Evolution vs. Free-Will: What Drives Our Office Space Design Preferences?

As any space planner or architectural designer can tell you, a lot of detail and thought goes into developing plans for a workplace. With the recent trend towards open offices and mobility, the need for careful space planning is even more essential. But behind the programs of requirements, stacking plans, and furniture concepts, are there underlying needs that drive our desire for certain types of spaces?

A Long History of Psychological Theory with Many Perspectives

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, and seeks to understand individual and group behavior. To set the foundation for our discussion of psychological theory, let’s begin by looking back in time, way back.

The roots of psychology as a discipline are generally considered to have begun with the philosophers of ancient Greece, China, India, and Persia. Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, addressed the workings of the mind, as did Confucius in ancient China and Siddhārtha (the Buddha) in ancient India.

In the thousands of years since then, there has been a broad range of interpretations of how conscious and unconscious experiences affect the human mind... from Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Pavlov, Freud, Skinner, and Jung, to name a few. Although there is overlap in the philosophies, one thing is certain: no consensus has ever been reached.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Little has changed. Just as ancient philosophers differed in how they explained human behavior, the same can be said of today’s philosophers. And believe it or not, this is certainly evident in the philosophies used as a basis for the design of buildings and space.

Two psychological perspectives may be especially helpful when considering the needs and preferences of employees in the workplace – evolutionary psychology and humanistic psychology. Let’s look at both approaches and consider how one, or both, could serve as a basis for planning modern workplace environments that are designed to meet the needs and preferences of employees.

The Evolutionary Perspective

The evolutionary perspective analyzes behavior that has evolved over time (think Darwin and the principles of “survival of the fittest” and natural selection). It seeks to identify the human psychological traits that originally evolved to ensure survival. Evolutionary psychologists consider these traits to be transmitted from generation to generation – essentially hard-wired.

Evolutionary psychology begins with the premise that basic human needs are very basic. So much so, that they go all the way back to the dawn of homo sapiens. Ron Freidman, PhD, points out in his book, The Best Place to Work, that most evolutionary psychologists believe that “many of our current design preferences can be traced back to our shared history on the savanna .…. as hunter gatherers.” He further points out that these preferences are largely unconscious.

Here is the evolutionary perspective, boiled down to basic terms. Man is hard-wired to need and desire certain types of spaces due to our evolutionary past. Does this make sense? Consider the way we tend to pick the same seat every week in an open-seating classroom, or sit on the left side of the sofa each time we watch television. This is not arbitrary behavior. We are creatures of habit. The evolutionary perspective would say this is because we are genetically programmed to consistently select what is familiar to us, even if that familiarity goes back 10,000 years. We naturally stake a claim to certain spaces. We have no choice.

Without identifying why, or even thinking about it, we prefer safe and secure environments, where we actually function better, over those that seem dangerous and inhibit our ability to function normally. Here are some examples:

• The desire for an office in a glass-walled high-rise building facing a scenic park may be based on our genetic preference for sitting in a safe, sheltered outdoor location overlooking an expansive savanna while searching for a herd of deer to provide our next meal.
• A preference for facing an open door rather than having our back to an open door may be based on our ancestral need to avoid the surprise of a saber-toothed tiger entering our cave.
• Today’s modern “man-cave” may simply be a genetic hold-over representing our desire for the warmth and security of a real stone-age cave.
• The contemporary desire for a bright, welcoming company break room may be a modern interpretation of our one-time need for the camaraderie of the clan sitting around a campfire.

But few employees have private glass-walled offices in high-rise buildings with picturesque vistas. Instead, the reality is that many employees work in open office floor plans with shared workstations in collaborative settings. Is this environment physically and mentally stressful for employees because of a primal fear for what may be lurking behind their touchdown desk? This unconscious concern could be one of the reasons for dissatisfaction with open office environments. Complicating this is that employees are likely not able to articulate this concern (and really, who would explain their discomfort with having one’s back to an open room by citing fear of a stalking saber-toothed tiger?).

Using Evolutionary Psychology

Using evolutionary psychology as the basis for design, today’s office environments could be made more responsive to the genetic needs and preferences of employees by providing personal spaces that allow the employee to focus on work without feeling threatened by their surroundings. A design could also include collaborative spaces that replicate the camaraderie of the clan. Based on our creature-of-habit tendencies, consistency within the open office would also be beneficial. This might include a reservation process for spaces intended to be shared. It could also include organizing the office into zones for focused, collaborative, and informal work.

