14 ms·

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 remo

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 areas, no audible media. I'd physically isolate people who have to make calls from their desks from other employees as much as possible. I'd also provide a break room for eating and install some retro phone booths in it for semiprivate personal calls on breaks. Also, a private room--not necessarily big--for breast feeding and pumping, taking medication, calling doctors' offices, and the like.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
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 walls and shelving are going to be more expensive than simple stick construction. You have to be re-using it constantly (reformatting office space every month or quarter) to make it pay. And then you're tanking everybody's productivity. I think open-office is some brain virus that keeps infecting managers everywhere. We need some kind of vaccine to combat it.
- dx034 10y ago
  Event though dry walls are cheap, you cannot just install them as you can do with cubicles. You'd have to change ventilation to work for all rooms, have proper lights for every cubicle, adhere to fire restrictions (probably alarms in every small room) and will likely need to use more space per employee. Cubicles or open plan is by far the cheapest way to set up an office since you only have one room that you need to set up. And that's the main reason people use it, it's just cheaper. If you look at flexible working spaces, desks in closed rooms often cost twice of what you pay for a desk in an open floor layout. I don't think there's a way to set up closed offices at even close the price of open offices. And I must admit as much as I don't like open offices, sitting in a tiny private office of the size you have to yourself in an open office would probably lead to anxiety.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    I had a couple office spaces built out. While we used cubicles for odd spaces (no light/no sprinkler) we tried to use built offices as much as possible. Because it was much, much cheaper. Hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. You can always double-up in a 10X12 office if you grow. And until then, its very nice. And cheap.
    - VLM 10y ago
      One former employer doubled up but only if the parties were opposite "early bird" vs "night owl". My officemate left work at 2 every afternoon to pick up the kids (even in the summer, whatever), then VPNed in from home, and I abused flex time to a level of almost working 2nd shift, so we each had nearly private offices for at least half the work day. It was a small office, couldn't have been more than 10 ft on a side, but remember we didn't need endless collaboration and meeting spaces because we had offices, so the net real estate used was less than cubes or open offices. Also it was cheaper because cubes or open offices falling apart is just being cheap, but a 150 year old building falling apart is financially valuable "character" Flex time with small group office is nearly ideal. I can spend hours a day with the door closed concentrating or meeting, or hours a day working as a team, it just seems ideal. Its like the difference between college dorm life with a roommate or two, vs military barracks grid array of 50 beds packed together.
      - bluedino 10y ago
        >> so we each had nearly private offices for at least half the work day The problem is someone noticing that and then sticking 4 people in your office.
- LordKano 10y ago
  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. 5-10 years after the initial deployment, the same models are no longer available and the new cubicle system isn't compatible with the old one so they're stuck with the now obsolete setup and are forced to either work with it or scrap it and start over.
- johnward 10y ago
  Is someone building 4x4' drywall "offices" somewhere?
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Build bigger; double up. Its still better than sharing with 50 people.
    - johnward 10y ago
      If you just build a bigger office and fill it with cubes or desks is that really much better? The biggest issue for me in my open office was that devs feel the need to play instruments to start standups for some reason. Usually bongos but in the past it was a giant gong. Really made my client phone calls interesting. My biggest WFH issue is dogs.
  - cmonfeat 10y ago
    Right, the cost savings in going with cubes over offices is not in materials. It's in the amount of people per sq ft you can jam into one office.
- levelist_com 10y ago
  I agree. I used to design voice and data networks for call centers and I would always be part of the planning phase. A lot of times I would have to go with call center owners when they would go inspect cubicles they found and potentially wanted to buy, so as to answer any questions about how they will be connected to power, network, etc.. I was always amazed at just how expensive cubicles were. I mean, for what they are. One of the call centers was owned by a construction company. They originally went with cubes but in their next call center they built cubes out of drywall, not quite offices obviously - but looked really good, at mere fraction of the cost. As a person that has worked in both open and closed floor plans, ill just say this, I miss working from home and cant wait to go back.
  - dqv 10y ago
    I love that idea and I'm glad someone realized it. The dry wall helps with the noise, which reduces stress in that environment.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Last time I wanted cubes in the Silicon Valley, used ones in excellent condition were available for cheap. Thank you, Internet Bubble!
- Retric 10y ago
  This is one of those cases where middle management is harming the company's long term interests for personal benefits. An annual review or resume benefits from saved X$/year as long as other costs are hidden. Many managers also just like walking past the cube farm to their office.
  - biztos 10y ago
    Are you sure this is a middle-management thing? I always got the feeling it came from some C-level exec giving the thumbs up to the Facilities exec's hateful (but ignorant!) Powerpoint about openness and collaboration and TCO and the fungibility of talent. "Well of course we value openness and collaboration just as much as Facebook does, and they're open-plan!"
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      And they may honestly not know any better, if the developers haven't come out of their shells to complain to him, and he's seen the photos of Facebook and knows they are maybe the most successful software company on Earth.
- jasode 10y ago
  >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-photos http://piximus.net/celebrities/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [2] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photos-8.jpg http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [3] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photos-16.jpg http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [4] http://www.kwiknews.my/news/facebook-takes-the-open-office-concept-to-a-new-extreme 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&t=1m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l--zev_37QA&feature=youtu.be...
  - taway_1212 10y ago
