MA - Designing for Workplace Well-Being

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. From creative offices to creative wellbeing

Workplaces have changed from spaces of efficiency and supervision into environments where people are expected to think, collaborate, adapt and create. As routine tasks are increasingly supported by digital systems and artificial intelligence, human work depends more on creativity, emotional intelligence and collective problem-solving (The School of Life, 2018; Steelcase, 2017).

At the same time, wellbeing has become a central expectation of modern work. Employees no longer see wellbeing as an extra benefit, but as part of how work should be organised, experienced and supported. Recent workplace findings show that employees increasingly connect wellbeing with performance, belonging and long-term motivation (Wellhub, 2025).

This creates an important paradox. Many contemporary workplaces promote creativity, flexibility and wellbeing through open layouts, playful interiors or social spaces. Yet burnout, mental fatigue and emotional overload continue to increase. For creative workers, this is especially critical, because creative performance depends on attention, emotional balance, psychological safety and recovery.

The project starts from this tension. Creativity, wellbeing, the physical environment and everyday workplace practices have all been widely researched, but they are often treated as separate topics. Creativity research explains how ideas develop through cognitive and social processes (Wallas, 1926; Guilford, 1950; Rhodes, 1961). Environmental psychology shows how space influences stress, attention and behaviour (Ulrich, 1991; Clements-Croome, 2015). Wellbeing research focuses on emotional and psychological flourishing (Seligman, 2011).

However, less attention has been given to how these dimensions work together in everyday workplace life. Spatial conditions are often treated as a background, while wellbeing initiatives are often added as separate programmes. This project instead asks how the workplace can become an active system that supports both wellbeing and creative performance through daily actions, spatial choices and shared practices.

© ECEM ATATURE

1.2. Research & Design Questions

Research Question:

How do spatial conditions and everyday workplace practices interact to shape wellbeing and creative performance?

Design Question:

How can design intentionally support this relationship in contemporary creative workplaces?

These questions position wellbeing and creativity not as separate goals, but as interdependent dimensions that can be strengthened through spatial and behavioural design strategies.

1.3. Research Approach

To explore this relationship, the project followed an iterative Research through Design approach. The process moved between literature review, case studies, interviews, workshops, framework development, ideation, prototyping and testing. The first literature-based framework was refined through interviews and workshop studies, resulting in the final framework: The Virtuous Cycle of Creative Wellbeing. This framework then guided the development of the main design outcome, the Commons Co-Design Toolkit, and the secondary design responses.

2. THE PROJECT

2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review explores research on creative workplaces, workplace wellbeing, environmental wellbeing, subjective wellbeing, and the relationship between wellbeing and creativity. In addition to academic sources, selected reports from workplace design companies and wellbeing organizations were reviewed to understand how these topics are discussed in both theoretical and practical contexts.

Creativity as a dynamic process

Creativity is not understood in this project as a fixed talent or a single moment of inspiration. It is approached as a dynamic process that moves between different modes of thinking.

Wallas describes creativity through four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification (Wallas, 1926). Guilford adds another important distinction by explaining creative thinking through divergent and convergent modes: expanding possibilities and then narrowing them down (Guilford, 1950). Carson’s brain mode model further supports this view by showing that creative thinking shifts between absorbing, envisioning, connecting, streaming, reasoning and evaluating (Carson, 2010).

These theories were important because they show that creative work needs more than one type of space. It requires focus, stimulation, reflection, interaction and moments of recovery.

© ECEM ATATURE

Wellbeing and creativity are connected

Wellbeing and creativity are often discussed separately, but the literature shows that they influence each other.

Positive emotional states can broaden thinking and increase cognitive flexibility, which supports creative idea generation (Fredrickson, 2001). At the same time, creative work can support wellbeing through engagement, meaning, progress and a sense of accomplishment (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Pohlmeyer & Desmet, 2017).

This means that wellbeing is not only a benefit for employees. It is also a condition that supports sustainable creative performance.

Environment as an active condition

The physical workplace is not a neutral background. It shapes how people feel, focus, interact and recover.

