Roughly, they found two big companies that were about to switch "from assigned seats in cubicles to similarly assigned seats in an open office design, with large rooms of desks and monitors and no dividers between people's desks". Roles included "technology, sales and pricing, HR, finance, and product development, as well as the top leadership". They compared interaction metrics before and after the change.
For me the problem is not really distractions (I don't care if people interrupt me from time to time, in fact I like it). My problem is the mental strain that stems from lack of privacy, the knowledge that people can see me and my monitor all the time, it's like there's a background process in my mind that checks whether what I want to do (move a lot in my chair, comment on HN, eat something) is ok with people around me. And this constant monitoring and self-control is tiring.
One thing that helped me get past this feeling was looking around at other desks and realizing that either a. no one cares what you are doing because they are too busy working on their own stuff or b. half the office is watching youtube anyway.
I get easily startled when I am very focused and people walk around in my peripheral vision or behind me. It really stresses me out. I work remote now so life is good but when I was at the office I was completely exhausted every evening because of this stress
This is very common even when people have no sense of needing to “hide” what’s on their screen... it’s just a natural fight vs flight human impulse to he worried about who is walking around in your space.
Even worse for the large fraction of the population who are introverts.
This resonates so much with me. One of the advantages of being an early engineer at my company has meant that I was able to choose my spot in office: right at the back, next to a window, in the corner.
Sure, it feels like I'm being a bit anti-social at times, but I'm very comfortable in my corner :)
Exactly! I would be fine in an open office where monitors can't be seen from behind (sideways is okay, I should be able to show colleagues sitting beside me, my screen). Perhaps, between two rows a thin paper-ish wall can be put up.
I've worked in a variety of settings, and my favorite is a small team in a conference room/tiny open office. 3-8 people.
People tend to be respectful of each other's concentration at that number of people. And since you're in the same team, most interruptions are likely to be useful to other members of the team. But if we wanted to just bother 1 specific person, we would just use instant message.
Our manager worked in the same conference room too. But he would step outside for any calls he had to make.
It also gave an exiting "small startup" feel for me, even when working for a large company.
The best office I've experienced (but sadly only visited for two week, the branch I worked at had typical open plan garbage) had the building split into sections where along both sides were small single-person offices (large enough that two people could sit at a desk and work, or 3 to 4 people could sit for a meeting) with closing sliding doors. In the space between the two rows of offices was a small amount of hot-desk space (maybe 6 to 8 desks), some armchairs and sofas and a conference table with projector. The layout was basically:
Where H was the hotdesk space, C the casual sofas/armchairs with coffee tables, and # the conference table with projector against the wall on one end. Not drawn to scale, of course.
I am a millennial (born in '88) and I would LOVE to have a cubicle. My first job was at Cisco in San Jose, California which had cubicles. I was fortunate enough to be introduced to the corporate environment with cubicles.
I loved my cubicle. Like you said: just enough privacy to get things done. People would come by only if absolutely necessary otherwise they would mind their own business.
Having cubicles also prevented useless chatter.
Then I left that company and my productivity and mental peace has never been the same. Not even near.
There has to be a better way to aggregate than having this same article (effectively) pop up every other week. And then like 30% of all hiring/firing/workplace discussions devolve into the open floor plan discussion.
The responses are always the same and the conversation hasn't moved an inch in five years.
No, its not that hard to just hide the submission and close the comment chains which veer. But my brain constantly says 'what if someone said something new and novel on the subject?!'. So its friction for me because I'm either spending 10 minutes reading a rehash or 5 minutes thinking 'I should just glance at it just in case'
The problem with reddit's solution is discoverability. Also, who would want a feed dedicated to kvetching/discussing open floor plans? Some/lots of people clearly want the articles and discussion, but would anyone actually subscribe to a feed like that?
> There has to be a better way to aggregate than having this same article (effectively) pop up every other week.
I disagree. I think this is actually the best way HN can bring about change, even though the arguments haven't changed in years.
IMO the reason these posts get upvoted is out of protest and to raise awareness. HN is probably the most influential source in tech. If every time you look at HN there's threads complaining about something, it must be pretty important.
