These workspace satisfaction figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.
Key Workspace Satisfaction Statistics
The main findings are:
- 79% Singapore, 68% United States, 65% Australia and 39% Japan had overall workspace satisfaction in the international POE comparison (Reported study measurement period; Singapore, United States, Australia and Japan offices).
- 81% of CBE respondents were dissatisfied with at least one workspace aspect (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States).
- CBE office occupants were 75% satisfied with ease of interaction (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database).
- Average Leesman workplace-experience score rose from 64.3 in 2019 to 69.5 in 2024 (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset).
- CBE seven-theme model accounted for 82% of total variance (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database).
- Privacy benchmark: below 30% one-star, 30%-55% two-star, above 55% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark).
- Singapore overall workspace satisfaction was 79% ± 11% (Reported study measurement period; Singapore offices).
- 67% of CBE respondents were dissatisfied with two or more workspace aspects (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States).
- CBE office occupants were 74% satisfied with amount of light (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database).
- The 2024 home-experience score was 79.5, 10 points above the office Lmi (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset).
- 78% of Singapore occupants were satisfied with the overall workspace environment (Reported study measurement period; Seven Green Mark-certified Singapore commercial buildings).
- Acoustics benchmark: below 38% one-star, 38%-62% two-star, above 62% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark).
- United States overall workspace satisfaction was 68% ± 17% (Reported study measurement period; United States offices).
- Acoustics were a dissatisfaction source for 54% of CBE respondents (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States).
- CBE office occupants were 71% satisfied with general cleanliness (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database).
Contents
- Key Workspace Satisfaction Statistics
- Workspace satisfaction statistics across countries and office environments
- Workspace dissatisfaction statistics for acoustics, temperature and privacy
- Workspace layout, lighting and furniture satisfaction data
- Workspace satisfaction trends from office to home and hybrid work
- Workspace satisfaction, wellbeing and employee experience measures
- Workspace satisfaction benchmarks, thresholds and interpretation limits
Workspace satisfaction statistics across countries and office environments
- 79% Singapore, 68% United States, 65% Australia and 39% Japan had overall workspace satisfaction in the international POE comparison (Reported study measurement period; Singapore, United States, Australia and Japan offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Singapore overall workspace satisfaction was 79% ± 11% (Reported study measurement period; Singapore offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- United States overall workspace satisfaction was 68% ± 17% (Reported study measurement period; United States offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Australia overall workspace satisfaction was 65% ± 21% (Reported study measurement period; Australia offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Japan overall workspace satisfaction was 39% ± 20% (Reported study measurement period; Japan offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- At least 50% of responses were satisfied for most workspace aspects in the U.S., Australian and Singaporean databases (Reported study measurement period; United States, Australia and Singapore offices). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
Country databases differed in instruments and contexts; not national estimates.
Variation describes the database, not a national confidence interval.
Participating-building POE data are not a probability sample.
Japanese survey context differed from Western databases.
Database-level distribution, not a universal threshold.
Workspace dissatisfaction statistics for acoustics, temperature and privacy
- 81% of CBE respondents were dissatisfied with at least one workspace aspect (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- 67% of CBE respondents were dissatisfied with two or more workspace aspects (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- Acoustics were a dissatisfaction source for 54% of CBE respondents (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- Temperature was a dissatisfaction source for 38% of CBE respondents (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- Visual privacy was a dissatisfaction source for 28% of CBE respondents (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- Ease of interaction had the lowest CBE dissatisfaction-source rate at 10% (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
- The most frequent association rule, speech privacy plus phone talking leading to people talking, occurred 14,911 times (Reported study measurement period; 617 office buildings, mainly United States). (Common sources of occupant dissatisfaction…)
Participating buildings; self-reported dissatisfaction.
Categories can overlap.
Branching checkbox; not mutually exclusive.
Selected reason among dissatisfied responses.
Association frequency is not causal or population prevalence.
