The biggest workplace decisions are often made too early, before there is enough evidence about how people actually work.
Usually there is a perfectly valid trigger. A lease is approaching its end, the existing office feels too large or too small, the business is growing, attendance has changed, or leadership wants more people back in the office.
The problem comes when that trigger immediately becomes a design exercise. Before the organization has properly understood the work the space needs to support, people are already talking about square footage, desk-sharing ratios and meeting room numbers.
An architect may be producing test fits. Leadership may be debating whether people should attend two, three or four days each week. Decisions are starting to be made about what the next workplace should contain, and then somebody asks, ‘How many desks do you need?’ At that point, the weaknesses in the process can start to show.
But one fairly fundamental question can get missed along the way.
How does the organization actually work?
For me, that should come before almost everything else.
Space should be the consequence of understanding work
Historically, workplace planning was relatively straightforward. If an organization employed 1,000 predominantly office-based people, the starting assumption was broadly that it needed somewhere around 1,000 places for them to sit. Add meeting rooms, support space and amenities and you had the foundations of a space program.
That relationship between headcount and space has become much less reliable.
People now perform their work across different locations, at different times and in very different ways. Even within the same organization, two departments with similar headcounts may place completely different demands on the workplace.
One team might spend much of its week doing concentrated individual work, with relatively infrequent reasons to come together. Another might depend heavily on project collaboration, mentoring, informal conversations, client meetings and frequent interaction across several other departments.
Giving those teams identical allocations simply because they each contain 50 people misses something fairly important. It is the nature of the work, rather than just the number of workers, that ultimately creates demand for space.
That changes the questions we should be asking.
Instead of beginning with how many desks a team needs, I want to understand what people actually do during a typical week. Which activities benefit from being undertaken together? Which are more effectively performed independently? How much collaboration takes place, with whom, how often and in groups of what size? Where does knowledge exchange happen? What brings people into the office in the first place?
Once those things become clearer, the workplace requirement starts to emerge from the evidence rather than from assumptions.
We have more workplace data than ever, but not necessarily more understanding
There is another interesting contradiction in today's workplace industry. Organizations have access to enormous amounts of data about their offices. Badge systems can tell us when people enter the building. Sensors can tell us whether spaces are occupied. Wi-Fi, booking systems and other technologies can provide increasingly sophisticated pictures of utilization.
All of that information has value - but there is an important distinction between measuring what people are doing in the workplace today and understanding what the organization will need from its workplace tomorrow.
Knowing that 400 people entered a building on Tuesday does not tell me why they came in. It doesn't tell me what they were trying to accomplish, whether they found the spaces they needed, who they wanted to interact with, or whether the workplace helped or hindered them.
Most importantly, it doesn't necessarily tell me whether those same people would behave differently if the workplace itself were different. This is why I have always been cautious about designing a future workplace solely around utilization of the existing one. You risk becoming very good at measuring yesterday.
The more interesting question is what work people need to undertake in the future and what environment will allow them to undertake it most effectively.
A hybrid workplace isn't simply an office with fewer desks
This distinction has become particularly important as organizations have adapted to hybrid working. If employees are spending fewer days in the office, there is an understandable temptation to conclude that the organization simply needs fewer desks. In some cases that may be true, but reducing the number of desks in a traditional office doesn't suddenly turn it into a high-performing hybrid workplace.
We need to think about what has changed.
If people can successfully undertake a large proportion of their individual focus work elsewhere, the reason for coming to the office often shifts. Being with colleagues, collaborating, learning, mentoring, exchanging knowledge and maintaining relationships become more important components of the workplace experience. Yet many offices still devote the overwhelming majority of their space to individual desks and then wonder why employees do not see a compelling reason to travel there.
That doesn't mean every organization should replace desks with collaboration spaces. There is no universal formula. Some roles require considerably more individual workplace provision than others, and even highly mobile employees still need appropriate spaces for focus when they are in the office. The point is that the mix should be determined by the work.
A workplace might ultimately need fewer conventional workstations and more project areas, small meeting settings, quiet rooms, team spaces, social areas or other activity-based settings. Another organization might reach a completely different conclusion.
Both can be correct if they reflect how those particular organizations operate.
The same principle applies before you start drawing
I see a similar issue when organizations begin evaluating potential buildings or commissioning test fits. A test fit is an extremely useful tool, but only if the assumptions behind it are sound.
It is quite possible to give a design team a headcount, an assumed attendance level, a desk-sharing ratio and a required number of meeting rooms and ask them to fit everything into a building. They will almost certainly be able to produce a plan.