After watching memes travel around the internet and cross over into mainstream thinking, I put a lot of weight on how much HN's front page matters. Slashdot used to have a similar effect, then Digg, then Reddit, now HN.
In this case the sad thing is that the thread filled up for hours before we noticed the actual topic and changed the title. If people would discuss the study, which is the new information here, the discussion might be less generic.
I work in an open office environment. I never thought I’d say this, but it works excellently; there’s always energy in the air, collaboration is easy, and it’s a great space to hold company all-hands meetings. I’d say there are 4 keys to making this work:
1) The founders have a great sense of aesthetic and our office is a beautiful space as a result (also stays very clean), meaning it stays less stressful and promotes a positive mood. This may not be strictly necessary but it sure helps it not feel like the hellscape that “open office” evokes.
2) There are plenty of closed-room office spaces available if you need focus time
3) Both of our open-office sections are in rooms much bigger than the rows of desks, so despite having a large number of people in one room, it never feels crowded
4) There is Sonos in both open-office areas and people are pretty good about not hogging it or playing obnoxious/too-loud music
I’ve also worked in open offices that were nightmarish, but saw these same factors (minus the aesthetic portion) make for an effective office environment elsewhere as well. Music, breakout offices, and non-desk space seem to be the musts (but do decorate nicely because it matters more than I ever would have thought before).
EDIT: I should add that it’s usually pretty quiet, and the music very low. I don’t consider it a distraction, but I also like my coworkers’ music so this may not work for everyone. Also, headphones are universally respected as a “do not disturb” signal.
So I worked in a legacy industry and they co-located a couple of teams near our biggest client. They decided to put in place an open office concept for the engineers and support staff, and gave the VPs and sales guys private offices.
Especially when we first moved into the office the VPs loved to take the customers on a tour and stand at the top of the space and tell them how great this open office was. I was in a bad mood one time when this happened and the VP asked me if I agreed (with the customer) and I said, "it is perfect for what it was built for, it was built to show our customers how many resources we have and to imply that we have no walls separating our BUs from working together." He was not happy, but also had no lines of responsibility to me or my business segment.
And like all open offices it was loud so everyone put on headphones and we had zero cross-BU interaction and very low inter-BU interaction. At one point corporate tried to push a no headphones rule because it looked bad when they brought in customers and it did not land well in the cube dwellers. A compromise was reached to not allow headphones when customers leadership visits where planned, about once a month.
My biggest problem with the design was that they guy in the desk that faced me spent around 80% of his time on conference calls. Now he wasn't loud at all, almost never said anything on these calls, but he would sit silently with his headset on staring directly at me the whole time. Now he wasn't looking at me, just looking forward but it was really disconcerting.
What I always find funny about the whole concept is that the open cube was really first imagined by Taylor as he tried to apply physical labor efficiencies into the office world. You would have everyone in an open office with the manager slighly raised up behind everyone so he could monitor them to ensure everyone was working at peak efficiency. Plus the modern leader of open offices, a company I forgot the name of in Colorado implemented and pushed open offices into the modern world, and then killed the practice internally in less than 2 years.
The vast majority of my office time was in cubicles, which are pretty good. Usually enough privacy to get things done. I did have a glassed-in private office for about a year at one company. That was productivity heaven. In retrospect I was dumb to leave that company when I did, but they started demolishing offices for cubicles about 2 years later. It is all about efficient use of real estate.
I've been at a millennial run company for the last 6 years, first 4 in open space. What a productivity fuck, for all the often repeated reasons. And I really consider them de-humanizing. I gave up on trying to explain this to management years ago.
Working from home the last 2 years. Whenever I do visit the home office nothing gets done. Looking at what my colleagues do, I think they only ever get much done on work form home days.
I've been a part of these discussions at very high levels and this is the consistent theme. Short-term, easily quantifiable savings against nebulous, hard to quantify harms. Facilities folks always win and get a pat on the back. Any push back about the open office should, in my opinion, start with addressing this basic incentive. Everything about collaboration, open communication, etc. is just window dressing used to justify the moves.