    >> 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. At Trello everyone is either remote or has a private office. I'm not sure how to prove that they're 2x (I'd say it's too vague to be provable), but they've managed to do well without taking large amounts of investment, which speaks well of their productivity.
    - jasode 10y ago
- Arizhel 10y ago
  You might be comparing to the wrong thing. These days, lots of open offices I see do not involve expensive (low) cubicle walls and desks, they're just simple tables. You can't get much cheaper than simple fold-up tables.
  - VLM 10y ago
    What about the cost of those special collaboration rooms that no one wants to talk about? At my previous cube farm employer, we had maybe 75 cubes, a giant 30x30 cafeteria/lunch/meeting room, oh 16 tables to eat lunch at least, a large conference room we literally called the large conference room of 20x20 and a small conf room we called the small conference room of 10x10 and there was an engineering team meeting operations room (really a lockable storage room / lab) that was 20x20. Because coats and boots "can't be stored in cubes" although we did anyway, there was a row of 50 feet by 3 feet of coat closet that was basically unused. That's a lot of square footage allocated to no individual therefore "saved" but offices would result in 2000 or so sq ft of shared space being eliminated. Now figure a 10x10 office shared by two people, thats 40 people's private offices just being wasted in the shared space required by cubicle life. So of the 75 people in that office 40 are in the new offices and 35 are distributed in the space formerly occupied by cubes. Certainly cube walls are slightly thinner than private office walls but the space savings won't be a factor of two. Definitely the employer was throwing away a considerable amount of expensive rent by using cubes and meeting rooms instead of private offices. If they junked the cubes and went private shared office they would have still had extra leftover space maybe for fancier larger offices or some people could have solitary private offices or maybe some "neutral ground" meeting rooms.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      This depends entirely on the employer and what they provide for in the office. Yes, if they provide special "collaboration rooms", that's going to add to the cost. But if they don't, then it's not a factor. If your employer just gives you one big open room with a bunch of tables, and that's it, that really doesn't cost much. And there's a bunch of employers these days that do exactly this. (As for coats and boots, you can put your coat on the back of your chair. Or drop it on the floor under your desk. Yeah, it sucks, but again there's plenty of employers that treat engineers this way these days.)
- imgabe 10y ago
  There is a tax benefit as well. Cubicles are considered "furniture" which depreciates faster than walls. Companies get to deduct a greater percentage of the cost of cubicles each year than they would for the cost of building a wall.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  The vaccine already exists. It was introduced to the US in 1786. Metaphorically speaking, many of our peers believe that this vaccine causes autism. It occasionally does cause illness more severe than those vaccinated against. It's collective bargaining through a cartel of skilled laborers. Unions. But like Brundlefly, those infected managers don't believe they have a disease. They're not getting worse, they're getting better (as they turn into monsters).
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > It's collective bargaining through a cartel of skilled laborers. Unions. We don't need unions - we need developers who strongly refuse to work in open offices. Since there is a shortage of developers, this should suffice. The large problem is that too many developers are willing to compromise.
    - blahedo 10y ago
      So you're saying that we need a category of workers to agree to refuse certain working conditions, but as a group so that individual compromisers don't undermine the action? ...but we don't need unions?
      - prodigal_erik 10y ago
        If we can rely on a shortage of desperate workers, we don't need to send mafia goons after them. The ethical, nonviolent way to reject bad pay or working conditions is to quit, accepting that the employer might find someone else. That's not what unions do.
        logfromblammo 10y ago
        The historical behavior of unions is commensurate with the historical behavior of employers and strike-breakers. Your adversary is not going to be ethical and nonviolent. Unions resolve the prisoner's dilemma in favor of the prisoners. The game is set up like this: In each trial, 3 players distribute $300. A and B vote on whether E gets $100 or $150. E can cast a tie-breaking vote. E decides how to distribute the remainder to A and B. | A gets | B gets | E gets | +--------+--------+--------+----- | $100 | $100 | $100 | A $100, B $100 | $150 | $ 0 | $150 | A $150, B $100 | $ 0 | $150 | $150 | A $100, B $150 | $ 75 | $ 75 | $150 | A $150, B $150 Obviously, if A and B cooperate, and voluntarily form a cartel with the power to enforce cooperation, they will experience a better outcome. Because in the long run, in repeated trials, the employer will be pocketing an extra $50 in a huge number of trials, while pitting the employees against each other.
- rotten 10y ago
  At one place I worked we went in on a weekend and rearranged all of the cubicles in our work area to better suit our work style and needs. (moved openings, created a central collaboration area, etc) Our boss was ok with it because he said he was responsible for the budget for that floor (including real estate) and if we felt it would make us more productive he was all for it. Unfortunately the corporate bureaucrats got wind of it several months later and came in from HQ (which was 1,000 miles away) and ordered us to put them back in the official standard configuration. They didn't care that our team worked better and was more productive the way we had it. They had official standard configurations and our cubes had to stay that way.
  - relaytheurgency 10y ago
    Was there some complaint from another team or something? That is just so illogical.
    - rotten 10y ago
      I have no idea if someone complained or not. There were regular visits by senior management and remote team members. Some of whom were jealous that we had cubes at all.
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        ...or they said that they were jealous to toe the party line.
  - ptero 10y ago
    Could it be that one of the team members made a complaint privately (or anonymously)? Otherwise it would be a stupid move (and would be easy to fight by taking the case to the next level of bureaucrats -- "bureaucrats have greater bureaucrats to go to .. " :) )
    - NickNameNick 10y ago
      Teammates of mine have very occasionally been able to fend off a stupid edict by a mid-level manager with a simple (and literal) "Fuck off, we're busy" and/or "we have real work to do". They're usually to embarrassed to respond or escalate. It's hardly a recommended procedure, or appropriate for every situation or combination of people. The more polite - "We're 100% contracted out right now" is somewhat less effective - they come back a month or so later.
boozywoozy 10y ago
These are great suggestions.