What that plan cannot tell you is whether the original assumptions were right.
A much stronger brief begins with a deeper understanding of the organization itself. We can start to explain not just how many people there are, but how attendance varies, what people will be doing when they arrive, which teams need to interact, what types of interaction take place and what range of settings those activities require. At that point, the test fit stops being an exercise in fitting furniture into a floor plate and becomes a genuine test of the workplace strategy.
That is a subtle difference, but an important one.
Understanding the work doesn't slow the project down
There can sometimes be a concern that undertaking this kind of discovery adds another stage to an already busy real estate or design program. My experience has generally been the opposite.
The time spent understanding the organization at the beginning is usually considerably less than the time lost later redesigning layouts, revisiting desk ratios, changing furniture quantities or discovering that important operational requirements were never included in the original brief. It also changes the quality of the conversation with senior leadership.
Instead of recommending a particular amount of space because it seems reasonable, we can explain the relationship between the business, its people, their activities, their interactions and the workplace required to support them.
The square footage then becomes an outcome of the strategy rather than the strategy itself. That is a much stronger basis on which to make a long-term real estate decision.
Perhaps we're starting with the wrong question
Workplace projects inevitably need to answer questions about space. How much do we need? How many desks should we provide? What should the office contain? How should teams be organized? What sort of workplace should we design? Those are all important questions.
I just don't think they should be the first ones.
Before deciding how much space you need, where people should work or how your next workplace should be designed, spend some time understanding the organization underneath it. Understand the work people actually do, the activities that bring them together, the relationships that matter and the conditions that allow them to perform at their best.
Once you understand that, decisions about the workplace become considerably easier.
And perhaps more importantly, you have a much better chance of designing a workplace around the organization you are becoming, rather than simply recreating the one you already have.
If you'd like to understand more about your organization, how everyone works, and how that will influence your future real estate and workplace needs, do reach out.
Over the past few years we have heard a great deal about making the office a magnet rather than a mandate.
The idea resonates with many organizations. If people feel that coming to the office is worthwhile, they will naturally choose to be there. If not, no amount of policy will truly solve the problem. But once we accept that premise, a more interesting question appears.
What exactly creates that magnetism?
It is easy to assume the answer lies in the workplace itself. Better design, improved amenities, more collaboration space, perhaps a good café or a more residential feel to the environment.
Those things certainly help, but they are not the real source of magnetism.
People do not commute for furniture or snacks.
People commute for purpose.
What Makes Coming to the Office Worthwhile?
When employees decide whether to spend time in the office, they are quietly asking a very practical question:
What will I gain from being there that I cannot gain somewhere else?
Sometimes the answer is collaboration. Sometimes it is learning from colleagues, mentoring, or solving problems together. Often it is the sense of connection that comes from being part of a team rather than working alone.
What sits underneath all of those experiences is purpose. When people understand how their work matters and how their presence contributes to something meaningful, the office becomes far more than a physical place to sit.
It becomes part of the organization’s shared momentum.
How Organizations Can Bring Purpose Back to the Workplace
Purpose does not appear automatically. It has to be cultivated through the way organizations lead, communicate, and structure work.
Here are some meaningful interventions:
One of the most important steps is helping employees clearly understand how their work contributes to the broader mission of the organization. When leaders regularly connect daily activities with larger outcomes, people begin to see how their efforts influence customers, colleagues, and the future of the business.
Trust also plays a significant role. When employees are given choice and influence over how they work, and are trusted to deliver outcomes rather than simply show presence, they begin to feel that their contribution matters. That sense of ownership strengthens both performance and engagement.
Equally important is giving employees a genuine voice. When people can contribute ideas about how work happens today and where the organization is heading tomorrow, they develop a stronger connection to the journey itself. The workplace becomes somewhere they help shape rather than somewhere they simply attend.
Growth matters too. Offices often become places where learning happens organically through conversations, observation, mentoring, and collaboration. When organizations provide clear opportunities for career development and encourage those interactions, the workplace becomes a place where people can see their future unfolding.
And finally, purpose requires balance. Employees increasingly want their work to fit into a broader life that includes family, interests, and wellbeing. When organizations acknowledge this openly and support flexibility, the relationship between people and the workplace becomes healthier and more sustainable.
Why Purpose Is the Real Magnet for the Office
When these elements come together — impact, trust, voice, growth, and balance — something important begins to happen.
The office stops feeling like a requirement. Instead, it becomes a place where meaningful work accelerates. Where conversations move ideas forward. Where people develop their careers and strengthen their relationships with colleagues.