> The vast majority of my office time was in cubicles, which are pretty good.
I remember watching "Office Space" circa 2000 and it looked pretty soul crushing, and working in pre-FAANG big tech around 2006, it felt very mechanical and depressing. I get your gripes, but I think some is also rosy retrospection.
Yeah, all of the talk about "increased collaborations!" seems to be hand-waivey, pseudo-admittance of "we don't know how to communicate effectively!"
I work in a private office now. I almost never work from home, and it's never to "be productive", almost always because of some personal scheduling issue. I used to work in open-office environments and would try to work from home as much as possible. One of them was even at a company around the corner from where I am now, so it wasn't even a commuting issue.
We have weekly meetings scheduled to force the issue of getting everyone caught up. But mostly, I just take a daily walk around the floor, see folk and get caught up on everything. The meetings mostly become "catching up the one person who was out the rest of the week".
We don't do daily standups. Ugh, what a boondoggle Scrum became after The Suits found out about it. Who needs it, anyway? Just talk to people.
If you have to make up organizational excuses to get people to talk, you're making excuses for people who don't talk. It's not acceptable to be a team contributor and not know how to communicate effectively.
Damn .... this is exactly my story as well ... moved to working from home for the last 3 years and when I do go into the office nothing gets done. Open-Plan 250 people straight line of sight to them all, nightmare for being productive.
In many cases the Federal tax code can also be the driver of these decisions because the amortization on building upgrades is way longer than cubicles. However, tables over cubicles is likely something else. To me, it's just cheap, like how call centers used to be (even they have cubicles now).
To me cubicles and open office are pretty much the same. Both are noisy and offer no privacy. Single offices or team rooms with maybe 4 people are the best.
Also WFH. I occasionally work from a coworking space when I need a change of scenery, but I plan those days knowing that my productivity will be much different (certain tasks lend themselves to open spaces better than others). Visits to the home office (a two-hour drive) are for connecting with colleagues rather than heads-down work time.
I work in open spaces as a software engineer for all my career (14 years) and have long gotten used to them. Currently have 2 other teams sitting in the same space, often chatting, headphones usually help. Not a fan of working from home.
If workers rights or material concerns won’t inspire software engineers to consider organizing, perhaps day to day work “lifestyle” hassles like open offices will. It’s been often repeated that developers eschew organizing because one can always go and find a better paying job if they don’t like the work environment they’re in- but good luck trying to find a workplace that gives the average developer their own office instead of adhering to the industry standard.
Perhaps if engineers had some type of labor union, professional association, or guild, then they can collectively stand up to management and get rid of annoyances like open offices. Why not? If it’s something universally unpopular with hackers, yet embraced by management, doesn’t that provide a valid use case for organizing? Or are we just going to forever grouse about it until management loses interest on their own and embraces an even worse floor plan fad?
And consider the other nearly-ubiquitous or common annoyances in tech- unpaid overtime, lack of support for remote work, whiteboard interviews. Why don’t the workers in the industry rally to solve them, if those in charge are unwilling to? If we care so much about “disruption”, why are we so content with the status quo of work?
Upton Sinclair said of The Jungle that he was aiming for the public’s heart and hit it in the stomach. Perhaps software engineers will not be appealed to by arguments or neither the heart, nor the stomach- but of the flow.
I’m wishy-washy on organized labor, especially for software developers: I think that we’d see less unpaid overtime if there were some sort of collective bargaining going on. I seriously doubt that any labor organization would ever do anything (or even try to do anything) about open offices.
No, that's just another public rationale. Programmer salaries are much more expensive than even private offices.
In a past life, when I wrote software for a living, I would ask my managers how much it cost, so I could pay out of pocket for my own private office. In every case, when pressed, they admitted it wasn't about the money at all. They just needed me to be a Team Player.
It wasn't even about built-out cost. The private offices already existed, and were sitting empty, in anticipation of future sales team growth -- even though I don't think we were hiring for that yet. Everyone on the business side always got a private office. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever hearing management try to explain why the sales team apparently didn't need to be team players.