boozywoozy 10y ago
These are great suggestions.
athenot 10y ago
In my experience, open offices are ok when they are treated like libraries, where quietness is enforced. "Shared area for solitary work only" describes this very well. In some rare teams, there can be oubursts of goofiness at predictable afternoon times without it affecting productivity, but it takes the right team for that to happen, otherwise it's just a source of frustration.
- amag 10y ago
  But it's so unnatural. If I need to discuss something with a colleague and (s)he's sitting right there, I have to hit myself not to just blurt out loud what I wanted to say. A lot of times the mouth is quicker than the mind and I'll upset ppl. If OTOH we're sitting in separate offices I have to physically leave my office and enter my colleague's office to do that. A lot of the times I realize that I can figure out a solution by myself by the time I reach my door. The other times the discussion takes place in a private office and no one else is disturbed.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > A lot of times the mouth is quicker than the mind and I'll upset ppl. Let's introduce a policy: Talking even one word in such a public space (except for emergencies like fire hazzards etc.) costs 100$ each time. This way everybody should learn the lesson very soon.
    - amag 10y ago
      Yay! Let's make miserable workers even more miserable! We can also implement a policy that any software developer who writes a bug gets a $100 fine, that should teach them! I wonder why no one has thought of this before? Hey HN, I have solved the problem with bugs in software! If you implement my solution there will be no more bugs! Ever! Now give me my Nobel Prize!
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > We can also implement a policy that any software developer who writes a bug gets a $100 fine, that should teach them! I seriously doubt that this would help to reduce the bug rate. But let us for now assume that it really did reduce the error rate. First: What does one consider as a bug? The interface of typical functions is not well-specified. So let's create a function that creates a C# IList from passed parameters. Now consider that IList<T>.Count returns an int. What is supposed to happen if the list that is generated will have more than Int.MaxValue elements? Is the not-consideration of this a bug in the code or something that a caller of this function should never do? So one consequence would be that we additionally define a contract of pre and post invariants for each function so that it becomes clear whether something is a bug in the function or a bug of the user of the function. Of course we would have to do the same for all libraries that we use, implying that we can hardly use any available library (at least not until libraries also begin to implement such a strict policy). So a lot more code to write. I don't want to begin to talk about bugs in parts of the stack one has no control over (e.g. OS, compiler, browser) and code whose whole purpose is to circumvent these bugs one has no control over (how do you even detect in this kind of code parts what is to be considered as a "100$ bug"?). Nearly every programmer will say: "if I really have to deliver such a low error rate because otherwise I lose money, at least I have to be allowed to use methods that enable generation of code with an error rate that is so low that it is affordable for me to submit to a 100$ per bug policy". So at least being allowed to create a giant test suite for the code or even better being allowed to use mathematical methods of formal verification. So we get code with indeed an extraordinarily low bug rate - but on a pace that is so slow that few companies can afford it. TLDR: Things that one would have to do to even implement such a policy would increase the quality of the code a lot. I personally believe if these were implemented a 100$ per bug policy would not be necessary anymore because the bug rate becomes so small. On the other hand these actions would increase the development time by a lot - thus increase the cost by a lot. So except for, say, software from avionics, medical devices or military this is probably not affordable.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
muninn_ 10y ago
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 so people can stop by and visit and interrupt you for a chat and to share an idea. That should be available too. Like most things in life, it comes down to having options available to people, and letting them make choices versus trying to predict or control behavior for "performance".
- a1a 10y ago
  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"
  - shams93 10y ago
    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
  - jonas21 10y ago
    Over ear headphones are a pretty good workaround if you don't want to be distracted by the noise.
    - mixmastamyk 10y ago
      A visual barrier may be needed also if you've got people roaming around. At one place we had large black fold out cardboard pieces to alleviate that. Was kind of absurd, but better than nothing.
    - Crusse 10y ago
      Watch your volume levels, though, if you're listening to music. A few years' worth of listening to metal with noise cancelling headphones trying to drone out the noise has probably contributed to the slight tinnitus I'm having.
sergiosgc 10y ago
For my company, we went with a semi-open design, in the spirit of your quiet rooms: Desks with huge glasses in front, forming rows of floor to ceiling cubicles. Think small offices with no doors and with glass walls. It allows natural light to flow through the office, while reducing noise. Noise reduction ceiling and a policy of quiet zone in the development area complement the solution, for what I think is a great work space. We used Peopleware's (IBM's actually) ratio of 10 square feet surface area per employee and 100 square feet of dedicated space per employee. Not cramming people up is mandatory for success in high performing work spaces. The only thing I'd add now would be a couple of extra non-assigned 4-pax work rooms, for when you know your team will be noisy for a while, or for those periods when you know you'll be on the phone a lot.
- sien 10y ago
  That sounds great. I've wondered if people used high transparent walls or partitions for exactly this. Can you put up pictures?
BjoernKW 10y ago
> 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?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- majewsky 10y ago
  > Working remotely not only is more healthy in every possible way, it's also much more environmentally friendly. You sure about that first part? Everyone working at their home office sounds like the next step of neoliberalism-induced isolation, with its horrible effects on mental health: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/neoliberalism-creating-loneliness-wrenching-society-apart https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/neolib...
  - christophilus 10y ago
