If you have ever fought over the thermostat or bristled at a colleague’s insistence on working in total silence, you already know that comfort at work is not simply about architecture. It is also deeply personal, social, and cultural.

While physical aspects of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), such as airflow, lighting, and temperature, often receive the most attention, the human dimension is equally important. New research shows that productivity is not merely a by-product of design. It is shaped by how we experience, interact with, and feel control over our environment. Social expectations and cultural norms also influence these dynamics in powerful ways.

Culture in the Air

Where you live, and how your culture approaches work and comfort, can shape how you perceive your workspace. Workers across different countries report vastly different expectations for thermal comfort, background noise, and lighting. These preferences are not minor quirks. They can meaningfully affect satisfaction and work performance (Chen et al., 2020).

In some settings, 25°C may feel perfectly comfortable, while in others it might be considered stifling. Similarly, a hum of conversation may help one person focus, while causing distraction or irritation for another.

Control Is Everything

It is not just what surrounds us that matters, but how much agency we have over it. Workers who can adjust the lighting, temperature, or layout of their space tend to report higher satisfaction and greater productivity. This is not just a matter of convenience. It speaks to a core psychological need for autonomy in our daily lives (Chen et al., 2020; Felgueiras et al., 2023).

When people feel trapped in an unchangeable environment, motivation often declines. In contrast, having even modest control over environmental features can increase comfort, cognitive clarity, and emotional wellbeing.

The Social Context of Space

The type of office space we occupy also shapes our experience of IEQ. Employees in private offices typically report higher satisfaction than those in shared or open-plan environments. Privacy helps reduce distractions, supports individual preferences, and allows for better environmental customisation (Sadick et al., 2020; Fissore et al., 2023).

Although one might expect group norms or workplace culture to strongly influence these outcomes, the research suggests otherwise. The decisive factor is not social pressure, but whether your physical space allows you to focus and feel at ease.

Gender and Role Differences

Demographics matter too. Studies have found that men and women often respond differently to environmental factors such as lighting and temperature. Similarly, professionals in executive roles tend to report more satisfaction with IEQ than academics or administrative staff (Sadick et al., 2020). Whether this is due to better office conditions or greater control remains an open question, but the disparity is notable.

What Organisations Should Take Away

This growing body of research sends a clear message: designing for productivity requires more than high-quality infrastructure. To support all workers, whether they are remote or on-site, we must consider the human elements of environmental design. That means:

• Accounting for cultural and individual differences

• Providing opportunities for personal control

• Recognising the importance of privacy and quiet

• Avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions, especially in open-plan settings

Productivity is not just about ergonomics. It is a lived, social, and often emotional experience. The more we recognise the intersection between physical design and social context, the better equipped we are to create workplaces that support real human performance.

References

Chen, C., Yilmaz, S., Pisello, A., Simone, M., Kim, A., Hong, T., Bandurski, K., Bavaresco, M., Liu, P., & Zhu, Y. (2020). The impacts of building characteristics, social psychological and cultural factors on indoor environment quality productivity belief. Building and Environment, 180, 107189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107189

Felgueiras, F., Mourão, Z., Moreira, A., & Gabriel, M. (2023). Indoor environmental quality in offices and risk of health and productivity complaints at work: A literature review. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 10, 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100314

Fissore, V., Fasano, S., Puglisi, G., Shtrepi, L., & Astolfi, A. (2023). Indoor environmental quality and comfort in offices: A review. Buildings, 13(10), 2490. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102490

Kang, S., Ou, D., & Mak, C. (2017). The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university open-plan research offices. Building and Environment, 124, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.003

Sadick, A., Kpamma, Z., & Agyefi-Mensah, S. (2020). Impact of indoor environmental quality on job satisfaction and self-reported productivity of university employees in a tropical African climate. Building and Environment, 182, 107102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107102