Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open offices are a dead end

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 307 posts

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#251

Post by [deleted] »

kerkeslager wrote: post #225
regularfry wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So on a team with roughly half introverts and half extroverts, you'd expect it to be a wash - only it's not, because there's a low ceiling to how much productivity you can add, and the noise from the productive extroverts drives introverts' productivity into the floor. It's net negative.

It sounds like the very easy solution is to let the extroverts work together and let the introverts work in private. Your post is a valid criticism of forcing introverts to work in open offices, but it isn't a valid criticism of letting extroverts work in open offices.

[deleted]

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#253

Post by andrei_says_ »

kerkeslager wrote: post #165
ivl wrote: 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,…

Open offices are a productivity booster for some people (myself being one). Of course, WeWork being a company with one product, they try to sell it to everyone, even the people who it doesn't work for. That's a valid criticism of WeWork, but not really a valid criticism of open offices.

What specific work do you do?

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#254

Post by Florin_Andrei »

patejam wrote: post #129
vonmoltke wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could buy into it if the rational is it's far cheaper to fit more employees in less space. That's a fine reason. It sucks to work in, but I can at least hear that without rolling my eyes and dismissing everything else that person says as incredulous. Raytheon, for all its other faults, was at least largely honest about why they were shrinking cube sizes and experimenting with open floor plans. There was some half…

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

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

It's not even a money issue in general, it's what money is untouchable, vs what money can be freely cut into.

Working conditions for regular employees? Sure, brand it as "increased collaboration" and cut that sucker down to the bone.

Number of yachts per CxO? Nope, can't touch that.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#255

Post by whycombagator »

scarface74 wrote: post #16

If I could craft the perfect job for me, the one I work at would be it - an intelligent straightforward manager who will speak his mind bluntly and can take it just as well as he can dish it out. He’s mostly concerned with results not whether you kiss his ring. - small company without a lot of bureaucracy -- I have full access to our entire AWS infrastructure - relatively generous PTO - a decent free family health pl…

> relatively generous PTO

Why not attribute a number to this instead of being vague? I personally think 28 days PTO (not including holidays) is "relatively generous" (for the US).

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#256

Post by kerkeslager »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #253
kerkeslager wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open offices are a productivity booster for some people (myself being one). Of course, WeWork being a company with one product, they try to sell it to everyone, even the people who it doesn't work for. That's a valid criticism of WeWork, but not really a valid criticism of open offices.

What specific work do you do?

Software development.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#257

Post by apta »

whycombagator wrote: post #255
scarface74 wrote: post #16

If I could craft the perfect job for me, the one I work at would be it - an intelligent straightforward manager who will speak his mind bluntly and can take it just as well as he can dish it out. He’s mostly concerned with results not whether you kiss his ring. - small company without a lot of bureaucracy -- I have full access to our entire AWS infrastructure - relatively generous PTO - a decent free family health pl…

> relatively generous PTO Why not attribute a number to this instead of being vague? I personally think 28 days PTO (not including holidays) is "relatively generous" (for the US).

None of this "unlimited PTO" either. It's just a way for the company to save money as they don't owe you anything come the end of the year or when you leave and still have PTO days.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#258

Post by jdsully »

pwinnski wrote: post #248
BoorishBears wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is this a valid response to what I said? We moved into a building bigger than our current size yes... so? You don't fill up overnight. Do you hire people on a coin flip? Or make up open positions when it tickles someone's fancy? We were hiring at an incredible rate, but never got to the point of being actively detrimental to our space because once that was barely in sight, we started to move. But having m…

It's a valid response because you seem to be denying any factors other than money, which is ridiculous. I've mentioned lease terms as one major counter-example. It is not enough to lease "larger than you need right now," but given 12-month standard lease terms, you must lease "larger than you will need one year from now," which isn't a factor of money alone.

Office/Commercial space is usually leased on much longer intervals than 1 year. It has to be or it would make no sense to complete the necessary renovations.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#259

Post by smt88 »

cameronbrown wrote: post #186
smt88 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working in an office is cultural Culture changes, and there's a such thing as subculture. Many individual companies have created remote-only subcultures, and they'll become more influential over time. (Wearing suits to the office used to be cultural and "never going to change".) > we're missing a lot of valuable bandwidth But you're also missing lots of destructive bandwidth (interruptions, gossip, etc.) Remote wor…

> But you're also missing lots of destructive bandwidth (interruptions, gossip, etc.) These things are a component of being around others though. Gossip never goes away, it just migrates. > People socialize outside of offices all the time. There's nothing stopping remote coworkers from meeting in the same place every day, going out to lunch, etc. True that, but arguably the best benefit of remote work is to.. well..…

> True that, but arguably the best benefit of remote work is to.. well.. live remotely.

This is actually one of the biggest reasons for an employer to choose remote-only. It's very difficult to find everyone you need in a single city at a salary you can afford.

I should've also mentioned that some of my closest relationships are with people I almost never meet in person. The US is full of people who are close to their families, but only see them a few times a year.

Coworkers can maintain a good working relationship without being in the same city more than once a year. All the companies I've worked for have had at least one remote worker, and they didn't feel like less a part of the team.

> If it's optional and actually sponsored by top execs into the company culture, why would this resentment exist?

Because some people feel like going into the office is more productive. That's it. They pat themselves on the back for it and look down on people who don't.

> I'd really hate to live and work in the same place

This is orthogonal to the issue of a remote-only employer. No one would be forcing you to stay at home. You could go to a library, coffee shop, co-working space, local college, friend's house, public park, or wherever else you choose to work from. You could be at a hotel in Tokyo, if you wanted.

Re: Open offices are a dead end

#260

Post by ping_pong »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #177
ping_pong wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other thing I suppose is where literally every employee gets their own office. But is that really a thing? Because I've never heard of something like that. This used to be the case. Companies like Microsoft gave everyone their own office (I'm not sure what the current policy is, I would assume they kept it the same). I for one hate cubicles the most. They have none of the privacy but also none of the social col…

An entry-level job gave me an office in 1992. Microsoft gave me half an office in 2005. Nobody else. > lean over and talk to your coworker There are no quick questions when you were concentrating. If we need to talk about the project, first we should step away from the desks, because everyone else is still trying to code.

That's your perspective, and that's fine. From my perspective and the way my team works, we lean over and chat. It doesn't bother our team because this is how we have been working. Your mileage may vary and that's perfectly reasonable to feel differently.
Post reply on HN