    I commented elsewhere, but I've been working remotely for 2 years and have never been happier in my entire career, even though it's nowhere near the most interesting job I've had. I have yet to miss the office. My dev team has a 1 hr meeting each week just to hang out and talk shop, things learned, discuss ideas, etc. And there are impromptu Slack/Skype session throughout the week, as needed. That has been more than enough for me. But if it wasn't, there are lots of mitigations if I need them: I can go to a coffee shop, meetups, hop on Skype calls with the team, etc. I'd much rather the impetus be on me to stay mentally healthy than be on some HR person who doesn't have a clue about what introverts really need in a work environment. Not to mention... no commute... I'm out walking my dog or cooking with my wife while most of the world is stuck sitting in traffic.
bjarneh 10y ago
> 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
VLM 10y ago
That sounds incredibly aggravating, if I have to work in a library, why do I have to work in your library an awful commute away, instead of my nice suburban public library around the block? "We're doing this to increase collaboration, although we don't allow talking" So watch my bee style interpretive dance of how to reverse a linked list. ... On today's PBS Nature documentary, when the queen bee wiggles her abdomen thusly, that means push the current array index onto the stack and then ... If you forbid working remotely, then force your employees to centrally work remotely, then you're doing it all wrong and capturing all the disadvantages while capturing none of the advantages. Also if you junked the special purpose offices and break rooms and phone rooms and lactation rooms and meeting rooms you'd have plenty of space for individual private offices. I've seen this happen multiple times, the team meeting room gradually converts into the team office complete with closed door to get away from noise.
gdulli 10y ago
> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. The problem for me is, I need to be generally around people during the day. I want to be able to work productively but have people to talk to face to face when I leave my office, go to meetings, lunch, etc. I don't dislike people and couldn't tolerate being too isolated. I just want a few walls around me.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  that's pretty much what everyone wants. the problem is it's expensive.
  - amag 10y ago
    The problem is that management thinks it's more expensive. But if we're 15% less productive (as the article suggests and I think is a low estimate) it's actually more expensive with open space.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > that's pretty much what everyone wants. Not me at least. I'd strongly prefer to work completely around and not be among people. I accept that there are good economic reasons why companies want to have their employees in the same office suite, but if asked for my preference, I'd strongly object.
vdnkh 10y ago
> no eating at work areas As a person who hates the sound of people chewing loudly, when you eat at your desk, please be considerate of people like me. Chewing with your mouth open bothers more people than you think. Should fall under standard don't-bother-people decorum like showering and brushing your teeth but it doesn't.
- drivers99 10y ago
  For me it's gum (especially completely open mouth chewing... like, seriously?!) when working in close quarters like conference rooms. I don't say anything, because I don't want to seem rude or controlling. Chewing coming from nearby cubicles is also very noticeable to me. When I hear it, I have to escape with headphones. I try to keep in mind that for the person making the noise, it is a positive thing in their perspective (as it is for me when I eat), and not think "should" statements.
Joeri 10y ago
We have this shared area for solitary work at our office. All developers sit in a "quiet zone". It doesn't work. When you have 10 people in a room, you will get interruptions, even with the best of intentions.
user5994461 10y ago
> 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. There is no proof that open office are cheaper. There never was any decent study done on that topic.
innocentoldguy 10y ago
The biggest issues I've seen with working remotely are perception and emotional validation. Regarding perception, managers who have poor management skills, and employees who are lazy, create an illusion of productivity just by being visible. However, when you take away that visibility, the illusion seems to fall apart. I believe this occurs because it is easy to conflate presence with productivity, so some managers don't look any deeper than that. When you take away that physical presence though, they start looking at the next easiest metric (e.g. Git commits, lines of code, or some other equally pointless measurement), and find these to be less reassuring. If you have a good manager, who knows how to manage remote teams, working remotely isn't an issue. When you have an unskilled, butt-in-chair manager, it quickly becomes one. Regarding emotional validation, I've worked with several managers that seemed to be emotionally validated simply by having their minions around them all day. In these cases, the remote vs. in-office arguments are always decided based on emotion, rather than any physical evidence.
aidenn0 10y ago
A cube and an office take up nearly an identical amount of square-footage, so real-estate prices ought not have an effect. In addition, the material cost of drywall is much less than that of cubicles, and the total installed cost will usually be less than all but the crappiest low-height cubes.
Apocryphon 10y ago
> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Remote work has been brought up time and time again as a possible way to allow employees better work-life balances and the freedom, leading them to have higher morale and motivation to work. And yet, most SV companies do not institute it. For a tech scene that's all about disruption and contrarianism for the sake of it, they sure don't like disrupting geographical proximity. (Locating their offices in San Francisco or the Valley to be closer to VCs is another dogma.)
jimbokun 10y ago
"no eating at work areas" Coworker eating with mouth open at desk next to mine, a special kind of torture.
- amag 10y ago
  Yeah! And then burping loudly in between the loud chews. Gotta love your open office!
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Coworker eating with mouth open at desk next to mine Isn't it strictly forbidden to eat near computers where you work? At the university's computer labs it was and at the place where I had internshipss it was also.
  - devopsproject 10y ago
    no. if you experience these types of rules, you are in the wrong building and need to leave
RachelF 10y ago
It's not just high real-estate prices, it is also short term savings by squashing everyone together - the execs save money. Strangely enough, top management in most places I work at always have their own offices. The cost is also that of reduced productivity and reduced code quality. I know that if I can't concentrate properly, I write buggier code, designed for the short term.
vacri 10y ago
> no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack) Nope. I've had so many "just a minute" talks that turn into 5- or 10- minute chats, and there's no way we're going to break the flow of the chat at the 1-min mark to go and hunt for a free conference room, or take the lift out of the building for a walk. And the reason we're chatting in the first place is that Slack isn't good enough for the needed information transfer, otherwise it would be there.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

