Walk into any office, and you’ll see every kind of desk.
One has every pen lined up, every paper filed, nothing out of place. The surface is visible. The monitor is centered. If this person owns a stapler, it has a designated spot, and it’s in it.
Another desk has photos taped to the monitor, a mug collection spanning three conferences, and a small plant that might be thriving or might be plastic; it’s hard to tell from a distance.
And then there’s the desk that looks like a paper avalanche: folders stacked sideways, sticky notes layered three deep, an old coffee mug holding down a pile of receipts nobody has looked at since March. The keyboard is somewhere under there. Probably.
Most people assume the first person has it together and the last one doesn’t. That assumption is so automatic it barely registers as a judgment.
But one psychology study found that disorderly environments can give people an edge on one very specific kind of work: coming up with something new.
The messy room didn’t produce more ideas, it produced stranger ones
In 2013, Kathleen Vohs, a psychological scientist at the University of Minnesota, ran a series of experiments designed to test the effects of messy vs. clean rooms.
The setup was simple. People worked in either a tidy room or a messy one, and afterward the researchers looked at what they chose, what they gave, and what they came up with.
In the first experiment, participants in the tidy room donated more money to charity and picked the apple over the chocolate bar on their way out. On its own, that looks like a finding about generosity and healthy eating. But what it really showed was simpler: the tidy room nudged people toward whatever felt like the expected, responsible choice. That mattered because of what came next.
The second experiment asked both groups to invent new uses for ping-pong balls. They came up with roughly the same number of ideas. But when independent judges rated them, the ones from the messy room scored meaningfully higher on creativity. Same volume of output, different character.
The third experiment was the one that made the pattern visible.
Participants were offered a smoothie with a health boost. Half saw it labeled “classic.” Half saw it labeled “new.” People in the tidy room overwhelmingly chose the classic version. People in the messy room overwhelmingly chose the new one, more than twice as often.
Three experiments, one consistent thread: the rooms weren’t making anyone smarter or dumber. They were cueing different orientations toward the familiar.
Order tells your brain to color inside the lines, and disorder tells it the lines are optional
The creativity result is interesting on its own, but it’s the classic-versus-new experiment that supplies a mechanism.
Vohs and her colleagues argued that orderly environments signal convention: this is a place where things are done the way they’ve been done. Disorderly environments signal the opposite. The rules feel looser. The unexpected feels more available.
That distinction matters because creativity usually means getting past the obvious answer.
The first idea most people have for a ping-pong ball is beer pong. The twentieth idea is the interesting one.
Getting there means being willing to suggest something that sounds strange, and the space you’re sitting in may quietly shape how willing you are to go there.
The messy room shifted the threshold for what felt worth saying out loud. In an orderly space, the safe answer feels correct. In a disorderly one, the unexpected answer doesn’t feel like such a risk.
That’s a subtler finding than “mess makes you creative,” and it’s more useful. The environment is acting as a kind of permission structure, loosening the grip of the safe, expected response.
More Bolde Stories
The real question is which mode the work needs
This isn’t a story where the messy desk wins.
The people in the tidy room chose the healthier snack. They gave more to charity. They preferred the established, tested option. Those aren’t failures. Those are real advantages for real kinds of work.
Proofreading a contract, organizing a project timeline, following a recipe, running a budget: that kind of work benefits from the mode that order cues.
You want the conventional answer when the conventional answer is the right one. Nobody needs a creative interpretation of a tax form.
The distinction also explains something most people have felt but never named: the reason it’s easier to brainstorm at a coffee shop with crumbs on the table than at a freshly wiped conference table with a branded notepad centered in front of each chair.
The coffee shop isn’t trying to tell you how to behave. The conference room is.
The useful takeaway is that different phases of work may benefit from different environments.
Brainstorming, naming something, solving an open-ended problem, trying to see a situation from an angle nobody’s tried: those tasks thrive on looseness.
Narrowing the options, executing the plan, catching the errors: those tasks thrive on structure.
Most jobs involve both kinds of thinking at different points in the same week, sometimes in the same afternoon.
The person who needs to generate twenty names for a product by Thursday and then organize them into a pitch deck by Friday morning might do those two tasks better in two different settings.
There’s a difference between a messy desk and a desk that’s been ignored for six months
Before anyone uses this as a reason to stop tidying up, it’s worth noting what the Vohs study was and what it wasn’t.
Vohs noted that the specific rooms didn’t seem to matter: the team tested across six different locations, and the tidiness or messiness of the space produced the same behavioral shift every time.
But the experiments involved roughly 48 people per condition, and the setup manipulated the room rather than measuring the person. That’s enough to notice a pattern, but it’s not enough to build a lifestyle around. One creativity experiment is not a prescription.
The researchers arranged the disorder themselves. Papers strewn around, supplies scattered in specific ways. It was a measured amount of visual disruption in a controlled setting, not six months of unopened mail and forgotten takeout containers.
The difference matters because the mess in the experiments belonged to nobody. It wasn’t a to-do list disguised as a room. Real clutter usually is.
Psychologists Darby Saxbe and Rena Repetti, working with UCLA’s Center on Everyday Lives of Families, studied 32 middle-class, dual-income families in Los Angeles and found that women who described their homes as cluttered showed elevated cortisol levels throughout the day.
That kind of chronic, unmanaged mess doesn’t cue creative freedom. It cues stress, fatigue, and a persistent sense that something needs to be dealt with.
Some disorder can encourage novel thinking. That’s what the data showed. It did not show that more mess produces more genius, and anyone who has ever tried to work under a deeply chaotic pile of obligations knows the difference between looseness and paralysis.
The messy desk may still need cleaning, but maybe not right before a brainstorm
The person at the paper-avalanche desk might still need to sort their receipts and find the bottom of that pile eventually. Nobody is arguing otherwise.
But before assuming they can’t think straight, it’s worth remembering that straight thinking isn’t always what creativity requires. Sometimes the advantage is sitting in a space that doesn’t insist on neatness, where the next idea doesn’t have to look like the last one to feel worth mentioning.
The best workspace might not be the cleanest one or the messiest one. It might just be the one that matches the work.
