By Alyssa Billington
Traditionally, work and home life have been viewed as two separate entities, yet in reality, they have always been, and always will be, inextricably linked. The failure to recognise this relationship has plunged us into a harmful cycle, in which we often bring negative experiences from home to the workplace and vice versa. If the home environment prevents us from resting and restoring our minds and bodies, it becomes impossible to break the cycle of carrying negative experiences from one typology to the other. This cycle must be addressed to improve worker’s professional performance, as well as their wellbeing.
The last fifteen years have seen workplaces undergo some of their largest changes in history, particularly as we traded pen and paper for laptops in the wake of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.[i] In many ways the fourth industrial revolution gave us a new-found flexibility, providing the opportunity to work from home and outside of standard office hours. Conversely, the line between our work and home lives steadily blurred, allowing work to seep into our home environment and time with loved ones. This blurring of work and home intensified once again during the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing workers out of the office and into makeshift office spaces within our homes.
Society’s evolving views have also drastically altered the composition of the workforce. Modern workers are questioning the long held ‘live-to-work’ philosophy and are much more willing to prioritise personal wellbeing, which is highlighted by the ‘The Great Resignation.’ Research by The Executive Development Network revealed that 85.8% of employees would be more likely to leave a job if there was no obvious support for employee wellbeing.[ii] Modern workers not only expect more support from their employers but are more likely to make professional sacrifices to achieve greater work-life balance. Consequently, there is a new expectation for employers to allow for greater flexibility when it comes to how and where work hours are completed. Specifically, there has been a continuous push for remote and hybrid work settings, despite some employers calling for a return to the office. For example, a survey conducted by Good Hire found that ‘61% of Americans would be willing to take a pay cut to maintain working remote status’, demonstrating that a great number of workers are now unwilling to prioritise their work lives at the expense of their personal wellbeing.[iii]
The current structure of the modern workforce comprises three modes of work: those who work entirely at the office; those who work entirely remote; and the hybrid workers, who divide their time between remote and office work. For the purpose of this paper ‘remote work’ refers to workers who work on a full-time basis from their home, differentiating them from those who work in non-household environments (cafes, co-working spaces, etc.).
In recent years, employers have sought to support employee wellbeing by creating healthy workplaces that foster physical and mental wellbeing. Workplace wellbeing measures may include mental health support, new office fit outs, ergonomic office furniture, or access to gyms and healthy meals. As important as these workplace wellbeing measures may be, the term ‘workplace’ tends to encompass only the office mode of work, rather than all three work modes the modern-day workforce may experience. Given that modern day work occurs so flexibly across both the office and home typology, employers should also pay attention to how they can support wellbeing in the home environment, rather than focusing solely on the office environment.
Addressing employee wellbeing is an invaluable investment for both employers and employees. Establishing a work culture that supports wellbeing improves our wellbeing as individuals and, makes us stronger as a collective through improved levels of performance and productivity. The Productivity Commission Mental Health Inquiry of 2020 found that ‘workplace mental ill-health cost Australia up to $39 billion in lost participation and productivity’.i Looking at the trend of workers compensation claims made within the last 23 years, it is evident that this issue was on the rise even before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Claims for mental health conditions increased by 51% between 2000-2018, and by 2018, accounted for 68% of all disease related claims.i Clearly, poor mental wellbeing of Australian workers has become a major cost to Australian industries.
In recent years, employers have invested sizeable amounts of resources into supporting employee wellbeing. According to a recent article published by Deloitte, companies with more than 20,000 employees allocate ‘an average of US$11 million a year’ to improving workforce health, wellbeing, and productivity’.[iv] Despite the large investments into improving workplace wellbeing, the worker experience continues to dwindle. Deloitte, in partnership with Harvard Business Review, found that 68.5%. of Australians feel like they are burning out at work.[iv] In addition, a recent study conducted at the University of Oxford found that workplace wellbeing strategies such as coaching, relaxation practices, mindfulness workshops, and promoting healthy workstyles provided no improvement in average employee wellbeing.[v]
This raises the question: why is that despite the incentives implemented within recent years, workers still feel burnt out, discontent, and disconnected? One reason could be that employers and employees alike have focused on only some aspects of wellbeing, failing to address the cyclical relationship between the work and home environments. To date, little emphasis has been placed on how improving spatial wellbeing in the home can improve worker’s physical and mental wellbeing, as well as its benefits for the professional experience. In essence, the return on investment into wellbeing within the workplace is diminished without sufficient resources being allocated to promoting wellbeing in the home environment.
