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

Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

mtajchert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#21

Post by analog31 »

spoonjim wrote: post #14

People are not working collaboratively in libraries. Offices exist for people to work collaboratively, otherwise they could work at home.

Offices exist for a variety of reasons: Supervision, access to information (paper files), equipment (phones, computers), status signaling, and moving information efficiently. The "collaboration" ruse seems like a recent invention. Managers collaborate just fine with private offices.

Collaboration is certainly valuable, but at the same time, I have a hunch that 90% of the time spent collaborating, is spent getting the stuff done that you agreed to do. Also, much of the communication involved in collaboration is not necessarily done best in front of an audience. These may be a couple of the reasons for reports that open-plan offices actually degrade collaboration.

A lot of the time I spent in libraries as a grad student was doing work that contributed to a collaboration. Likewise a lot of the coding that I do in isolation.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#22

Post by cratermoon »

spoonjim wrote: post #14

People are not working collaboratively in libraries. Offices exist for people to work collaboratively, otherwise they could work at home.

People are not working collaboratively in open-plan offices.

"Recent research shows that such offices result in 73 per cent less face-to-face interaction, and a 67 per cent increase in email interaction." https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/325959

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#23

Post by wccrawford »

xpe wrote: post #18
thrown_22 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who will be the library nazi that kicks you out when you talk too loudly?

We don't need to refer to a librarian that way. Yeah, I know, Seinfeld did it. It isn't funny or interesting. It is a cliché. Let's try to choose our language so that our history and language can hold onto meanings that matter. There is a Star Trek TNG episode called Darmok that describes a culture that only speaks in metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok Surely we have a better metaphor for a meek but power…

That person isn't "meek" usually, though. They are very clear that they have the power and you will obey them. They are very insistent, without ever having to get loud, and they will force you to follow the rules.

I don't have another word for that kind of person, but I agree that "nazi" should not be used that way.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#24

Post by spoonjim »

cratermoon wrote: post #22
spoonjim wrote: post #14

People are not working collaboratively in libraries. Offices exist for people to work collaboratively, otherwise they could work at home.

People are not working collaboratively in open-plan offices. "Recent research shows that such offices result in 73 per cent less face-to-face interaction, and a 67 per cent increase in email interaction." https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/325959

I believe it about open plan vs private offices, but this is a comparison between offices in general and libraries (which have effectively zero collaboration)

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#25

Post by willhinsa »

xpe wrote: post #15

Thinking about my favorite libraries, this is what strikes me most: many people before and many people after will find inspiration in the same place. The people will change, the books will change, but the culture of respect for quiet (and thus concentration) will (hopefully) live on. This idea of the place inspiring beyond ourselves is wonderful. So, why not find ways of inspiring their employees beyond that particul…

So true. Thanks for sharing. I don’t think it’s idealistic, either. It’s simply taking a longer term, more broad perspective for the health of our communities and society, rather than simply the immediate quarter’s results.

It can’t be truly effective in the long run if you drive people insane on a long road to pernicion.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#26

Post by unsungNovelty »

I have been thinking about this problem. Why not create a exclusive spaces/floor for quite workers? Where you cannot make noise at all. Like in a library. So anybody irrespective of teams can just go there and get things done. I think good balance is necessary. Sales teams/Marketing teams cannot be just silently sitting around. They are conversation-prone with their work nature. But could use the exclusive spaces when necessary.

But this again has to be enforced from the top. Not just for some employees. If the CEO or higher executives cannot uphold this, there is no point.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#27

Post by AlotOfReading »

pca006132 wrote: post #5
tajchert wrote: post #2

With remote work, open spaces from hell are (hopefully) a thing of the past, but key learnings on proper room culture are still valid after almost 200 years. How 400 people can work in deep focus in library but cannot do the same in company open space?

Perhaps with libraries people think that they should be quiet there, while it is advertised as collaboration space for open spaces and people are encouraged to talk there?

Libraries are part of a larger "research ecosystem", so they can exclude all the loud and talkative bits of research because there are other places it can live like the hallways and cafeterias and text messages people use. Open offices are undifferentiated. There's nowhere to segregate disruptive activities to because there's nowhere else to go, except for maybe some small concessions to meeting rooms. That space can't even be a good space for everyone because it's constantly serving a hundred mutually conflicting uses rather than providing specialized purpose the way a reading room does.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#28

Post by bruce511 »

So back in the day we solved the open office problem by putting walks and doors around each worker. We moved premises and took the opportunity to give everyone a (small) office with a door. About 70% of our actual floor plan was for common open space - big kitchen, diner, lounge etc. But for work you had a private space with a door.

Over 10 years later we bought another company and had their local staff over for a visit. Almost immediately a fairly loud person exclaimed "it's so quiet here!" (and not in a good way). Their office was separated into rooms of 4-5 people, so they were used to plenty of banter. Interestingly the quiet ones complained about the loud ones (but not the other way around).

We ended up with a somewhat hybrid model - we took on more space and made more open-plan areas, and small-team offices.

I'm a coder, do I like the solitude to focus. Others need more interaction. I think there's a danger in trying to propogate a one-approach-for-everyone. Different people have different needs. Creating a mix of spaces allows for mentorship at the beginning and an eventual migration to either a solitary space, or co-work space, depending on personality. This approach though never seems to get any press, it's always about the tyranny of open plan, or the soulessness of everyone being locked away in cells. (on HN its always the tyranny of Open plan :)

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#29

Post by alex_young »

xpe wrote: post #15

Thinking about my favorite libraries, this is what strikes me most: many people before and many people after will find inspiration in the same place. The people will change, the books will change, but the culture of respect for quiet (and thus concentration) will (hopefully) live on. This idea of the place inspiring beyond ourselves is wonderful. So, why not find ways of inspiring their employees beyond that particul…

It’s a bit unusual to most of us, but succession planning should really be practiced on an individual level.

You’re not the last person to hold your job in most cases. If you plan for it, burnout will be much less of an issue, and your job satisfaction should be equivalently enhanced.

Post reply on HN