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

Open offices are bad for us

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 377 posts

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#91

Post by bobochan »

I have a traditional office, but every day part of me misses being back in the giant cube farm that I used to work in. I still remember counting six rows down, then three blocks over, to get to the section of identical grey cubes where I sat. I had a computer just powerful enough to run a 3270 terminal emulator, a small bookcase, and a chair. What do I miss about that?

Any time that someone was not deep into a program they would stand up to stretch their legs and you would see them over the top of the cube. That was the time set aside where you could ask them questions about a project, talk about last night's game, or make plans for lunch. Over the course of a day or a week, you almost always had time to talk to everyone and it encouraged a great atmosphere. We all knew what each other was working on, and everyone had a sense of who was good at what when the chips were down and we needed to fix something quickly.

Those cubes are different from what I have seen in a truly "open office," but I would love to get back to that level of daily interaction. Productivity aside, being isolated in an office all day is really soul numbing.

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#92

Post by BjoernKW »

smelendez wrote: post #21

Open offices are awful, but they're here to stay for the same reason more adults are living with roommates and relatives: high real estate prices. Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Personally, I'd make the shared area for solitary work only: no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack), no eating at work are…

> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them.

My prediction is those companies will go out of business eventually. Working remotely not only is more healthy in every possible way, it's also much more environmentally friendly. It's a key solution to a whole lot of societal problems in industrialised countries, not the least of which is traffic and all the negative side effects that come with it.

They key aspect for businesses though is this: It's much more efficient and much less expensive as well.

Working remotely is a competitive advantage. If a company says that working remotely is not for them they're missing a crucial advantage enabled by technology. If they don't others will certainly make use of that advantage.

If remote work doesn't work for a business they should ask themselves why that's the case: Is physical presence really necessary or is it just perceived to be necessary due to cargo cult thinking about what work should be like?

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#93

Post by [deleted] »

muninn_ wrote: post #66
smelendez wrote: post #21

Open offices are awful, but they're here to stay for the same reason more adults are living with roommates and relatives: high real estate prices. Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Personally, I'd make the shared area for solitary work only: no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack), no eating at work are…

Like cities and human development, there should be different areas for different types of work and different people. Maybe you're a programmer and you want 100% silence, that should be available. Maybe you're like me, who gets a lot more done in a small, focused group. You should be able to squat in a collaboration room all day and get shit done. Maybe you don't mind ambient noise, and like to sit on a couch to work…

[deleted]

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#94

Post by mcherm »

amyjess wrote: post #67
jMyles wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment doesn't resonate with me. Have you worked in an early- or mid-stage startup in NYC or the Bay Area in the past... 10 years? > No offense, but that sounds like some kind of boys club, not professional working environment That's a strange value judgment; I'm not really sure what to think about it. At the end of the day, the company is still growing and meeting its goals. It is also still facilitating the d…

> Have you worked in an early- or mid-stage startup in NYC or the Bay Area in the past... 10 years? ...why do you think I have no desire to move to either of those parts of the country or to work for a startup? I like to describe Silicon Valley as "degenerate" for a few reasons, and this is one of them. I'm perfectly happy working in the suburbs of Texas in a corporate environment (~500 employees, B2B telecom industr…

> Screaming baby in the office = I quit. I'm glad my current employer has "no children in the office" as written policy in our handbook.

Clearly different environments work for different people. I'm not trying to suggest that I want to try to concentrate on software development next to a screaming baby (that obviously wouldn't be an ideal environment), but I would be pleased and encouraged to have an employer who was open to allowing families into the work space. That's the sort of thing that truly motivates me, far more than foosball tables and free snacks.

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#95

Post by bjarneh »

smelendez wrote: post #21

Open offices are awful, but they're here to stay for the same reason more adults are living with roommates and relatives: high real estate prices. Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Personally, I'd make the shared area for solitary work only: no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack), no eating at work are…

> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them.