Environmental comfort, such as light, air quality, acoustics, temperature and ergonomics, affects stress, attention and performance (Clements-Croome, 2015; Lee, 2019). Biophilic qualities, including natural light, greenery and natural materials, can support restoration and emotional balance (Ulrich, 1991; Channon, 2018). Multisensory atmosphere also matters, because visual, auditory and tactile qualities influence mood, stimulation and mental engagement (Williams, 2013; Thoring et al., 2021).

For this project, these findings were grouped into three environmental layers:

• Environmental Comfort: light · air · acoustics · temperature · ergonomics
• Biophilic Qualities: natural light · greenery · natural materials
• Multisensory Atmosphere: visual · auditory · tactile · sensory variation

Spatial typologies for creative work

Creative work does not happen in one fixed mode. Different moments of the creative process require different spatial conditions.

Thoring et al. argue that creative spaces should not be reduced to playful furniture or open layouts, but understood as a system of different spatial qualities (Thoring et al., 2021). Based on this, the project identified four spatial typologies that support creative processes:

• Stimulating Spaces: for ideation, brainstorming, prototyping and visual inspiration.
• Reflective / Secluded Spaces: for focus, incubation, retreat and deep work.
• Collaborative / Encounter Spaces: for informal exchange, co-creation and shared thinking.
• Restorative / Activating Spaces: for recovery, movement, emotional reset and renewed attention.

These typologies showed that a creative workplace should not offer one ideal environment, but a spatial ecosystem that supports different cognitive and emotional needs.

© ECEM ATATURE

Everyday actions as a bridge

The literature also showed that wellbeing and creativity are not produced by space alone. They are shaped through everyday actions.

Actions such as connecting, moving, reflecting, learning, supporting others, playing and recovering can support both wellbeing and creativity. For example, movement can reduce stress and help the mind shift into incubation. Informal interaction can create belonging while also supporting idea exchange. Reflection and recovery can protect mental energy and make creative thinking more sustainable (Wallas, 1926; Williams, 2013; Mental Health Foundation & Health Promotion Agency, n.d.).

For this project, these actions became an important bridge between environment, wellbeing and creativity:

• Connect
• Move
• Reflect
• Learn
• Support
• Play
• Recover

From literature to the first framework

The literature review showed a clear gap: creativity, wellbeing, environment and everyday workplace practices are strongly connected, but they are often studied separately.

To address this, the first Creative Wellbeing Framework was developed. It connected five layers:

• Environment shapes the spatial and sensory conditions of work.
• Enablers describe psychological conditions such as trust, autonomy, safety, control and belonging.
• Actions are the everyday practices that people perform within the workplace.
• Wellbeing is built through comfort, recovery, meaning, connection and emotional balance.
• Creativity is supported through focus, interaction, experimentation, incubation and flow.

The framework suggests that space does not directly create wellbeing or creativity. Instead, environment shapes enablers, enablers allow actions, and actions build the relationship between wellbeing and creativity.

This preliminary framework became the basis for the next research steps: case studies, interviews, workshops and design exploration.

2.2. CASE STUDIES

The case studies examined how wellbeing and creativity are supported across different design scales, from workplaces and modular systems to micro-spaces, recovery products and creative tools.

The analysis focused on examples such as Spyke Games Office, Pixar Headquarters, System 180, Vitra Hack, Framery Q Flow, Ostrichpillow, and Creative Thinking Cards.

The cases showed that creative wellbeing is not created by one solution alone. It needs a combination of social interaction, personal control, focus, flexibility, recovery and playful engagement.

© ECEM ATATURE

2.3. METHODOLOGY & METHODS

The qualitative research phase of the thesis, including semi-structured interviews and Research-through-Design workshop studies. The aim is to understand how people experience, describe, and negotiate workplace conditions in relation to wellbeing, creativity, focus, collaboration, recovery, and autonomy. The findings reveal the gap between what people say they need and how these needs are translated into spatial decisions through participatory design activities.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals from different backgrounds, including junior designers, senior creatives, founders, workplace design experts and psychologists.

