What workers actually complain about
The clearest ranking comes from asking people directly. In a field study of 88 employees across two sites, 99% said some part of office noise impaired their concentration, and the sounds singled out most were telephones left ringing at empty desks and people talking in the background [2]. That is a near-universal complaint rather than a minority gripe, and it is specific: not "noise" in general but two identifiable events — an unanswered phone and nearby speech.
The same study checked whether people simply get used to it. They did not: the researchers found no evidence of habituation to these sounds, meaning longer exposure did not appear to blunt the distraction [2]. That matters for how you read the complaint data. If people adapted, their reports would fade over time and the ranking would be a snapshot of first impressions. Instead the annoyance appears to persist.
Why a ringing phone and background talk cut through
The field study interprets its results through what researchers call the "irrelevant sound effect" — the finding that speech-like sound interferes with tasks that hold words and numbers in mind, even when the sound is irrelevant to the task [2]. Background conversation fits that description closely: it is speech, it carries meaning, and it competes with the verbal material you are trying to keep straight.
A ringing phone at an empty desk is a slightly different case. It is not continuous speech, but it is an unpredictable, unresolved event — a sound that signals something needs attention and no one is answering it. The survey evidence places it at the top of the disruption list [2], though the study reports the ranking rather than testing a mechanism for why an unanswered ring is so intrusive.
Why the lab ranking comes out flatter
The experimental picture is much less dramatic. In a laboratory study, 68 participants took a standardised concentration test — a series of small arithmetic problems — once in silence and once under one of three recorded soundscapes: a fashion-retail checkout, a multi-space office, and a construction site [3]. On average, performance rose between the two sessions and the difference between silence and sound was only small [3].
Two details make that small difference even harder to read as a ranking. First, how much people improved between sessions depended on the order the sound conditions were presented in, and varied slightly across the three sound groups [3]. Second, the researchers questioned whether the test suited this repeated-measures design at all, since an ambitious group of participants appeared to find ways to optimise their performance between the two measurement points [3]. In plain terms: the experiment found a faint effect of sound, but the design left the comparison between specific sounds unsettled.
Adding sound on purpose, and what the mismatch means
One apparent contradiction is worth separating out. Some open-plan studies look at deliberately added masking sound — a low-level background hum used to blur speech — rather than at disruptive sounds. A survey-based study of self-adjustable masking noise in an open-plan office examined concentration, task performance and attitudes [4], and a study combining measurements with questionnaires reported that masking improved acoustic privacy and reduced distraction [5]. These do not tell us which natural office sound is worst; they suggest that covering speech with something steady can help, which is consistent with speech being the main offender [2].
So the honest answer to the comparison is that surveys and experiments are measuring different things. A survey captures how much a sound grabs attention and how much it bothers the person hearing it; a timed arithmetic test captures whether output on one narrow task drops [2][3]. A sound can be highly noticeable and still leave your score roughly intact, which is exactly the pattern these results suggest. If your goal is to know which sound to eliminate first, the survey ranking — vacant-desk phones and background talk — is the more direct guide [2]; if your goal is to predict how much a specific task will suffer, the experimental evidence indicates the drop may be smaller and less orderly than the complaints imply [3].
Sources used in this answer
Does background sounds distort concentration and verbal reasoning performance in open-plan office?
A laboratory experiment compared six office background sounds at different intensities and reported clear disruptive effects on concentration and verbal reasoning performance.
Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements.
In a field study of 88 employees, 99% reported impaired concentration from office noise, especially telephones ringing at vacant desks and background talking, with no evidence of habituation.
Effects of noise on employees during a concentration task: Results from performance and subjective assessments and a critical view of the chosen performance test
In a lab study of 68 participants, a standardised concentration test showed only a small difference between silence and three recorded soundscapes, and the size of the change varied with presentation order and sound group.
Effect of self-adjustable masking noise on open-plan office worker's concentration, task performance and attitudes
A survey study examined how self-adjustable masking noise in an open-plan office affected workers' concentration, task performance and attitudes.
Effect of sound masking on workers in an open office
A study using measurements and questionnaires reported that sound masking in an open office improved acoustic privacy and reduced distraction.