Why Employees Hate Hot-Desking
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,655,421 (-1.37%)       Melbourne $932,308 (-8.79%)       Brisbane $1,123,003 (-1.81%)       Adelaide $1,037,564 (+0.65%)       Perth $1,067,431 (-3.14%)       Hobart $841,531 (-0.24%)       Darwin $833,085 (+2.22%)       Canberra $997,488 (-1.28%)       National Capitals $1,117,351 (-1.89%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $809,969 (-3.22%)       Melbourne $565,142 (-9.84%)       Brisbane $739,115 (-5.33%)       Adelaide $586,922 (+1.33%)       Perth $628,011 (-0.24%)       Hobart $600,183 (+4.66%)       Darwin $485,553 (-1.34%)       Canberra $494,366 (+1.35%)       National Capitals $631,659 (-2.57%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 15,318 (+1,415)       Melbourne 16,910 (+2,370)       Brisbane 12,398 (-503)       Adelaide 4,278 (+579)       Perth 9,664 (+855)       Hobart 813 (+96)       Darwin 197 (+12)       Canberra 1,334 (+129)       National Capitals 60,912 (+4,953)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,649 (-1,019)       Melbourne 6,724 (-1,041)       Brisbane 2,551 (+198)       Adelaide 669 (+230)       Perth 1,787 (+79)       Hobart 166 (+9)       Darwin 207 (-9)       Canberra 1,280 (+68)       National Capitals 23,033 (-1,485)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $850 (-$10)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $720 (+$20)       Adelaide $650 ($0)       Perth $750 ($0)       Hobart $620 (-$10)       Darwin $850 (+$50)       Canberra $710 (-$10)       National Capitals $730 (+$7)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 (-$20)       Melbourne $610 (-$10)       Brisbane $680 (+$60)       Adelaide $540 ($0)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $530 (+$23)       Darwin $680 (-$40)       Canberra $580 (-$10)       National Capitals $652 (-$2)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,408 (-212)       Melbourne 7,769 (+707)       Brisbane 3,720 (+239)       Adelaide 1,232 (-47)       Perth 2,223 (+72)       Hobart 199 (-38)       Darwin 85 (+31)       Canberra 376 (-70)       National Capitals 22,012 (+682)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,911 (-226)       Melbourne 6,187 (+102)       Brisbane 2,194 (-1,277)       Adelaide 443 (+20)       Perth 714 (+16)       Hobart 80 (+10)       Darwin 154 (+42)       Canberra 770 (+1)       National Capitals 20,453 (-1,312)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 2.67% (↑)      Melbourne 3.35% (↑)      Brisbane 3.33% (↑)        Adelaide 3.26% (↓)     Perth 3.65% (↑)        Hobart 3.83% (↓)     Darwin 5.31% (↑)        Canberra 3.70% (↓)     National Capitals 3.40% (↑)             UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.14% (↑)      Melbourne 5.61% (↑)      Brisbane 4.78% (↑)        Adelaide 4.78% (↓)     Perth 5.80% (↑)        Hobart 4.59% (↓)       Darwin 7.28% (↓)       Canberra 6.10% (↓)     National Capitals 5.36% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 33.2 (↑)      Melbourne 31.7 (↑)        Brisbane 38.7 (↓)     Adelaide 31.4 (↑)        Perth 43.6 (↓)     Hobart 27.6 (↑)      Darwin 36.0 (↑)      Canberra 31.1 (↑)      National Capitals 34.2 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 30.1 (↑)      Melbourne 29.3 (↑)      Brisbane 37.9 (↑)        Adelaide 31.6 (↓)     Perth 45.3 (↑)      Hobart 28.5 (↑)        Darwin 24.2 (↓)       Canberra 31.3 (↓)       National Capitals 32.3 (↓)           
Share Button

Why Employees Hate Hot-Desking

The shared workspace trend is growing, but researchers say many companies are doing it wrong

By HEIDI MITCHELL
Fri, May 19, 2023 8:46amGrey Clock 7 min

Hot-desking has some issues to work out.