The interviews explored how people experience workplace wellbeing, creativity, focus, collaboration, privacy, recovery and autonomy in everyday work. They helped reveal recurring needs such as sensory comfort, psychological safety, flexible work settings, belonging and mental recovery.

© ECEM ATATURE

Workshop Studies

Four Research-through-Design workshops were conducted with designer and non-designer groups. Each session lasted 60–75 minutes and took place in different spatial settings, allowing the research to observe how physical context influenced energy, behaviour and imagination.

The workshops had two tasks. In The Worst Office Ever, participants individually expressed negative workplace experiences. In Build Your Workplace, they collaboratively translated their needs into ideal spatial scenarios.

© ECEM ATATURE

Interview + Workshop Synthesis

The synthesis compared interview insights with workshop outcomes.

In the interviews, participants described problems such as surveillance, poor acoustics, lack of recovery, micromanagement and rigid work settings. In the workshops, these concerns became spatial decisions: buffered boundaries, warm lighting, recovery zones, social areas, ideation hubs and flexible workstations.

This showed that workplace needs are not only functional. They are sensory, emotional, social, organisational and spatial at the same time.

This insight became the bridge between the empirical research and the final Creative Wellbeing Framework.

2.5. FRAMEWORK TO DESIGN

The Virtuous Cycle of Creative Wellbeing

The Virtuous Cycle of Creative Wellbeing is the refined version of the initial framework developed after the literature review, further developed through the synthesis of interview findings, workshop observations, and design-led field research. The model understands wellbeing and creativity not as separate outcomes, but as parts of an integrated system that supports itself over time. In this model, the physical workplace is not a passive background. It is an active structure that shapes behaviour, supports psychological conditions, and can either enable or block creative work (Thoring et al., 2021; Williams, 2013).

Concept Exploration

The research findings were translated into personas and empathy maps to define key workplace needs and tensions.

In the ideation phase, four main directions were explored: buffered boundaries, recovery spaces, a participatory toolkit, and a creative wellbeing game. These concepts responded to issues such as lack of privacy, mental fatigue, rigid work settings, sensory overload and weak team connection.

After low-fidelity prototyping, the participatory toolkit was selected as the main design outcome. It was chosen because it could address changing workplace needs through a process, rather than proposing one fixed solution.

With the toolkit as the main outcome, the other concepts were repositioned as secondary design responses. They were connected to the design opportunity areas generated through the toolkit: Focus & Privacy, Recovery & Wellbeing, Flexibility & Personalisation, and Collaboration & Belonging.

© ECEM ATATURE

2.6. DESIGN

Main Outcome: Commons Co-Design Toolkit

© ECEM ATATURE

The Participatory Design Toolkit helps teams turn workplace experiences into design opportunities. It was developed as the main outcome because creative wellbeing cannot be solved through one fixed spatial solution. Different teams, tasks and cultures need different responses.

The toolkit follows two main phases. In the first phase, participants individually reflect on negative workplace experiences through the Worst Office Ever task. In the second phase, they collaboratively build an ideal workplace scenario using activity cards, space cards, mood tokens, circulation mapping and Commons Money.

Through this process, the toolkit helps reveal what people need for focus, privacy, recovery, collaboration, flexibility and belonging. The final output is a shared workplace brief that can guide future spatial decisions.

© ECEM ATATURE

Prototypes & Testing

Testing - 1

© ECEM ATATURE

Expert Feedback: Mehmet Yasin Altındal, Founder of Park Studio

Before developing the second prototype, the first version was shown to Mehmet Yasin Altındal, founder of Park Studio. He explained that similar workshop processes are sometimes used in professional office design projects, but they are usually not offered as a packaged product. His feedback helped refine the toolkit significantly.

Testing 2

© ECEM ATATURE

Design Development Matrix

The following design development matrix summarizes how the project evolved from workshop studies to the final toolkit by comparing the problem definitions, value propositions, how-might-we questions, observations, findings, and next development steps of each stage.

Secondary Outcome: Commons Co-Play Deck

Collaboration & Belonging

© ECEM ATATURE

The Commons Co-Play Deck is a playful team tool designed to support connection, onboarding and psychological safety in creative workplaces.

