Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Open Offices Make You Less Open (calnewport.com) 157

Why do companies deploy open office layouts? A major justification is the idea that removing spatial boundaries between colleagues will generate increased collaboration and smarter collective intelligence. Cal Newport: As I learned in a fascinating new study, published earlier this week in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, there was good reason to believe that this might be true. As the study's authors, Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban, note" [T]he notion that propinquity, or proximity, predicts social interaction -- driving the formation of social ties and therefore information exchange and collaboration -- is one of the most robust findings in sociology."

But when researchers turned their attention to the specific impact of open offices on interaction, the results were mixed. Perhaps troubled by this inconsistency, Bernstein and Turban decided to get to the bottom of this issue. Prior studies of open offices had relied on imprecise measures such as self-reported activity logs to quantify interactions before and after a shift to an open office plan. Bernstein and Turban tried something more accurate: they had subjects wear devices around their neck that directly measured every face-to-face encounter. They also used email and IM server logs to determine exactly how much the volume of electronic interactions changed.

Here's a summary of what they found: Contrary to what's predicted by the sociological literature, the 52 participants studied spent 72% less time interacting face-to-face after the shift to an open office layout. To make these numbers concrete: In the 15 days before the office redesign, participants accumulated an average of around 5.8 hours of face-to-face interaction per person per day. After the switch to the open layout, the same participants dropped to around 1.7 hours of face-to-face interaction per day. At the same time, the shift to an open office significantly increased digital communication. After the redesign, participants sent 56% more emails (and were cc'd 41% more times), and the number of IM messages sent increased by 67%.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Offices Make You Less Open

Comments Filter:
  • No shit Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, 2018 @11:38AM (#56906744)

    Fucking duh - every conversation had in the open air adds to the background noise. Not to mention everyone else listening in.

    I'm happy these guys studied this. Hopefully the MBAs that climbed up their own asses to strip away our offices will read a copy and choke on it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Also, crappy management has grounds to pick on people for talking and also the ability to bully someone to use the open office as a playground

      • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:27PM (#56906908) Homepage Journal

        Open office layouts make you feel like you're under the eye all the time.

        Because you are.

        It means that you're not trusted to manage your own time and space, that you're not worth your own space (much less a damned window), that you're subject to all manner of extraneous noise, that your security is definitely more of an issue to the point of what you are willing to leave on your desk changes...

        Only fucking idiots running on ivory tower thinking and nothing else at all would want to build an open office environment.

        ...oh, wait.

        Companies are full of those.

        Sorry, my bad.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I once asked why we are using open office when all the studies say we should not (in addition that it increases mistakes, lowers happiness it also takes as much space as office with individual rooms, because you need more meeting rooms etc). Answer was that why would all the other companies use it if it was not worth it. I could not argue with that, because if are ready to abandon science and do what everyone else are doing, it is religion, and from experience I know that debating with religious people is j

        • Yep. People naturally like privacy. Now someone might point out that so-called 'social media' flies in the face of that statement, but the Internet gives people a false sense of privacy such that their privacy can be totally violated (data collection, surveillance of activities, profiling, etc) and they don't notice it because it's not someone right in their face with a camera and a microphone observing them, even if the violation of privacy is worse. But having people literally in your face all day long at
          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            Geeks and nerds on slashdot like privacy. Geeks and nerds on slashdot hate meetings. Not all but by far the majority.

            Most other employees, the non geek and non nerds are chatter boxes, that love long waffle on sessions that they call meetings. Open plan, totally wipes on their productivity. Put slave collars around their necks to measure productivity, will not generate real or accurate results, just the kind of closed in cut of censored existence you would expect when you put slave collars on people.

            When a

        • by movdqa ( 1122661 )
          Yup. The people that run companies don't want their own offices to be open either.
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      I've never worked in an open office, but it sounds like a nightmare to me. The noise, the constant distractions, the complete lack of privacy. I can't imagine how anyone gets any work done at all. And that's not even to mention the security risks for anyone working with any kind of sensitive or private data, with literally everyone else in the company (and anyone even passing through) looking right over their shoulders.

