Impactful Spaces: How Office Design Influences Work and Health

The right spatial design can reduce stress, strengthen health, and transform work environments into true places of performance and inspiration. To this end, we spoke with architectural psychologist Katharina Kassner from Studio Katharina Kassner , who researches how spaces influence human behavior and explains why the right design acts like an architectural "vitamin booster."

Ms. Kassner, you work at the intersection of architecture, psychology, and design. What does the phrase 'Form Follows Feelings' mean to you – and why is it particularly relevant in today's work environment?

The philosophy Form Follows Feelings originates from my approach integrating architectural psychology and neuroaesthetics. While the Bauhaus era's "Form Follows Function" prioritized functionality, today – thanks to neuroscience, wearables, and biofeedback – we possess the capability to visualize direct physiological responses to spaces. We can measure when our pulse elevates, our heart rate stabilizes, or which brain regions are activated as we see, smell, hear, feel, or move.

These reactions occur unconsciously in the limbic system within milliseconds. Hormones such as cortisol, endorphins, or oxytocin are released, influencing whether we feel stressed, motivated, connected, or inspired. Thus, spaces are not only functional but also emotional, cognitive, and social. They influence concentration, creativity, productivity, health, and sense of community – far beyond personal taste or trends.

My approach of Form Follows Feelings is thus rooted in a biological fact. While we often perceive ourselves as thinking beings capable of feeling, from a biological perspective, we are feeling beings capable of thought.

From this, we can conclude that architecture is a resonance system: we are in a constant non-verbal dialogue with our built environment – between perception and effect. Simultaneously, we know that we spend approximately 90% of our time indoors, a significant portion of which is in the office. Given these insights, it is not merely an option but a necessity to utilize appropriate design elements to develop places, cities, and spaces that foster well-being and connection, strengthen our identity, and promote concentration, creativity, and health.

An inappropriate architectural stimulus can induce chronic stress. Conversely, thoughtful design functions as an architectural 'vitamin booster': preventive, fortifying, and health-promoting.

Architecture thus becomes a strategic instrument that not only enhances efficiency but, more importantly, unlocks human potential.

The design of spaces influences our thoughts, feelings, and actions. In your opinion, which aspects of neuroarchitecture should companies and project developers consider early on?

Initially, timing is paramount. Neuro-architectural considerations should be integrated during the so-called Phase 0 – prior to the construction of walls or installation of electrical conduits. Once foundational structures are established, design options typically become reactive. The most significant leverage, however, resides in early analysis, enabling strategic conceptualization and planning.

The practical implementation involves not just form and color, but systemic, participatory, and value-based questions: Why do employees come to the office at all? What does the company need – not only on a functional level, but also on a cultural and emotional level? What message does it want to convey? And how can spaces be designed to offer guidance and identification not only to experts but to all employees?

New narratives are required here. The explanatory and design models of the past no longer align with contemporary life. In an era of social upheaval, shifting values, and digital boundless, we need spaces that not only reflect work methodologies but also foster future competencies: instilling meaning, promoting identity, enabling co-creation and social collaboration, and strengthening self-efficacy. Today, the office is no longer primarily a workplace but a hub for encounters, development, and focus. Architecture thus becomes a silent coach.

I am often asked: “Why should I even go to the office anymore?” For many, the office feels too loud or inflexible – characterized by small cubicle offices, open-plan layouts, limited autonomy, and little room for personal rhythms. However, the more crucial question is: What does the office offer that I don't have at home? The answer lies in its social and emotional qualities: genuine encounters, exchange, and connection. Especially after the pandemic and during turbulent times, we realize how much we need community – not just functionally, but on a deeper level. Foosball tables and colorful beanbags are no longer sufficient. It's about purpose, belonging, identification with the company – and creating spaces that facilitate these. Workspace design is strongly evolving towards “soft factors”: community, atmosphere, and emotional security. And this is precisely where architectural psychology comes into play.