It includes question cards, creative task cards, a board, dice, player pieces and a usage guide. The game can be played in two modes: a non-competitive wellbeing mode for open sharing, and a competitive mode for more playful team interaction.

The deck was developed through three rounds of prototyping and testing. The question structure was also refined through consultation with a wellbeing expert, helping the cards balance openness, comfort and emotional safety.

With different question levels and creative tasks, the deck helps teams start conversations, learn about each other and build trust gradually. Within the wider toolkit system, it represents a possible response to the opportunity area of Collaboration & Belonging.

Design Development Matrix

Secondary Outcome: Modular Separator System

Flexibility & Personalisation

© ECEM ATATURE

The Modular Separator System is a smart secondary design response from the Flexibility & Personalisation opportunity area. It responds to the need for adaptable boundaries, user control and changing work modes in creative workplaces.

Connected with a companion app, the system allows users to adjust the separator for different modes such as focus, collaboration, presentation or recovery. Its interchangeable modules, including whiteboard, moss, acoustic, display and pin-up panels, make the system physically reconfigurable and context-sensitive.

Rather than acting only as a divider, it becomes an adaptive spatial tool that supports privacy, focus, collaboration, personalisation and environmental wellbeing.

Secondary Outcome: Parametric Separator

Focus & Privacy

© ECEM ATATURE

The Voronoi Parametric Separator is an exploratory secondary design response from the Focus & Privacy opportunity area. It responds to the need for buffered boundaries, privacy without isolation, and more natural, emotionally softer workplace environments.

The concept uses a parametric Voronoi pattern to create a semi-transparent spatial boundary instead of a solid wall. By adjusting the density, scale and openness of the pattern, the separator can support both visual connection and partial privacy.

The design was developed through a Grasshopper parametric script and tested as a 3D-printed prototype. Selected openings can also integrate greenery or moss-like elements, turning the separator into both a privacy device and a biophilic surface.

Rather than being a fully resolved product, this concept explores how workplace boundaries can become more adaptive, atmospheric and emotionally supportive.

3. CONCLUSION

This project responds to a gap in the literature: creativity, wellbeing, spatial design and everyday workplace practices are often discussed separately, while a holistic framework connecting them is still missing.

The research showed that creative wellbeing is not shaped by space or behaviour alone, but by the continuous interaction between spatial conditions, psychological safety, everyday practices and workplace culture. Environments shaped by surveillance, poor acoustics, lack of privacy, rigid layouts and weak recovery opportunities can reduce focus and creative confidence. In contrast, workplaces that support autonomy, recovery, interaction, flexibility and trust can help wellbeing and creativity reinforce each other over time.

The Commons Co-Design Toolkit responds to this complexity by avoiding one fixed workplace solution. Instead, it creates a participatory process where teams can identify their needs, negotiate priorities and translate them into spatial design opportunities. The secondary outcomes show how these opportunities can become concrete responses, from playful team tools to adaptive separators and biophilic boundaries.

Overall, the project argues that designing for creative wellbeing means designing conditions: spaces, tools and practices that help people focus, recover, connect and create in more sustainable ways.

Limitations of the Research

This research was qualitative and exploratory, so the findings should not be understood as statistically generalisable. The interviews and workshops provided rich insights, but the participant sample was limited and mainly focused on creative professionals, designers, workplace experts and psychologists.

The workshop studies were also short-term situations rather than long-term workplace observations. They helped reveal how people respond to spatial conditions, but they cannot fully measure long-term effects on wellbeing, burnout, productivity or creative performance.

The design outcomes were developed at different levels of resolution. The Commons Co-Design Toolkit and Commons Co-Play Deck were prototyped and tested more directly, while the separator concepts remained more exploratory and would need further technical and material development.

Further Developments

The next step would be to test the Commons Co-Design Toolkit and Commons Co-Play Deck in real workplace contexts over a longer period of time. This would make it possible to observe how the tools influence collaboration, wellbeing, communication, employee satisfaction and creative performance in everyday work.

The spatial outcomes could also be developed through full-scale prototyping and performance testing. The Modular Separator System could be refined through ergonomic, acoustic, material and mobility testing, while the Voronoi Parametric Separator could be explored further through fabrication studies, biophilic integration and privacy-performance evaluation.