Work and home are the typologies in which people spend most of their lives, and each of these typologies likely contain a set of environmental stressors that can negatively impact both mental and physical wellbeing. If each environments contains stressors, there is little chance for re-regulating of the body and mind throughout the day. This leaves us in a chronic state of stress, leading us to carry negative experiences from work to the home and vice versa. One solution to this is effecting change within the home environments, which can help break the harmful cycle and improve overall wellbeing.
To understand how wellbeing can be supported in the home we turn to the biological sensitivity to context model (BSCM) developed by Boyce and Ellis.[vi] According to this model, differential susceptibility to the environment is primarily mediated by individual differences in neurobiological traits. Moreover, it suggests that individuals with heightened stress reactivity may have an increased biological sensitivity to context, posing the potential for negative health effects when in adverse conditions and positive effects when under supportive conditions.[vii] Put simply, each person has their own set of biological sensitivities that impact how they experience and respond to every environment. Importantly, this means that some individuals are more sensitive than others and are likewise prone to heightened environmental sensitivity when placed in non-supportive environments. Figure 1 portrays the Design of Grounding’s Spectrum of Sensitivities developed to map the type and severity individual’s environmental sensitivities.
Figure 1. Spectrum of Environmental Sensitivities
People living with sensory differences, such as those living with sensory processing disorder (SPD), are much more likely to experience heightened sensitivities as their ‘brain has trouble receiving and responding to information that comes through the senses’.[viii] Common sounds, for instance, may be experienced as painful or overwhelming. Symptoms of SPD are common in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), dyspraxia, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).[ix] A lot can be learned from understanding those who are most sensitive to their context. As Kirsten Lindsmith who lives with ASD explains, ‘our needs aren’t actually different from typical people’s, just more intense and specific’.[x] As such, better design emerges for the majority when you listen and learn from the minority.
Understanding BSCM reveals a clear strategy for improving worker wellbeing. That is, adapt the environment or make the best person-environment match rather than change a person’s sensory processing.[xi] This paper will show that by adopting strategic spatial design in the home, heightened biological sensitivities can be reduced, in turn improving the physical and mental wellbeing of workers.
For this paper, three hypothetical worker profiles based on the structure of the modern workforce (office, remote, and hybrid) have been developed to demonstrate how the cycle of working and dwelling can be better supported through the strategic implementation of spatial strategies. Each worker profile has been built upon research that aims to reflect the ‘typical’ worker and the greatest issues each mode of work poses. From this, the worker’s predicted environmental sensitivities have been mapped out in relation to the Design of Grounding’s Spectrum of Sensitivities. As such, it was revealed which sensitivities were most heightened for each worker, and thus what spatial strategies in the home were necessary to address these.
What the home and office have in common is that each environment possesses environmental stressors that impact an individual’s spatial sensitivities. A key distinction is that a worker is unlikely to have much, if any, control over the office environment. The home, however, possesses a unique opportunity to exert full control over manipulating the physical environment and, consequently, our experience formed within it.
This raises the question: how can we shape the home environment in such a way that allows workers to appropriately rest, restore, and recharge, in turn allowing workers to truly bring their best selves to work? It is important to recognise that there is a range of solutions that can be applied to address these challenges. As shown by the BSCM, humans experience the physical environment subjectively and thus vastly differently from one another. Environmental solutions, therefore, will look different for everyone depending on their own environmental sensitivities, as well as their occupied mode of work.
Office worker – evidence profile
In Australia, nine out of ten offices are open plan.[xii] The shift to open-plan offices emerged from good intentions of making workers more collaborative, more creative, and sparking serendipitous ideas. This type of environments is inconducive to success for a wide range of people – especially those who are most sensitive to their environment. The greatest issue with open-plan office design is that it removes the element of control, resulting in psychological repercussions for the worker.[xiii] As humans, we have a ‘genetic disposition towards claiming and defending territory.’[xiv] Indeed, research highlights that although open-plan offices are designed with the intent of bringing employees together and boosting productivity, they in fact hinder social relationships and goal accomplishment. [xiv],[xv] Open plan features such as unassigned working spaces, a lack of physical boundaries, and an omission of individual working spaces all unsettle the innate human desire to feel a sense of ownership and control within the environment.[xiv]. The ability to return to a specific desk every day and add personal touches may seem a small luxury but can have a surprisingly large impact on our sense of ownership and control in space. Likewise, open-plan features have been found to hinder open interaction as they leave workers feeling exposed, observable, and searching for other ways to gain privacy.[xv] In fact, lack of privacy within open-plan offices may have a consequence of triggering defensive behaviour and strained workplace relationships.[xiv]
A lack of control over sensory input may also have negative repercussions for the office worker. For instance, workers have little ability to shield themselves from the cacophony of voices and machinery, interruptions from chatty colleagues, and overstimulating décor, meaning the office worker is constantly thwarted with sensory stimulation that will likely hinder their mood and concentration. According to research conducted by Professors from the University of Sydney, noise is the most disturbing factor of open-plan offices.[xvi] The study found that ‘nearly 50% of people with a completely open office floor plan, and nearly 60% of people in cubicles with low walls, are dissatisfied with their sound privacy’. In parallel to this, another study found that open-plan office noise not only increased negative mood by 25% and increased workers sweat response by 34%.[xvii]
The studies mentioned are based off participants reflective of the general population. If too much sensory input negatively impacts the general population, these experiences will be even more heightened for those challenged in processing external information. Other research has found a correlation between people having a higher number of autistic traits and having higher olfactory sensitivity, meaning for those with neurological difference, for whom the sensory experience is heightened, the modern working environment has the potential to be highly disruptive.[xviii]
As such, the current emphasis on open-plan offices means that these workers have little control over their working environment, resulting in a lack of agency for those who have heightened environmental sensitivities.