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 walls and shelving are going to be more expensive than simple stick construction. You have to be re-using it constantly (reformatting office space every month or quarter) to make it pay. And then you're tanking everybody's productivity. I think open-office is some brain virus that keeps infecting managers everywhere. We need some kind of vaccine to combat it.

dx034 10y ago
Event though dry walls are cheap, you cannot just install them as you can do with cubicles. You'd have to change ventilation to work for all rooms, have proper lights for every cubicle, adhere to fire restrictions (probably alarms in every small room) and will likely need to use more space per employee. Cubicles or open plan is by far the cheapest way to set up an office since you only have one room that you need to set up. And that's the main reason people use it, it's just cheaper. If you look at flexible working spaces, desks in closed rooms often cost twice of what you pay for a desk in an open floor layout. I don't think there's a way to set up closed offices at even close the price of open offices. And I must admit as much as I don't like open offices, sitting in a tiny private office of the size you have to yourself in an open office would probably lead to anxiety.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I had a couple office spaces built out. While we used cubicles for odd spaces (no light/no sprinkler) we tried to use built offices as much as possible. Because it was much, much cheaper. Hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. You can always double-up in a 10X12 office if you grow. And until then, its very nice. And cheap.
  - VLM 10y ago
    One former employer doubled up but only if the parties were opposite "early bird" vs "night owl". My officemate left work at 2 every afternoon to pick up the kids (even in the summer, whatever), then VPNed in from home, and I abused flex time to a level of almost working 2nd shift, so we each had nearly private offices for at least half the work day. It was a small office, couldn't have been more than 10 ft on a side, but remember we didn't need endless collaboration and meeting spaces because we had offices, so the net real estate used was less than cubes or open offices. Also it was cheaper because cubes or open offices falling apart is just being cheap, but a 150 year old building falling apart is financially valuable "character" Flex time with small group office is nearly ideal. I can spend hours a day with the door closed concentrating or meeting, or hours a day working as a team, it just seems ideal. Its like the difference between college dorm life with a roommate or two, vs military barracks grid array of 50 beds packed together.
    - bluedino 10y ago
      >> so we each had nearly private offices for at least half the work day The problem is someone noticing that and then sticking 4 people in your office.
LordKano 10y ago
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. 5-10 years after the initial deployment, the same models are no longer available and the new cubicle system isn't compatible with the old one so they're stuck with the now obsolete setup and are forced to either work with it or scrap it and start over.
johnward 10y ago
Is someone building 4x4' drywall "offices" somewhere?
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Build bigger; double up. Its still better than sharing with 50 people.
  - johnward 10y ago
    If you just build a bigger office and fill it with cubes or desks is that really much better? The biggest issue for me in my open office was that devs feel the need to play instruments to start standups for some reason. Usually bongos but in the past it was a giant gong. Really made my client phone calls interesting. My biggest WFH issue is dogs.
- cmonfeat 10y ago
  Right, the cost savings in going with cubes over offices is not in materials. It's in the amount of people per sq ft you can jam into one office.
levelist_com 10y ago
I agree. I used to design voice and data networks for call centers and I would always be part of the planning phase. A lot of times I would have to go with call center owners when they would go inspect cubicles they found and potentially wanted to buy, so as to answer any questions about how they will be connected to power, network, etc.. I was always amazed at just how expensive cubicles were. I mean, for what they are. One of the call centers was owned by a construction company. They originally went with cubes but in their next call center they built cubes out of drywall, not quite offices obviously - but looked really good, at mere fraction of the cost. As a person that has worked in both open and closed floor plans, ill just say this, I miss working from home and cant wait to go back.
- dqv 10y ago
  I love that idea and I'm glad someone realized it. The dry wall helps with the noise, which reduces stress in that environment.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Last time I wanted cubes in the Silicon Valley, used ones in excellent condition were available for cheap. Thank you, Internet Bubble!
Retric 10y ago
This is one of those cases where middle management is harming the company's long term interests for personal benefits. An annual review or resume benefits from saved X$/year as long as other costs are hidden. Many managers also just like walking past the cube farm to their office.
- biztos 10y ago
  Are you sure this is a middle-management thing? I always got the feeling it came from some C-level exec giving the thumbs up to the Facilities exec's hateful (but ignorant!) Powerpoint about openness and collaboration and TCO and the fungibility of talent. "Well of course we value openness and collaboration just as much as Facebook does, and they're open-plan!"
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    And they may honestly not know any better, if the developers haven't come out of their shells to complain to him, and he's seen the photos of Facebook and knows they are maybe the most successful software company on Earth.
jasode 10y ago
>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-photos http://piximus.net/celebrities/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [2] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photos-8.jpg http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [3] http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photos-16.jpg http://piximus.net/media/35747/mark-zuckerberg-harvard-photo... [4] http://www.kwiknews.my/news/facebook-takes-the-open-office-concept-to-a-new-extreme 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&t=1m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l--zev_37QA&feature=youtu.be...
- taway_1212 10y ago
  >> 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. At Trello everyone is either remote or has a private office. I'm not sure how to prove that they're 2x (I'd say it's too vague to be provable), but they've managed to do well without taking large amounts of investment, which speaks well of their productivity.
