Live data from Hacker News

Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

washingtonpost.com

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#111
Lots of people in our organisation equate non-open offices (in our case, cubes with high walls) with a we've-always-done-things-this-way attitude. And with a lack of transparency, the desire not to share 9and so remain vital) etc. However in our UK office we have the opposite - our development room is like a 1980s trading floor, impossible to focus for more than a few minutes at a time even with sweaty decent headphones.

Work-from-home is the way forward - LINQ combined with trust mean I can work in my pyjamas. Win!

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#113
At my current workplace, we have a shared room for the developers and designers (5-9 people depending on the day and time), while the rest (~20 people) are spread in other bigger open spaces. I find that it works well, because we are mostly stationary and focused on a specific task, while the rest (sales, marketing, customer development, etc.) are constantly moving around, in meetings, visiting customers.

In a mostly-tech company I couldn't imagine not having some compartments so that you don't suddenly find yourself 1 among 30 people in the same room - I'd go completely insane.

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#114

SAP star building in Germany headquarters are a good example of what to do with office spaces: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gOgdHlT33Jo/TQ7zXFqaxjI/AAAAAAAAAJ... http://www.mz-web.de/image/view/2012/4/23/17117282,16301136,... http://www.donfeidner.de/assets/images/P1000400_SAP_Star_Bui... The wings have offices which can sit 6 to 8 people and at the center there are the meeting rooms, restrooms and lunch area.

A different way for a cubicle farm.

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#115
Articles about how X doesn't work tend to use examples of where X is really badly implemented. In the case of this article, it seems the office she was working had a really toxic culture, with micromanaging managers, coworkers judging you when you leave, excessively noisy people, etc.

I've always worked in shared offices, ranging from 3 people to, currently, and entire department of 40 or thereabouts. Never seems to be a problem. But with large rooms, you do need to consider acoustics of course. And letting managers keep a close eye on people is a terrible reason for anything.

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#117
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found asking people to be notoriously unreliable. Folks want quiet and comfort, sure. But is that the best thing for productivity? Ok, in this case, probably. But standing desks are apparently a good thing, and the vast majority of us eschew them. And so on. Anything that seems like an inconvenience gets demonized as a rule. So just asking is a minefield.

I get what you're saying, but I think there's an easy solution: just ask people who've experienced both. That way you're not experiencing the classic but very real problem of people not knowing what they want until they've got it. At my workplace, for instance, not once in the history of the company has anyone with an office ever given it up, under any circumstances, to move into a cubicle again. Likewise, someone wi…

That was my point. There are a lot of things that we measure (eg: productivity) when we should actually be looking at larger goals.

In this case, an open office creates a certain type of culture and work environment. That might be desirable for the company as a whole, even if it's suboptimal for some individuals, and even if certain measurements at a low level are against it.

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#118

SAP star building in Germany headquarters are a good example of what to do with office spaces: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gOgdHlT33Jo/TQ7zXFqaxjI/AAAAAAAAAJ... http://www.mz-web.de/image/view/2012/4/23/17117282,16301136,... http://www.donfeidner.de/assets/images/P1000400_SAP_Star_Bui... The wings have offices which can sit 6 to 8 people and at the center there are the meeting rooms, restrooms and lunch area.

Group spaces are quite prevalent in Germany from what I can tell. It makes total sense, in Germany. There is a bit of a difference in the USA though, where employers think you get productivity out of surveillance. We are not a very deeply thinking society, so it makes sense on the face of it that if you can see people working they are being productive. What we miss though, is that all the surveillance and lack of protections and benefits leads to massive amounts of squandered energies and effort on busy work. Busy work is work that is noise which serves a couple different types of purposes. It can make you look like you are working because you are working on something; whether it is relevant, important, or useful is totally irrelevant though. It can serve to make the system as inefficient as possible in order to assure job security. There are other purposes but those are some of the most prevalent.

At the core of the problem lies a misunderstanding of the problem that open plans are/were meant to address and can also be tied back to our problem with management models and incentives in our corporations and society.

It's a complicated matter that I can't do justice here, but if you have incompetent management trying to satisfy abusive demands from "investors" aka Wall Street, incompetent management leads to believe the problem of gaining ever more "productivity" out of a corporation and workers is solved by squeezing ever harder to get that last drop out. Which incompetent management and incentives lead them to believe can be done by putting everyone in a big open space so they feel surveilled and monitored and will do what they can to appear like a good worker by doing busy work and staying longer doing. This is largely all due to a system without employee protections where anyone in the 99% can be fired at a moment's notice because some executive screwed up or needs to be paid more.

It's more obviously presented as exercise metaphor, but the following post about "Why Productive People Always have Time to Exercise"http://riskology.co/sharpen-the-saw/ also applies to these types of circumstances.

On a side note: Why the hell doesn't HN support markdown? The site's already kind of embarrassingly styled, it's shameful that you can't even link somehow.

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#119

Just a different opinion here. I have never worked in a single office space. I honestly can't imagine such a thing. But I do know how incredible good I am at distracting myself at home. Just having someone around, who are working on a different piece of the same puzzle is a major motivator.

[deleted]

Re: Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace

#120

If you don't like this, why not go start your own company or find a new job? There is nothing forcing you to stay in this job. I for one have to agree that the communal aspect of working in an open office has its benefits and downfalls. But if one day I came in and didn't like it to the level you described - I'd quit and go find a job where I can get right with myself.

I think this is a good suggestion. I've given up on 'contracting' these days, solely because I hate open plan, and just consult freelance. I rent my own office to work in and it's lovely.

I get lonely though! I miss the technical and social conversations we used to have in the kitchen or round the coffee machine.

What would be ideal is if I were to rent an office inside the company I'm working for. I would actually be quite happy to pay my client to rent a bit of their space if it's ever a possibility. After all rental costs are chickenfeed compared to developer compensation.

Post reply on HN