Office worker - sensitivities
Considering the research findings, it is predicted that the typical office worker may have the following heightened environmental sensitivities:
Environmental sensitivities (choice, uncertainty, novelty)
Exteroception (sensing the outside world, sensory processing, noise sensitivity and sensory distraction)
Social awareness and social skills (relationships)
Privacy and boundaries (proxemics, safety, prospect and refuge, resting)
Figure 2. Predicted environmental sensitivities of an office worker
Office worker - suggested spatial strategies.
The home of the office worker should aid to counteract overstimulation generated by the open-plan office environment and reduce heightened sensitivities. An effective strategy for the office worker is to create a restful, low sensory environment, allowing the worker to return to an environment that fosters restoration.
Given the office worker’s heightened sensitives, it is recommended that the overall aim of the home environment is to reduce overstimulation. There are numerous ways in which the home can be adapted to achieve this. Generally, the colour palettes should be minimal, avoiding stark contrasts, and promoting a consistent flow throughout the home. Use of vibrant colours should be kept to a minimum and used with a purpose. The home should be quiet and mitigate unwanted sound. For instance, sound reverberation into the home can be mitigated by incorporating strategic positioning of furniture, soundproof windows, or adding trees and plants.
Incorporating a small ‘quiet space’ within the home can be an effective way to reduce heightened sensitivities and to restore the sense of control that is greatly lacking in the office environment. This helps to entirely remove the individual from the rest of the house and its occupants, over whom the individual has little control, giving them optimal agency over an environment. This space does not need to be large or overstated; it simply needs to allow for a sense of control, personalisation, privacy, and reduce overstimulation. When individuals feel as though they have freedom of choice within their environment it increases positive social interactions and reduces levels of stress.[xix] Something as small as including moveable furniture pieces can instil a sense of choice and control.[xx] Perhaps this involves designing a space to partake in a particular relaxing activity, such as yoga or meditation. Privacy can be created in several ways through strategic manipulation of acoustics, spatial layout, and physical boundaries. Ideally, a quiet space will be positioned away from the more active and noisy parts of the home. If it is impossible to create an enclosed space, privacy can still be achieved through the use of non-structural barriers to reduce distractions and sensory input from other parts of the house. Visual barriers are effective tools in mitigating privacy and social interaction as they reduce sight lines between occupants. Incorporating soft materials and furnishings, such as carpet and sofas, is one of many ways to reduce echoes, reverberation, and sound levels.[xx]
Lighting conditions can play a major role in reducing overstimulation. Human emotions, be they positive or negative, are felt more strongly when in a brightly lit environment.[xxi] As such, a quiet space should have dim, ambient lighting to help ease negative emotions that the office worker may have carried home. Likewise, research has found that as experiences of sensory overload increase, preference for dark or grey scale colours increased.[xx] This may be tied to the preference to be in dimmer lighting as darker colours absorb more light than light colours.
Overall, what the office worker needs from their home is a calm, low sensory environment aimed at reducing heightened spatial sensitivities triggered by the overstimulating office environment.
Remote worker – evidence profile
Despite the home being the environment where individuals can exert most control, remote workers are still experiencing poor mental health and are struggling to establish clear boundaries between their personal and professional lives. A lack of appropriate spatial qualities in the home has a large part to play in intensifying this lack of boundaries.