      I can't believe that some companies think this is actually a selling point to potential e

    • Totally agree. I have 21 staff under me. I've not done a redesign in ten years, simply because if I do, I'll be forced into an open office situation. It is already noisy enough with analysts talking in their 8x10' cubicles iwth 6' walls.

      No one wants an open office.
    • I have an MBA and I never had a study to show any advantages of the Open Office vs Closed Offices. There are a lot of Upper Management folks without the MBA Discipline really making MBA's look bad.
      From my MBA Studies what makes employees more open, isn't a physical layout, but a top down culture of openness and trust of the employees. A Culture where an employee feels empowered to walk into the CEO, or their manager, or the management in different departments, and be able to speak their concerns and idea

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Every open office layout solves one problem, and creates three more:
      1) It solves the collaboration problem, you can just turn to someone and ask a question. This is very useful in most situations where work is team-oriented.

      However

      2) Call center, contact center and various other phone and computer-oriented tasks which require concentration are heavily degraded by the additional noise.

      3) The chatterbox staff members degrade everyones performance in earshot.

      Plus you have things that haven't been solved since

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @11:40AM (#56906752)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:14PM (#56906864)
      If management can't tell who's actually contributing work and who's screwing around and wasting everyone else's time, then it's management that needs to go. You can't expect to get good results if you don't have a useful way of measuring good results. Once most teams get large enough there's probably one person that's contributing several times the value of everyone else in the group. If management can't tell who that person is, they should be the one's being let go.
      • An open office doesn't even help that problem. Just because someone is staring at a screen full of code or engineering diagrams doesn't mean that they are actually being productive. Management needs to be competent enough to understand how well their employees are doing - and that requires technical expertise, and is sometimes really quite difficult.

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )
          I don't think you necessarily need technical expertise. I was able to gauge how individual team members performed by asking them to size up each task together, then assigning it out randomly. After a few months, it's pretty clear who's getting things done and who's not (they usually have an entertaining list of unforeseen problems and excuses).

          I also listen in on their conversations to see who's helping who. Then during individual meet-ups, I ask them for their opinion of other team members. It's pretty
    • by mikael ( 484 )

      My last open office had around six teams of forty arranged in a 4 x 10 grid. If any other grid cell occupant within a 2 square distance had a conversation with one or more people it was practically impossible to get any work done. Sometimes there would be group stand-up meetings with 20+ people. Then they would just stand around and chatting for another 30 minutes. If anyone not in that group was typing, they would proceed to shout at each other. Never mind people banging their work folders on their desk, d

    • by dddux ( 3656447 )
      Let me get this straight. So they build open offices to encourage people's collaboration and communication, but then fire those who do that? Funny that. I tend to believe they build them just so they could have more control over the employees. Nothing to do with enhancing the production or working environment for the employees. What a load...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, 2018 @11:46AM (#56906776)

    I work in an open office. A major consideration is noise - you have lots of people in a large room,
    all trying to get work done. They need some modicum of silence. IMs and e-mails are quieter than
    face-to-face communication - and trying to keep things quiet is something you learn quickly.

    Electronic communications also do not require that you get up from your desk and find a meeting room - that's a (small) time suck and use of a scarce resource.

    There may also be an element of satisfying our need for socialization by simple proximity, reducing the need for F2F meetings whose sole (unstated) purpose is to socialize. Get what you want more quickly via IM than via (much slower) personal contact.

    There may be an assumption here that more face to face interaction is good, but I think that assumption is actually false. *Some* F2F interaction is helpful either to communicate complex ideas or to develop a sense of teamwork, but *more* F2F interaction just means spending all day in meetings and accomplishing nothing.

  • Well duh! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @11:46AM (#56906778)

    The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices. ;)

    • Offices are like Orifices. Nobody wants yours to be open, particularly when its next the theirs.
    • >"The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices. ;)"

      You beat me to it. I was going to post:

      "But Libre Offices makes you more open."

