Almost no one likes hot desking. There, I said it

Before implementing or expanding hot desking, leaders should ask a few simple questions, writes Robyn Hawke.

Sometimes you write something on LinkedIn expecting it to get a couple of comments before disappearing into the algorithm. And sometimes you hit a nerve.

That’s what happened when I posted the following:

“In most offices, hot desking has become a way to undersize a fit-out and call it progressive …”

In the post, I argued that hot desking doesn’t work. Employees almost always end up claiming the same desk every day anyway. It creates friction before the workday has even begun. Where do I sit? Where’s my mouse? That it strips people of a sense of ownership. And that the space supposedly “saved” often isn’t, once you add back the phone booths and breakout spaces.

More than 21,000 impressions later, it was clear: people agreed.

Hot desking, it turns out, isn’t nearly as hot as its name suggests.

It’s one of those workplace ideas that sounds wonderfully progressive in a boardroom and considerably less progressive at 8:47am on a Tuesday, when you’re wandering the office with a laptop under one arm and a coffee in the other, hoping someone hasn’t beaten you to the only desk with a decent monitor.

The comments on LinkedIn said it all:

• “At one company we had hot desks, yet everyone sat at the same desk.”
• “I hate sitting at a desk where someone else has sat and using keyboards and mice that other people have used after they’ve touched god knows what. I would much rather have my own space that I can clean and maintain.”
• “If we’re trying to build ownership and accountability, hot desking sends a strange message … People show up differently when something actually feels like theirs.”
• “The same people who advocate hot desking are the ones who want less working from home to improve ‘collaboration’. How do you collaborate when your team is spread across a floor or building?”
• “A workstation needs to be customised ergonomically for the individual. This certainly doesn’t happen with hot desking. More musculoskeletal complaints are the result.”
• “... notice the CEO sits in the same place every day, and his office is quite ‘personalised’. Treat people like blocks of wood, then don’t get disappointed if they act like blocks of wood.”

Houston, we have a problem.

Hot desking is built on an assumption that doesn’t quite match how people actually work.

Behavioural science tells us our brains are constantly looking for ways to conserve mental energy. Familiar routines and environments reduce cognitive load, the mental effort required to process information and make decisions. That’s why so many people instinctively gravitate to the same desk every day.

After 21 years of designing workplaces, I’ve seen this pattern play out time and again.

To be fair, I completely understand why organisations are doing it. The pressure to reduce workplace costs is real. Rising rents, hybrid work and underused office space have forced many businesses to rethink the traditional office. That’s a sensible conversation to have. But we must make sure today’s property savings don’t become tomorrow’s productivity, engagement and retention problem.

Micro-interruptions add up to 2 weeks of lost productivity per employee each year

Hot desking impacts productivity from the moment an employee steps foot into the office and before a single task is completed. Employees must locate an available desk, adjust chair height and monitor angles, reconnect devices, and re-establish their working environment from scratch. These micro-interruptions feel trivial in isolation, but research has found they accumulate to an average of two weeks of wasted time per employee, per year.

A 2023 global review by Korn Ferry found that flexible desk arrangements were consistently associated with lower levels of workplace satisfaction and weaker perceptions of workplace quality. Studies have also identified increased distractions, reduced feelings of belonging and greater difficulty concentrating on focused work. Savills Research quantified the broader impact, estimating a 45 per cent loss of productivity attributable to hot desking arrangements, significantly overriding the savings made on any real estate space.

Culture and trust implications

Hot desking was introduced, in part, to foster spontaneous collaboration and flatten hierarchies. However, a study of 1,000 Australian employees conducted by Bond University found that shared-desk environments increased distrust, distractions, and uncooperative behaviour, while weakening relationships and reducing perceived supervisor support. It rather undermines the original sales pitch: that hot desking would bring people together.

Korn Ferry’s 2023 review concluded: “flexible desking arrangements uniformly breed discontent.” “Discontent” is a strong word, but judging by the response to my LinkedIn post, plenty of people would say it fits. The same research found that employees placed in proximity to unwanted desk mates with no predictability or choice experience measurably lower job satisfaction and weaker perceptions of workplace quality.

One of the most overlooked aspects of workplace design is the human need for ownership and belonging. We choose the same seat at meetings, on a sightseeing bus, and in training rooms. Familiarity provides comfort and certainty. When employees have no sense of place within an organisation, it can unintentionally undermine the very culture leaders are trying to create.

Wellbeing and neurodiversity

As awareness of neurodiversity grows, so too does our understanding of the hidden costs of hot desking. For employees with ADHD, autism, anxiety or sensory sensitivities, the daily uncertainty of not knowing where they’ll sit, whether the lighting will be suitable or whether noise levels will be manageable can significantly increase cognitive load before the workday has even begun.

It can become a source of sustained anxiety that erodes focus and performance. For HR leaders, there is also a compliance consideration: where employees have disclosed neurodivergent conditions, providing a predictable and consistent work environment may form part of an organisation’s reasonable adjustment obligations.

Ergonomic risk

Ergonomic risk is also real and documented. Employees who are shorter or taller than the assumed average spend time each day adapting equipment set for someone else. Constantly changing desks means those adjustments are often compromised, increasing the risk of discomfort and musculoskeletal issues over time.

When unassigned desking does work

There are many environments where flexible seating can work. Mobile sales teams, consultants, field-based staff and project teams may have very different requirements from employees performing concentrated, individual work. In these situations, desk sharing can be a rational use of space. The failure occurs when hot desking is applied as a blanket policy to employees who are present daily and who require a stable, personalised environment to perform effectively.

What a well-designed workplace looks like

In order to justify the commute and the cultural investment employees are asked to make, the office has to offer something home can’t. That means designing for people, not property efficiency ratios. The most successful offices I have designed offer this in a range of ways: quiet zones for focused work, collaborative spaces for teamwork, meeting rooms that support both in-person and virtual participation, informal breakout areas, outdoor spaces, and areas where employees can choose the setting most appropriate for the task at hand.

Employees who are in the office regularly should have access to a consistent, personalised workstation. A well-designed workplace should support productivity, culture, wellbeing and performance simultaneously. It should help people do their best work, not create additional barriers to achieving it.

Organisations that get this right often see the return through lower staff turnover, higher engagement, and stronger discretionary effort. These outcomes are difficult to achieve when employees experience their workplace as a source of friction rather than support. Those that continue to optimise for space rather than for people will keep paying for it in productivity, in culture, and ultimately in talent.

One of my long-held beliefs is that every space creates a reaction. The question business leaders should be asking is whether their workplace is creating the reaction they intended.

Before implementing or expanding hot desking, leaders should ask these simple questions:

• Does anyone actually want it?
• Is this supporting the way our people actually work?
• Are we solving a workplace problem or simply reducing floor space?
• What impact will this have on productivity, belonging and employee wellbeing?

Twenty-one thousand impressions later, I’m not convinced hot desking is the answer.

Robyn Hawke is the founder and principal designer of Inspired Spaces.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.