Workspace layout, lighting and furniture satisfaction data
- CBE office occupants were 75% satisfied with ease of interaction (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- CBE office occupants were 74% satisfied with amount of light (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- CBE office occupants were 71% satisfied with general cleanliness (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- CBE office occupants were 54% satisfied with sound privacy (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- CBE office occupants were 39% satisfied with temperature (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- CBE office occupants were 34% satisfied with noise level (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- About 66% of CBE respondents were satisfied with their personal workspace (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- About 40% said acoustics and thermal comfort were most responsible for lack of productivity (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- About 25% said office layout contributed to lack of productivity (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
Participating office benchmark.
Perceived satisfaction, not measured illuminance.
Perceived cleanliness, not inspection score.
Distinct from measured sound transmission.
Subjective thermal rating.
Self-reported noise rating.
Approximate benchmark; participating buildings.
Perceived productivity impact, not objective productivity.
Self-reported attribution, not causal estimate.
Workspace satisfaction trends from office to home and hybrid work
- Average Leesman workplace-experience score rose from 64.3 in 2019 to 69.5 in 2024 (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- The 2024 home-experience score was 79.5, 10 points above the office Lmi (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- Individual focused desk-based work was important to 89% of respondents (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- Planned meetings were important to 74% of respondents (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- Collaborating on focused work was important to 58% of respondents (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- Only 35% were satisfied with office noise levels (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- Only 35% were satisfied with leisure facilities onsite or nearby (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- 33% were satisfied with movement of people past their workstation (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- 40% were satisfied with quiet rooms for working alone or in pairs (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- 41% were satisfied with temperature control (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- 47% were satisfied with plants and greenery (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
- 63% were satisfied with tea, coffee and refreshment facilities (Reported study measurement period; Leesman workplace dataset). (The workplace why)
Index is not interchangeable with percent-satisfied measures.
Not a randomized home-versus-office experiment.
Importance is not satisfaction.
Leesman feature definition differs from CBE.
Self-reported feature satisfaction.
Not identical to general privacy.
Feature satisfaction, not room count.
Perceived control, not engineering measurement.
Feature rating, not wellbeing effect.
Context-specific self-report.
Workspace satisfaction, wellbeing and employee experience measures
- CBE seven-theme model accounted for 82% of total variance (Reported study measurement period; CBE office database). (Lessons Learned Over 20 Years…)
- 78% of Singapore occupants were satisfied with the overall workspace environment (Reported study measurement period; Seven Green Mark-certified Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 86% were satisfied with flexibility of dress code (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 84% were satisfied with electrical lighting (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 82% were satisfied with cleanliness (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 42% were dissatisfied with sound privacy (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 32% were dissatisfied with personal control (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 30% were dissatisfied with temperature (Reported study measurement period; Seven Singapore commercial buildings). (Occupant satisfaction with the indoor…)
- 82% of respondents were satisfied with workspace furniture (Reported study measurement period; Employees in one Finnish multi-space office). (Employee Satisfaction With Working Space…)
- 44% were dissatisfied with workspace acoustics (Reported study measurement period; Employees in one Finnish multi-space office). (Employee Satisfaction With Working Space…)
Factor-model statistic, not percent satisfied.
Certified, air-conditioned sample.
Specific IEQ-survey item.
Perceived lighting, not illuminance.
Perceived cleanliness.
Specific acoustic item.
Composite perception.
Self-reported, context-specific.
Single-office cross-sectional sample.
Workspace satisfaction benchmarks, thresholds and interpretation limits
- Privacy benchmark: below 30% one-star, 30%-55% two-star, above 55% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Acoustics benchmark: below 38% one-star, 38%-62% two-star, above 62% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Temperature benchmark: below 37% one-star, 37%-64% two-star, above 64% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Indoor-air-quality benchmark: below 46% one-star, 46%-79% two-star, above 79% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Furniture benchmark: below 59% one-star, 59%-83% two-star, above 83% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Office-layout benchmark: below 37% one-star, 37%-84% two-star, above 84% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Lighting benchmark: below 62% one-star, 62%-82% two-star, above 82% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Cleanliness-and-maintenance benchmark: below 64% one-star, 64%-89% two-star, above 89% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
- Overall workspace benchmark: below 59% one-star, 59%-85% two-star, above 85% three-star (Reported study measurement period; International workspace benchmark). (Measuring what matters: A benchmarking…)
Relative percentiles, not universal standards.