Research suggests that remote work has a negative impact on mental health, including heightened symptoms of anxiety and depression.[xxii] One study by Nullified Health found that 80% of the British population feel that working from home has had a negative impact on their mental health. It seems that remote work also poses a unique set of challenges given the heavy reliance on technology to engage with other colleagues. Katherine Haan and Kelly Main found that as many as ‘69% of remote workers report increased burnout from digital communication tools.’[xxiii]
Understanding the lack of boundaries associated with remote work could provide some partial reasoning behind the poor mental health experienced by workers. There is substantial research to demonstrate that remote workers find it difficult to ‘unplug’ from work outside of office hours. Almost half (48%) of people surveyed for the 2023 State of Remote Work report said that they frequently worked outside of work hours.[xxiv] Likewise, remote workers also find it difficult to restrain from personal activities during their scheduled work hours. It has been found, for example, that remote workers ‘enjoy scrolling social media (74.7%), completing chores around their house (71.6%), and shopping online (69.6%) during their workday.’[xxv]
Blurred home and personal life boundaries seem unsurprising when viewing research related to how remote work is conducted in the home environment. Concerningly, instead of defining areas in the home for specific tasks to be completed separately and in isolation, remote workers find themselves using all rooms in the home as multifunctional spaces. One survey by Nulab (2020) reported that 72% of remote workers do not work from a designated office space, and 40% did not even have a designated desk.[xxvi] Perhaps of greater concern is how work is impeding upon the spaces that were once reserved for rest. A study investigating how Australians use their sleep environments found that 50% of respondents either sometimes or always use their bed for studying, working, or eating.[xxvii] A quarter of these respondents also reported to have trouble sleeping. It is nearly impossible to have a healthy daily routine if the environment does allow the remote worker to complete both professional and personal tasks in isolation. For instance, how is one to lay down and sleep without having work related thoughts when they just completed a full workday in the very same environment? In summary, utilising rooms as multi-functional spaces plays a large role in blurring the line between remote worker’s personal and professional lives.
Remote worker – sensitivities
Considering the research findings, it is predicted that the typical remote worker will have the following heightened environmental sensitivities:
Executive functioning (routine, ritual, process complexity, repetitive behaviours)
Privacy and boundaries. (proxemics, safety, prospect and refuge, resting)
Interoception (emotional regulation, awareness of emotion, emotional intensity hyperactivity)
Figure 3. Predicted environmental sensitivities of a remote worker
Remote worker – suggested spatial strategies.
Based upon the hypothesised remote worker profile, it is suggested that spatial strategies are applied with an aim of establishing boundaries between personal and professional life and supporting healthy transitions between each. Some strategies outlined in the following discussion include mitigating light to support the circadian rhythm, defining separation through spatial planning and physical elements, and adopting the use of a ‘breakout area’.
Mitigating both natural and artificial lighting is one strategy that can greatly impact how workers transition throughout their day. Optimising the use of natural light in the workspace has been shown to benefit worker’s health and wellbeing. One study by Alan Hedge, for example, found that ‘workers in office environments with optimised natural light reported an 84 percent drop in symptoms of eyestrain, headaches and blurred vision symptoms.’[xxviii] In line with this, other research has highlighted that those who are exposed to natural light during the day experience less fatigue and better sleep.[xxix] Exposure to daylight plays a key role in supporting individuals’ circadian rhythm, a rhythm of vital importance to regulate the sleep and wake cycle.
There are several ways through which spatial planning can aid separation between personal and professional life in the home. Firstly, the remote worker needs a designated and well-defined workspace that provides them with optimal working conditions. Secondly, the workspace should be visually quiet and uncluttered to foster concentration and avoid overstimulation and unnecessary stress. This is achieved in several ways, such as through colour and material choices and utilising closed storage to organise supplies. The office should be highly flexible and changeable to give the worker a sense of control as their needs shift. For instance, providing task lighting, the ability to mitigate both sunlight and artificial light as outside light and weather shifts, or having moveable and adaptable furniture to meet the needs of different tasks. Overall, the more the home office can meet the needs of the worker and enhance their experience, the less likely they are to invade their personal spaces to complete work.
How we circulate through the home can play a large role in our behaviour. A such, if spatial pathways are manipulated to avoid visual interaction between an individual and potentially distracting spaces, the worker is more likely to stay on task. As just one example, remote workers may potentially get distracted when going into the kitchen throughout the day. Brief coffee breaks may turn into prolonged side quests to clean dishes or do other household chores. If possible, the home office could encompass a small kitchenette that eliminates the need to circulate through the kitchen space entirely throughout the working day.
