A groundbreaking new study by Leesman, a leading workplace experience research firm, has unveiled a stark reality: many contemporary offices are falling short of employee expectations, particularly concerning inclusivity, productivity, and overall well-being. The comprehensive "Big Questions" report, which analyzed over 1.6 million employee responses from 10,775 workplaces across 124 countries, highlights critical areas where workplace design and investment are failing to deliver meaningful improvements, leading to significant disparities in employee experiences.
The research, drawing on data collected over several years, moves beyond traditional metrics like office attendance and return-to-office mandates. Instead, it delves into how effectively workplaces support core functions such as productivity, inclusion, collaboration, and employee well-being. The findings challenge long-held assumptions about office design and investment, suggesting that many organizations are prioritizing aesthetics and amenities over fundamental functional requirements that impact daily work life.
The Pervasive Failure to Accommodate Employees with Disabilities and Health Conditions
One of the most alarming revelations from the Leesman study is the significant disparity in workplace experience for employees with disabilities, long-term health conditions, mental health difficulties, or neurodivergent profiles. Analysis of nearly 65,000 responses to Leesman’s Inclusive Workplace Module indicated that approximately one in five employees fall into this category. Alarmingly, these individuals reported lower satisfaction across all 56 workplace features assessed by Leesman and received poorer support for all 21 work activities.
Specifically, only half of these employees felt their workplace enabled them to work productively, a stark contrast to the 67% of their colleagues without such conditions. Similarly, a mere 42% believed their workplace positively impacted their well-being, compared to 56% of their peers. These figures underscore a systemic failure to create environments where all employees can thrive.
The discrepancies are particularly pronounced in the physical attributes of the office. Satisfaction with noise levels among employees with disabilities or health conditions stood at a dismal 19%, significantly lower than the 32% reported by other respondents. Lighting satisfaction also showed a substantial gap, with 43% of affected employees expressing contentment compared to 59% of others. Issues like quiet rooms, air quality, and temperature control also revealed considerable deficits in meeting the needs of this segment of the workforce.
Leesman’s report argues that true workplace inclusion extends beyond mere accessibility policies and compliance measures. It necessitates a deep understanding and proactive management of the environmental conditions that directly influence an individual’s ability to work comfortably and effectively. The study strongly recommends that organizations move beyond generalized average satisfaction scores, which can mask the struggles of significant employee groups, and instead, implement direct measurement of these differences to foster genuine inclusivity.
Generational Divides: Younger Workers Enjoy Better Offices, But at What Cost to Knowledge Transfer?
The study also provides compelling insights into generational differences in workplace experience, challenging conventional wisdom. Employees under the age of 25 reported the highest average workplace experience scores, achieving 76.6 on Leesman’s 100-point index. This contrasts with employees aged 55 and over, who scored an average of 68.7. Furthermore, younger employees were found to be more frequent office attenders, with 47% of those under 25 attending more than three days a week, compared to 30% of those in the two oldest age groups.
This finding, however, presents a potential paradox for organizations aiming to leverage the office for collaboration, learning, and the cultivation of company culture, particularly by attracting younger talent. While younger employees appear to be the primary beneficiaries of current office environments, older and more experienced colleagues – often the custodians of institutional knowledge and mentors – report considerably less positive experiences.
Leesman suggests that these disparities are less a reflection of generational attitudes and more a consequence of career stage and the complexity of work. Younger employees often face fewer competing demands during their workday. In contrast, more seasoned professionals typically require environments that can support a broader spectrum of activities, including focused work, video conferencing, and confidential discussions, all of which may be inadequately provided for in current office setups.
The Emerging Threat of AI to Informal Learning and Collaboration
Adding another layer of complexity to the future of the office, the Leesman report raises pertinent questions about the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on informal learning. The importance of learning from colleagues has seen a notable increase, with the proportion of employees identifying this as crucial rising from 39% pre-pandemic to 48% today. However, Leesman posits that AI tools could increasingly supplant the informal exchanges through which employees traditionally acquire knowledge.
As workers increasingly turn to AI for rapid answers rather than engaging with colleagues physically present, organizations risk losing the serendipitous learning and tacit knowledge transfer that have long been cited as justifications for in-person work. The report acknowledges that definitive evidence on AI’s long-term impact on workplace experience is still emerging, framing these potential consequences as critical questions for employers to consider rather than established outcomes. This shift necessitates a re-evaluation of how knowledge is disseminated and acquired in the evolving professional landscape.
A Quarter of Office Investments Prove Counterproductive
The study also casts a shadow of doubt over the widely held assumption that significant investments in new or refurbished office spaces automatically translate into improved employee experiences. Leesman meticulously examined 105 workplace transformation projects, analyzing employee survey data collected both before and after the changes were implemented. The results were sobering: 25 of these projects, representing nearly 24% of the total, actually recorded a deterioration in their workplace experience scores following the investment.
