Have you ever wondered why team collaboration has been declining, even as workplaces have become more “open”?

peopleverse
12 minutes ago
3 min read

Peopleverse | Research & Practice Insights.

For years, many organisations were made to believe that putting their employees in an open office space would naturally amplify collaboration between teams. But our research and practice reveal a quieter paradox.

We’ve all seen the promise: tear down walls, put everyone in big open spaces, and collaboration should naturally flourish. That’s what many organisations believed over the last decade, more visibility means more interaction, right?

What the Evidence Really Shows

A landmark empirical study examined how people interact before and after organizations moved to open workspace layouts. Rather than boosting real-world collaboration, the data revealed something surprising: face-to-face interactions dropped sharply, by nearly 70% in some cases, after employees moved to open offices. Instead of talking more, people withdrew and relied on email and instant messaging even when colleagues were just a few feet away. ResearchGate

This counterintuitive finding has been echoed in broader discussions: open office designs that were once hailed as the ideal way to increase teamwork are now widely understood to sometimes hurt interpersonal collaboration and focus. Harvard Gazette

So What’s Really Happening? A Panopticon Lens

To understand this pattern, let’s borrow a concept from human science: Panopticon theory.

Originating with Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century circular prison design, the Panopticon created a situation where every inmate could be watched from a central point — but never knew when they were being watched. That uncertainty made individuals self-discipline, because they felt observed even when they weren’t being observed.

In many modern open offices, we see echoes of this dynamic:

People can see each other at all times.
They know others (or management) could be watching or overhearing.
But they never know when or in what way they are being observed.

This leads to a subtle but powerful shift in behavior. Instead of feeling free to approach a colleague, share an idea, or ask a question, employees start self-regulating their actions — often stepping back to avoid perceived judgment or distraction.

Public spaces without intentional design can feel psychologically like a social Panopticon: visible, yet unverifiable. And when people sense that they’re being witnessed without predictability or control, natural risk-averse behaviors increase. Human brains instinctively protect social reputation and attention — so people stay in their “safe zones” and interact less directly.

Why This Culture of Withdrawal Grows Over Time

This withdrawal isn’t just architectural, it’s psychological:

Without clear boundaries, people treat open spaces like stages where every action could be judged.
The awareness of being “seen but not truly known” subtly shifts interaction toward digital communication and away from genuine collaboration.
As team members increasingly monitor one another — unconsciously — trust and spontaneity decline.

So what was designed as a collaboration accelerator becomes, for many, a space of self-regulation and guarded behaviour.

What We’ve Seen in Practice

In our work with organisations, these patterns repeat:

Teams in open spaces often communicate more electronically, not less.
People wear headphones, sit quietly, or become hesitant to speak up — not because they dislike collaboration, but because, unintentionally, they are socially monitoring one another.
Real engagement moves into smaller, intentional spaces — meeting rooms, corners, private zones — where psychological safety is higher.

This isn’t a rejection of openness, it’s a call to design with human behavior in mind, not just space efficiency.