In that environment, the commute begins to feel worthwhile again. Not because someone has been told they must come in, but because there is a clear reason to be there. And that is ultimately what turns the office into a magnet.
If organizations want their workplaces to attract people rather than require them, the starting point is not the building.
It is the purpose people experience when they walk through the door.
There was a time when “office transformation” meant a new layout, updated furniture, or a refreshed color palette. Those days are long gone. Today, transforming an office means transforming the way people experience work altogether. It means rethinking the relationship between space, behavior, leadership, culture and performance. And it means doing so in a world where hybrid work has permanently changed expectations about where and how work happens.
Too many organizations still approach workplace transformation as a design project when, in reality, it is a strategic project. They jump straight into floor plans and furniture options without first understanding how work actually flows through the organization. They focus on aesthetics before function, layout before behavior, and space before purpose. And in doing so, they build offices that look modern but don’t genuinely work for the people using them.
A great workplace is not the product of design talent alone. It is the result of deep understanding.
Why transformation starts with listening
Every successful workplace transformation begins with a very simple question: “How does work truly happen here?” Not how leaders think it should happen, not how it used to happen, but how it actually happens today. This means understanding the rhythms of different teams, the types of activities they perform, the levels of focus they need, the patterns of collaboration they rely on, and the natural points of friction that slow them down.
When an organization begins by listening—to employees, managers and leaders—the real needs of the workplace come into focus. You see where teams struggle to find the right kinds of environments. You see where noise undermines concentration, where hybrid meetings fall apart, where spontaneous conversations are lost and where onboarding feels weaker than before. The gaps start revealing themselves long before any drawings are produced.
And once you understand those gaps, the design brief writes itself.
Why behavior and space have to be solved together
A mistake many organizations make is treating workplace transformation as purely a physical exercise. They redesign the environment but not the expectations or practices that shape how people use it. They introduce shared spaces without establishing norms, they launch new layouts without adjusting team rhythms, and they create open environments without addressing how different workstyles coexist.
The result is predictable: the new space feels unfamiliar, confusing or even stressful, and people revert to old habits. The workplace becomes something people admire but don’t adopt.
Transformation only sticks when behavior evolves alongside the environment. This is why Team Agreements are essential to any modern workplace strategy. They give teams the structure they need to operate coherently within a new space. They clarify when teams gather, how hybrid meetings run, how collaboration is prioritized, how focus time is protected, and how physical space supports the work rather than complicating it.
Design without behavioral alignment quickly becomes unused potential. Behavioral alignment without design becomes constrained. But when the two move together, the workplace becomes a living system rather than a set of rooms.
Designing for people, not headcount
One of the most significant shifts in workplace strategy is the move away from designing to capacity and toward designing to activity. For decades, offices were built around the assumption that every person needed a desk. Hybrid work shattered that logic. People now spend their time across multiple environments, and the workplace should support the activities that matter most when teams come together.
This means creating an ecosystem of worksettings—places for deep focus, structured collaboration, quick problem-solving, social connection, private conversations, creative exploration and hybrid meetings that feel intentional instead of improvised. It means giving teams neighborhoods that provide predictability without restricting mobility. And it means designing spaces that energize people rather than drain them.
When an environment is designed around real activity instead of theoretical occupancy, the workplace becomes dramatically more functional, more efficient and more engaging.
Why change management is the differentiator
Even the best workplace design will fail without a strong change management foundation. People don’t simply adapt to new environments because they look appealing. They adapt when they understand why change is happening, what it means for their work, and how the new environment will help them succeed.
Organizations that invest in change management treat transformation as a cultural shift, not a real estate project. They involve employees early, give leaders the tools to model new behaviors, support teams through the transition, and establish clear communication around how the space is meant to be used. They remove uncertainty and replace it with confidence.
Change doesn’t happen because a workplace opens. It happens because people are guided into new ways of working.
The long-term value of a great workplace
When done well, workplace transformation does far more than create an attractive environment. It strengthens culture, accelerates collaboration, improves productivity, supports well-being, deepens connection, and clarifies expectations. It makes onboarding easier and more meaningful. It restores the kinds of interactions organizations lost in remote work. And it gives people a sense of belonging that cannot be replicated through screens.
Most importantly, it aligns the workplace with the reality of how people work today—not how they worked ten years ago.
Transformation is no longer about aesthetics. It’s about performance, culture and human experience. It’s about creating a workplace that people choose because it genuinely helps them do better work.