A ‘breakout area’ is a spatial feature usually only understood in relation to the office environment. The following discussion poses that the concept of the breakout area has many potential benefits that can be applied to the remote worker context. A breakout area can provide a social hub for employees, as well as an opportunity to escape the desk, brainstorm in a different context, and take a mental pause. It has been reported that ‘59% of employees believe breakout areas are essential office facilities.’[xxx] A potential reason employees value this space is that breaking throughout the day improves worker wellbeing as well as boosting productivity and performance.[xxxi] Some research highlights that what workers do during breaks affect how they restore and recover. One study, for example, found that when employees engage in a chosen relaxation or social activity during microbreaks, they are better able to recover both momentarily and at the end of the workday.[xxxii] Of course, social breaks may be less relevant to remote workers. Relaxation activities, on the other hand, have full potential to be incorporated into the remote worker’s day. Relaxation activities, includes activities revolving around psychological rest, such as stretching, relaxing, and daydreaming.[xxxii]
Consequently, a remote work breakout space should allow for periods of relaxation and restoration throughout the day. In keeping with the need for boundaries, this space can be small but should be kept as separate as possible from other areas of the home. Likewise, it should be reserved purely for breaks within working hours and remain unoccupied during personal hours. It should be directly accessible from the dedicated workspace, with an avoidance of having to walk through the most active parts of the house to reach it. Specific design aspects will depend on preferences for different activities but should achieve an overall aim of aiding periods of rest and restoration. This includes reducing noise reverberation, mitigating both natural and artificial lighting, reducing visual noise, and strategic spatial planning (refer to a Spatial Guideline for the Remote Worker for more detail).
One spatial strategy that has a profound ability to improve worker wellbeing is the incorporation of Biophilia into office design. The concept of Biophilia, ‘first popularised by Edward. O Wilson in 1984, described the innate relationship between humans and nature, and emphasises the need for humans to be continually connected to nature’.[xxxiii] Research has shown that the incorporating biophilic elements within the built environment improves overall wellbeing, including improving mood, and reducing symptoms of stress and anxiety.[xxxiii] More specific research into Biophilia and its relationship with office workers found that biophilic elements reduce stress and anxiety, improve overall mood and attitude, and aid in faster stress recovery.[xxxiv] [xxxv] For instance, including natural colours and materials such as those found in natural landscapes are proven to have a much more positive impact than other non-biophilic elements.[xxxiii] There is a misconception that incorporating Biophilia in design entails creating an overt connection to nature by overwhelming spaces with live green plants. Allusions to nature can be more subtle, such as incorporating timber finishes, prioritising natural daylight and ventilation, framing natural views, and mimicking gentle, natural forms. In summary, Biophilia poses great potential to improve the mental wellbeing of remote workers when appropriately applied to the designated home office space.
Hybrid worker – evidence profile
It seems Australians have developed a particular affiliation with the hybrid work mode. A 2022 report by Future Forum Pulse found that 55% of Australians work in hybrid settings, which is higher than the global average of 46%.[xxxvi] Given that hybrid workers shift between environments, they are exposed to a broader and thus more complex range of environmental sensitivities. Figure 5 explores the relationship between the spatial sensitivities experienced by remote and office workers, highlighting points where the two are in close proximity. These pressure points highlight three sensitivities that are likely to be heightened for the hybrid worker (environmental sensitivities, exteroception, privacy and boundaries). Subsequently, it can be predicted that many of the spatial recommendations aimed at improving the spatial wellbeing of office and remote workers will be applicable to the remote worker. These are explored in more detail in our spatial guide, A Spatial Guideline for the Hybrid Worker.
Despite hybrid worker’s having similar sensitivities to those of the other modes, research on hybrid work has revealed that hybrid workers face unique challenges of their own. According to Dr Elora Voyles, an Industrial Organisational Psychologist and People Scientist, 72.4% of workers rate hybrid work as the most emotionally exhausting.[xxxvii] The popularity of hybrid work is likely due to the high flexibility it offers, as it allows employees to shift between working environments as it suits them. The flipside of this flexibility is that it creates an inconsistency of routine which can be psychologically disruptive for many workers, particularly those who rely on predictability to feel grounded.[xxxviii] Thus, the constant shift between working in the office and home workplace requires as much of a psychological shift as it does an environmental one. Simply, hybrid work adds an extra layer of thinking to the day. ‘It involves a stop start routine: taking my laptop to and from the office every day and remembering the important things I’ve left where’.[xxxix] In summary, having to shift between working environments adds to the already large cognitive load of workers by disrupting their sense of predictability.
Hybrid worker - sensitivities (Based on profile evidence and pressure points)
Considering the research findings, it is predicted that the typical hybrid worker may have the following heightened environmental sensitivities:
Executive functioning (routine, ritual, process complexity, repetitive behaviours)
Privacy and boundaries. (proxemics, safety, prospect and refuge, resting)
Environmental sensitivities (choice, uncertainty, novelty)
Exteroception (sensing the outside world, sensory processing, noise sensitivity and sensory distractions)
Figure 4. Predicted environmental sensitivities of a hybrid worker
Figure 5. Relationship between office and remote worker's predicted environmental sensitivities.
Hybrid worker - suggested spatial strategies.
