A growing body of scientific research shows that traditional open-plan offices lead to an increase in workplace bullying and a sharp decline in productivity. While these open office spaces were originally introduced to boost collaboration and cut costs, in practice they appear to have the opposite effect. Recent studies from institutions including Linköping University and Harvard Business School reveal worrying figures that are forcing organisations to rethink their office strategy.

The open-plan paradox: less collaboration, more stress

The idea behind open-plan offices sounded logical: removing physical barriers would bring employees into more contact with one another, leading to better collaboration and innovation. Tech giants such as Google and Facebook presented their open office spaces as an essential part of their creative success. This vision was adopted worldwide, and many organisations switched en masse to open-plan concepts.

However, research from Harvard Business School involving two Fortune 500 companies that moved to fully open-plan offices found that face-to-face interactions fell by around 70% after the transition. Rather than collaborating more, employees actually withdrew. Email traffic rose by 56%, staff received 20% more emails and were copied into 41% more emails. The use of chat messages increased by 67%.

This paradoxical drop in personal contact stems from what researchers call "surveillance stress". When people are constantly visible to colleagues and managers, they experience heightened self-consciousness and reduced psychological privacy. Employees become reluctant to have informal conversations, hesitant to share half-formed ideas, and less inclined to ask for help with tricky problems when others can overhear.

Alarming research: 30% more bullying in open-plan offices

One of the most troubling findings comes from research at Linköping University in Sweden. The study, published in the journal Occupational Health Science and based on surveys of more than 3,300 Swedish employees, shows a clear link between office layout and the risk of bullying. Among employees in traditional open-plan offices with no access to private spaces, bullying occurred significantly more often than among employees in private offices or shared offices with just a few colleagues.

The research controlled for factors such as personality, the extent of home working and other individual characteristics. Even so, the increased risk of bullying remained statistically significant. This suggests the problem cannot be explained by personal differences, but is linked to the working environment itself.

In traditional open-plan offices, employees constantly see and hear their colleagues: their working patterns, communication and habits. This constant, involuntary exposure increases the likelihood of irritation. When a colleague talks loudly, types heavily or takes frequent breaks, such behaviour stands out far more in an open space than in a private office. What would go unnoticed elsewhere can grow into a source of annoyance here.

Productivity losses from constant distraction

The relationship between office design and productivity has been extensively studied. A study in the journal Ergonomics involving 88 employees found that 99% said their concentration was disrupted by office noise. Ringing phones at empty desks and colleagues talking in the background were named as the most disruptive sources of noise.

This loss of concentration due to noise is linked to what researchers call the "orientation response": an automatic reaction of the brain to unexpected stimuli. When a colleague starts talking or a phone rings, attention shifts unconsciously towards the source of the sound. That uses up mental energy that is no longer available for work.

Research from Australia found that after just eight minutes in an open-plan office environment, employees' negative mood increased by 25% and their stress levels, measured via sweat response, rose by 34%. A study of 2,403 employees in Denmark found that sickness absence was linked to office type: employees in open spaces took 62% more sick days than colleagues with a private office. An analysis by Rivier University estimated that productivity in open-plan offices is around 66% lower than in private offices.

Noise standards routinely exceeded

Dutch workplace guidelines, NPR 3438, set noise levels according to the type of work being done. For tasks that require a great deal of concentration, such as design, policy work, strategic planning and teaching, the recommended background level is a maximum of 35 decibels, with an absolute ceiling of 45 decibels. In many open-plan offices, however, noise levels range between 55 and 65 decibels or higher — well above what is desirable for focused work.

Human speech in particular is disruptive, even when the volume is comparable to other sources of noise. This is because the brain is strongly attuned to language. As soon as we hear voices, we automatically start listening and processing what's being said, which distracts us from other tasks.

On top of that, noise in open-plan offices is often unpredictable. A constant hum from air conditioning can eventually fade into the background. But variable, unexpected sounds — conversations or ringing phones — keep pulling attention back. As a result, the brain remains in a state of heightened alertness.

Health consequences: burnout and chronic stress

Dutch research involving more than 90 occupational health physicians shows that around 80% report patients experiencing stress in open-plan office environments. Roughly 60% report headache complaints, and more than a third see burnout-related symptoms as a result of working in open-plan offices. Many occupational health physicians conclude that the open-plan office, intended to boost collaboration and efficiency, is in fact contributing to health complaints.

Prolonged exposure to noise and stimuli keeps the body's stress system continuously activated. Stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline remain elevated. When this continues for months or years, it can lower resistance, disrupt sleep and raise blood pressure.

Eighty per cent of the occupational health physicians surveyed believe sickness absence would fall if fewer people worked in a single space. Sixty per cent feel that open-plan offices could be better replaced by other designs. This shows just how critical occupational health professionals are of traditional open-plan offices.

Vulnerable groups face extra disadvantages

While the negative effects of open-plan offices affect many employees, some groups are hit harder than others. Introverted people, employees with high sensory sensitivity, neurodivergent staff and women more often report increased stress and lower productivity in open office environments.

Introverted people generally have a lower tolerance for constant stimulation. In an environment with continuous noise and social interaction, they become overloaded more quickly. This can lead to reduced concentration and higher stress levels.

Research also shows that women more often experience emotional exhaustion in open-plan offices with little privacy. A study of 4,352 employees found that a lack of privacy was more strongly linked to exhaustion among women than among men.

Hidden costs outweigh property savings

For a long time, the main argument for open-plan offices was cost savings: more employees per square metre. From that perspective, it looked financially attractive. But this calculation failed to account for indirect costs.

One major consequence is higher staff turnover. Employees in open-plan offices more often report dissatisfaction and are more likely to say they want to leave than employees with more peace and privacy. Recruiting and training new staff comes with significant costs.

These costs include recruitment, selection, onboarding time and productivity losses during the transition. Depending on the role, replacement costs can run to between 50% and 200% of annual salary. For a mid-level employee, that can easily amount to between 50,000 and 100,000 euros.

Activity-based working as an alternative

As an alternative, a growing number of organisations are opting for activity-based working. Under this approach, the office is divided into different zones tailored to the type of work being done. Instead of fixed desks in a single open space, there are, for example, quiet zones for focused work, collaboration areas for discussion, meeting rooms, informal social spaces and phone booths for private calls.

Dutch research into organisations working this way shows that almost 70% of participants experience higher productivity. Two-thirds find their work more stimulating, and more than 60% feel more energised. In addition, 81% say mobility and flexibility are better supported, while 98% are satisfied with the freedom to choose their own workspace.

This way of working fits better with differences in tasks and working styles. Quiet zones offer peace for focused work, while collaboration areas allow for meetings and discussion without disturbing others.

Implementation requires a careful approach

Organisations switching to a different office layout would do well to treat it as a change process. That requires careful preparation, involving employees, and testing new ways of working before anything is rolled out permanently.

One example is the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, which first set up a pilot space where various teams worked temporarily. Based on their experiences and measurable results, adjustments were made to lighting, temperature, acoustics and ergonomics, among other things, before the concept was rolled out more widely.

The growing body of research into office design, bullying, productivity and wellbeing points to a clear conclusion. Traditional open-plan offices without sufficient privacy and quiet workspaces carry demonstrable risks. Organisations that choose a well-considered layout, with attention to both quiet and collaboration, create a healthier working environment. That is better not only for employees, but also for the organisation's performance and continuity.