From a scientific perspective, human needs are non-negotiable – they are biologically, psychologically, and socially embedded within us. Only their manifestation is individual. When these needs are consistently unmet, it manifests as irritability, restlessness, loss of control, decreased engagement, or withdrawal from social interactions. The distinction between needs, requirements, and desires is frequently overlooked in practice, yet it is of paramount importance.

Based on this, spatial layouts can be developed and enriched with the appropriate neuro-architectural elements: light, materiality, textures, shapes, colors, and multi-sensory details. Such spaces foster concentration, creativity, identification, and social interaction, strengthening potential while also contributing to burnout prevention – with tangible effects on motivation, health, and sick leave.

‍In many projects, controlling initially dominates: area, efficiency, budget. How do you still manage to design spaces that are emotionally engaging and promote well-being?

Thank you for this question – it is crucial. Design and controlling are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are interdependent.

Architectural design is not merely an add-on to reflect corporate identity. Spaces are stimuli: Our human reactions to design are key indicators of architecture's success or failure. The goal is to understand for whom we design and which elements foster specific states of stimulation.

Design does not necessarily have to be more expensive. A bucket of paint costs a similar amount – what matters is which color is chosen. Similarly, light fixtures cost about the same, but when arranged differently, they can promote concentration or support tranquility. Applying this knowledge strategically is the difference between purely decorative design and effective architecture.

Certainly, there are elements that have largely been overlooked in conventional office designs. Yet, this is precisely where the economic value proposition emerges: architecturally and psychologically optimized spaces yield a higher long-term return. This implies that the Return on Investment for such environments surpasses that of areas designed with traditional approaches. The rationale is clear: these environments reduce sick days, as individuals experience significantly less stress, while motivation, productivity, and job satisfaction concurrently rise. This directly enhances overall economic performance. Moreover, employees are more likely to remain with a company if they are content, feel integrated, and identify with its mission. This, in turn, minimizes staff turnover, shortens onboarding periods, and consequently generates tangible cost savings.

Ultimately, the question is not whether one can 'afford' architectural psychological consulting, but rather whether one can afford to forgo it. Good consulting provides genuine added value – both humanly and economically.

You also design office spaces. What do current findings in neuroaesthetics tell us about the impact of space, light, materials, or forms – especially with regard to concentration, creativity, and well-being in the workplace?

Everything has an impact – a fact we should constantly be aware of. Spaces are part of a permanent non-verbal communication. Simultaneously, our evolutionary conditioning continues to shape our experiences and needs.

Consider an example from our ancestors' lives: trees symbolized protection, expansive views facilitated early detection of threats, and water represented sustenance. As social creatures, we continue to seek social proximity and interaction. These associations are embedded in our DNA, resonating with our deep-seated primal trust. Consequently, our designs should, among other principles, align with the logic of nature.

People need spaces that are legible and coherent. Understanding our surroundings creates a sense of security, which reduces stress, enhances concentration, and promotes relaxation. Simultaneously, we require complexity – it invigorates our minds. A variety of shapes, materials, or details provides stimuli, counteracts monotony, stimulates brain activity, and prevents fatigue. This is precisely where biophilic design comes into play: even a 40-second glance at greenery demonstrably boosts concentration and reduces error rates. Nature-based stimuli such as plants or natural light activate the parasympathetic nervous system, lower stress hormones, and promote regeneration. Furthermore, a good indoor climate and fresh air strengthen the immune system, reduce sick days, and enhance performance. Thus, spaces do not end at the exterior wall – the outdoor environment must be considered, and simultaneously, nature can be brought indoors.

The correct interplay of elements such as light, textures, and colors creates various states of stimulation – from concentration and creativity to relaxation. This is precisely where neuroaesthetics comes into play: I combine evidence-based insights with an exploratory, creative dimension.

 
You just mentioned that as social beings, we require social proximity and group dynamics. If you could completely reimagine the traditional office, with its emphasis on collaboration, what would be the first thing you would eliminate, and what would you unequivocally introduce?