Fostering habitual behaviour can relieve some of the extra cognitive load experienced by hybrid workers. Firstly, it is important to establish what researchers define as the difference between routine and habit. This being, that a habit is done with little to no thought, whereas a routine involves deliberately and frequently completing a series of behaviours.[xl] [xli] Eventually, once a person has repeated a routine enough it becomes a habit, removing the need for intention. As such, developing habits reduces daily cognitive load as people are required to make less deliberate decisions throughout the day. The problem hybrid workers face in establishing habits is that ‘when environments change, the cues activating habits may change also, with the result of disrupting habit performance’.[xlii]
Part of the task of the hybrid worker’s home is to allow for a consistent and well-established routine that eventually becomes habitual. The home environment should be highly structured to support physical and mental navigation. In addition, spatial planning of the home should entail logical connections between different spaces to ease movement between different tasks.
Most importantly, having similar habitual cues across both environments may ease the unpredictability and mental fatigue of the hybrid worker. Perhaps when at the office, the worker likes to take brief breaks to sit outdoors and take a mental pause. Creating a sheltered outdoor courtyard or garden that is accessible from the home workspace could keep this habit consistent across environments. In turn, sitting outdoors is something the worker can do in each environment and to help form a habitual routine and strengthen predictability. A habitual routine that supports optimal workflow will look different for everyone, yet the need to identify what these crucial habits are, so they can be emulated in the home environment, is universal.
Research on ‘context-dependant’ memory leads to the understanding, that adopting similar spatial qualities across environments create potential for workers to retrieve information more easily, reducing cognitive load. As Wouter Cox and colleagues explains, ‘similar memories strengthen each other’s retrievability when the events occur in the same context, whereas memories impair each other’s recall when experiences take place across different contexts’.[xliii]
People are therefore better able to retrieve information when in the same context as the information was first encoded (learned) in. Likewise, memories become impaired when one tries to recall information in a context that differs from the one which it was learned.[xliv] As such, the ability of the hybrid worker to recall information is likely to be impaired when continuously learning information in one workplace and attempting to recall it in another. Researchers, however, have found that ‘the negative effects of context change can be reduced when participants are provided with contextual cues; for example, a student studying for an exam will retrieve information better is they study in a context similar to where the exam will take place.
If the home workplace of a hybrid worker mimics the spatial qualities of their office, it poses great potential to improve memory retrievability. This can be aided through spatial cues and adjusting the field of view in the home workspace to have a sense of familiarity to the office workspace. Perhaps this means adopting a similar furniture layout and organisation of items as you have for your office desk, having the same photos of your family that you often look at throughout the day, or incorporating materials that possess similar qualities to those found in your office. This is not to say that one should exactly replicate the spatial qualities of the office into the home-office environment. It should be considered what spatial qualities have a positive impact in the office environment and thus could provide benefit by being replicated in the home-office. Mimicking these positive spatial qualities within the home-office can, in turn, improve memory retrievability and reduce cognitive load throughout the working-day.
Conclusion
As workplace psychologist, Stephen Macdonald, says ‘we know that high-performing cultures are best established through a cycle of performance and rest’.[xlv] As has been shown, neglecting to improve spatial wellbeing in the home significantly impacts worker’s physical and mental wellbeing, and thus their experience and performance within the work environment. The spatial strategies outlined here only touch the surface of ways the home can better support the wellbeing of office, remote and hybrid workers.
The Design of Grounding have developed three spatial guidelines based on the research findings made in this paper: A Spatial Guide for the Office Worker; A Spatial Guide for the Remote Worker; and a spatial guide for the hybrid worker. Each guideline encompasses an in-depth set of strategies that can be utilised to support a healthy cycle between work and home life by addressing spatial wellbeing in the home.
In light of the research, it is clear that each work mode possesses its own unique set of challenges. For the office worker, the lack of control imposed by open-plan office design leaves office workers feeling overwhelmed and overstimulated. Remote workers, despite having the greatest control over their environment, are still experiencing poor mental health, and are struggling to establish clear boundaries between their personal and professional lives. Finally, the nature of hybrid work creates an inconsistency of routine which can be psychologically disruptive and leaves these workers feeling the most emotionally exhausted. Identifying these central issues allowed for each worker profile to be mapped in relation to the biological sensitivity to context model. Mapping these sensitivities laid a clear path to understand what each worker profile requires to achieve spatial wellbeing within their home. These research profiles aimed to be as reflective of the general population as possible, and how the environment is experienced and responded to will differ between individuals depending on their biological sensitivities.