While the average improvement across all analyzed projects was a modest 5.8 points on the Leesman Index, the variation was substantial. The most successful projects saw increases of up to 32.7 points, while the least effective projects experienced declines of as much as 18.9 points.
Interestingly, relocations proved to be a substantially more effective strategy than refurbishments, yielding an average improvement of 10.9 points, in contrast to the mere 3.5 points achieved by projects involving existing buildings. The researchers attribute this difference to the greater opportunity to fundamentally rethink workplace design when moving to a new building, whereas refurbishments are often constrained by the inherent limitations and existing characteristics of the original premises.
However, a critical finding across all investment projects is that improvements tend to be concentrated in superficial aspects like appearance, amenities, and employees’ perceptions of their surroundings, rather than addressing the fundamental practical conditions required for productive work. The most significant gains in satisfaction were observed in areas such as the variety of workspaces, communal areas, décor, informal work settings, and the presence of plants and greenery. Conversely, improvements in employees’ perceptions of their individual and collective productivity remained relatively modest. Satisfaction with noise levels, for instance, saw an average increase of only four percentage points, despite the considerable financial outlay involved. This suggests a tendency for organizations to prioritize visible, easily appreciated changes over tackling the underlying issues that directly impact daily performance.
Noise Pollution: A Persistent Challenge Affecting 96% of Workplaces
Noise continues to be identified as one of the most persistent and pervasive shortcomings in contemporary office design, according to Leesman’s extensive research. An analysis of over 692,000 employee responses collected between 2022 and early 2026 revealed that while 70% of employees consider noise levels crucial to their work, a mere 34% expressed satisfaction with the acoustic conditions in their workplace.
Across a sample of 2,200 analyzed workplaces, an astonishingly low four percent achieved high levels of satisfaction with noise, defined as at least 70% of employees reporting contentment. The impact of acoustic performance on overall workplace experience is significant, with acoustically well-performing offices achieving an average Leesman Index score of 84.3, compared to just 60.5 for those where noise satisfaction was particularly poor.
The study also debunks the notion that private offices or noise-canceling headsets are the definitive solutions to office noise. Only six percent of employees in highly noise-satisfied workplaces occupied dedicated private offices. Furthermore, no discernible difference was found in the proportion of employees using predominantly assigned or unassigned desks between high- and low-performing workplaces in terms of noise satisfaction.
Instead, the most impactful differentiators were associated with the availability of designated quiet rooms, private phone booths, adequate spacing between workstations, and a diverse range of workspace settings. Satisfaction with quiet rooms was a remarkable 50 percentage points higher in acoustically successful workplaces than in poorly performing ones. Similarly, phone booths showed a significant 48-point difference. In contrast, audio headsets, often promoted as a panacea for noise, demonstrated the smallest satisfaction gap among all 56 workplace features assessed, at just 12 percentage points. These findings strongly indicate that effective acoustic design is less about individual equipment or traditional office layouts and more about providing employees with sufficient opportunities to retreat from noise and concentrate.
Redefining Office Success: Beyond Attendance and Aesthetics
The Leesman report concludes by advocating for a fundamental shift in how the success of office environments is measured. The ongoing debate about the future of work, it argues, must evolve beyond mere attendance figures, occupancy rates, and the visual appeal of workplace design. While employers continue to invest in office spaces with the explicit aim of encouraging greater employee presence and interaction, Leesman’s research underscores that significant deficiencies persist in how these spaces cater to diverse individuals and varied work activities.
A crucial takeaway from the study is the inadequacy of treating employees as a monolithic group. The specific requirements of a workplace are highly variable, influenced by factors such as an individual’s health, any disabilities they may have, their career stage, personal responsibilities, and the nature of the tasks they need to perform.
For corporate real estate leaders and HR professionals, the findings present a clear call to action. They highlight the imperative of rigorously assessing workplace performance before committing to substantial projects, identifying specific areas where existing environments fall short, and meticulously measuring whether subsequent investments yield tangible improvements.
Furthermore, the research suggests that the most impactful changes may not always be the most visually striking. Enhancements in acoustics, appropriate lighting, comfortable working conditions, and accessible quiet spaces could contribute more significantly to employees’ daily experience and productivity than more conspicuous investments in décor and amenities. Ultimately, Leesman asserts, the central challenge for organizations is not simply to compel employees back to the office, but to ensure that these spaces are fundamentally fit for purpose and work effectively for everyone once they arrive. This requires a nuanced, data-driven approach focused on creating truly functional and inclusive work environments.