Constant surveillance is another part of the real reason with collaboration used as the public rationale. I mean, it doesn't make sense, but it makes them feel more like slave-owners, and that makes them happy.
not just density, but "easier" for the decision makers. Its easier to rent a big open room than to figure out an office plan and seating plan and construction schedule. Its easier to move desks around like musical chairs than to have to mutate rooms and halls.
People will almost always take the near-term cheaper and easier option, even when its worse and more expensive in the long run.
Incidentally, this was the one thing I liked about we-work. Room sizes were genuinely appropriate for 2 - 5 people (ofc sold as 3 - 10).
The other side of this is that a very large percentage of folks in our industry seem to have social anxiety-spectrum issues.
Folks without those don't seem to understand how much energy is being burned through just being out in the open and on display for all of your coworkers. It's not something I, personally, have control over.
The time I've spent in "open concept" work places, I finish every day frustrated with my ability to accomplish tasks and physically and emotionally drained.
That takes a very serious toll over time.
I've moved on from jobs due to this type of work environment.
> The Harvard study, by contrast, undercuts the entire premise that justifies the fad. And that leaves companies with only one justification for moving to an open plan office: less floor space, and therefore a lower rent.
From beginning this was the reason - because when planning for the office the cost difference between open/close office would show up in the Excel files - loss of productivity no Excel or Project Mgmt software can capture (it is hand-wavy stuff for CFO office).
Apart from rent, the cost of HVAC (heating, cooling) is drastically reduced - installation, operation and maintenance - open office has more efficient distribution due to no obstructing walls, lesser duct outlets - in closed office plan, each office needs to have at least one outlet, most of the time more than one.
Then ofcourse saving on drywalls, doors, locks, etc.
I worked in an office that was redesigned several times.
After the last round of absurdly low / no cube walls. I bought myself some shooting earmuffs to block out the noise / a socially friendly way of signaling to others I should not be interrupted.
It was telling that within a week half the team had amazon boxes on their desk and similar earmuffs.
Now for very small teams with EVERYONE handling the situation properly. I think the open space can work, but it has to be VERY specific to department and folks who work well together.
Eventually I ended up in a quiet corner of the office with half a dozen folks who were really good about talking to each other and it was super efficient ... but MAN that is not something you can just "make happen" and if one person / manager (especially managers) is bad about it... it's a mess.
I am not sure why employees would message and email more if they can just turn their chair around to chat about something they are working on.
Does anyone have experience of this? I have worked in open plan offices since 1999 and I've never experienced productivity problems. If anything I'd expect working in a cube would lead to more time wasted cruising websites since your screen is more obscured. I dunno, I've only worked in cubes a handful of times.
I was reading "Bloomberg by Bloomberg" over the weekend and I thought his opinion on the topic was relevant since I believe Bloomberg was one of the first major workplaces that placed everyone in tight open-office type environments. My understanding of his opinion on the topic was: yes there are distractions but you also learn new things. Fundamentally I think there is considerable misunderstanding between people who subscribe to the above view and people (like me) who see considerable personal performance improvements when allowed to work distraction-free. It is not clear to me that "concentration spaces" and etc. are a solution/concession since IME most of the time they are filled with people on phone meetings; even if you find an empty one, you will still hear the people next to you due to the thin walls and the necessary loudness. Edit: the relevant part in the book was at page 163 for my edition in the chapter "Management 101".
> yes there are distractions but you also learn new things
I've found that, in open plan offices, attempting to mentor or be mentored on something is a great way to earn dirty looks from anyone who's unfortunate enough to be sitting nearby. If you do it often, people will start griping about you behind your back.
Mini meeting rooms can work, when you can find them, for about a year. After that, the company will respond to complaints that people will hang out in them for hours on end (which I could swear was the point, but I digress) by requiring them to be reserved ahead of time in Outlook. Which puts the brakes on using them for genuine collaboration, because reserving meeting rooms in Outlook is a minor hassle, especially if you're a Linux or Mac user, and it's ultimately easier and less demoralizing to just not talk to each other than it is to play a game of, "Mother may I," whenever you want to have an impromptu discussion.
