The tech industry has done amazing things for humanity, and its contributions have become ubiquitous in virtually everything we do. It comes as no surprise that the tech industry also forced the old-school commercial office space world to re-evaluate its boring, boxlike past. With the help of creative architects and planners, our office spaces are now striking a balance between work and life.

For the first half of the 20th century, offices comprised wooden desks grouped in endless rows. In the ’60s, the Herman Miller company created the office cubicle, which has since come to be demonized as one step removed from living beneath an overpass. The idea to provide individuals at least a minimal sense of privacy was transformative at the time, but we’ve now come full circle, with many companies returning to open workstations and virtually zero privacy. Unlike the old days, however, the new office model boasts a generous amount of community space peppered with areas for individual seclusion.

Most of us remember the days of studying in library carrels at a 2-by-3-foot desk with partitions to minimize distractions. Including room for a chair, that “area” consisted of about 15 square feet of space. Working in a minimal space for short bursts is tolerable. And studying for midterms in a library carrel in order to avoid your noisy roommate is different from working a full-time job. But is cramming more bodies into less space the right long-term move?

Today’s office worker inhabits an average of 175 square feet—down from 225 square feet in 2010 and 275 square feet in 2007. Now, in spaces 36 percent smaller than they were nine years ago, are companies benefiting? Are their employees?

Yes—and no. Everyone has read about Google’s amazing cafeterias, massage rooms, and parklike environments, but many company decision-makers look at Google’s offices and focus only on the high-density employee benching areas. They want to replicate that, but not the perks. These companies are reverting to that early-century mentality of cramming spaces with bodies. In the short run, these companies find themselves “real-estate efficient,” but see employee engagement and culture plummet over time. This ultimately results in decreased retention and poor recruiting, and can be the beginning of a long, downward corporate spiral.

Google and other leading tech companies have invested millions of dollars hiring psychology experts to understand how good office space design can be exploited to create positive economic returns. Piggybacking on their learning has its benefits, but only if you follow in all the aspects—not just the fiscally friendly ones!

While tech companies have lessened the stigma of minimizing space per employee, many others who seek to emulate them forget how overwhelmingly generous they are with their perks. Google’s philosophy is to “create the happiest, most productive workplace in the world.” Most planning experts are pushing for a substantial increase in amenity space—often devoting upward of 15 percent of the entire space to cafeterias, game rooms, and so on. This is in addition to ample meeting and collaboration space.

So, what’s next? What else will the Googles of the world teach the rest of us about office space? Many progressive companies are now fine-tuning the “engagement” aspect by having spaces employees truly look forward to being in, where they can share ideas, while also having privacy when needed. How fortunate would society be if more of us felt like “going to the office” was a pleasure rather than a necessary evil?

We can all learn from the tech leaders who have charted proven paths forward. Less is not more when it comes to office space. Those who sacrifice overall efficiency in the name of economics will suffer long-term mediocrity as a result.

Tags: Office Space, Offices