  - jasode 10y ago
Arizhel 10y ago
You might be comparing to the wrong thing. These days, lots of open offices I see do not involve expensive (low) cubicle walls and desks, they're just simple tables. You can't get much cheaper than simple fold-up tables.
- VLM 10y ago
  What about the cost of those special collaboration rooms that no one wants to talk about? At my previous cube farm employer, we had maybe 75 cubes, a giant 30x30 cafeteria/lunch/meeting room, oh 16 tables to eat lunch at least, a large conference room we literally called the large conference room of 20x20 and a small conf room we called the small conference room of 10x10 and there was an engineering team meeting operations room (really a lockable storage room / lab) that was 20x20. Because coats and boots "can't be stored in cubes" although we did anyway, there was a row of 50 feet by 3 feet of coat closet that was basically unused. That's a lot of square footage allocated to no individual therefore "saved" but offices would result in 2000 or so sq ft of shared space being eliminated. Now figure a 10x10 office shared by two people, thats 40 people's private offices just being wasted in the shared space required by cubicle life. So of the 75 people in that office 40 are in the new offices and 35 are distributed in the space formerly occupied by cubes. Certainly cube walls are slightly thinner than private office walls but the space savings won't be a factor of two. Definitely the employer was throwing away a considerable amount of expensive rent by using cubes and meeting rooms instead of private offices. If they junked the cubes and went private shared office they would have still had extra leftover space maybe for fancier larger offices or some people could have solitary private offices or maybe some "neutral ground" meeting rooms.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    This depends entirely on the employer and what they provide for in the office. Yes, if they provide special "collaboration rooms", that's going to add to the cost. But if they don't, then it's not a factor. If your employer just gives you one big open room with a bunch of tables, and that's it, that really doesn't cost much. And there's a bunch of employers these days that do exactly this. (As for coats and boots, you can put your coat on the back of your chair. Or drop it on the floor under your desk. Yeah, it sucks, but again there's plenty of employers that treat engineers this way these days.)
imgabe 10y ago
There is a tax benefit as well. Cubicles are considered "furniture" which depreciates faster than walls. Companies get to deduct a greater percentage of the cost of cubicles each year than they would for the cost of building a wall.
logfromblammo 10y ago
The vaccine already exists. It was introduced to the US in 1786. Metaphorically speaking, many of our peers believe that this vaccine causes autism. It occasionally does cause illness more severe than those vaccinated against. It's collective bargaining through a cartel of skilled laborers. Unions. But like Brundlefly, those infected managers don't believe they have a disease. They're not getting worse, they're getting better (as they turn into monsters).
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > It's collective bargaining through a cartel of skilled laborers. Unions. We don't need unions - we need developers who strongly refuse to work in open offices. Since there is a shortage of developers, this should suffice. The large problem is that too many developers are willing to compromise.
  - blahedo 10y ago
    So you're saying that we need a category of workers to agree to refuse certain working conditions, but as a group so that individual compromisers don't undermine the action? ...but we don't need unions?
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      If we can rely on a shortage of desperate workers, we don't need to send mafia goons after them. The ethical, nonviolent way to reject bad pay or working conditions is to quit, accepting that the employer might find someone else. That's not what unions do.
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        The historical behavior of unions is commensurate with the historical behavior of employers and strike-breakers. Your adversary is not going to be ethical and nonviolent. Unions resolve the prisoner's dilemma in favor of the prisoners. The game is set up like this: In each trial, 3 players distribute $300. A and B vote on whether E gets $100 or $150. E can cast a tie-breaking vote. E decides how to distribute the remainder to A and B. | A gets | B gets | E gets | +--------+--------+--------+----- | $100 | $100 | $100 | A $100, B $100 | $150 | $ 0 | $150 | A $150, B $100 | $ 0 | $150 | $150 | A $100, B $150 | $ 75 | $ 75 | $150 | A $150, B $150 Obviously, if A and B cooperate, and voluntarily form a cartel with the power to enforce cooperation, they will experience a better outcome. Because in the long run, in repeated trials, the employer will be pocketing an extra $50 in a huge number of trials, while pitting the employees against each other.
rotten 10y ago
At one place I worked we went in on a weekend and rearranged all of the cubicles in our work area to better suit our work style and needs. (moved openings, created a central collaboration area, etc) Our boss was ok with it because he said he was responsible for the budget for that floor (including real estate) and if we felt it would make us more productive he was all for it. Unfortunately the corporate bureaucrats got wind of it several months later and came in from HQ (which was 1,000 miles away) and ordered us to put them back in the official standard configuration. They didn't care that our team worked better and was more productive the way we had it. They had official standard configurations and our cubes had to stay that way.
- relaytheurgency 10y ago
  Was there some complaint from another team or something? That is just so illogical.
  - rotten 10y ago
    I have no idea if someone complained or not. There were regular visits by senior management and remote team members. Some of whom were jealous that we had cubes at all.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      ...or they said that they were jealous to toe the party line.
- ptero 10y ago
  Could it be that one of the team members made a complaint privately (or anonymously)? Otherwise it would be a stupid move (and would be easy to fight by taking the case to the next level of bureaucrats -- "bureaucrats have greater bureaucrats to go to .. " :) )
  - NickNameNick 10y ago
    Teammates of mine have very occasionally been able to fend off a stupid edict by a mid-level manager with a simple (and literal) "Fuck off, we're busy" and/or "we have real work to do". They're usually to embarrassed to respond or escalate. It's hardly a recommended procedure, or appropriate for every situation or combination of people. The more polite - "We're 100% contracted out right now" is somewhat less effective - they come back a month or so later.

