6 ms·

Unpopular opinion, but I actually think open offices make me more productive. When I'm in a private office, the temptation to watch YouTube, or otherwise read/d

by umvi 7y ago

Unpopular opinion, but I actually think open offices make me more productive. When I'm in a private office, the temptation to watch YouTube, or otherwise read/do unrelated work stuff is much higher. However, I do like having a private office to eat lunch.

smt88 7y ago
Unpopular, yes, but you're not wrong because you're talking about only yourself. I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people. I don't think people stop there, however. Many people, including the author of the article, go the extra step to say that open offices are bad. I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices, so when you say stuff like "open offices are a dead end", that's a direct attack on the work habits of a significant part of the population. The combativeness, I think, comes from the fact that almost everyone has been forced to work in a situation that doesn't work for them. But the solution isn't to try to force everyone to use your favored office situation: that's just doing the same thing to others that was done to you. Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them.
  - nemetroid 7y ago
    > I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices Can you cite a study which asserts this fact?
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      You've got numerous people on this page saying they work better in open offices. Do you have some reason for disbelieving them?
      - nemetroid 7y ago
        You said "significant portion of the population".
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Yes, and?
        nemetroid 7y ago
        The fact that there are people on this thread saying that they work better in open offices does not imply that such people make up a significant portion of the population.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        I suppose "significant" is subjective. Is it good enough for you if I adjust my statement to simply: "some people work better in open offices"? Is there some threshhold of significance where it becomes acceptable to force everyone into an office space that doesn't work for everyone? Or can we just agree that we don't need to force everyone to work the same way, and people should be allowed to work in the office space that works for them?
      - no_wave 7y ago
        Yes? It's easy to feel productive in an open office. There's activity and buzz and you can accomplish nothing for four hours and still feel like you did something. You can't do that in a more private setting, what you're actually getting done is staring you in the face.
  - smt88 7y ago
    > Many people, including the author of the article, go the extra step to say that open offices are bad. So would I. Suggesting they're bad for most people means that they're likely "bad" (i.e. not the best available workspace). > I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it. That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices? Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4]. > Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them. That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space. The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions." 1. https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-open-plan-office-is-making-your-team-less-collaborative.html https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-o... 2. https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/harvard-research-open-offices-do-this-to-productivity https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/harvard-research-op... 3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/success/tca-the-open-office-plan-is-backfiring-20180220-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/success/tca-the-open... 4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2018/11/07/new-study-finds-millennials-care-most-about-workplace-design-plus-tips-for-making-them-happier/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2018/11/07/new-stu...
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > So would I. Suggesting they're bad for most people means that they're likely "bad" (i.e. not the best available workspace). Why are we trying to force everone into a one-size-fits-all workspace to begin with? Why not let people work in the spaces that work best for them? > If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it. > That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices? > Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4]. What you have is an impressive collection of links that study how the majority of people work best. None of that disproves what I'm saying, which is that there's a significant minority who works quite well in open offices. > That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space. Sounds great to me. I've no idea why you're bringing this up as if I would disagree with it--I think remote work with the option of coming in to an office is a great idea. It's an effective implementation of what I said: "[W]e should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them." > The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions." Okay, so why are you attacking the open office when the oppressive decision making is clearly the real problem? The company I'm currently working for has an open office, and most of the company works from home most of the week. I, the extrovert, have spent exactly one day in the office ever (not by choice--I live too far away or I'd be there every day). So there's nothing inherent to open offices that suddenly turns management into authoritarians.
0xffff2 7y ago
Doing all of those things is not necessarily unproductive. You would be better off spending some time why you want do do those things and whether it’s a real problem.
tombert 7y ago
Even if you're an outlier, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the overall output of an open office is substantially less for virtually everybody. People get sick more frequently, and lots of time is lost in non-work-related conversations. This has been measured, and I don't know that it's really up for debate.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I think it is very much up for debate. Let's hypothesize that 60% of people work better in private offices, and 40% work better in open offices. You force everyone to work in a private office, and they perform slightly better than if you force everyone to work in an open office--that perfectly explains the results of the studies. But obviously if this hypothesis is true, then the best solution would be to let the 40% who work better in open offices work in open offices, and let the 60% who work better in private offices work in private offices. Sure, if you're going to force everyone into one style of office, the evidence probably says we should force them into private offices. But why are we forcing everyone into one style of office?
  - pojzon 7y ago
    How about we let people who want to work from home to work from home and people who need others arpund to work in the office ? Win - Win situation. Unfortunately it seems too hard to understand for the majority of managers.. (most likely because they represent the later)
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > How about we let people who want to work from home to work from home and people who need others arpund to work in the office ? Sounds good to me!
  - unionpivo 7y ago
    If you google around, you will find lots of studies on that subject have already been done, and most of them find, that open offices are for the most part are less productive. The only way to find out if you are right is to test it. Until that is done, it makes most sense to go with, majority of studies. That said, you suggestion (about having both types) might work in ideal world. In real world you wouldn't really have a choice most of the time, because if your team mostly works in open office, you will miss* out on a lot if working in closed office. And if majority of people work in closed offices, then you loose all the benefits that open offices bring anyway. So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best. * And likely be considered antisocial.
NewsAware 7y ago
Same for me. See the point of the sibling comments though. So maybe I prefer an open office because I don't procrastinate (which would leave me with a feeling of unproductive guilt in the evening) to a private office, even though the latter might be actually more productive.
HelloNurse 7y ago
The temptation to slack off depends on the quality and quantity of work to do, not on your office. You are probably more productive at slacking off (for example, reading fast and with full concentration), in addition to more productive at actually working when you get around to it.
cglotr 7y ago
Ideally companies shouldn't care what you are doing minute by minute as long as you produce quality result

