Leading with Research

A research-driven approach redefines ‘workplace strategy’ to focus on the human experience and rightsizing, not downsizing.

Early in the design discussions for Goodman’s corporate headquarters, LPA researchers uncovered a subtle but telling issue: Although the floor plate followed a standardized open plan, individual workstations varied in size, quality and access to natural light. One result was that quiet competition had developed — for proximity to windows, for favored layouts — that undermined equity and made some employees prefer working from home.

This shift reflects a deeper transformation in how LPA approaches workplace strategy. Workplace strategy typically focuses on gathering input and translating it into space plans that support business goals. LPA takes this further, bringing in a layer of rigor that redefines the entire process.

“We don’t stop at what people say they want — we bring in behavioral science, environmental psychology and emerging research to interpret what’s underneath,” says Rachel Nasland, Senior Design Researcher at LPA. “That’s what allows us to design spaces that don’t just reflect preferences but actively support how people think, feel and work.”

This broader lens helps move beyond surface-level preferences to reveal the underlying drivers of behavior — like autonomy, identity, cognitive load and social connection. One powerful application of this approach is in reframing space efficiency. While downsizing is often viewed through a negative lens — associated with cost-cutting or compromise — rightsizing emerges as a strategic, human-centered response. Supported by research, rightsizing is about creating spaces that are proportioned to how people actually work. It activates underused areas, enhances collaboration and simplifies movement, while minimizing overstimulation and mental fatigue.

“Design is no longer just about what’s pretty,” says LPA Design Director Rick D’Amato. “We have factual data to support the process and validate decisions.”

The impact is measurable — on culture, productivity and retention. Companies that embrace this process often experience smoother transitions, clearer priorities and a stronger shared sense of authorship. In turn, spaces become more adaptive, responsive and resilient.

“Planning is all about understanding how to design specifically for the individual, within the confines of standardization,” D’Amato says. “That understanding is what gives us flexibility.”

In times of change, organizations can’t afford guesswork. A research-driven strategy helps ensure that every decision is informed, intentional and aligned with the people who use the space. It reframes workplace strategy not as a response to constraint but as an opportunity to design workplaces that are grounded in reality and built for what’s next.

In one project, LPA worked with a company preparing to reduce its overall footprint. There was understandable anxiety around “taking space away.” But by framing the shift as rightsizing — and sharing research on how smaller, better-organized spaces can actually reduce cognitive load and improve collaboration — the tone of the conversation shifted. The result was a strategy that balanced efficiency with well-being, helping employees understand what they were gaining, not just what was being reduced.

In another example, a client with a strongly office-dominant culture was preparing for a major renovation. Leadership anticipated major pushback if they removed private offices —
but also suspected the existing layout was holding them back.

Rather than framing it as a design choice, we reframed it as a research question: What kind of environment best supports the kind of work they want to do? Through behavioral research and industry benchmarking, we demonstrated how different office ratios impact focus, equity, talent attraction and performance. That data helped leadership move forward with confidence — removing the pressure of a controversial decision by replacing it with relevant, outcome-based evidence.

In a project for a manufacturing client, the initial assumption was that office-based employees had the “better” work environment — fueling a sense of inequity and distance from the manufacturing floor. Interviews and workshops revealed a different picture; while the manufacturing had undergone multiple rounds of investment, refinement and process improvement, the office spaces had been largely overlooked. Office staff had fewer tools and less support in their daily environment than their counterparts on the floor.

Rather than favoring one group, the strategy focused on applying the same level of rigor and intentionality found on the manufacturing floor — where every movement, tool and layout is optimized for efficiency — to the office setting. This helped build cohesion across the organization, while shared break and coffee areas were designed to literally draw both teams together, creating informal moments of connection. To make these spaces feel welcoming and usable for everyone, intuitive wayfinding and spatial clarity became essential tools.

Research in environmental psychology and organizational behavior has shown that perceived fairness in space allocation, opportunities for casual interaction and ease of navigation all play a critical role in shaping trust, social cohesion and workplace satisfaction (Becker & Steele, 1995; Steg & Gifford, 2005). These insights reinforced our strategy — not just to improve the workplace physically, but to reframe it as a shared system that supports the diverse roles and relationships within it.

Science doesn’t replace intuition, but it adds clarity. In a field long dominated by subjective preference, the introduction of data provides a new kind of accountability — revealing what’s working, what’s not and what will sustain performance long-term. Designers and clients can move beyond what looks good and focus on what works.