A widely-accepted belief today is that Darwin’s theory of biological evolution is the basis for many of our modern physical traits. It certainly seems logical to extend this theory of evolution to contemporary mental and behavioral traits in humans, and the reason for our preferences in many areas, including our workspaces.

Evolutionary psychology is all about our need for survival, and what could be more important? But could there be more? Next we look at another viewpoint – the humanist perspective.

The Humanist Perspective

While evolutionary psychologists believe that we have a hard-wired response to our environment, humanists believe in individual free will and that we are motivated by pursing our potential, which amounts to more than just survival.

Toby Israel, PhD, humanist and founder of Design Psychology, defines her craft as “the practice of architecture, planning, and interior design in which psychology is the principal design tool.” Its theories are summarized in her book Some Place Like Home: Using Design Psychology to Create Ideal Places. As stated in the book, “all of us suffer from early childhood amnesia – we lose conscious memory of our most intimate connection with childhood experience of places.”

The book leads readers through a toolbox of exercises intended to uncover our associations with past places and to envision future places that are ideal for each person. Drawing upon a core of barely remembered spaces, colors, textures, furniture, and objects, the process helps translate these elements into an ideal design for personal spaces, which can also be extended to the workplace. Is an approach that relies, in part, on an individual’s memories just below the level of consciousness a valid approach?

Consider Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This well known 20th century psychologist’s premise was that individuals are motivated to fulfill certain needs, and do not move on to the next level of need fulfillment until earlier levels are reached. The hierarchy is composed of a series of five increasingly more refined levels of consciousness.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

How would this apply to modern office designs? Let’s say you are considering different designs for a new open office for your organization. If you are in a modern office building, it is likely that all of the designs will meet physiological needs – they will all provide shelter from the elements, water, access to food, etc. The designs would likely also meet safety needs, including a sound structure, security, and a sense of order.

Love and belonging can be seen as social needs. Do the workplace designs provide a mix of space types to accommodate different modes of collaboration? Do the designs meet the needs of both privacy and interaction with others? Do the designs provide the opportunity to socialize with fellow employees? These are a few of the questions to consider when planning spaces that meet social needs. Having the right mix of spaces will help in providing employees with a balance of privacy and interaction and in fulfilling what Maslow describes as the need for love and belonging in the workplace environment.

The self-esteem level has been interpreted by some psychologists as aesthetically oriented. Studies have shown that when people work in aesthetically pleasing environments, they tend to feel better about themselves because the environment is internalized as a reflection of who they are. When they see beauty and order, they feel more positive about themselves and thus more motivated to work. Questions that shed light on aesthetics include: Is the design visually pleasing? Is there art or other appealing décor? Is it an attractive and inspiring place to work? Many architects and interior designers strive to design attractive spaces where people feel good about coming into work because their workplace is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

Finally, the top of the pyramid is self-actualization. From a space perspective, we desire a design that fulfills our needs in the workplace and encourages us to grow. This could be described as a space that connects us to the mission of the organization, the work processes, and to our coworkers. While this sounds fairly simple, it’s actually a tall order. It is not often that we walk into an office and experience a feeling of nirvana or a “you complete me” moment (Jerry Maguire, anyone?), or hear the hallelujah chorus singing in our ears. But why not? Shouldn’t we all aspire to design or work in a space that fulfills our professional needs, helps us feel connected, and inspires us to spend half or more of our waking hours producing at a high level?

Sadly, most spaces stall along the way to the top of the pyramid. The humanist approach applied to space planning will help us reach the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Which Approach is Best?

We have looked at two very different psychological perspectives that can guide the design and planning of workplace environments. And now to get to the bottom line: which approach can help inform open office design?

The answer is – both. Both approaches to office planning and design can be effective tools in emphasizing employee needs and preferences. However, when these approaches are combined, they may produce the best result... the most “self-actualized” design, so to speak!

Consider the fact that evolutionary needs represent the foundation levels of physiological and safety needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. You cannot have a workplace that is fulfilling without first providing for shelter and security, which is the essence of the evolutionary perspective. But once these needs are met, why stop there? That’s where the humanist approach can step in and add the elements that complete a successful design – the Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization levels described by Maslow.

As we began to write this blog, we set out to describe two very different approaches and to identify the one that is more applicable to workplace design. But in the end, it appears that the best approach is one that combines both the evolutionary and humanist perspectives. We're no Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, but we think we're on to something.