A further direction would be a digital or hybrid version of the toolkit. Activities such as workplace reflection, spatial mapping, mood definition and resource allocation could be adapted to platforms like Miro or FigJam, making the process useful for distributed teams and hybrid workplaces.

Self Reflection

This thesis process helped me understand that creative wellbeing cannot be designed through one perfect object or one ideal workplace layout. It requires listening, observing, testing and accepting that different people and teams have different needs.

Through the project, I learned to see design not only as a final solution, but as a tool for making invisible needs visible, opening dialogue and supporting more adaptive workplace cultures.

Please read it here!

PDF

4.REFERENCES

Acar, S., Tadik, H., Myers, D., van der Sman, C., & Uysal, R. (2020). Creativity and Well‐being: A Meta‐analysis. Journal of Creative behaviour, 55(3), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.485

Action Office System Design Story. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2025, from https://www.hermanmiller.com/products/workspaces/workstations/action-office-system/design-story/

Alagaraja, M. (2020). Wellbeing in the Workplace: A New Conceptual Model and Implications for Practice. In S. Dhiman (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace wellbeing (pp. 1–22). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_69-1

Amabile, T. M. (1983a). A Theoretical Framework. In T. M. Amabile (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Creativity (pp. 65–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8_4

Amabile, T. M. (1983b). The Case for a Social Psychology of Creativity. In T. M. Amabile (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Creativity (pp. 3–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8_1

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995

Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2015). Inner work life: Understanding the subtext of business performance. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 43(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2015.7059374

Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity. The Journal of Creative behaviour, 46(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001

Arakelian, E., & Rudolfsson, G. (2023). Sharing the Same Reality, Healthy Relations Between Colleagues at Work: A Meta-Synthesis. SAGE Open Nursing, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608231207239

Aristizabal, S., Byun, K., Porter, P., Clements, N., Campanella, C., Li, L., Mullan, A., Ly, S., Senerat, A., Nenadic, I. Z., Browning, W. D., Loftness, V., & Bauer, B. (2021). Biophilic office design: Exploring the impact of a multisensory approach on human wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77, 101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101682

Bartels, A. L., Peterson, S. J., & Reina, C. S. (2019). Understanding wellbeing at work: Development and validation of the eudaimonic workplace wellbeing scale. PLOS ONE, 14(4), e0215957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215957

Bergefurt, L., Weijs-Perrée, M., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., & Arentze, T. (2022). The physical office workplace as a resource for mental health – A systematic scoping review. Building and Environment, 207, 108505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108505

Bianchi, I., & Branchini, E. (2023). Does Thinking in Opposites in Order to Think Differently Improve Creativity? Journal of Intelligence, 11(5), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050085

Carmen Losmann (Director). (2011). Work Hard Play Hard [Documentary]. Gebrüder Beetz Filmproduktion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIb8CQtYP9A

Channon, B. (2018). Happy by Design: A Guide to Architecture and Mental Wellbeing. RIBA Publishing. https://www.scribd.com/document/607908112/Happy-by-Design-A-Guide-to-Architecture-and-Mental-Wellbeing-by-Ben-Channon-Author-z-lib-org-1

Chulvi, V., Royo, M., Agost, M.-J., García-García, C., & Ruiz-Pastor, L. (2017). Relaxing or arousing environments (through color and music) for fostering designer’s creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 10(4), 247. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2022.2107081

Clements-Croome, D. (2015). Creative and productive workplaces: A review. Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2015.1019698

Colenberg, S., & Jylhä, T. (2022). Identifying interior design strategies for healthy workplaces – a literature review. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 24(3), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2020-0068

Compton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2013). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing (2. ed., international ed). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. http://archive.org/details/positivepsycholo0000unse_b0w1

Conner, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (n.d.). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. Retrieved February 15, 2026, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310764211_Everyday_creative_activity_as_a_path_to_flourishing

Conner, T. S., DeYoung, C. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2018). Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1257049

