protect against sensory overload, they can also isolate
people. The survey study showed that people come to the office for the on-site contacts and move
closer together on days when office utilization is low, even if there would be sufficient space to sit
alone. In the multi-space office, the principle of “activity-based working” (ABW) applies: it is not the
desk, but the activity that determines the place of work. ABW only functions if all activity modes
(focus, collaboration, video telephony, socializing, learning, etc.) are truly represented. Learning as Landratsamt Lörrach: Schallisolation ohne Isolation • Acoustic shielding without isolation
an activity in everyday working life is becoming increasingly valuable in this context. If you question
employees before the move into a new office concept, you will often encounter scepticism. If you
ask them six to twelve months afterwards, you will often get a different picture. So-called cogniti-
ve affective maps (mind maps with emotional evaluation of terms) impressively documented this
change: negative assumptions such as “It will be noisy”, “I’ll be constantly distracted”, “I’ll lose my
privacy,” give way to actual positive experiences. This change in assumptions reflects a learning pro-
cess that must be initiated and accompanied by the architects and the company itself. Three factors
significantly accelerate this learning process. First, leadership by example: managers who visibly use
the new office, enliven the marketplace and refrain from ivory-tower behaviour normalize the new
situation. It is therefore really the task of managers to initiate and accompany change, not just to set
up a nice office. The office is the hardware, the corporate culture is the software. Without a suitable
update of the software, the new hardware will not be able to develop its full potential. Employees
have positive experiences with the new office environment because they can see the positive influ-
ence of the office on their work. Second, as already mentioned in the first section, participation:
employees who were involved in the design phase identify more strongly with the result. Thirdly:
formal and informal feedback loops. Feedback on the office, on working together, on talking loudly
on the phone must be possible in order to keep stressors to a minimum. Pilot areas can also be an
effective tool for preparing employees well. For interior designers, this means expanding their self-
image: they are not only space designers, but also cultural architects. Those who make it clear to
their clients from the outset that even the most beautiful floor plan cannot fulfil its potential without
an accompanying cultural programme deliver added value that goes far beyond the space itself and
pays off in terms of productivity, loyalty and identification. Ultimately, the question of investment Foto: Janik Gensheimer
is no longer “How much does a good office cost?” but “How much does a bad one cost me?” Those
who understand the office as a strategic tool calculate differently.

AIT 4.2026 • 129