21–30 of 148 posts
I truly dislike open offices. The constant sound of mechanical keyboards clacking really gets to me, and I'm not sure why. I wear headphones listening to loud music to cancel out the sounds of these damn keyboards.
Keyboards, random conversations, people getting up etc. so much noise and so many distractions. I also do the earphones thing, but it seems to be contributing to long-term hearing loss.
The author's argument is basically "I don't like open offices, so they're bad." Yawn. I would have liked to see some studies on actual productivity level fluctuations based on these moves. Otherwise, it's simply another variation of "I'm not used to it, so it's bad."
Study after study show that open distraction office plans are bad for productivity, and increase stress and sick days -- even among those who like open office plans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keyboards, random conversations, people getting up etc. so much noise and so many distractions. I also do the earphones thing, but it seems to be contributing to long-term hearing loss.
Wear a good pair of ear defenders over your earphones so you can turn down the volume greatly while still blocking out all external sound.
I like my work colleagues, but sometimes I need to concentrate (or I'm just grumpy for some reason).
How is this Google's fault? Google's name is used in the article title, but then it is basically not mentioned again apart from in a list of equally well-known companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As pointed out: "Peopleware" by Tom DeMarco. I would like to see the studies that show ANY positive benefit from open office plans, other than: "They are cheaper to built and run".
https://hbr.org/2014/10/workspaces-that-move-people "data suggest that creating collisions—chance encounters and unplanned interactions between knowledge workers, both inside and outside the organization—improves performance" Just one of many notable quotes from the article. It isn't a formal study but it is pragmatic i.e. "Managers might be tempted to simply build big social spaces and expect great results, but it’s…
If you're a company with hundreds of worldwide branches, then the potential benefits make asking questions like this a worthwhile endeavour. Very large companies actually try to design their buildings around what will lead to the greatest productivity.
If you're a smaller company, then you might want open plan offices for very different reasons (a perception of cohesion etc). Data can and is applied to this, but it typically isn't because the companies aren't large enough for it to matter too much in terms of productivity; the benefits start to be dwarfed by more pressing matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Study after study show that open distraction office plans are bad for productivity, and increase stress and sick days -- even among those who like open office plans.
That wasn't my point (I don't have a side here). I'm mostly asking to see those studies & have a nuanced breakdown of them (rather than simply saying they exist or (as the author did in their piece) saying they had a bad experience)).
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494413...
[2] http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/255498?uid=3739696&uid...
[3] http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-open-office-t...
Just having someone around, who are working on a different piece of the same puzzle is a major motivator.
How is this Google's fault? Google's name is used in the article title, but then it is basically not mentioned again apart from in a list of equally well-known companies?
I don't think the article is blaming Google. Just har-har'ing with attitude that Google maybe isn't as smart as its cracked up to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As pointed out: "Peopleware" by Tom DeMarco. I would like to see the studies that show ANY positive benefit from open office plans, other than: "They are cheaper to built and run".
https://hbr.org/2014/10/workspaces-that-move-people "data suggest that creating collisions—chance encounters and unplanned interactions between knowledge workers, both inside and outside the organization—improves performance" Just one of many notable quotes from the article. It isn't a formal study but it is pragmatic i.e. "Managers might be tempted to simply build big social spaces and expect great results, but it’s…
http://javatroopers.com/Peopleware.html#Chapter_13
Tom de Marco quotes Cristopher Alexander, his first rule is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution :) but there are patterns :)
Alexander identifies the need for all three of
- a communal space
- a semiprivate/team space ("war rooms", etc)
- a private space
Also: "Each team needs identifiable public and semiprivate space and each individual needs protected private space."
They also say that:
"enclosed offices need not be one-person offices. The two- or three- or four-person office makes a lot more sense, particularly if office groupings can be made to align with work groups. Even in open-plan offices, co-workers should be encouraged to modify the grid to put their areas together into small suites. When this is allowed, people become positively ingenious in laying out the area to serve all their needs: work space, meeting space, and social space. Since they tend to be in interaction mode together or simultaneously in flow mode, they have less noise clash with each other than they would with randomly selected neighbors."