IntroductionStress measurement in occupational health settings can be grouped into two general measurement methodologies, objective and subjective measurement. Perrewe and Zellars (1999) argue that subjective measures are more valuable than objective measures, while Frese and Zapf (1999) and Schaubroeck (1999) provided opposing ideas, arguing that it is unrealistic, time-consuming and costly to take into account subjective responses which can generally be covered by an objective measure. I would consider the following subjective and objective methodologies to be 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Subjective measures, however, provide context and narrative that objective measures alone have little or no means of interpreting. 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 meant to be complementary to each other, with an emphasis on subjectivity measures providing information insightful and practical ideas for which industrial and 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 their environment, but occurs when there is a transaction between a particular environment or situation and a person. The idea is that stress is the result between an objective variable, the environment, and an individual's perception of that environment. Perrewe and Zellars (1999) did not dismiss the importance of objective measures when assessing work stress, but emphasized that subjective measures which involve situational evaluations and personal perception of the stressor were crucial elements in determining an appropriate coping strategy to manage the stressor. Workspaces Evolve As workspaces evolve and become more open with hot-desking policies, the removal of cubicles, and the promotion of an agile work environment, I suggest that considering the point of Employee views on these changes would be valuable to their organization, ensuring that the change is actually beneficial to those working there. There has been an increasing adoption of agile working, both by increasing the type of work environments, increasing 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) also found, by measuring perceptions of satisfaction , privacy and employee crowding, that agile workspaces also led to better control of information; as well as employees who worked on a more mobile basis actually showed a greater preference for privacy than employees who were confined to the office. Measuring employee perceptions of these changes allows data collection to go beyond simply measuring office space density and seek an understanding of the impact of office density on employees. The surveys implemented by Jegen and Chevret.