With nearly half of the pre pandemic office population in some major U.S. cities working remotely on any given day, hot-desking—where employees don’t have assigned desks but grab an empty one on days they come into the office—seems like a cost-saving no-brainer. The Gensler Research Institute’s 2022 U.S. Workplace Survey found that 19% of the office workers who responded had unassigned workspaces, compared with 10% in 2020.

There’s just one problem: Many employees hate it. They complain about the nuisance of having to hunt for a workspace every day they’re in the office, not being able to find a station that suits their needs, and no longer having a permanent space that they can personalise. Collaboration is harder, they say, and they feel less connected to their colleagues.

“The recurring labor, anxiety and rootlessness associated with hot-desking were emotionally and physically exhausting,” Manju Adikesavan, a Ph.D. candidate in environmental psychology at the City University of New York Graduate Center, wrote in a recently published paper. “Carrying work materials from place to place in campus buildings that were my workplaces made me feel like a visitor rather than a member of an academic community.”

The good news for companies is that it doesn’t have to be this way. For one thing, some people appreciate the opportunity to use a variety of workspaces and to engage with a broader range of colleagues. And research reveals that there are ways to minimise, and even eliminate, the negatives of hot-desking.

“It’s important for leaders and workers to understand that this style of working is a mind-set, that if done right, it can offer a lot of freedom,” says Christhina Candido, an associate professor of environmental and sustainable design at the University of Melbourne and a researcher of high-performance workplaces.

Feeling adrift

Unfortunately, in the rush to cope with the rise of remote work, many companies have implemented hot-desking without a lot of thought.

On one level, the problems with hot-desking are logistical. A review of 23 papers that looked at hot-desking in the past two decades was published in March in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. It observed that employees often found it impossible to locate the right kind of workstation for their needs—a cubicle with two monitors, perhaps, or a quiet standing desk, or a huddle room with a whiteboard, says Jennifer Veitch, a principal research officer at the National Research Council of Canada’s Construction Research Centre and co-author of the study.

Issues like these are more than just a personal annoyance, the study showed. Hot-deskers also often had difficulty finding colleagues with whom they wanted to collaborate, Dr. Veitch says. And managers often found it more difficult to manage their team because they weren’t always close to one another.

“The evidence does not show that more collaboration takes place when you throw people together in a soup of random desks,” Dr. Veitch says. “Yes, a lot of conversation might happen, but not all of that is helpful to the organisation.”

The lack of control was also an issue for some employees in the study—the inability to control social interactions and to always find the quiet spaces that workers needed to concentrate, Dr. Veitch says.

Then there is the difficulty of adjusting your workspace to suit your preferences when you’re not rooted in a given spot. “The challenge is that we are territorial people,” says Dr. Candido. “We like to have our photos up, our coffee mug out.”

Some workers have sought to reclaim that sense of personal space—undermining the whole concept of hot-desking in the process. David Courpasson, a professor of sociology and ethnography at Emlyon Business School in Lyon, France, recently researched a Belgian organisation whose workers practiced what he calls “objectal resistance” by unofficially strategizing collective ways to preserve a sense of ownership of their hot desks.

“We observed that many had decided to reappropriate desks by leaving personal items out—photos, stickers, bags, even crumbs from previous lunches,” Dr. Courpasson says of the research he conducted with Laurent Taskin, a professor of human resources and organisation studies at the Louvain School of Management in Belgium. The resistance wasn’t organized, he says, but it was discussed among employees. “Dissatisfaction was shared here and there, in corridor chats or during lunches and breaks,” he says.

There was similar resistance higher in the ranks as well. “Even leaders weren’t following the strict guidelines of the flex office process,” Dr. Courpasson says. Eventually, some team leaders gave in and allowed a bit of personalisation of shared workspaces, an approach the entire organisation now tolerates, says the professor.