by umvi 7y ago

smt88 7y ago

Unpopular, yes, but you're not wrong because you're talking about only yourself. I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people. I don't think people stop there, however. Many people, including the author of the article, go the extra step to say that open offices are bad. I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices, so when you say stuff like "open offices are a dead end", that's a direct attack on the work habits of a significant part of the population. The combativeness, I think, comes from the fact that almost everyone has been forced to work in a situation that doesn't work for them. But the solution isn't to try to force everyone to use your favored office situation: that's just doing the same thing to others that was done to you. Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them.
- nemetroid 7y ago
  > I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices Can you cite a study which asserts this fact?
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    You've got numerous people on this page saying they work better in open offices. Do you have some reason for disbelieving them?
    - nemetroid 7y ago
      You said "significant portion of the population".
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        Yes, and?
        nemetroid 7y ago
        The fact that there are people on this thread saying that they work better in open offices does not imply that such people make up a significant portion of the population.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        I suppose "significant" is subjective. Is it good enough for you if I adjust my statement to simply: "some people work better in open offices"? Is there some threshhold of significance where it becomes acceptable to force everyone into an office space that doesn't work for everyone? Or can we just agree that we don't need to force everyone to work the same way, and people should be allowed to work in the office space that works for them?
    - no_wave 7y ago
      Yes? It's easy to feel productive in an open office. There's activity and buzz and you can accomplish nothing for four hours and still feel like you did something. You can't do that in a more private setting, what you're actually getting done is staring you in the face.
- smt88 7y ago
  > Many people, including the author of the article, go the extra step to say that open offices are bad. So would I. Suggesting they're bad for most people means that they're likely "bad" (i.e. not the best available workspace). > I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it. That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices? Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4]. > Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them. That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space. The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions." 1. https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-open-plan-office-is-making-your-team-less-collaborative.html https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-o... 2. https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/harvard-research-open-offices-do-this-to-productivity https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/harvard-research-op... 3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/success/tca-the-open-office-plan-is-backfiring-20180220-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/success/tca-the-open... 4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2018/11/07/new-study-finds-millennials-care-most-about-workplace-design-plus-tips-for-making-them-happier/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2018/11/07/new-stu...
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > So would I. Suggesting they're bad for most people means that they're likely "bad" (i.e. not the best available workspace). Why are we trying to force everone into a one-size-fits-all workspace to begin with? Why not let people work in the spaces that work best for them? > If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it. > That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices? > Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4]. What you have is an impressive collection of links that study how the majority of people work best. None of that disproves what I'm saying, which is that there's a significant minority who works quite well in open offices. > That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space. Sounds great to me. I've no idea why you're bringing this up as if I would disagree with it--I think remote work with the option of coming in to an office is a great idea. It's an effective implementation of what I said: "[W]e should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them." > The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions." Okay, so why are you attacking the open office when the oppressive decision making is clearly the real problem? The company I'm currently working for has an open office, and most of the company works from home most of the week. I, the extrovert, have spent exactly one day in the office ever (not by choice--I live too far away or I'd be there every day). So there's nothing inherent to open offices that suddenly turns management into authoritarians.

0xffff2 7y ago

Doing all of those things is not necessarily unproductive. You would be better off spending some time why you want do do those things and whether it’s a real problem.

tombert 7y ago

Even if you're an outlier, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the overall output of an open office is substantially less for virtually everybody. People get sick more frequently, and lots of time is lost in non-work-related conversations. This has been measured, and I don't know that it's really up for debate.

kerkeslager 7y ago
I think it is very much up for debate. Let's hypothesize that 60% of people work better in private offices, and 40% work better in open offices. You force everyone to work in a private office, and they perform slightly better than if you force everyone to work in an open office--that perfectly explains the results of the studies. But obviously if this hypothesis is true, then the best solution would be to let the 40% who work better in open offices work in open offices, and let the 60% who work better in private offices work in private offices. Sure, if you're going to force everyone into one style of office, the evidence probably says we should force them into private offices. But why are we forcing everyone into one style of office?
- pojzon 7y ago
  How about we let people who want to work from home to work from home and people who need others arpund to work in the office ? Win - Win situation. Unfortunately it seems too hard to understand for the majority of managers.. (most likely because they represent the later)
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > How about we let people who want to work from home to work from home and people who need others arpund to work in the office ? Sounds good to me!
- unionpivo 7y ago
  If you google around, you will find lots of studies on that subject have already been done, and most of them find, that open offices are for the most part are less productive. The only way to find out if you are right is to test it. Until that is done, it makes most sense to go with, majority of studies. That said, you suggestion (about having both types) might work in ideal world. In real world you wouldn't really have a choice most of the time, because if your team mostly works in open office, you will miss* out on a lot if working in closed office. And if majority of people work in closed offices, then you loose all the benefits that open offices bring anyway. So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best. * And likely be considered antisocial.

NewsAware 7y ago

Same for me. See the point of the sibling comments though. So maybe I prefer an open office because I don't procrastinate (which would leave me with a feeling of unproductive guilt in the evening) to a private office, even though the latter might be actually more productive.

HelloNurse 7y ago

The temptation to slack off depends on the quality and quantity of work to do, not on your office. You are probably more productive at slacking off (for example, reading fast and with full concentration), in addition to more productive at actually working when you get around to it.

cglotr 7y ago

Ideally companies shouldn't care what you are doing minute by minute as long as you produce quality result