      Humor aside, any study will need to take into account the exact jobs being performed, because that will make a HUGE difference in productivity effects. And the individuals matter too- I am easily distracted and stressed by noise and commotion. If I were forced to work in an "open office plan" (cubicle), my productivity would tank. However, I do like being in CLOSE PR

    • The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices. ;)

      The obvious solution is to switch to Home Offices. ;)

      My employer went further than Open Offices . . . we went to "Flex Offices" or "E-Places". You get a closet locker and a Rimowa Rollboy Trolley. And there is a big room with empty desks . . . with less desks than employees. Folks were expected to work at customer sites or at their home whenever possible. In the office, each morning there is a Enterprise Edition game of "Musical Chairs" (or Reise nach Jerusalem for the German-speaking folks). Since the

      • I worked for a company that for several years had fewer desks and computers for engineers than engineers. There was no work from home. Although nobody "owned" a desk, it was understood that established engineers had their own places. New hires had neither a desk nor a computer, and were expected to work at a laboratory bench. The CEO (a marketer) insisted that all engineers' desks face a blank brick wall. Of course, sales and marketing people had private offices with overstuffed chairs, and frequently ameni
        • Of course, sales and marketing people had private offices with overstuffed chairs, and frequently amenities like a minifridge.

          And obviously sales and marketing people never have to meet external customers in their offices and make them comfortable or anything...

      • by mikael ( 484 )

        I heard a story about something similar. A company had a small field office with around eight desks in a portacabin. One desk was next to the heater and coffee machine. Another few were next to windows. Everyone practically player early morning musical chairs to get that desk next to the heater. One person went as far as to make a standing order with a taxi firm to get him there by 6.30 in the morning.

    • So what you're also saying is that FreeBSD is superior to OpenBSD?

    • What management really wants is to have in an Office365

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      Nah, go back to Microsft Office. What about Back Orfice [wikipedia.org]?

  • Don't be daft. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, 2018 @11:49AM (#56906784)

    There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.

    • There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.

      Exactly this. Every other claimed “benefit” boils down to the bean counters attempting self-justification - they know it’s about the money, but they don’t like saying it.

      • The reason for open office (a.k.a. bullpen) is management control and power over those who have to work in such places. Cost is an excuse, nothing more. Many executives get off on the feeling that they're oppressing the peons.
      • There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.

        Exactly this. Every other claimed “benefit” boils down to the bean counters attempting self-justification - they know it’s about the money, but they don’t like saying it.

        Why would a bean counter need to justify saving money? HR or something I could understand.

    • by mikael ( 484 )

      Open-plan offices were designed after World War II to eliminate any remaining cold war paranoia about spies being in the office.

      Even with a closed-plan office, cheap plasterboard walls wouldn't guarantee peace and quiet. One office was so tightly packed that when your neighbour turned on his CRT monitors, your monitors would flicker as well. That led to degaussing wars between some occupants. With the cheap chipboard floors, a heavy person would make the office floor sag and you could hear them thumping by

  • Alternative (Score:2, Redundant)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

    Open Offices Make You Less Open

    That's why I switched to Libre Offices.

    • Open Offices Make You Less Open

      That's why I switched to Libre Offices.

      Congratulations! You are the one hundredth person to make the exact same comment in this thread!

      • Open Offices Make You Less Open

        That's why I switched to Libre Offices.

        Congratulations! You are the one hundredth person to make the exact same comment in this thread!

        Ya, but I think I made it first. So there's that! :-)

        [ I am soooo bored. ]

  • Why would you want a work environment to be like that? Constant distractions. No way to focus.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:05PM (#56906834)
    that's the reason to have it. Period. I hate living in a world were we're constantly pretending bad things aren't bad things. Like how not having guaranteed access to medical care is somehow freedom. Or how a 90 minute commute brutal traffic is 'me time'.
    • That. The motivation is putting more people in less space. The rest is marketing spin on the idea so it doesn't look so bad.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Ding Ding Ding! I had a customer move buildings. No hires/fires but they went from basically every one had offices or a team room to all open office. They reduced their square footage requirements by over 35%. We had another that went through a buyout and workforce "rationalization". They went from about a dozen buildings down to one. It was so bad the city fire marshal and city engineers stepped in to tell the new owners they couldn't put as many people as they wanted on each floor.
    • Of course it's a 'pure real estate play'. That's all.

      I already collaborated with my team, over and around cubicle partitions. A pox on the picnic table concept.