I don't buy it. Most people are trying to get shit done so are wearing headphones and for the people that aren't, you only overhear people who happen to be within earshot radius from where you're sitting and only if you're somewhat paying attention or not otherwise distracted, and of that stuff you do overhear, how much is actually relevant or useful? In my personal experience, the amount of times I overheard something in the work space (as opposed in a social space area like the break room) that was useful or relevant to me has been far, far less than the amount of useful stuff I've encountered in places that had a "be vocal on slack" culture.
My biggest gripes with open-plan offices (aside from the usual productivity cost):
- Listening to coworkers' lengthy private calls.
- You can't talk in confidence with any of your coworkers, so the only talks you have, the only things you say, are what you are OK with everyone nearby hearing. It hurts possible relationships/bonding (probably a positive for management), but it also hurts professional growth.
- When we ask questions, we learn from each other and solve problems; we get things done. However, many are not that cool with asking what they think might be a stupid question (or one that reveals a lack of knowledge). With several people nearby listening in? Forget it!
There are definitely problems with the open office but one thing I can say is that there is truly a different energy to the office when it's open and people can chat spontaneously. Some of my best projects have started this way, as have all my office friendships.
I'd definitely get more heads-down work done in a private office setting. However in that setting I'd mostly be annoyed I couldn't just work from my home office, since I'd be commuting to spend 80%+ of my time alone anyway.
The interaction will take place if it is scripted in a dialog.
Open-plan offices are useful in movies and dramas that have office settings or scenes.
It makes these scenes more dynamic, since several characters can see each other across the room and interact directly, and lots of "extras" can be shown in a single camera angle.
I have a feeling that such scenes may have driven some of the open office initiatives in actual workplaces. ("It was so cool in that movie ...").
The dumbest thing about open office plans is everyone puts on headphones and wants to communicate through Slack. I've got an idea. Let's all commute to the office and pretend we're remote!
[+] [-] jefftk|6 years ago|reply
Roughly, they found two big companies that were about to switch "from assigned seats in cubicles to similarly assigned seats in an open office design, with large rooms of desks and monitors and no dividers between people's desks". Roles included "technology, sales and pricing, HR, finance, and product development, as well as the top leadership". They compared interaction metrics before and after the change.
[+] [-] RivieraKid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beart|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ididntdothis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlthoughts2018|6 years ago|reply
Even worse for the large fraction of the population who are introverts.
[+] [-] switch007|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tylerjwilk00|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] popotamonga|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madmax108|6 years ago|reply
Sure, it feels like I'm being a bit anti-social at times, but I'm very comfortable in my corner :)
[+] [-] SJetKaran|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] decebalus1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcrosby95|6 years ago|reply
People tend to be respectful of each other's concentration at that number of people. And since you're in the same team, most interruptions are likely to be useful to other members of the team. But if we wanted to just bother 1 specific person, we would just use instant message.
Our manager worked in the same conference room too. But he would step outside for any calls he had to make.
It also gave an exiting "small startup" feel for me, even when working for a large company.
[+] [-] dkersten|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ksd482|6 years ago|reply
I loved my cubicle. Like you said: just enough privacy to get things done. People would come by only if absolutely necessary otherwise they would mind their own business.
Having cubicles also prevented useless chatter.
Then I left that company and my productivity and mental peace has never been the same. Not even near.
[+] [-] Misdicorl|6 years ago|reply
There has to be a better way to aggregate than having this same article (effectively) pop up every other week. And then like 30% of all hiring/firing/workplace discussions devolve into the open floor plan discussion.
The responses are always the same and the conversation hasn't moved an inch in five years.
No, its not that hard to just hide the submission and close the comment chains which veer. But my brain constantly says 'what if someone said something new and novel on the subject?!'. So its friction for me because I'm either spending 10 minutes reading a rehash or 5 minutes thinking 'I should just glance at it just in case'
The problem with reddit's solution is discoverability. Also, who would want a feed dedicated to kvetching/discussing open floor plans? Some/lots of people clearly want the articles and discussion, but would anyone actually subscribe to a feed like that?
