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

Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

dandreamsofcoding.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

facepalm wrote: post #13

I suppose open plan has some advantages, like it is more hip (makes for great "we are a family" pictures), and the "team building" might make people less likely to leave their jobs. Just guessing - in any case there might be effects that offset the lower productivity. Otoh I was floored to read today that Amazon apparently has lots of dogs in their offices because it is supposedly good for the atmosphere, lower stres…

> I hope this is not a case of pseudoscientific superstition

There is science behind it, although accommodations should be made for those who are allergic or have phobias.

"There is plenty of research to show that this isn’t just another shaggy dog tale. Studies going back to the early 1980s support the idea that dogs—and other pets—have enormous health benefits for people. Pets have been shown to lower blood pressure, improve recovery from heart disease, and even reduce rates of asthma and allergy in children who grow up with a Fido or a Frisky in the house. Pets also improve people’s psychological well-being and self-esteem."

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/therapy-dog-offers-stress...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185195

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#32

Post by sethhochberg »

logfromblammo wrote: post #25
7402 wrote: post #2

I interviewed with a company and during the "cultural fit" interview with the VP of Engineering, I asked why they used an open-plan office. I mentioned that there seemed to be a lot of concern in the literature and online about developer productivity in such offices. He said he "wasn't familiar" with the discussion, but he didn't think it was a problem. I was offered a contract-to-hire situation, instead of the emplo…

I often wonder why companies offer contract-to-hire positions when so many regular employees are at-will anyway. I am especially puzzled as to why a company would offer it as an alternative to both full-time regular employment and a fixed-term contract. It seems that mixing the two removes all benefit to the worker while reserving all benefits to the company. So why would anyone do it if they had a choice?

I could also see this as the company giving the worker an easy out based on the concerns they expressed about the open office - there is no worry about waiting for the "right time" to quit if you're not happy with the new position when the "right time" comes in the form of the end of a contract period before full employment.

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#33

Post by Havoc »

skizm wrote: post #22

I work in an open office environment and I spend a lot of my day positioning myself so that I'm not in direct line of sight with anyone else's eyes. I hate that I can't ponder to myself without risk of accidentally making eye contact with someone. What makes it worse is that if I sit in an upright (comfortable and ergonomic) position I am staring directly at someone. I hate it. As a result my posture and productivity…

Interesting. Never even considered the eye contact thing. Ours is open plan but you're always looking at a partition or out the window. That makes it a bit more bearable.

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#34

Post by hershel »

Recently i've been interested in buying a noise cancelling headphones. There's the new bose quietcomfort 20i, which are claimed at least by some reviewers to almost cancel talking sound.

Assuming they work well, since they are controlled using software, it might open the way to a more "programmable" noise environment. For example you could set them to hear only the team members you want at any given time, thus giving you the best of both worlds.

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#35

Post by Havoc »

You get used to it - plus unavoidable in some cases (travelling staff plus office with "hotchair" open office seating for those not travelling at the moment). I find that as long as I'm allowed to use earphones I can block things out sufficiently.

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#37

Post by frisco »

I was really sympathetic to the distractions caused by an open plan office. I saw the statistics that people get sick more often. I knew it would be annoying to have it potentially be really loud (or have everyone need to be quiet to keep it not loud). My company's new office is going to be open plan, though. Why? Because an office costs about $15k to build. We're already spending six figures on construction (ha ha biotech) and there was just no economically reasonable way around an open plan office.

I think the real reason many offices are open plan now is simply that it's much, much cheaper. The rest are kind of just-so stories, for or against. Interior designers will come up with these justifications when prompted but really I think it's that the people who actually get to make the decisions look at the general contractor estimates and say, "okay open plan it is."

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#38

Post by ScottBurson »

skizm wrote: post #22

I work in an open office environment and I spend a lot of my day positioning myself so that I'm not in direct line of sight with anyone else's eyes. I hate that I can't ponder to myself without risk of accidentally making eye contact with someone. What makes it worse is that if I sit in an upright (comfortable and ergonomic) position I am staring directly at someone. I hate it. As a result my posture and productivity…

Yeah, if the cube walls are low enough that you can see over them -- or if there are no cube walls -- it's just a disaster. I was in a place like that once and hated it. Eventually I found a spot where I was facing a wall; that wasn't so bad.

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#39

Post by astalwick »

pyre wrote: post #29
astalwick wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's one thing that gets missed in these discussions: software development is different from, say, accounting or administration or whatever. I get huge value out of being right beside the people that can answer the questions I have, and I know that they get value being near me. Putting walls between people and enforcing no-interruption work inhibits communication and makes it much easier to get blocked. At…

> I get huge value out of being right beside the people that can answer the questions I have As someone who -- in my workplace -- is more often than not on the receiving end of questions or calls for help, I find it extremely distracting. There have been entire days where I wasn't able to focus on my own work because everyone else had questions to answer, or bugs that they needed help working through. I can't fault t…

Oh, so do I (and I'm more often on the receiving end, too). No question, there's a cost to being interrupted. Personally, I have to actively push back against my own displeasure at being interrupted.

At the end of the day, though, the value those interruptions bring to the project make them worthwhile. Problems are avoided before they become problems. Knowledge is transferred without forcing someone to learn it from the ground up themselves. Time is saved (maybe not my time, but project-time).

(Obviously, if you're consistently being interrupted with low-value, easy-to-answer questions, that's a bit different... there comes a point where you say "ok, spend a bit more time, and if you can't get it then I'll work more with you")

Re: Science, Superstition, and Open Plan Offices

#40

Post by typicalrunt »

michaelochurch wrote: post #10
7402 wrote: post #2

I interviewed with a company and during the "cultural fit" interview with the VP of Engineering, I asked why they used an open-plan office. I mentioned that there seemed to be a lot of concern in the literature and online about developer productivity in such offices. He said he "wasn't familiar" with the discussion, but he didn't think it was a problem. I was offered a contract-to-hire situation, instead of the emplo…

Fit interviews are hard for engineers. Technical interviews are about getting the right answer. Fit interviews are about whether you can tell a convincing lie ("of course I like the working under tight deadlines to changing requirements with minimal support from the business.") It's a tough context switch: from zero-in-on-right-answer to socially-acceptable-bald-faced-lie.

I half-agree with you, because there are some companies that use "fit" to determine how much they can use you as a "resource" rather than a human being.

Where I disagree is whether one has put themselves in a situation where they are desperate for a position at a company where they have to lie to pass the fit interview stage. I'd rather be honest and lose than lie, win and ultimately impugn my integrity.

It is very refreshing when you already have a job and are looking for something new, then you can sit back and take a relaxed approach to finding a good company. Once one is found and you are interviewing with them (and interviewing them, as a previous commenter mentioned), then you can ask all the tough questions. If you don't like what you hear, vote with your feet and walk away.

Now, this isn't always the situation people are in, so YMMV but I throw it out there as a piece of advice for anyone interviewing companies.

Post reply on HN