  • And maybe in an open layout, it's just easier to yell things back and forth, rather than moving into a "face-to-face" position to talk? It seems like that could skew the measurement of whether people had more face-to-face meetings.
    • And maybe in an open layout, it's just easier to yell things back and forth,

      Maybe. But if you are interested in developing paper darts, they definitely go back and forth better - as does gossip.

      Productivity be damned: if the boss thinks you are working, that is good enough for him. If you are required to think, forget it!

      • LOL, paper darts. Yes.

        I do not mean to suggest that yelling back and forth is good for productivity. (I don't think it is, in the long term.) I just mean that their measurement thingy (worn around the neck to detect face-to-face interaction) would probably not count any yelling back and forth that happened. "Yelling back and forth" is communication, so they would probably not have measured that form of communication. However, it's also disruptive to everyone nearby. Personally I would not prefer an o
  • This [joelonsoftware.com] is an office I'd like to work in, from a company owner who gets it. I'm sure the amount he put into getting this office has more than paid out in increased productivity.

    Too bad other companies won't read anything other than the 4-color glossies from the Gartner Report, peddling the "synergy" produced from a open office [google.com].

  • by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:11PM (#56906858) Homepage

    Isn't this obvious? Anyone talking to someone face-to-face in an open office is being rude to everyone in the room. So no longer do you pop into someone's office and chat, but are instead formed to setup a meeting or distract a dozen other people.

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:22PM (#56906896)
    Because they are cheaper. Period. Every other reason is an after-the-fact attempt at rationalizing the open office concept. The open office concept had its root in cubicles. Cubicles were sold to companies because, as the cubicle salesreps put it, they are cheaper. To get around the ambient noise from co-workers, more ambient noise was introduced, i.e., white-noise from speakers in the ceiling to mask the noise of your co-workers.

    .
    With open offices, you don't even have the sound-absorbing walls of a cubicle to help reduce the noise of co-workers, so everyone tends to wear [noise-cancelling] headphones, isolating themselves from their co-workers.

    • The open office concept had its root in cubicles.

      This is both logically and historically false. Traditional work places included large open rooms, group offices, and individual offices. Cubicles were introduced in the 1970s as a cheap replacement for individual offices, to give the cubicle dwellers the illusion of privacy.

  • Software engineering at the level I do it requires continuous concentration. For that I need privacy and as few distractions as possible.

    Maybe there are software engineers and other creative producers who can do quality work on their laptop at Starbucks with the music and everyone shouting out orders and stuff. Not me.

    I wonder how many people here remember Pirsig and his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. In it he explains clearly why those motorcycle shops where they have music blasting

  • by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:40PM (#56906950)

    Has the office become a status symbol like the old Mahogany Row and executive restroom? Is there an active desire to put lower level workers in unpleasant conditions to make management feel better about themselves?

    There are lots of reasons to think that open offices are less efficient. Often the workers are highly paid so the loss in efficiency clearly outweighs the cost of extra offices. Maybe its an incorrect money optimization but it seems obviously wrong. It doesn't take a lot of loss of efficiency in an employee who is costing $150/hour to balance the extra cost of a small office.

    Another, equally damning explanation is that open offices "look" nice and modern. It seems likely that the insanely expensive Apple headquarters building (clearly not cost optimized!) is mostly open offices for improved visual appeal, with no regard to efficiency.

    • I work at Apple Park. It's the worst office environment I've ever had the misfortune to have inflicted upon me. Working in that gilded shithole has me looking elsewhere for work now, and I've been at Apple for many a year.

      It's form over function, it's the fact that everyone has the noise-cancelling earphones (the good Bose ones, not the crappy Beats ones) and it's the complete lack of respect that is implied. My dog has a larger kennel (not that he uses it in CA weather very much) than I have desk-space.