Derecskei, A. (2017). How Can Creative Workplaces Meet Creative Employees? (Pt. 4). Central European Business Review, 6. https://doi.org/10.18267/J.CEBR.187

Dienes, K., & Thoring, K. (2025). Typologies and geographical effects of third workplaces in creative cities: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Social Science, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2025.2584229

Doussard, C., Garbe, E., Morales, J., & Billion, J. (2024). Universal Design for the Workplace: Ethical Considerations Regarding the Inclusion of Workers with Disabilities. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05582-y

Ellison, M. (1978). Ecodesign: Implications for Energy–Conscious Interior Designers. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 4(2), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.1978.tb00276.x

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What Good Are Positive Emotions? Review of General Psychology : Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218

Fung, E. N., Cowden, R., Chen, Y., Węziak‐Białowolska, D., Białowolski, P., Lee, M. T., McNeely, E., & VanderWeele, T. (2024). Prospective associations of multidimensional wellbeing with work distraction and job satisfaction: A two-wave study of US employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1326655

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Gallup. (2017). State of the American Workplace. Gallup Press. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/state-of-the-global-workplace-gallup-report-2017/111021420

Gensler Research Institute. (2025). Global Workplace Survey 2025: The Workplace Reset. Gensler. https://www.gensler.com/research-insight/global-workplace-survey-2025

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The Necessity of Others is The Mother of Invention: Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215085

Groves, K., Knight, W., & Denison, E. (2010). I Wish I Worked There!: A Look Inside the Most Creative Spaces in Business. Wiley.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

Gympass. (2024). The State of Work Life Wellness 2024 (p. 24) [Industry report]. Gympass. https://www.scribd.com/document/688530040/Wellness-Report-Gympass

Hill, A. (2020). The PERMA Model: A Scientific Theory of Happiness. BILD (British Institute of Learning Disabilities).

Hui, B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi, E., Cunningham-Amos, L. A., & Kogan, A. (2020). Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298

Idenburg, F., & Suen, L. (2022). The Office of Good Intentions. Human(s) Work. TASCHEN GmbH.

Lee, J. J. (2023, November 29). Unveiling Office Design Evolution: Google’s Trend-Setting Office Design Transformations. Medium. https://medium.com/@_thefuturedesign_/unveiling-office-design-evolution-googles-trend-setting-office-design-transformations-a4dfbe93f69

Lee, Y. (2019). Workplace Health and Its Impact on Human Capital: Seven Key Performance Indicators of Workplace Health. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85936

Leite, E. M. D. A., Audretsch, D., & Leite, A. (2025). Integrating philosophy and psychology to enhance creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship: The W.O.M.B. model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50(4), 1396–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10142-1

Looking Back: The Evolution of the Office | ROOM. (n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2026, from https://room.com/eu/tomorrow/posts/the-evolution-of-the-office/

Lucius, Z. K., & Damberg, S. (2024). Why we need employees back at the office: The effect of workplace design on creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 33(4), 654–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12611

Mariotti, I., Tomaz, E., Micek, G., & Méndez-Ortega, C. (2024). Evolution of New Working Spaces: Changing Nature and Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50868-4

Mental Health Foundation & Health Promotion Agency. (n.d.). Five Ways to Wellbeing at Work Toolkit. Retrieved November 29, 2025, from https://mentalhealth.org.nz/resources/resource/five-ways-to-wellbeing-at-work-toolkit

Micek, G., Méndez-Ortega, C., & Smit, M. J. (2025). Geographies of new ways of working. Applied Geography, 178, 103601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103601

Montanari, F., Mattarelli, E., & Scapolan, A. C. (Eds.). (2020). Collaborative Spaces at Work: Innovation, Creativity and Relations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329425

Morisson, A. (2019). A Typology of Places in the Knowledge Economy: Towards the Fourth Place. In Metropolitan Perspectives (Vol. 100, pp. 444–451). Springer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3056754

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado. (pp. 63–119). Atherton Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13117-003

Ng, X., Chu, J., & Doshi, K. (2025). A PERMA-nent solution to understanding psychological wellbeing? Exploring the utility of the PERMA model in a university workplace. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1598910

Oldenburg, R. (2023). The Great Good Place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Berkshire. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.9561417

Pohlmeyer, A., & Desmet, P. (2017). From good to the greater good.