The first thing I would abolish are rigid floor plans featuring endless rows of uniform workstations and inflexible meeting rooms. While they suggest control and efficiency, they impede dynamism and prevent precisely what collaboration requires: resonance and vibrant interaction.

Conversely, I would incorporate spaces that activate our social brain: open sightlines, areas for spontaneous encounters, but also niches for retreat. Collaboration emerges from an interplay – between proximity and distance, focus and exchange. Architecture can foster these rhythms if intelligently designed.

True collaboration is not merely achieved by assembling individuals. It emerges when spaces foster trust, curiosity, and creative tension – akin to nature, where numerous individual components suddenly form something greater and more intelligent. This is precisely what the office of tomorrow should deliver.

If you could offer a key insight to decision-makers in real estate development, planning, or project control, what would it be?

Architectural design is a non-verbal leadership instrument – those who lead should understand the impact of space. This is not merely a quality standard, but a societal responsibility. And for this, we urgently need to move beyond traditional silo thinking. Because, similar to agriculture, monocultures do not create vibrant systems. Truly nurturing, supportive environments emerge only through the interplay of different disciplines and perspectives.

Imagine this: A zoo is planned without zoologists. Unimaginable. Yet, to this day, we build cities and places for people without incorporating psychology and human sciences. This is an absurdity.

Other industries are far more advanced in this regard. Advertising, marketing, and the automotive industry have been working with emotional-based design for decades. Since 2016, Harvard Business School has dedicated its own book series to the topic – now comprising 28 volumes on empathy, resilience, and happiness. As early as the 1970s, Steve Jobs consulted neuroscientists to specifically tailor products and advertising to human experience. The iPhone is the prime example of emotional design – its success speaks for itself. And even car seats today are designed to convey a sense of security – almost like an embrace. This feeling releases oxytocin, our bonding hormone, which strengthens trust and brand loyalty.

What were once considered 'soft' factors have long become standard practice among leading business entities. However, architecture has only hesitantly leveraged this potential, primarily in marketing or retail spaces, and seldom where it is truly critical: in environments for working, learning, healing, and living. Yet, this is precisely where the leverage lies for enhancing employee focus, productivity, satisfaction, purpose, health, and identification.

The ROI is clear: spaces designed based on psychological and neuroaesthetic insights are measurably more successful. Thus, the only question remains: Do decision-makers want to be part of the early adopters – or ultimately belong to the laggards?

The field of neuroaesthetics in architecture is new, exciting – yet also complex. How can planners approach this topic and meaningfully integrate this knowledge into their work?

Neuroaesthetics in architecture is a fascinating field – but there is no blueprint for simply selecting colors, shapes, or materials to automatically create effective spaces. Reading a book or using AI chats is not sufficient. It requires time, curiosity, and in-depth engagement – ideally through the interplay of theory, practice, and interdisciplinary exchange.

I developed my own approach through a study program in architectural psychology, complemented by international research workshops, lectures at Harvard, and continuous exchange with leading voices in the field. I have consistently applied this knowledge to architectural questions – and this is precisely where the distinction lies: insights from neuroaesthetics must be translated into design processes, material selection, spatial composition, and the concrete user experience.

When clients understand that evidence-based design not only signifies aesthetic quality but also has tangible impacts – on health, concentration, social interaction, safety, or economic factors – a genuine 'aha' moment often occurs. In the professional world, this translates into reduced stress and sick days, lower fluctuation, and increased motivation and resilience.

Therefore, it is worthwhile not to embark on this path alone. Workshops or consultations with experienced guidance help to apply knowledge specifically and practically. Architectural psychological consulting is not merely a trend; it is a unique selling proposition (USP) for companies that recognize spaces as resonance systems and an investment in the potential of their employees.

About Katharina Kassner: 

Katharina Kassner is an architectural designer, architectural psychology consultant, and lecturer – and through her studio, she shapes a field of applied architectural psychology and neuroaesthetics that is unique in Germany. At the intersection of design, research, and cultural change, she develops context-specific architectural concepts that unleash potential and enable sustainable transformation.

‍