A longer workday

Some hot-deskers complain about the time wasted seeking a workspace that suits their needs, and say the ways they address that problem have altered their work schedules and eaten into their personal time.

In her 2022 study, Ms. Adikesavan, the Ph.D. candidate, looked at doctoral students hot-desking on a U.S. university campus. She found that they often arrived early or worked late, when their office was less crowded, to avoid competing with colleagues for suitable workspaces. They also often wound up working well outside of the usual 9-to-5 hours in subscription-based co-working spaces, for which they weren’t reimbursed, as they tried to meet research or presentation deadlines, Ms. Adikesavan says.

Eva Bergsten, who has a doctorate in environmental and occupational medicine and is a research specialist at the University of Gavlë in Sweden, found similar problems in a study she recently published of companies that switched to hot-desking. Some employees she surveyed said that setup time stole precious work hours. “Not being able to change workplaces within the office smoothly—due to the wrong computer equipment or when the technology did not work optimally—was also a concern and very annoying,” and it made employees’ in-office time less productive, she says.

As with other logistical issues, these problems aren’t just personal irritations. A 2019 study by Annu Haapakangas, a chief researcher at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, found that the difficulty of locating colleagues in a hot-desking office damaged communication and the formation of communities.

The move to hot-desking, Dr. Haapakangas says, “may also increase perceived work demands, at least in the short term,” because less contact with colleagues and a weaker sense of community could create stress that leads people to feel that their work is more demanding than they previously thought.

All these problems for workers can become serious issues for their employers. Dr. Candido says dissatisfied workers who don’t feel supported in the office are more likely to leave an organization, and the costs of replacing talent can outweigh the cost-saving measures that hot-desking can provide.

Dr. Veitch says that kind of cost calculation isn’t always clear to a company’s leaders. “There is definitely a challenge between the human-resources people and the facilities-management people,” she says. “They may both report to the CFO, but the CFO might not be seeing the relationship between the cost to the building and the cost to the people in it. You can wind up with a real recruitment and retention problem.”

Making it work

However, research also suggests that hot-desking doesn’t have to be a disaster for employees. Some companies have adapted the basic model of hot-desking in ways that employees find attractive.

“I have seen success stories,” says Dr. Veitch. “The introduction of ‘neighbourhoods’ where people still have to move around but they become ‘natives’ to a home base area, as opposed to a desk, can work.”

So-called hoteling is another common solution that takes some of the day-to-day stress out of having to find a workspace: Employees book a specific space ahead of time, making it more likely that they can find the properly equipped workstation they need and eliminating the wasted time of searching for a spot upon arrival at the office.

Research also has found benefits from providing a mix of spaces with different ambiences, including some with privacy. Leroy Gonsalves, an assistant professor of management and organisations at the Questrom School of Business at Boston University, studied a big company that went from assigned cubicles to a mix of workspaces—quiet areas with high partitions, noisier open cafes, spaces for small meetings and conference rooms, in addition to hot desks. Workers’ control over their interactions with each other substantially increased, which they liked, the study found.

“People in our survey said that, if they sit with their team, colleagues come up to them constantly,” Dr. Gonsalves says. “But in an environment with hot desks and other variations—a library, a cafe-like setting, little cubicles—you can be social or you can intentionally hide away.”

“It gave employees agency to avoid unwanted interruptions while balancing individual tasks with professional obligations,” he says. “Employees felt that their productivity was judged less by time spent being seen, and more on their work outputs in the new office space. It seemed to work well.”

Carlos Martinez, a principal in Gensler’s New York office and creative director of the architectural firm’s Northeast region, says that nearly every corporate project he is working on incorporates hoteling and a mix of workspaces similar to the variety at the company Dr. Gonsalves studied. Cubicles for private phone calls, spaces for quiet concentration, large socialising areas and even outdoor space are common, he says. It’s important for these design elements to be specific to the needs of employees at each company, not based on a preset pattern, he says. “For a long time, the workplace was homogeneous,” Mr. Martinez says. “Now it’s very specific. One size does not fit all.”