[+] [-] anon9001|6 years ago|reply
I disagree. I think this is actually the best way HN can bring about change, even though the arguments haven't changed in years.
IMO the reason these posts get upvoted is out of protest and to raise awareness. HN is probably the most influential source in tech. If every time you look at HN there's threads complaining about something, it must be pretty important.
After watching memes travel around the internet and cross over into mainstream thinking, I put a lot of weight on how much HN's front page matters. Slashdot used to have a similar effect, then Digg, then Reddit, now HN.
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[+] [-] notduncansmith|6 years ago|reply
1) The founders have a great sense of aesthetic and our office is a beautiful space as a result (also stays very clean), meaning it stays less stressful and promotes a positive mood. This may not be strictly necessary but it sure helps it not feel like the hellscape that “open office” evokes.
2) There are plenty of closed-room office spaces available if you need focus time
3) Both of our open-office sections are in rooms much bigger than the rows of desks, so despite having a large number of people in one room, it never feels crowded
4) There is Sonos in both open-office areas and people are pretty good about not hogging it or playing obnoxious/too-loud music
I’ve also worked in open offices that were nightmarish, but saw these same factors (minus the aesthetic portion) make for an effective office environment elsewhere as well. Music, breakout offices, and non-desk space seem to be the musts (but do decorate nicely because it matters more than I ever would have thought before).
EDIT: I should add that it’s usually pretty quiet, and the music very low. I don’t consider it a distraction, but I also like my coworkers’ music so this may not work for everyone. Also, headphones are universally respected as a “do not disturb” signal.
[+] [-] soapboxrocket|6 years ago|reply
Especially when we first moved into the office the VPs loved to take the customers on a tour and stand at the top of the space and tell them how great this open office was. I was in a bad mood one time when this happened and the VP asked me if I agreed (with the customer) and I said, "it is perfect for what it was built for, it was built to show our customers how many resources we have and to imply that we have no walls separating our BUs from working together." He was not happy, but also had no lines of responsibility to me or my business segment.
And like all open offices it was loud so everyone put on headphones and we had zero cross-BU interaction and very low inter-BU interaction. At one point corporate tried to push a no headphones rule because it looked bad when they brought in customers and it did not land well in the cube dwellers. A compromise was reached to not allow headphones when customers leadership visits where planned, about once a month.
My biggest problem with the design was that they guy in the desk that faced me spent around 80% of his time on conference calls. Now he wasn't loud at all, almost never said anything on these calls, but he would sit silently with his headset on staring directly at me the whole time. Now he wasn't looking at me, just looking forward but it was really disconcerting.
What I always find funny about the whole concept is that the open cube was really first imagined by Taylor as he tried to apply physical labor efficiencies into the office world. You would have everyone in an open office with the manager slighly raised up behind everyone so he could monitor them to ensure everyone was working at peak efficiency. Plus the modern leader of open offices, a company I forgot the name of in Colorado implemented and pushed open offices into the modern world, and then killed the practice internally in less than 2 years.
[+] [-] jackfoxy|6 years ago|reply
Yep, dumbest idea ever.
The vast majority of my office time was in cubicles, which are pretty good. Usually enough privacy to get things done. I did have a glassed-in private office for about a year at one company. That was productivity heaven. In retrospect I was dumb to leave that company when I did, but they started demolishing offices for cubicles about 2 years later. It is all about efficient use of real estate.
I've been at a millennial run company for the last 6 years, first 4 in open space. What a productivity fuck, for all the often repeated reasons. And I really consider them de-humanizing. I gave up on trying to explain this to management years ago.
Working from home the last 2 years. Whenever I do visit the home office nothing gets done. Looking at what my colleagues do, I think they only ever get much done on work form home days.
[+] [-] arafa|6 years ago|reply
I've been a part of these discussions at very high levels and this is the consistent theme. Short-term, easily quantifiable savings against nebulous, hard to quantify harms. Facilities folks always win and get a pat on the back. Any push back about the open office should, in my opinion, start with addressing this basic incentive. Everything about collaboration, open communication, etc. is just window dressing used to justify the moves.
[+] [-] dehrmann|6 years ago|reply
I remember watching "Office Space" circa 2000 and it looked pretty soul crushing, and working in pre-FAANG big tech around 2006, it felt very mechanical and depressing. I get your gripes, but I think some is also rosy retrospection.
[+] [-] moron4hire|6 years ago|reply
I work in a private office now. I almost never work from home, and it's never to "be productive", almost always because of some personal scheduling issue. I used to work in open-office environments and would try to work from home as much as possible. One of them was even at a company around the corner from where I am now, so it wasn't even a commuting issue.
We have weekly meetings scheduled to force the issue of getting everyone caught up. But mostly, I just take a daily walk around the floor, see folk and get caught up on everything. The meetings mostly become "catching up the one person who was out the rest of the week".
We don't do daily standups. Ugh, what a boondoggle Scrum became after The Suits found out about it. Who needs it, anyway? Just talk to people.
If you have to make up organizational excuses to get people to talk, you're making excuses for people who don't talk. It's not acceptable to be a team contributor and not know how to communicate effectively.
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
Open offices are a psychological tool to control workers. All privacy is removed. This allows them to impose their will on you.
In exchange they get reduced productivity but they don’t seem to care about that as much as control over their staff.
[+] [-] cycop|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] generalpass|6 years ago|reply
In many cases the Federal tax code can also be the driver of these decisions because the amortization on building upgrades is way longer than cubicles. However, tables over cubicles is likely something else. To me, it's just cheap, like how call centers used to be (even they have cubicles now).
[+] [-] Ididntdothis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] organsnyder|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kachurovskiy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|6 years ago|reply
Perhaps if engineers had some type of labor union, professional association, or guild, then they can collectively stand up to management and get rid of annoyances like open offices. Why not? If it’s something universally unpopular with hackers, yet embraced by management, doesn’t that provide a valid use case for organizing? Or are we just going to forever grouse about it until management loses interest on their own and embraces an even worse floor plan fad?
And consider the other nearly-ubiquitous or common annoyances in tech- unpaid overtime, lack of support for remote work, whiteboard interviews. Why don’t the workers in the industry rally to solve them, if those in charge are unwilling to? If we care so much about “disruption”, why are we so content with the status quo of work?
Upton Sinclair said of The Jungle that he was aiming for the public’s heart and hit it in the stomach. Perhaps software engineers will not be appealed to by arguments or neither the heart, nor the stomach- but of the flow.
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
Open offices is a crazy reason to organize / take the union route.
[+] [-] commandlinefan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rrauenza|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ken|6 years ago|reply
In a past life, when I wrote software for a living, I would ask my managers how much it cost, so I could pay out of pocket for my own private office. In every case, when pressed, they admitted it wasn't about the money at all. They just needed me to be a Team Player.
It wasn't even about built-out cost. The private offices already existed, and were sitting empty, in anticipation of future sales team growth -- even though I don't think we were hiring for that yet. Everyone on the business side always got a private office. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever hearing management try to explain why the sales team apparently didn't need to be team players.
[+] [-] commandlinefan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scarblac|6 years ago|reply
When the company I work for was looking for an extra office close by, they were all open plan. Changing that was never a topic of discussion.
[+] [-] cagenut|6 years ago|reply
People will almost always take the near-term cheaper and easier option, even when its worse and more expensive in the long run.
Incidentally, this was the one thing I liked about we-work. Room sizes were genuinely appropriate for 2 - 5 people (ofc sold as 3 - 10).
[+] [-] Mikeb85|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DevKoala|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dualboot|6 years ago|reply
Folks without those don't seem to understand how much energy is being burned through just being out in the open and on display for all of your coworkers. It's not something I, personally, have control over.
The time I've spent in "open concept" work places, I finish every day frustrated with my ability to accomplish tasks and physically and emotionally drained.
