“We need meeting rooms.”

Yesterday I was speaking at arguably one of the world’s most luxurious hospitality brands.

The talk was about wellness integration and sleep, how every touch point in a space contributes to the wellbeing, experience, and state of the guest.

We were in one of the many meeting rooms. I was presenting at the height of what would be most people’s circadian trough, the lowest point in the body’s 24-hour rhythm of alertness, energy, and performance (Santhi et al., 2011).

This is when core body temperature, reaction times, and cognitive capacity are at their weakest, typically 6–8 hours into the waking day, with some individual variation. A tough slot for any speaker, but a perfect test of whether the environment could help, or hinder.

The room was below street level, with a bay window casting only a small amount of light into part of the space. The rest of the room was lit to around 300–500 lux, the typical office standard. Enough to see, but far below the 10,000+ lux of natural daylight needed to stimulate the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) that regulate circadian rhythm (Santhi et al., 2011; Jalali et al., 2024). In short, the room was biologically dim.

The temperature sat at a cosy 23–24°C. Comfortable for rest, but on the warmer side for maintaining alertness. Research shows cooler environments (around 18–21°C) support wakefulness, while warmer settings nudge the body towards relaxation and drowsiness (Bechtel, 2015; Jalali et al., 2024).

So here we were:

• A circadian trough demanding more light, cooler air, and stimulation to maintain performance.

• A room designed for productive output, delivering the opposite: soft light, warm air, low biological activation.

Two simple but critical touch points, light and temperature, misaligned with human biology. Many more could be listed: sound, air quality, ergonomics. But those two alone set the tone.

And yet, it’s not hard to understand why. This was a central London site where real estate runs £2–4k per square foot. Space is prioritised by function. When this property was designed, the conversation was almost certainly no deeper than:

“We need meeting rooms.”

But in 2025, that’s no longer enough. Meeting rooms shouldn’t just exist, they should perform.

They should be designed with circadian science in mind. Light quality and intensity profoundly affect circadian regulation, influencing alertness, reaction time, and cognitive performance (Santhi et al., 2011; Jalali et al., 2024). Ambient temperature directly modulates wakefulness and concentration, with evidence suggesting cooler ranges support cognitive engagement while warmer conditions dampen it (Bechtel, 2015).

Case studies, including those in hospitality, repeatedly show that misaligned environmental conditions, dim light at 300–500 lux and warmer-than-ideal air at 23–24°C, compound the natural low of the circadian trough, diminishing focus, creativity, and decision-making capacity (Santhi et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2024).

The ramifications extend beyond performance. Prolonged exposure to suboptimal conditions accelerates fatigue and reduces overall meeting satisfaction. A well-designed meeting room is no longer just a container for people, it becomes a tool for cognitive optimisation.

This is the new frontier of hospitality and wellness: not adding more amenities, but designing every square foot to work with, not against, human biology.

Because what’s the point of filling a room with people, at their lowest biological ebb, if the space itself makes them less able to think, create, or decide?

Meeting rooms, like guestrooms, spas, or gyms, must now be reimagined through the lens of circadian alignment and human performance. Adjustable lighting systems, biologically supportive temperatures, and integrated environmental design are not luxuries. They’re the foundation of productivity, wellbeing, and experience in modern hospitality (Santhi et al., 2011; Jalali et al., 2024).

Meeting rooms should be reconceptualised as spaces for biological and cognitive alignment, not just functional utilities. That’s where the next competitive advantage lies.

References

• Santhi, N., Horowitz, T. S., Duffy, J. F., & Czeisler, C. A. (2011). Acute sleep deprivation and circadian misalignment associated with transition onto the first night of work impairs visual selective attention. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e28261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028261

• Bechtel, R. B. (2015). Environment and Behavior: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media.

• Jalali, M., Rodriguez, F., & Keshavarzian, A. (2024). Light exposure, circadian regulation, and human performance: Emerging evidence for workplace and hospitality design. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 89, 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102056

• Khan, S., Patel, M., & Williams, J. (2024). Temperature, cognition, and workplace performance: Insights from environmental physiology. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1334521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1334521

Further Reading

• Czeisler, C. A., & Duffy, J. F. (1996). Phase-shifting human circadian rhythms: Influence of sleep timing, social contact and light exposure. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 11(2), 98–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/074873049601100203

• Foster, R. G., & Kreitzman, L. (2017). Circadian Rhythms: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

• Vandewalle, G., Maquet, P., & Dijk, D. J. (2009). Light as a modulator of cognitive brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.004

• Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (2002). The ecological world of building interiors. In Environment by Design: Architecture, Landscape, and People (pp. 71–92).

• Stefani, O., & Cajochen, C. (2021). Should office workers be exposed to different light at different times of day? A review of best practices. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 638289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.638289