As such, it is important to recognise that there is a wide range of solutions that can be used to address these challenges, and consulting professional expertise can help you find the tailored solution that fits your needs. What we at the Design of Grounding will be offering is a holistic spatial wellbeing program whereby we establish a personalised sensory-spatial profile, and a tailored spatial support plan aimed at supporting your individual spatial needs.
If you would like to explore the spatial guidelines relating to this research or learn more about our spatial wellbeing program, please visit.
Citations:
[i] Tan, L., A Gayed, S Mobbs, N Reily, C Connell, D Yip, M Deady, and S Harvey. 2021. Modern work: how changes to the way we work are impacting Australian’s mental health. Sydney, Australia. Black Dog Institute. https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/modern_work.pdf
[ii] The Executive Development Network. 2022. “Employees at small businesses may be slipping through the wellbeing net.” The Executive Development Network. https://edn.training/employees-at-small-businesses-may-be-slipping-through-the-wellbeing-net/
[iii] Korolevich, Sara. 2021. “The state of remote work in 2021: a survey of the American workforce.” GoodHire. https://www.goodhire.com/resources/articles/state-of-remote-work-survey/
[iv] Bhatt, Jay, Colleen Bordeaux and Jen Fisher. 2023. “The workforce well-being imperative.” Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/employee-wellbeing.html
[v] Fleming, Willian J., 2024. “Emplpoyee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions: Cross-sectional evidence from the United Kingdom.” Industrial Relations Journal 10 (January): 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12418
[vi] Boyce, Thomas and Bruce J Ellis. 2005. “Biological sensitivity to context: I. an evolutionary developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity.” Dev Psychopathol 17 (2): 271-301. doi: 10.1017/s0954579405050145. PMID: 16761546.
[vii] Ellis, Bruce J., and Thomas Boyce. 2008. “Biological Sensitivity to Context.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (3): 183-187. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00571.x
[viii] Goodman, Brenda. 2023. “Sensory Processing Disorder.” WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/children/sensory-processing-disorder
[ix] Miller, Lucy Jane, Sarah A Schoen, Shelley Mulligan, and Jillian Sullivan. 2017. “Identification of sensory processing and integration symptom clusters: a preliminary study.” Occup Ther Int 16 (November): 2876080. doi: 10.1155/2017/2876080. PMID: 29348739; PMCID: PMC5733937.
[x] Musser, George. 2023. “Fixing the Hated Open-Design Office.” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-hated-open-design-office/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAutistic%20people%20are%20canaries%20in,the%20office%20environment%20for%20all.
[xi] Brown, Catana. 2001. “What is the best environment for me? A sensory processing perspective.” Occupational Therapy in Mental Health 17 (3-4): 115-125. ttps://doi.org/10.1300/J004v17n03_08
[xii] Marriner, Cosima. 2014. “Workers complain open plan offices have serious flaws.” Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/workers-complain-open-plan-offices-have-serious-flaws-20140315-34tnz.html
[xiii] Konnikova, Maria. 2014. “The open-office trap.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open-office-trap?utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com
[xiv] Khazanchi, Shalini, Therese A. Sprinkle, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Nathan Tong. 2018. “A spatial model of work relationships: the relationship-building and relationship-straining effects of workplace design. AMR 43: 590-609. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0240
[xv] Bernstein, Ethan S., and Stephen Turban. 2018. “The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 373: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239
[xvi] Borzykowksi, Bryan. 2017. “Why open offices are bad for us.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170105-open-offices-are-damaging-our-memories
[xvii] Sander, Libby. 2021. “Open-plan office noise increases stress and worsens mood.” Bond University. https://bond.edu.au/news/open-plan-office-noise-increases-stress-and-worsens-mood
[xviii] Ashwin, Chris, Emma Chapman, Jessica Howells, Danielle Rhydderch, Ian Walker, and Simon Baron-Cohen. 2014. “Enhanced olfactory sensitivity in autism spectrum conditions.” Molecular Autism 5 (53): 1-9. https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2040-2392-5-53
[xix] Colenberg, S. E., Romero Herrera, N. A., & Keyson, D. V. 2022. “Workplace affordances of social well-being a conceptual framework.” Proceedings of the 3rd transdisciplinary workplace research conference, 2022 Milan 247-257. Politecnico di Milano.