Other research suggests the importance of setting up office rules around touchy issues such as cleanliness and quiet areas. Ms. Adikesavan’s research notes the value of providing lockers for employees to store items essential to their work where clean-desk policies are in place.

Management’s role

To get employees to buy into such a setup and come into the office with enthusiasm, companies need to first listen to workers and get their input on creating offices that fit their needs, says Dr. Bergsten of the University of Gavlë. Her 2021 study found that the more workers participated in activities that explained the change process, the higher their overall satisfaction.

Managers’ attitudes also are important, Dr. Bergsten says. In another recent study, she found that workers who perceived their leadership to be change-oriented and supportive of their employees during the transition to hot-desking were more productive after the change than those who didn’t feel that was the case. “Managers should be positive promoters” of this new way of working, she says.

Dr. Candido’s research similarly suggests the importance of company leadership in making hot-desking work. “You can’t be talking about sharing a space and then the manager is always working from the conference room,” the researcher says. “Top to bottom must embrace and engage or it just feels like a cost-saving exercise, which workers will notice.”

What she sees in the research on the topic, she says, is that if unassigned space is well designed and well managed, people will naturally organise at a group level and create a successful workplace. “If you want quiet, go there. If you want to have a coffee with colleagues, go there, etc.,” she says. “It becomes part of the office culture.”



MOST POPULAR

From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.

Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
SpaceX and Tesla Are Joined at the Hip. A Merger Would Make It Formal.
By Becky Peterson and Corrie Driebusch 22/10/2026
Lifestyle
What Nobody Tells You About Being a CEO | Five minutes on leadership
By 21/10/2026
Lifestyle
Two codes, one fight
By Ruba Jaajaa 21/10/2026
The AI Boom Faces Its First Serious Debt Test

Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.

By Ruba Jaajaa
Mon, Oct 19, 2026 4 min

A sharp technology sell-off has exposed a new anxiety on global markets: whether the enormous borrowing behind the artificial-intelligence infrastructure boom can generate sufficient returns as interest rates rise and Chinese competition intensifies.

The artificial-intelligence investment boom has powered technology shares, semiconductor manufacturers and data-centre operators to extraordinary heights. Last week, investors were given a reminder that much of this expansion is being built with borrowed money.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 4.5 per cent over the week ended October 16, its weakest performance since late June. Semiconductor shares suffered an even deeper correction, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index losing about 11.4 per cent.

The selling spread quickly through global markets. Micron Technology fell 14.6 per cent over the week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped approximately 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.

This was more than a routine bout of profit-taking. Investors were reassessing three interconnected risks: higher interest rates, the rapidly expanding debt burden attached to AI infrastructure and the prospect of stronger competition from Chinese memory-chip manufacturers.

The debt behind the AI build-out

Artificial intelligence requires a physical infrastructure network of enormous scale. Data centres must be built, advanced processors purchased, power supplies secured and cooling systems installed before customers begin generating meaningful revenue from them.

Technology companies are increasingly supplementing their own cash with corporate bonds, syndicated loans, equipment leases, private credit and project-level financing.

JPMorgan describes the emerging funding model as a combination of conventional corporate borrowing and project finance tied to individual data-centre assets. In Australia, the Reserve Bank estimates that syndicated loans accounted for approximately three-quarters of data-centre financing during 2025 and 2026 to date.

The numbers are becoming large enough to affect broader credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has cited Wall Street estimates suggesting AI-related investment-grade bond issuance could approach US$300 billion in 2026 alone.

That borrowing is not automatically problematic. Debt can be an efficient way to finance long-lived infrastructure when future revenue is sufficiently predictable. The concern is that AI technology, customer demand and computing economics are changing much faster than the repayment schedules attached to the assets.

A data centre financed today may carry debt for years. Investors must therefore make assumptions about future utilisation rates, electricity prices, chip performance, customer concentration and the amount businesses will ultimately pay for AI computing.

When interest rates rise, those assumptions become less forgiving.

