How do you design an office people choose to come to, instead of are forced into?
There is a better question, and LEGO's headquarters in Billund answers it. The toy is in the building. There are open play spaces. People come there gladly, not as a duty but as a choice, because the building offers something the home office cannot: spontaneous contact, the kind of collaboration you do not plan, the feeling of belonging somewhere. The mandate asks how do we force people back. LEGO asked what does the office offer that home does not, and built the answer.
The mandate that misreads the problem
The conventional response to disengaged, absent employees is to compel presence. Return-to-office mandates. Attendance registration. Required office days. The logic treats the empty office as the problem and physical presence as the cure, as though engagement were a function of being in the building.
But presence is not engagement, and forcing it confuses the two. An office designed for attendance rather than connection does not generate engagement; it generates resentment, performed at a desk. People sit in the building because they have been told to, watch the clock, and feel less connected to the work than they did at home, because nothing about the building gives them a reason to be there beyond the mandate. The policy produces visible bodies and invisible disengagement, which is close to the opposite of what it intended.
LEGO's Billund campus changes what the office offers rather than what it demands. The building is full of things the home office cannot provide: spaces for spontaneous encounter, play that sparks collaboration, an environment that makes belonging tangible. People come not because they must but because the office gives them something worth coming for. The question shifts from how do we force people back to what can the office provide that home cannot, and once you ask it that way, the answer is design, not mandate.
Why this is design, not mandate
You could read LEGO's campus as a perk, a fun office for a toy company. But that misses the mechanism, and the mechanism applies far beyond toys.
The Billund campus does not motivate people to come in through enthusiasm or obligation. There is no campaign about the value of being together, no mandate forcing attendance. People come because the environment offers genuine value: connection, spontaneity, belonging, the things that are hard to get working alone at home. The pull is not manufactured through persuasion or compulsion. It is built into what the building provides.
That is the difference between design and motivation, and in the return-to-office debate it is the whole argument. Motivation, in its crudest form here, becomes compulsion: make people come because they are told to. Design changes what the office is, so people want to come. You cannot force engagement by forcing attendance; you only get bodies. You can build an office that offers something genuinely valuable, and let people choose it, which is the only way the presence comes with engagement attached.
The willingness to come in was never about how compliant people were with the mandate. It was about whether the office offered anything worth showing up for.
Turn your instinct for progress into a method
The Behavioural Design Method gives you tools to find the friction in any situation and redesign the path. For your organisation, your team, or your own work.
The principle: autonomy, variety and social stimulation
There is real research underneath this, and naming it turns LEGO's playful campus into a usable principle.[1]
Workplace vitality research has found that offices offering autonomy, a variety of work settings and social stimulation raise intrinsic motivation significantly compared with uniform, open-plan offices. The uniform open-plan office, the default of the last two decades, supplies almost none of these. It offers little autonomy over where and how you work, little variety beyond rows of identical desks, and social contact that is more often noise than connection. Small wonder people would rather stay home.
LEGO's campus supplies what the research identifies as the drivers of vitality. The variety of spaces lets people choose the setting that fits the task. The play spaces and open areas create genuine social stimulation, the spontaneous encounter that sparks both ideas and belonging. The whole environment grants a kind of autonomy the uniform office denies. This is why people choose to come: the building offers the very things that raise motivation, the things a home office and a rows-of-desks office both lack. The pull is not magic. It is the predictable result of an environment built around autonomy, variety and connection.
The empty office was never only about people preferring home. It was about an office that offered less than home did.
This reframes the entire return-to-office argument, which is usually conducted as a tug of war over compliance: how many days, how strictly enforced, how closely tracked. That framing guarantees the wrong outcome, because it treats the office as something to be imposed and the employee as someone to be made to accept it. The research points the other way. An office that supplies autonomy, variety and genuine social stimulation does not need a mandate, because people choose it; an office that supplies none of those will not be saved by one, because the mandate produces only attendance. The honest question for any organisation fighting this battle is not how do we get people back, but what would make this place worth the commute, and most have never seriously asked it.
What you can design this week
You do not need a campus full of toys to apply this. The principle, that offices win on autonomy, variety and social stimulation, points to changes at any scale.
Ask what your office offers that home does not. This is the question that reframes the whole problem. If the honest answer is nothing, no mandate will fix it. Find the things the office can uniquely provide, spontaneous contact, collaboration, belonging, and design for those.
Offer variety of setting, not rows of desks. The uniform open-plan office is the thing people are fleeing. Different spaces for different kinds of work, focus, collaboration, rest, encounter, supply the variety the research links to motivation.
Design for spontaneous connection. The collaboration you cannot schedule is one of the few things genuinely hard to get at home. Spaces that make incidental encounter likely give the office a value the home office structurally cannot match.
Replace the mandate with a reason. This is the deeper shift. A mandate produces presence without engagement. A building worth coming to produces both. Before enforcing attendance, ask whether you have given people anything to attend for.
There is a cost to getting this wrong that goes beyond a half-empty office. A mandate imposed on a building that offers nothing does not merely fail to produce engagement; it actively teaches people that the organisation will compel them rather than persuade them, which erodes exactly the goodwill that engagement depends on. People notice the difference between being given a reason and being given an order, and they respond to it. The organisations that have navigated the return to office well are, almost without exception, the ones that treated it as a design problem rather than a compliance problem, that asked what the office could offer and built it, rather than asking how attendance could be enforced and tracking it. The mandate is the easy lever. It is also the one most likely to leave you with bodies at desks and engagement still at home.
The thread is the one that runs through everything we do at SUE. You rarely produce engagement by compelling presence. You produce it by designing a place worth being present in. LEGO did not order its people back. It built a campus they wanted to come to, and let the choice do what the mandate never could.
If you want to learn how to design a workplace people choose rather than one they are forced into, that is exactly the kind of work our Behavioural Design training is built around.
Start designing for behaviour, not hoping for it
The SUE Behavioural Design Method teaches you to find the friction, redesign the path, and make the right behaviour the easiest option. In two days live or at your own pace online.
1.5 minutes on influence
10,000+ readers · Free · Unsubscribe anytime