Introduction The measurement of stress in occupational health environments can be grouped into two general measurement methodologies, objective and subjective measures. Perrewe and Zellars (1999) argued that subjective measures are more valuable than objective ones, while Frese and Zapf (1999) and Schaubroeck (1999) provided opposite insights, stating that it is unrealistic, time-consuming and expensive to take into account of subjective responses that can generally be covered by objective measurements. I would consider the following: Subjective and objective methodology are both important measures that are complementary to each other and therefore should not be considered separately (Frese & Zapf, 1999). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. Subjective measures, however, provide a context and narrative that objective measures alone have little or no means of interpretation. I will argue that subjective methodology provides a context in which to understand raw data and develop new theories, but that subjective and objective measures are intended to be complementary to each other, with an emphasis on measures of subjectivity that provide practical information and insightful for which industrial-organizational psychologists can implement interventions on. Transactional Model Lazarus (1968) created a model based on the idea that stress is not strictly related to a person or his environment, but occurs when there is a transaction between a particular environmental context or situation and a person. I would interpret this idea as stress being the result between an objective variable, the environment, and an individual's perception of that environment. Perrewe and Zellars (1999) did not ignore the importance of objective measures in assessing workplace stress, but stated that measures of subjectivity involving assessments of the situation and personal perception of the stressor were the crucial components in determine an appropriate coping strategy to manage the stressor. Workspaces are evolving As workspaces evolve and become more open, planned with hot desking and cubicle splitting policies, and the promotion of an agile working environment, I suggest that taking into account the perspectives of employees on such changes would be valuable to their organization, in terms of ensuring that the change is actually beneficial to those who work there. There has been an increasing adoption of agile working, both in the increase in the type of working environments and in the increase in mobile workspaces and opportunities for employees (Keeling, Clements-Croome & Roesch, 2015). Agile workspaces are a current craze with studies claiming that the work environment promotes employee productivity and well-being, however, Keeling and colleagues (2015), through measuring perceptions of satisfaction, privacy and on-site crowding of employees, found that agile workspaces also led to better control of information; just as employees who worked more mobile actually showed a greater preference for privacy than employees who worked in the office. Measuring employee perceptions of these changes allows data collection to go beyond simply measuring the density of office spaces to seek to understand the impact of office density on employees. Investigations carried out by Jegen and Chevret (2017) found that the lack of privacy and the increased level.