IBA Forum-Gastbeitrag The personal desk is disappearing. No more photographs on the sideboard, no familiar coffee mug, no place that is mine. What represents a logical step towards efficiency, sustainability and flexibility for many organisations is, for employees, often a cultural rupture. Office densification and desk sharing are not merely spatial interventions; they implicitly alter the logic of belonging within the organisation.
cultural shift: from individual desk to shared space
For decades, the personal workstation was more than a functional work setting. It was a spatial anchor, a stable reference point in everyday organisational life. As outlined in previous articles in the Spatial Thinkers series, collectively lived space is created not simply through square metres but through meaning: only through routines, relationships and personal appropriation does “space” become “place”.
At the same time, structural conditions are changing rapidly. According to the ifo Business Survey 2025, 26.3% of companies in Germany consider their office space to be insufficiently utilised. Many organisations are responding by reducing floor space. One driver is the stabilised level of working from home: the Konstanz Home Office Study shows that mobile working in desk-based professions has levelled off at an average of around two days per week over the past year.
While economically plausible, this development often entails a loss of spatial anchoring for employees, a stable, identity-forming reference point in everyday working life. The personal desk, with its familiar seating position, materials within reach and personal objects, signals that one has a legitimate place. This is not merely about ownership or status, but about belonging and stability.
Desk sharing therefore marks a paradigm shift: away from individually assigned workstations towards collectively used spaces. Personalisation shifts from the individual desk to the team level. The focus is no longer “my desk”, but “our area”.
Empirical evidence points to tangible strain on employees. A study by the Institute for Work and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV, 2024) reports that around one third of respondents find it stressful not to have a permanent workstation or to have to search for or reserve a desk each day. A lack of participation in the introduction process is associated with lower satisfaction, poorer health and reduced performance. Unclear rules, insufficient retreat spaces, noise and interruptions negatively affect concentration and wellbeing. The daily clearing and setting up of workstations is also perceived as disruptive by many.
when FLEXIBILITY becomes fragmentation
Desk sharing promises agility and freedom of choice. In practice, however, it can lead to fragmentation where orientation is lacking. When employees must renegotiate each day where they will work, with whom they will sit and whether a suitable desk is available, flexibility becomes a burden.
The DGUV study (2024) makes this clear: the more time spent each day searching for a workstation, the more pronounced the strain-related consequences — particularly in terms of satisfaction with desk sharing.
The decisive factor is not merely the loss of personalisation, but the loss of simplicity. A workplace concept is functional when employees can find the appropriate setting for their task without excessive coordination effort: a team area for exchange, a quiet zone for focused work, or an enclosed room for confidential discussions. Where this clarity is absent, search and coordination costs increase. Teams distribute themselves randomly, spontaneous interactions become less frequent, and cognitive energy is diverted into micro-decisions rather than productive work. The paradoxical result: greater flexibility generates greater complexity.
At the same time, responsibilities shift. Research suggests that, through modern digital working arrangements, employees increasingly act as “entrepreneurs of themselves” (Hywatt et al., 2025). Negotiations around work location, visibility and availability become individualised, and risks and conflicts are transferred more strongly to individuals. This raises demands on self-organisation and negotiation skills. At the same time, new inequalities may emerge within teams. Transparent, fair and binding rules are therefore essential to provide orientation and limit informal power asymmetries (Backhaus et al., 2021).
Success factor: rethinking belonging
The shift towards shared workspaces can be productive if consciously designed. Even in flexible environments, people need a place. Research on ownership, identity and territorial behaviour shows that attachment to regularly used places creates psychological stability (Brown, 2009; Monaghan & Ayoko, 2019). It facilitates routines, reduces search costs and conveys a sense of belonging.
Some organisations are already operating with a densification ratio of 0.25 desks per person — that is, four employees per physical workstation. This is based on very low average presence rates resulting from flexible mobile working policies. It represents a consistent, data-driven yet far-reaching decision. Less space does not necessarily mean lower quality, but greater design responsibility.
Successful concepts shift the focus from individual territoriality to collective anchoring without ignoring fundamental psychological needs. Team zones or spatial neighbourhoods create a sense of belonging at group level. Digital booking systems can reduce uncertainty, provided they function intuitively and reliably.
Functional differentiation of space is essential: clearly recognisable zones for collaboration, areas for focused work, and sufficient enclosed rooms for retreat and confidentiality. Particularly in hybrid work environments, the possibility of temporarily withdrawing into a protected space remains important for performance and wellbeing. This applies especially to employees who regularly deal with sensitive matters. They require practical exceptions and reliably available retreat spaces.
Desk sharing works under two conditions: belonging remains tangible, and finding the appropriate workstation remains simple.
CONCLUSION: less space, higher demands
Office densification is not merely an efficiency measure. It is a cultural intervention that reshapes the logic of ownership, visibility and belonging.
The decisive question is not whether to implement desk sharing, but how. Worek et al. (2019) show that desk sharing does not inevitably reduce organisational commitment. When implemented moderately, employees may even report stronger emotional attachment. However, where desk sharing is introduced in a more radical manner, commitment declines. Scale, context and leadership are critical. A field study by Hansson et al. (2025) underlines this finding: cohesion emerges when managers communicate early and transparently, design a structured preparation phase and establish clear usage rules. Cohesion develops where employees experience orientation, adequate resources, autonomy, social connectedness and meaning.
The central question is therefore not: How many workstations can we eliminate? But rather: How can we design spaces so that people feel a sense of belonging even without a fixed desk — and can effortlessly find the right setting for their work? Because the more flexible work becomes, the clearer its spatial structures must be.
