Open-plan offices carry a measurably higher risk of workplace bullying

Employers who moved their teams into open-plan offices promised more collaboration, more creativity, and better use of space. Research has already challenged most of those claims, showing that open offices tend to reduce productivity, job satisfaction, and even face-to-face interaction. Now a study from Linkoping University in Sweden adds another cost to the ledger: a measurably higher risk of workplace bullying.

3,300 workers, three types of office

Michael Rosander, a professor of psychology at Linkoping University, surveyed more than 3,300 randomly selected employed individuals in Sweden. Among those with some form of office-based work, 21% reported working in a traditional open-plan office with no access to private space. Another 9% worked in activity-based offices, which combine open areas with designated rooms for tasks requiring quiet or concentration. The remainder had their own office or shared one with just a few colleagues.

The results, published in Occupational Health Science, were clear. Workers in traditional open-plan offices reported a significantly higher risk of bullying compared to those with private or small shared offices. The elevated risk persisted after controlling for personality traits, the extent of remote working, and other potential confounders. This suggests the office layout itself, not the characteristics of the people in it, is driving the difference.

Why open space breeds conflict

Rosander offers a straightforward explanation. In a traditional open-plan office, colleagues' habits, quirks, and shortcomings are constantly visible. Someone who chews loudly, takes long personal calls, or fidgets may irritate nearby workers in a way that simply would not happen behind a closed door. If there are no clear guidelines for addressing these irritations, frustration can escalate. A colleague who decides to "do something about" another's behavior, without structures for constructive conflict resolution, risks crossing the line into bullying.

The person being targeted, meanwhile, has no private space to retreat to. In an open-plan office, there is no door to close, no room to decompress, and no physical boundary between the person causing the friction and the person experiencing it.

Activity-based offices: a different story

The study found a notably different pattern for activity-based offices, the hybrid model that combines open areas with private rooms. Workers in these environments showed no increased risk of bullying compared to those with private offices. The availability of quiet rooms and alternative workspaces appears to provide enough retreat and variety to prevent the escalation patterns seen in purely open layouts.

But activity-based offices were not entirely without downsides. Employees in both types of open office, traditional and activity-based, were more likely to report considering a job change. Rosander suggests that even in activity-based offices, the distractions and lack of consistent workspace contribute to dissatisfaction, even if they do not produce the interpersonal friction that leads to bullying.

Practical recommendations

For employers who have already committed to open-plan layouts, or who are considering them, the study suggests several interventions. Providing private rooms where employees can work without disruption is the most direct structural fix. Grouping employees with similar tasks and needs together can reduce friction from incompatible work styles. And perhaps most importantly, organizations need proactive systems for addressing interpersonal irritation before it escalates, clear norms, accessible mediation, and managers who are trained to intervene early.

Rosander summarizes the broader picture: traditional open-plan offices are negative for the individual, for productivity, and for retention. The research on social interaction, which had previously suggested that open offices ironically reduce spontaneous collaboration, now extends to a more serious outcome. If the layout of an office can increase bullying, the cost-benefit calculation that justified removing walls needs to be reconsidered.

Study limitations

The data are cross-sectional, capturing a snapshot rather than tracking changes over time. It is possible that people who are more vulnerable to bullying are disproportionately found in open-plan offices for reasons unrelated to the office design, though the statistical controls for personality traits argue against this. The study was conducted in Sweden, where workplace norms and labor protections may differ from other countries. And the measure of bullying relied on self-report, which introduces the possibility of perception bias.

The research was conducted in collaboration with Morten Birkeland Nielsen at the University of Bergen and funded by Forte, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.