      • Apple going with form over function even with their offices is a sure sign that they also don't give a shit about their products either. Removing usable ports and good keyboards in order to make thinner laptops is completely asinine.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The real reasons for OPEN OFFICES ARE AS FOLLOWS

    -Cheapness of outfitting the business funiture wise
    -Cheapness of cleaning/maintenance
    -Ease of Security/Surveillance
    -VERY EASY TO RESALE PROPERTY FOR ANY OTHER BUSINESS/RELIGION/OTHER USAGE

    LIQUIDITY OF ASSETS AT A DROP OF A HAT

  • I am surprised anyone would find this a surprise. I thought it was clearly established that people in crowded urban areas become less overtly friendly as a reaction to the crowded conditions. Sort of like keeping a mental distance since you cannot keep a physical distance. Meanwhile people in rural and less crowded areas are more openly friendly since there is plenty of physical space.
  • As far as I am concerned, any job offer that involves working in an open space environment is a no-no.
  • F2F complaining about the upcoming change to the open office may be what was measured, and after the switch workers were/are less likely to complain about the switch when the entire office and managers/tattletales can hear those complaints.
  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:55PM (#56907000) Homepage Journal

    Office workers in the 19th and most of the 20th century sat in a large room at a desk without walls. And it was managers who got their own office. If you were senior but not a manager you would share an office. Even then employees complains when coworkers chatted near their desk too frequently.

  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @01:07PM (#56907046)

    A major justification is the idea that removing spatial boundaries between colleagues will generate increased collaboration and smarter collective intelligence

    Nonsense.

    You can just pack more people in a given space and it's easier for supervisors to check if people are goofing around, sleeping on the job or just plain AWOL.

  • If you see everybody all the time you're more likely to immediately know when you are "missing out" and when you are not. Hence proactive social interaction isn't required as much.
    Herds grazing on an open field are more chill. The noise starts when species live in environments where they usually don't see each other. Hence the noise birds or howler monkeys make in the morning.

    This finding send super obvious to me.

  • disturbing others, of course you talk less.

    More disturbing is that Microsoft is now remodeling buildings to make them more open. Their software is going to get even worse. I have three friends that are probably going to move to their Dublin location, and the pictures I saw of their workspace was completely open tables with no dividers. I don't know if they're going to add dividers later, but it looks bad. But at least it has an LED waterfall and a wold-class bakery.

    • wold-class bakery.

      wold: noun:
      a piece of high, open, uncultivated land or moor.

      This is completely believable.

  • It's cheaper to throw up a cube farm than build real offices with doors.

    I'm glad I have an old fashioned office with a door that closes and locks. Most of the time it's open but it's nice to know the option is there when I need it. This suits my introverted nature just fine and lets me focus and concentrate when needed. In the past I've worked in cube farms; they sucked.

    Personal space is a real thing.
  • 15 days before and after a move? It's pretty easy to think up alternative reasons for their results. People needing to organise before and being tired or unhappy afterwards. A different time of business. A more proper test would be the same office 1 year apart with the move happening 6 months after the first 15 day test.
  • One point is that employer promotes openspace to get more interaction and collective intelligence, but all the time one spent not working on its own job is considered as a distraction during evaluation by managers.
  • Answer me one question: Why do managers sit in their own office instead of the open office floor when it was in any way beneficial to the one subjected to it?

  • for being forced into an open office environment would simply be a nice set of headphones with music to last me the entire work day.

    When folks realize they can't bug me verbally with incessant questions I've answered a dozen times already ( fucking take notes already, I'm not Google ) they eventually switch over to instant messaging. I can then simply turn it off, ( which is boring ), or let an automated script take over and answer every single incoming message with " I LIKE TURTLES ".

    Bottom line: You want

  • Of 8 hours work time. What was they job again? Maybe reducing all this chatter improved their productivity indeed.

  • Yeah.. I've seen this and cringed. Manager's think they are fostering better morale and higher productivity by making employees feel pressured to act enthusiastic and highly collaborative yet they are actually just feeling as if they have to pretend... And wish it would stop.

    It's also the raw, raw, raw, stand up meetings and such. I remember a meeting at Groove Shark one Friday afternoon (I didn't work there but I was there at the time). I saw the looks at the faces of those employees. They were respond

  • This must be an american thing, I've been an office worker (in IT) since '98 in London and have always worked in an open office as has everyone else I know. I would hate to work in a cubicle. We all talk to one another, if someone emails or IM's if its more than a one word reply we tend to get up an wander over and have a chat, you solve problems much quicker that way. and there's a pretty standard unwritten rule, headphones on means do not disturb. I don't see the issue
  • Managers don’t wish to collaborate because they don't work in an open environment.

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Working...