Rezaei, H. (2020). A Creative Cycle of Promotion: From Architectural Creativity to the Sense of Place and its Resulting Creativeness. Space Ontology International Journal. https://doi.org/10.22094/SOIJ.2020.680027

Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.

Robinson, S. (2020, March 25). Frank Lloyd Wright’s Larkin and Johnson Wax Workspaces. Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. https://franklloydwright.org/frank-lloyd-wrights-larkin-and-johnson-wax-workspaces/

Samani, S. (2014). A Workplace to Support Creativity. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems. https://doi.org/10.7232/IEMS.2014.13.4.414

Samani, S. (2015). Individual Control over the Physical Work Environment to Affect Creativity. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems. https://doi.org/10.7232/IEMS.2015.14.1.094

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing (pp. xii, 349). Free Press.

Serrano-Martínez, C. (n.d.). The Office as a Mixing Pot and Playground. An Ethnographic Study at a Creative Workplace. Qualitative Sociology Review, 12(3), 138. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.12.3.07

Serrano-Martínez, C. (2016). The Office as a Mixing Pot and Playground. An Ethnographic Study at a Creative Workplace. Qualitative Sociology Review, 12(3), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.12.3.07

Sibold, J. S., & Berg, K. (2009). Mood Enhancement Persists For Up To 12 Hours Following Aerobic Exercise: 1520: Board #122 May 27 9:30 AM - 11:00 AM. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(5), 40. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000354685.46683.58

Steelcase. (2017). Creativity, Work and the Physical Environment. https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2017/06/360_Focus.pdf

Stoewen, D. L. (2017). Dimensions of wellness: Change your habits, change your life. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 58(8), 861–862.

Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.6

Swarbrick, M. (2006). A Wellness Approach. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 29(4), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.2975/29.2006.311.314

Tang, M., & Gruszka, A. (2017). The 4P’s Creativity Model and its application in different fields. (pp. 51–71).

TEDx Talks (Director). (2017, January 12). The quick start guide to creativity | Shelley Carson | TEDxYale [Video recording]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHf_jUmtR70

The Evolution of Workplace Wellness. (n.d.). WORK MADE WELL. Retrieved November 30, 2025, from https://www.workmadewell.com/resources/the-evolution-of-workplace-wellness

The History of the Office: Office Trends Through the Centuries. (2024, February 8). Hubble. https://hubblehq.com/blog/the-history-of-the-office

The School of Life. (2018). The Emotionally Intelligent Office: 20 Key Emotional Skills for the Workplace. The School of Life. https://www.theschooloflife.com/shop/tsol-press-the-emotionally-intelligent-office/

Thoring, K. (2019). DESIGNING CREATIVE SPACE. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:77070b57-9493-4aa6-a9a5-7fed52e45973

Thoring, K., Gonçalves, M., Mueller, R. M., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2021). The Architecture of Creativity. International Journal of Design, 15(2), 17–36.

Thoring, K., Mueller, R., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2018). DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR CREATIVE SPACES. https://doi.org/10.21278/IDC.2018.0233

Ulrich, R. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design : Proceedings from the ... Symposium on Health Care Interior Design. Symposium on Health Care Interior Design, 3, 97–109.

Virhia, J., Blavo, Y., & Lordan, G. (2023). The “Beyond Workplace Wellbeing” Framework: A New Framework for the Organisation of Work to Cultivate Wellbeing and Productivity in Workplace. (53k6b_v1). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/53k6b

Waddell, G., & Burton, A. K. (2007). Is work good for your health and wellbeing? TSO.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. http://archive.org/details/theartofthought

Wellhub. (2025). The Work-Life Wellness Report 2026. https://wellhub.com/en-us/resources/work-life-wellness-report-2026/

Williams, A. (2013). A Grammar of Creative Workplaces. https://doi.org/10.15123/PUB.3077

World Economic Forum. (2016). The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs/

Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee wellbeing in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 36(5), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1990