Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces • Hacker News Board

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#81

Post by mr_tristan » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 12:04 AM UTC

PaulRobinson wrote: post #50

mr_tristan wrote: post #8

It is interesting to use a library as a model, but I would be amazed that you could get any particular company to understand and implement it. I could see teams having dedicated coworking areas that are extended from a large central open area. But, I could also predict that people would just carry their discussions into the open area, and constantly walk up and disturb the peace by asking "quick questions" anyway. An…

I'm curious about how we got to a place where we can assume that our colleagues will disrespect other colleagues and laugh at those asking for more respect. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is something quite horrid about a working culture where we think that might ever happen. If you say "this big open space is like a library: no fixed desks, sit where you want; we expect quiet, there is a 'librarian' who is e…

I suspect for something like this to happen, the upper levels of management needs to understand the individual contributor better. I've worked now for some very large companies, and, most of them simply do not think about individual productivity at all. To them, this is simply "not their problem". Instead, it's something for the manager that directly interacts with the individual to deal with.

The problem is, you might have one team agree to this, and others not. But how many companies would let one team take control over their physical space? Very few places I know of would even let a lower-level manager relocate people together.

Problems of our working culture somehow seems tied to our hierarchies and specialties. We don't really give individual teams the budget to go find their own space; instead, it's all specialists who have very little interaction (and often zero insight) with individual contributors.

I wonder if companies should be more organized where teams were "mini-businesses". Instead of worrying about setting up one giant space, it was up to the team, with their own support staff (and budget) to figure everything like their working standards up. I suspect that would change culture quite a bit, mostly, because there wouldn't be this weird "this is the way we do things here because there's this massive team nobody interacts with" wall. Instead, if the team felt like they could do things better, they just do it.

My gut is telling me remote work will upend a bunch of things, because workers will feel more empowered.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#82

Post by closeparen » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

My tech company had a space called "the library" for "those times when you need to do deep focus work." There were several thousand engineers in the building. The library could seat maybe 15. No monitors, no outlets. Even when they come tantalizingly close to understanding, the idea is just so foreign to them, that most engineers should be focusing most of the time and that our elaborate monitor and keyboard setups are part of focus work.

Meanwhile out on the floor I have tried to (politely) call people out for e.g. having Zoom standup participants on full blast in the middle of the sea of desks. They shrugged and said, "it's an open office. You can wear headphones." This company prided itself on empowering engineers, providing them with the tools and resources to do their best work, and in some ways lived up to that. But the way we made it a totally individual burden to jam the noise or seek refuge elsewhere really undermined it.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#83

Post by closeparen » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

greatgib wrote: post #52

There no point comparing a library to a work open space. Please, tell me what is the point to go physically at work in an open space instead of doing remote work if it is to have the rules of a library? Not interacting with colleagues, not calling, not listening others speaking to know what is currently going on the company...

For me it's about about a balance of different stimulation levels throughout the day. WFH if you live alone is near constant isolation. WFH if you live with others is near constant exposure to those others. Either of these single-speed lifestyles will wear me down.

When I worked in an open office and lived alone I would sometimes be overstimulated. At least eventually I'd get to go home and recover. A workstation in a library-rules space would have avoided the discomfort altogether though. Eat lunch with my coworkers, have high-bandwidth discussions in meeting rooms, chit-chat when coming up for air by the coffee/snacks/ping-pong, but also be able to retreat to my workstation and focus on code once for the bulk of the day.

Come to think of it, that's what college was like. I would study in the bowels of the library, take breaks in the peripheral food and social spaces where I'd often run into people I knew, and go back to my dorm room at night. That was the life.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#84

Post by charlie0 » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 4:49 AM UTC

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?

The work is different. Most peole working in a library are reading a book or writing things down.

Not sure about yall, but I like to talk to myself as I'm coming up with and implementing a solution. Even if I'm whispering, I'm sure others can hear me and would find that distracting.

I really like the idea of the library as an open space and the most valuable idea I would gather is to have tons of noolks and crannies where desks are spaced far apart. This wouldn't work with people sitting side by side. Even the clacking of keyboards gets distracting after a while.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#85

Post by austinjp » Tue, Aug 09, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

Sir_Liigmaz wrote: post #79

austinjp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both? Can she work better in a social setting? Nothing wrong with that.

There are plenty of people who work better in a non-social setting. Work is work. It does not need to be social. I do not want it to be social. I don't want to be friends with my co-workers. I am here for a paycheck. Sue me.

I didn't say anything about preventing you from keeping your work and social lives separate.

I sincerely hope your co-workers are aware of your preferences and give you the wide berth you desire.

Re: Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces

#86

Post by xpe » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

taneq wrote: post #39

bruce511 wrote: post #28

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 vi…

> Interestingly the quiet ones complained about the loud ones (but not the other way around). What else would you expect? The ones impinging on others were fine with it, the ones being impinged upon not so much. > Different people have different needs. This is the bit that people need to keep sight of. People and groups are all different and there’s no one size fits all answer.

While I agree with "People and groups are all different and there’s no one size fits all answer." in a sense, we cannot stop there. There is more searching to be done.

Let me take a slight sidebar, after which I'll reconnect to open offices. I've recently studied the philosophy and ethics of pluralism. It was eye opening. If you start an ethical exploration where pluralism (respecting differences in values) is take for granted, and think it through, you do not necessarily end up with relativism (the claim that all values are equally good).

The ethics of pluralism apply to many other areas where people have differences, such as preferences for working environments. The connection is simple: if a group of people need to share a working environment, there will need to be some mechanism by which decisions are made. There is some budget of money and space that will need to be allocated.

Such a decision mechanism is (ultimately, whether it is obvious or not) connected to some underlying values. If the office manager decides based on "taking the pulse" of the office, you run the risk have an appointed person acting in a somewhat authoritarian way. How can you really guarantee the needs of the workers are actually being synthesized in a fair way? This is an incredibly challenging and complex area of philosophy and ethics.

If it is "one person, one vote", there may not be an underlying value system, since it appears to be purely a matter of politics. However, when such a system picks "one person, one vote", they may be missing out on better solutions, such as systems that work hard to find a consensus before simply taking a vote.

I could write hundreds of pages on this, because I've studied many others who have written probably 3 to 5 orders of magnitude more. It seems for the last twenty years, I've found myself disappointed that these topics seem mostly unexamined in most practical work situations. I've had to come to terms with the fact that many people are simply unaware, too busy with other things, or unaware of the importance of these mechanisms. Frankly, it is an uncomfortable place to be... when a big driver of my thinking is "let's make X situation better" but a relatively small number of organizations seem interested or able to make progress.

Instead, I see a parade of fads, usually connected with fairly pathetic PR campaigns (justifications to convince the workers) that such fad is desirable.