Some companies also assume that nobody really works unless they're at the office

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#96

Post by jasode »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #30
smelendez wrote: post #21

Open offices are awful, but they're here to stay for the same reason more adults are living with roommates and relatives: high real estate prices. Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Personally, I'd make the shared area for solitary work only: no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack), no eating at work are…

Strangely, open offices with cubicles can be more expensive than building drywall walls to make closed offices. And the much-vaunted flexibility of cubicles is way, way overrated. In my experience, cubicles sit in the same place for years. Any benefit of re-using them is lost. Also if the company is growing, new ones get bought all the time, so old ones aren't re-used anyway. Its obvious on the face of it: re-usable…

>We need some kind of vaccine to combat it.

The vaccine is a startup that is 10x (or even just 2x) better than everyone else because they use private offices.

Since that hypothetical business hasn't yet proven that idea, all the articles from journalists writing about "open offices bad" are just preaching to the choir.

Even the common cited reason for open offices being "saves real estate costs" is questionable. As an example, look at Mark Zuckerberg's old Harvard photos when building Facebook.[1] Look specifically at the 8th and 16th photos.[2][3]

See how everybody is literally in an "open office" crowded around a kitchen table?

In Mark's mind, that collaboration "works" for him and helped make Facebook successful. Therefore, it should also work for future hires. This is why cash-rich Facebook that has money to build private offices equal to lawyers' suites eschews that and opts to build an open plan instead. The new 2015 headquarters is expansion of that "2005 Harvard open office" on a grander scale.[4]

Mark Z works still works in that open warehouse concept instead of a private suite.[5]

I see very little commentary from HN that directly deals with executives who really believe in their hearts it's a superior way to work.

[1] http://piximus.net/celebrities/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo...

[2] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo...

[3] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo...

[4] http://www.kwiknews.my/news/facebook-takes-the-open-office-c...

[5] deep link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l--zev_37QA&feature=youtu.be...

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#97

Post by shams93 »

a1a wrote: post #81
muninn_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like cities and human development, there should be different areas for different types of work and different people. Maybe you're a programmer and you want 100% silence, that should be available. Maybe you're like me, who gets a lot more done in a small, focused group. You should be able to squat in a collaboration room all day and get shit done. Maybe you don't mind ambient noise, and like to sit on a couch to work…

That's one of the main takeaways from the story tho. In an open office those who need silence cannot get it, even if there are private rooms available: "Some of us even feel that escaping to a quiet room is a sign of weakness" and "it can feel as if we’re not pulling our weight if we’re not present"

Yeah the worst is when they want all the work done onsite and expect extreme hours at the open office space total recipe for disaster

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#98

Post by Maro »

I've been working in open office environments for the last 5+ years, also at one of AmaFaceGooSoft. I find it's a non-issue, it doesn't bother me or others, I can't recall a time in the last 1-2 years when someone complained about it. Saying that o.o. is not effective is a bit fishy given how successful some of the companies employing it are.

I remember 10+ years ago at my first job we had a nice office building (it was an architectural CAD software company, so their offices were pretty okay). It was 4-6 people per room. In retrospect I wouldn't want that layout again, it kills XFN cooperation, eg. you have to go to another room and potentially knock just to talk to the UX or PM guy.

I prefer o.o. because it's better for fast moving, constantly changing teams building product; everybody's on the same "floor", working on the same product.

Re: Open offices are bad for us

#100

Post by chris_7 »

jMyles wrote: post #43
kbart wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We stayed up very late, listened to loud music, and did some of the best work of our lives." No offense, but that sounds like some kind of boys club, not professional working environment. Staying up late = no respect for private life (unless you've signed for it), loud arbitrary music = forced culture implications (why do I have to listen to the music you like?). Yes, probably our work place expectations differs imm…

Your comment doesn't resonate with me. Have you worked in an early- or mid-stage startup in NYC or the Bay Area in the past... 10 years? > No offense, but that sounds like some kind of boys club, not professional working environment That's a strange value judgment; I'm not really sure what to think about it. At the end of the day, the company is still growing and meeting its goals. It is also still facilitating the d…

If you're at the office at 1am, you probably need a union, not music. Work ends, at latest, 8 hours after you get there. People actually died for that a century ago, and now people are just throwing it away.
Post reply on HN