boozywoozy 10y ago

These are great suggestions.

boozywoozy 10y ago

These are great suggestions.

athenot 10y ago

In my experience, open offices are ok when they are treated like libraries, where quietness is enforced. "Shared area for solitary work only" describes this very well. In some rare teams, there can be oubursts of goofiness at predictable afternoon times without it affecting productivity, but it takes the right team for that to happen, otherwise it's just a source of frustration.

amag 10y ago
But it's so unnatural. If I need to discuss something with a colleague and (s)he's sitting right there, I have to hit myself not to just blurt out loud what I wanted to say. A lot of times the mouth is quicker than the mind and I'll upset ppl. If OTOH we're sitting in separate offices I have to physically leave my office and enter my colleague's office to do that. A lot of the times I realize that I can figure out a solution by myself by the time I reach my door. The other times the discussion takes place in a private office and no one else is disturbed.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > A lot of times the mouth is quicker than the mind and I'll upset ppl. Let's introduce a policy: Talking even one word in such a public space (except for emergencies like fire hazzards etc.) costs 100$ each time. This way everybody should learn the lesson very soon.
  - amag 10y ago
    Yay! Let's make miserable workers even more miserable! We can also implement a policy that any software developer who writes a bug gets a $100 fine, that should teach them! I wonder why no one has thought of this before? Hey HN, I have solved the problem with bugs in software! If you implement my solution there will be no more bugs! Ever! Now give me my Nobel Prize!
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > We can also implement a policy that any software developer who writes a bug gets a $100 fine, that should teach them! I seriously doubt that this would help to reduce the bug rate. But let us for now assume that it really did reduce the error rate. First: What does one consider as a bug? The interface of typical functions is not well-specified. So let's create a function that creates a C# IList from passed parameters. Now consider that IList<T>.Count returns an int. What is supposed to happen if the list that is generated will have more than Int.MaxValue elements? Is the not-consideration of this a bug in the code or something that a caller of this function should never do? So one consequence would be that we additionally define a contract of pre and post invariants for each function so that it becomes clear whether something is a bug in the function or a bug of the user of the function. Of course we would have to do the same for all libraries that we use, implying that we can hardly use any available library (at least not until libraries also begin to implement such a strict policy). So a lot more code to write. I don't want to begin to talk about bugs in parts of the stack one has no control over (e.g. OS, compiler, browser) and code whose whole purpose is to circumvent these bugs one has no control over (how do you even detect in this kind of code parts what is to be considered as a "100$ bug"?). Nearly every programmer will say: "if I really have to deliver such a low error rate because otherwise I lose money, at least I have to be allowed to use methods that enable generation of code with an error rate that is so low that it is affordable for me to submit to a 100$ per bug policy". So at least being allowed to create a giant test suite for the code or even better being allowed to use mathematical methods of formal verification. So we get code with indeed an extraordinarily low bug rate - but on a pace that is so slow that few companies can afford it. TLDR: Things that one would have to do to even implement such a policy would increase the quality of the code a lot. I personally believe if these were implemented a 100$ per bug policy would not be necessary anymore because the bug rate becomes so small. On the other hand these actions would increase the development time by a lot - thus increase the cost by a lot. So except for, say, software from avionics, medical devices or military this is probably not affordable.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

muninn_ 10y ago

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 so people can stop by and visit and interrupt you for a chat and to share an idea. That should be available too. Like most things in life, it comes down to having options available to people, and letting them make choices versus trying to predict or control behavior for "performance".

a1a 10y ago
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"
- shams93 10y ago
  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
- jonas21 10y ago
  Over ear headphones are a pretty good workaround if you don't want to be distracted by the noise.
  - mixmastamyk 10y ago
    A visual barrier may be needed also if you've got people roaming around. At one place we had large black fold out cardboard pieces to alleviate that. Was kind of absurd, but better than nothing.
  - Crusse 10y ago
    Watch your volume levels, though, if you're listening to music. A few years' worth of listening to metal with noise cancelling headphones trying to drone out the noise has probably contributed to the slight tinnitus I'm having.

sergiosgc 10y ago

For my company, we went with a semi-open design, in the spirit of your quiet rooms: Desks with huge glasses in front, forming rows of floor to ceiling cubicles. Think small offices with no doors and with glass walls. It allows natural light to flow through the office, while reducing noise. Noise reduction ceiling and a policy of quiet zone in the development area complement the solution, for what I think is a great work space. We used Peopleware's (IBM's actually) ratio of 10 square feet surface area per employee and 100 square feet of dedicated space per employee. Not cramming people up is mandatory for success in high performing work spaces. The only thing I'd add now would be a couple of extra non-assigned 4-pax work rooms, for when you know your team will be noisy for a while, or for those periods when you know you'll be on the phone a lot.

sien 10y ago
That sounds great. I've wondered if people used high transparent walls or partitions for exactly this. Can you put up pictures?