Inflation changes the calculation

September’s US inflation data intensified the pressure. Consumer prices increased 3.7 per cent over the year, ahead of market expectations and up from 3.4 per cent in August.

The hotter reading reduced confidence that interest rates would fall quickly and pushed bond yields higher. That matters particularly for companies whose valuations depend on profits expected well into the future, as well as highly leveraged infrastructure operators that may need to refinance.

CoreWeave has emerged as a closely watched test case. The specialist cloud-computing company has accumulated substantial debt and lease obligations to build AI capacity, while relying on a concentrated group of large technology customers.

Its shares fell sharply during the sell-off, while the cost of insuring its debt against default climbed. CoreWeave has argued that its contracted backlog more than covers its obligations and that financial markets do not always understand its business model. Nevertheless, its securities have become a proxy for investor confidence in debt-funded AI infrastructure.

Oracle, another major investor in AI computing capacity, fell 8.8 per cent in Friday trading, while CoreWeave dropped 15.5 per cent.

The question is shifting from how much AI infrastructure can be built to how profitably it can be operated.

China adds another source of pressure

Interest rates were not the only catalyst. Reports of advances by Chinese memory-chip producer ChangXin Memory Technologies raised concerns that lower-cost Chinese products could increase competition across the global semiconductor industry.

Memory chips are essential to AI systems, but the industry is historically cyclical. Periods of tight supply and high pricing can encourage rapid investment, eventually producing oversupply and falling margins.

The prospect of a well-funded Chinese competitor expanding its technological capabilities unsettled investors in Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It also demonstrated that AI-related demand does not insulate chipmakers from conventional competitive pressures.

That combination—slower rate cuts, more expensive financing and potentially cheaper supply—challenged the assumption that every company exposed to AI would enjoy continually expanding margins.

A reset rather than the end of the boom

The sell-off does not establish that the AI boom is ending. Demand for computing power remains strong, the largest technology companies continue to generate formidable cash flows and many infrastructure projects are backed by long-term customer contracts.

What has changed is the market’s willingness to overlook the price and financing structure of that growth.

The most resilient companies are likely to be those able to fund investment from operating cash flow, secure long-duration customers and demonstrate that new capacity will earn returns comfortably above its financing costs.

More speculative operators may face greater scrutiny, particularly where debt is expensive, customers are concentrated or expected revenue depends on demand that has not yet materialised.

For Australian investors, the lesson extends beyond US technology shares. Local data-centre operators, infrastructure funds, electricity suppliers and property groups are increasingly exposed to the same investment cycle.

Artificial intelligence may remain one of the defining growth themes of the decade. But last week’s correction showed that enthusiasm for the technology does not eliminate financial discipline.

The next stage of the AI boom will be judged not only by computing power, model performance or demand for chips, but by something more traditional: whether the assets being financed can generate enough cash to repay the money borrowed to build them.

Fact box

Nasdaq Composite: Down 4.5 per cent for the week ended October 16, 2026

Philadelphia Semiconductor Index: Down approximately 11.4 per cent

Micron Technology: Down approximately 14.6 per cent

Samsung Electronics: Down approximately 18 per cent

SK Hynix: Down approximately 24 per cent

US September inflation: 3.7 per cent annually

Estimated 2026 AI-related investment-grade issuance: Approximately US$300 billion

MOST POPULAR

Barnet, in North London, lays claim to two of the country’s most expensive roads to own a home.

From Tokyo backstreets to quiet coastal towns and off-grid cabins, top executives reveal where they holiday and why stepping away makes the grind worthwhile.

Related Stories
Property
Everyone Wants a Room Where They Can Escape Their Screens
By NORA KNOEPFLMACHER 13/01/2026
Property
The 60-Year-Old Real-Estate Agent Giving History Lessons on Instagram
By 26/08/2026
Lifestyle
Inside the New Custom Line Navetta 35, a Four-Deck Home at Sea
By Ruba Jaajaa 15/09/2026
0
Your Cart
Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop