Live data from Hacker News

Open offices are a dead end

nytimes.com

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#201
post #112
post #57

I think I'd have a less negative reaction to open offices if it weren't for the attempt to sell it as a productivity booster . The article even mentions how they're "sold to workers as a boon to collaboration — liberated from barriers, stuffed in like sardines, people would chat more and, supposedly, come up with lots of brilliant new ideas". Thankfully the author also quickly refuted that. Yet the insanity remains,…

I think part of the problem is that (in my experience) open offices actually do boost productivity somewhat, but only when the office is a small 2-5 person pod. I lose productivity when I get dropped in a huge floor of people chatting and talking about things not related to what I'm working on.

2-5 person offices are great. Even if you don’t work directly together you can have meaningful relaxed conversation where you can actually learn something about each other.

Open office seems to be designed for people who like to yell at each other or who isolate themselves completely via headphones. I have almost never seen any meaningful collaboration in large open office. It always happens in smaller more intimate spaces.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#202

Of all the places I have worked over the years, my preferred office layout so far is conference rooms. That is, each team has their own room. Open within, closed to noise from other teams. Depending on how well you get along with your teammates, you can turn on some music, decorate however you like, etc. Of course it won't work for everyone, or for every type of job, but as a developer it is the arrangement that I en…

I've worked in a situation like that and felt productive but that was only because we were all basically on a tiger team locked in a room together to work on the same project. Me and one other developer, a tech writer, a QA person, and a PM. In the end we were successful and it was a successful product for the company.

Compare that with being thrown in an office with long rows of desks working with everyone in the company. That's not productive. That's a din of noise and people either interrupting your flow or interrupting the flow of the people immediately next to you, thus interrupting your flow. That, for lack of a better term, is a sweat shop.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's an important distinction to say that is isn't a space issue, it's a money issue.

Yes and no. Ultimately, any space issue can be solved with enough money, so yes. But space usually isn't easily expanded. My company has the 7th floor of a 10-floor building. When we hire people as we've been doing, we can either fit them into the existing space somehow, or... move the entire office? Rent space on the floor above or below? It isn't as easy as just "spend a bit more money, get a bit more space," so no…

[deleted]

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#204
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it's just a small room with people in it. BTDT. I worked in london in an open plan office maybe 40ft wide and getting on 200 ft long. That's open plan. It's fine except for the noise. It's always the noise as the problem, all else is ok. (edit: not a single company, a collection of small and medium businesses)

> It's fine except for the noise. And the utter lack of privacy. Want to tell your colleague that Alex is a dick? Better do it in another building, or the entire office will hear it.

It's probably best not to use such language at work or one may be labelled a dick oneself. Keep it polite and any complaints formal.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#205
post #8

I have a visceral response to that photo in the article. I do not need folks right on top of me like that. My solution is that I often wear Shooting Earmuffs (you guys who listen to music all the time, i don't get it, i can't do that) to lower my awareness of all the chatter... even when I do have an office. Fortunately folks around me are understanding.

> (you guys who listen to music all the time, i don't get it, i can't do that) While working, I can't listen to music that has any lyrics in it whatsoever, otherwise my mind is listening to the words instead of focusing on the work. So, electronic music. I used to love being immersed in code while listening to house and progressive except that in the last decade or so most of the new stuff has shifted closer to mains…

I'm the same way, Except I've been listening to a youtube playlist that has all of the OC Remix on it.

The benefit is that every once in a while there WILL be a song with lyrics, and that's my indicator that I should take a quick break.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you google around, you will find lots of studies on that subject have already been done, and most of them find, that open offices are for the most part are less productive. If you Google around, you will find lots of studies that tested which office style you should force everyone into, without considering the possibility that forcing everyone into the same office style might be a bad idea. That doesn't address…

> Again I'm going to ask: why are we forcing everyone into one style of office? I addressed that in my reply: "That said, you suggestion (about having both types) might work in ideal world. In real world you wouldn't really have a choice most of the time, because if your team mostly works in open office, you will miss* out on a lot if working in closed office. And if majority of people work in closed offices, then yo…

> So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best.

That's poor leadership on their part.

> Well if the rest of the team, is in their own offices and you are alone or with people from other groups/teams how exactly will that work for you, you might as well be in coffee shop across the street.

If the rest of the team is in their own offices, sure. That hasn't been the case for most teams I've worked on, however (which may be self-selection on my part--but it's never been hard for me to find a team I work well with).

> I am not trying to say that you should like individual offices, but you can't really mix both of them together, unless your teams are huge (which I personally dislike).

1. What's huge to you? The only team I've worked with which had a really mixed open/private space ranged from 6-10 people while I was there. There were 2-3 people who worked consistently together (let's call these extroverts, which includes me), 3-5 who worked consistently on their own (let's call these introverts) and 1-2 who floated back and forth (let's call these ambiverts). The shared space was mixed with other teams--it's also worth noting that even if the people around you aren't on your team, there still needs to be some collaboration between teams, so even if you're the only extrovert on your team, working in a shared space that still isn't the same as working in a coffee shop across the street. A team of 10 is starting to get a bit bigger than I like personally, but 6-8 feels pretty ideal to me.

Now I work for myself and I'm not seated with my client's team at all. But I tend to work in coworking spaces[1] frequented by other people working in my field, with people who frequently bounce designs and coding questions off of each other. This is a lot like your coffee shop idea, so that has some validity. But it isn't super ideal for me--if I continue getting consistent business, I may hire some people just to have some more direct collaboration in my life.

2. There also doesn't need to be this kind of diversity in the same team. You can have a team that's all introverts, or a team that's all extroverts, and in those cases, picking a completely private layout or a completely open layout, respectively, is fine. The point is to assess the needs of your team and build your workspace around their needs instead of looking for a one-size-fits all solution for some "normal" team that doesn't exist.

I'll note that it's harder to integrate one extrovert into a team with a lot of introverts than the opposite. I don't really have a good solution for that problem.

[1] Not WeWork. They're so expensive and overcrowded! Just because I am an extrovert doesn't mean I want to be sitting on top of my neighbor.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s the perfect job why do you want to pad your CV with junk? Why not pick some stable tech and take the opportunity to get really deeply into it? The only reason to chase buzzwords is if you plan to leave soon!

Why did it become padding junk? Why can't it be valuable experience to put on your CV? He never mentioned anything about flash in the pan tech or buzzwords. Despite having a great job it's still totally relevant to build your resume. What if you get let go, the company undergoes changes, or you become unhappy?

Anecdotally, building my resume has recently consisted of AWS, Node, and Python. I don't think any of those are "flash in the pan".

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great argument against open offices. I could not handle sitting near two people pair programming the whole day. If they went to a private office to do it that would seem ideal.

> That sounds like a great argument against open offices. I could not handle sitting near two people pair programming the whole day. If they went to a private office to do it that would seem ideal. I don't understand. You can't handle working in an open office, so your solution is to force people who work well in an open office to work in a private office? Why can't you go work in a private office if that works well…

Expecting your neighbor to be ok with two people talking to each other for 7 hours straight is just plain rude regardless of your office preference.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Ultimately, any space issue can be solved with enough money, so yes. But space usually isn't easily expanded. My company has the 7th floor of a 10-floor building. When we hire people as we've been doing, we can either fit them into the existing space somehow, or... move the entire office? Rent space on the floor above or below? It isn't as easy as just "spend a bit more money, get a bit more space," so no…

Yes and yes is what I got out of your answer. >When we hire people as we've been doing, we can either fit them into the existing space somehow, or... move the entire office? Yes. Exactly. My office did it with 0 days down time combining 3 separate locations spread out around a city downtown. We labeled our stuff on Friday, a company was contracted to make sure on Monday our stuff would be in a new office, and it was.…

yes it's easy to move when everything is sorted, but it's not quick to get to that point - it's potentially months going from "we need more space" to moving day.

finding the space, contracts, fit outs - it's not a one-day task

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please be mindful of the pronouns you use in hypotheticals like these. Your intelligent straightforward manager may not use he/him.

re-read the parent, this isn’t a hypothetical.

and even if it would be. there could be a reason that OP wants to work with a male. And that doesn't mean OP is a sexist pig. Maybe its just OPs preference. thats ok
Post reply on HN