BjoernKW 10y ago

> 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?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
majewsky 10y ago
> Working remotely not only is more healthy in every possible way, it's also much more environmentally friendly. You sure about that first part? Everyone working at their home office sounds like the next step of neoliberalism-induced isolation, with its horrible effects on mental health: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/neoliberalism-creating-loneliness-wrenching-society-apart https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/neolib...
- christophilus 10y ago
  I commented elsewhere, but I've been working remotely for 2 years and have never been happier in my entire career, even though it's nowhere near the most interesting job I've had. I have yet to miss the office. My dev team has a 1 hr meeting each week just to hang out and talk shop, things learned, discuss ideas, etc. And there are impromptu Slack/Skype session throughout the week, as needed. That has been more than enough for me. But if it wasn't, there are lots of mitigations if I need them: I can go to a coffee shop, meetups, hop on Skype calls with the team, etc. I'd much rather the impetus be on me to stay mentally healthy than be on some HR person who doesn't have a clue about what introverts really need in a work environment. Not to mention... no commute... I'm out walking my dog or cooking with my wife while most of the world is stuck sitting in traffic.

bjarneh 10y ago

> 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

VLM 10y ago

That sounds incredibly aggravating, if I have to work in a library, why do I have to work in your library an awful commute away, instead of my nice suburban public library around the block? "We're doing this to increase collaboration, although we don't allow talking" So watch my bee style interpretive dance of how to reverse a linked list. ... On today's PBS Nature documentary, when the queen bee wiggles her abdomen thusly, that means push the current array index onto the stack and then ... If you forbid working remotely, then force your employees to centrally work remotely, then you're doing it all wrong and capturing all the disadvantages while capturing none of the advantages. Also if you junked the special purpose offices and break rooms and phone rooms and lactation rooms and meeting rooms you'd have plenty of space for individual private offices. I've seen this happen multiple times, the team meeting room gradually converts into the team office complete with closed door to get away from noise.

gdulli 10y ago

> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. The problem for me is, I need to be generally around people during the day. I want to be able to work productively but have people to talk to face to face when I leave my office, go to meetings, lunch, etc. I don't dislike people and couldn't tolerate being too isolated. I just want a few walls around me.

beachstartup 10y ago
that's pretty much what everyone wants. the problem is it's expensive.
- amag 10y ago
  The problem is that management thinks it's more expensive. But if we're 15% less productive (as the article suggests and I think is a low estimate) it's actually more expensive with open space.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > that's pretty much what everyone wants. Not me at least. I'd strongly prefer to work completely around and not be among people. I accept that there are good economic reasons why companies want to have their employees in the same office suite, but if asked for my preference, I'd strongly object.

vdnkh 10y ago

> no eating at work areas As a person who hates the sound of people chewing loudly, when you eat at your desk, please be considerate of people like me. Chewing with your mouth open bothers more people than you think. Should fall under standard don't-bother-people decorum like showering and brushing your teeth but it doesn't.

drivers99 10y ago
For me it's gum (especially completely open mouth chewing... like, seriously?!) when working in close quarters like conference rooms. I don't say anything, because I don't want to seem rude or controlling. Chewing coming from nearby cubicles is also very noticeable to me. When I hear it, I have to escape with headphones. I try to keep in mind that for the person making the noise, it is a positive thing in their perspective (as it is for me when I eat), and not think "should" statements.

Joeri 10y ago

We have this shared area for solitary work at our office. All developers sit in a "quiet zone". It doesn't work. When you have 10 people in a room, you will get interruptions, even with the best of intentions.

user5994461 10y ago

> 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. There is no proof that open office are cheaper. There never was any decent study done on that topic.

innocentoldguy 10y ago

The biggest issues I've seen with working remotely are perception and emotional validation. Regarding perception, managers who have poor management skills, and employees who are lazy, create an illusion of productivity just by being visible. However, when you take away that visibility, the illusion seems to fall apart. I believe this occurs because it is easy to conflate presence with productivity, so some managers don't look any deeper than that. When you take away that physical presence though, they start looking at the next easiest metric (e.g. Git commits, lines of code, or some other equally pointless measurement), and find these to be less reassuring. If you have a good manager, who knows how to manage remote teams, working remotely isn't an issue. When you have an unskilled, butt-in-chair manager, it quickly becomes one. Regarding emotional validation, I've worked with several managers that seemed to be emotionally validated simply by having their minions around them all day. In these cases, the remote vs. in-office arguments are always decided based on emotion, rather than any physical evidence.

aidenn0 10y ago

A cube and an office take up nearly an identical amount of square-footage, so real-estate prices ought not have an effect. In addition, the material cost of drywall is much less than that of cubicles, and the total installed cost will usually be less than all but the crappiest low-height cubes.

Apocryphon 10y ago

> Working remotely is one solution, but many companies don't think it would work for them. Remote work has been brought up time and time again as a possible way to allow employees better work-life balances and the freedom, leading them to have higher morale and motivation to work. And yet, most SV companies do not institute it. For a tech scene that's all about disruption and contrarianism for the sake of it, they sure don't like disrupting geographical proximity. (Locating their offices in San Francisco or the Valley to be closer to VCs is another dogma.)

jimbokun 10y ago

"no eating at work areas" Coworker eating with mouth open at desk next to mine, a special kind of torture.

amag 10y ago
Yeah! And then burping loudly in between the loud chews. Gotta love your open office!
wolfgke 10y ago
> Coworker eating with mouth open at desk next to mine Isn't it strictly forbidden to eat near computers where you work? At the university's computer labs it was and at the place where I had internshipss it was also.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  no. if you experience these types of rules, you are in the wrong building and need to leave

RachelF 10y ago

It's not just high real-estate prices, it is also short term savings by squashing everyone together - the execs save money. Strangely enough, top management in most places I work at always have their own offices. The cost is also that of reduced productivity and reduced code quality. I know that if I can't concentrate properly, I write buggier code, designed for the short term.

vacri 10y ago

> no work discussions longer than a minute at work areas (use a conference room, take a walk or Slack) Nope. I've had so many "just a minute" talks that turn into 5- or 10- minute chats, and there's no way we're going to break the flow of the chat at the 1-min mark to go and hunt for a free conference room, or take the lift out of the building for a walk. And the reason we're chatting in the first place is that Slack isn't good enough for the needed information transfer, otherwise it would be there.