That takes a very serious toll over time.
I've moved on from jobs due to this type of work environment.
[+] [-] achow|6 years ago|reply
From beginning this was the reason - because when planning for the office the cost difference between open/close office would show up in the Excel files - loss of productivity no Excel or Project Mgmt software can capture (it is hand-wavy stuff for CFO office).
Apart from rent, the cost of HVAC (heating, cooling) is drastically reduced - installation, operation and maintenance - open office has more efficient distribution due to no obstructing walls, lesser duct outlets - in closed office plan, each office needs to have at least one outlet, most of the time more than one.
Then ofcourse saving on drywalls, doors, locks, etc.
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
After the last round of absurdly low / no cube walls. I bought myself some shooting earmuffs to block out the noise / a socially friendly way of signaling to others I should not be interrupted.
It was telling that within a week half the team had amazon boxes on their desk and similar earmuffs.
Now for very small teams with EVERYONE handling the situation properly. I think the open space can work, but it has to be VERY specific to department and folks who work well together.
Eventually I ended up in a quiet corner of the office with half a dozen folks who were really good about talking to each other and it was super efficient ... but MAN that is not something you can just "make happen" and if one person / manager (especially managers) is bad about it... it's a mess.
[+] [-] monkeynotes|6 years ago|reply
Does anyone have experience of this? I have worked in open plan offices since 1999 and I've never experienced productivity problems. If anything I'd expect working in a cube would lead to more time wasted cruising websites since your screen is more obscured. I dunno, I've only worked in cubes a handful of times.
[+] [-] abawany|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mumblemumble|6 years ago|reply
I've found that, in open plan offices, attempting to mentor or be mentored on something is a great way to earn dirty looks from anyone who's unfortunate enough to be sitting nearby. If you do it often, people will start griping about you behind your back.
Mini meeting rooms can work, when you can find them, for about a year. After that, the company will respond to complaints that people will hang out in them for hours on end (which I could swear was the point, but I digress) by requiring them to be reserved ahead of time in Outlook. Which puts the brakes on using them for genuine collaboration, because reserving meeting rooms in Outlook is a minor hassle, especially if you're a Linux or Mac user, and it's ultimately easier and less demoralizing to just not talk to each other than it is to play a game of, "Mother may I," whenever you want to have an impromptu discussion.
[+] [-] dkersten|6 years ago|reply
I don't buy it. Most people are trying to get shit done so are wearing headphones and for the people that aren't, you only overhear people who happen to be within earshot radius from where you're sitting and only if you're somewhat paying attention or not otherwise distracted, and of that stuff you do overhear, how much is actually relevant or useful? In my personal experience, the amount of times I overheard something in the work space (as opposed in a social space area like the break room) that was useful or relevant to me has been far, far less than the amount of useful stuff I've encountered in places that had a "be vocal on slack" culture.
[+] [-] erikbye|6 years ago|reply
- Listening to coworkers' lengthy private calls.
- You can't talk in confidence with any of your coworkers, so the only talks you have, the only things you say, are what you are OK with everyone nearby hearing. It hurts possible relationships/bonding (probably a positive for management), but it also hurts professional growth.
- When we ask questions, we learn from each other and solve problems; we get things done. However, many are not that cool with asking what they think might be a stupid question (or one that reveals a lack of knowledge). With several people nearby listening in? Forget it!
[+] [-] habosa|6 years ago|reply
I'd definitely get more heads-down work done in a private office setting. However in that setting I'd mostly be annoyed I couldn't just work from my home office, since I'd be commuting to spend 80%+ of my time alone anyway.
[+] [-] kazinator|6 years ago|reply
Open-plan offices are useful in movies and dramas that have office settings or scenes.
It makes these scenes more dynamic, since several characters can see each other across the room and interact directly, and lots of "extras" can be shown in a single camera angle.
I have a feeling that such scenes may have driven some of the open office initiatives in actual workplaces. ("It was so cool in that movie ...").
[+] [-] PopeDotNinja|6 years ago|reply