Back in the 1990s, management gurus talked a lot about high-performance teams. Today, the talk is all about high-performance buildings. What if high-performing buildings also needed to meet requirements of high-performing individuals? The day may not be far off when clients will demand both.

Long before LEED and the quest to improve building performance and sustainability, organizational specialists documented the impact that the work environment has on worker productivity and well-being. With the advent of high tech, the knowledge economy, "right-sizing" and team-centered management practices came the open-plan office. And with the open-plan office came an avalanche of organizational studies investigating the impact — both positive and negative — that the new workplace had on employees.

The findings from that research, which continues to this day, have not changed substantially in the past 20 years or so. On the plus side, open-plan and flexible office spaces have been shown to increase communication and knowledge sharing, which can have positive effects on innovation and productivity. On the other hand, many employees complain of a lack of privacy, noise, distractions and physical discomfort, which can undermine productivity, efficiency and accuracy — as well as increase stress, leading to health issues and absenteeism.

Until recently, righting the wrongs of open-plan workspaces has been largely the work of architects and interior designers. That may be changing, however. As more and more LEED-certified and other green buildings have become occupied, some have come under criticism for being too focused on meeting building performance targets at the expense of the people who inhabit them.

Alan Hedge, professor of ergonomics at Cornell University, along with J.A. Dorsey, a colleague from Ithaca College, recently conducted an assessment of two LEED Platinum buildings and concluded that they provided a poor environment for the workers.

They found significant associations between occupants' fatigue and their ratings of air temperature, as well as between their ratings of eyestrain and perceived air freshness. In one building, more than 50 percent of respondents said that the air ventilation, temperature and noise — factors closely tied to the structure's energy systems — did not benefit their comfort.

Noting that 92 percent of a building's costs are related to workers, Hedge contends that too much emphasis is put on meeting energy goals. "You can meet those but, if people are uncomfortable, you are losing their support and their productivity," he says. "The message is, you can be green, but you also have to be human."

Another study, involving pre- and post-occupancy assessments of three four- and five-star-rated GreenStar buildings in South Africa, found some improvement in employees' overall sense of physical well-being and perceived environmental comfort. Yet, a substantial number in some of the buildings complained of distracting ambient noises, insufficient ventilation and/or stale air, and uncomfortable air temperature. Moreover, the study found no statistically-significant difference in any of the high-level organizational measures as a result of the move to the new buildings.

Of course, many factors may account for how employees respond to their workplaces, and more research needs to be done on high-performing buildings to determine if these issues are endemic to current building practices or isolated cases. What's noteworthy is the shift toward a focus on the impact on employees of building systems and building design and how high-performing buildings may be affecting employee performance.

As builders demonstrate their ability to deliver on building performance, they will also need to show that their designs will support not only occupants' well-being but their productivity as well.