[xx] Sadia, Toar. 2020. “Exploring the design preferences of neurodivergent populations for quiet spaces.” 1-105. DOI:10.31224/osf.io/fkaqj
[xxi] Xu, Alison Jing, and Aparna A. Labroo. 2014. “Incandescent affect: turning on the hot emotional system with bright light.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (2): 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.12.007
[xxii] Sarangi, Ashish, Dalynn Kim, and John Rafael. 2022. “The mental health impact of work from home: a literature review.” The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles 10 (45): 10-18. DOI: 10.12746/swrccc.v10i45.1085
[xxiii] Haan, Katherine, and Kelly Main. 2023. “Remote work statistics and trends in 2024.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
[xxiv] Buffer. 2023. “State of remote work 2023.” Buffer. https://buffer.com/state-of-remote-work/2023
[xxv] Miller, Alex. 2023. “What are remote workers doing on the clock? 2023 survey.” Upgraded Points. https://upgradedpoints.com/news/what-are-remote-workers-doing-on-the-clock/
[xxvi] Nulab. 2020. “Adjusting to remote work during the COVID-19 crisis.” Nulab. https://nulab.com/learn/collaboration/adjusting-to-remote-work/
[xxvii] Dincer, Demet, Christian Tietz, and Karem Dalci. 2023. “An investigation into sleep environment as multi-functional space.” Buildings 13 (2): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020406
[xxviii] Hedge, Alan. 2018. “Worker reactions to electrochromic and low e glass office windows.” Ergonomics International Journal 2 (4): 1-12. DOI: 10.23880/eoij-16000166
[xxix] Aries, M.B.C., F. Beute, and G. Fischl. 2020. “Assessment protocol and effects of two dynamic light patterns on human well-being and performance in a simulated and operational office environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 69: 1-19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494419304219
[xxx] Watkins. 2018. “The results are in: this is what people want in their office in 2018.” Hubble. https://hubblehq.com/blog/2018-office-goals?utm_content=buffer98c43&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
[xxxi] Lyubykh, Zhanna, Duygu Gulseren Zahra Premji, Timothy G Wingate, Connie Deng, Lisa J Bélanger, and Nick Turner. 2022. “Role of work breaks in well-being and performance: a systematic review and future research agenda.” Occup Health Psychol 27 (5): 470-487. DOI: 10.1037/ocp000033
[xxxii] Kim, Sooyeol, YoungAh Park, and Qikun Niu. 2016. “Micro-break activities at work to recover from daily work demands.” Journal of Organisational Behaviour 38 (1): 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2109
[xxxiii] Cooper, Robertson. 2015. The global impact of biophilic design in the workplace. Human Spaces. www.humanspaces.com
[xxxiv] Lottrup, Lene, Patrik Grahn, and Ulrika K. Stigsdotter. 2013. “Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace.” Landscape and Urban Planning 110: 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.002
[xxxv] Yin, Jie, Jing Yuan, Nastaran Arfaei, Paul J. Catalano, Joseph G. Allen, and John D. Spengler. 2020. “Effects of biophilic indoor environment on stress and anxiety recovery: a between subjects experiment in virtual reality.” Environment International 136: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105427
[xxxvi] Future Forum Pulse. 2022. Executives feel the strain of leading in the ‘new normal’. Future Forum Pulse. https://futureforum.com/research/pulse-report-fall-2022-executives-feel-strain-leading-in-new-normal/
[xxxvii] Voyles, Elora, and David Niu. 2021. State of Employee Engagement Q3 2021. TINY pulse. https://www.tinypulse.com/state-of-employee-engagement-q3-2021
[xxxviii] Deutsch, Sophie. 2022. “Eighty per cent of HR say hybrid work is emotionally draining for their people.” HRM. https://www.hrmonline.com.au/employee-wellbeing/hybrid-work-emotionally-draining/
[xxxix] Christian, Alex. 2022. “A part-remote, part-office schedule has been hailed as the future of work. Yet in this hybrid set-up, some employees have never been so tired.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220120-why-hybrid-work-is-emotionally-exhausting
[xl] DePaul, Kristi. 2021. “What does it really take to build a new habit?” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/what-does-it-really-take-to-build-a-new-habit
[xli] Wood, Wendy, Jeffrey M. Quinn, and Deborah A. Kashy. 2002. “Habits in everyday life: thought, emotion, and action.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6): 1281-1297. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1281
[xlii] Carden, Lucas, and Wendy Wood. 2018. “Habit formation and change.” Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences 20: 117-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.009
[xliii] Cox, Wouter R., Simone Dobbelaar, Martijn Meeter, and Vanessa A. van Ast. 2021. “Episodic memory enhancement versus impairment is determined by contextual similarity across events.” PNAS 118 (48): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101509118
[xliv] Brinegar, Kimberly, Melissa Lehman, and Malmberg Kenneth J. 2013. “Improving memory after environmental context change: a strategy of preinstatement.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20 (3): 528-33. DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0383-6
[xlv] Macdonald, Stephen. 2023. “Stephen Macdonald: great leaders understand the power of taking time out.” The West Australian. https://thewest.com.au/opinion/stephen-macdonald-great-leaders-understand-the-power-of-taking-time-out-c-10892116