5 ms·
The Economist are being rather disingenuous here. They explain how the cubicle is a bad thing, and then they go on to try to convince us that the demise of the
by hristov 12y ago
The Economist are being rather disingenuous here. They explain how the cubicle is a bad thing, and then they go on to try to convince us that the demise of the cubicle and it's replacement by more open plan type offices is a good thing. But the open type office is even worse for many of the same reasons why the cubicle was bad.
- nerfhammer 12y agoThey just say that cubicles are bad: > it has become increasingly clear that far from offering a clever compromise between the economy of open-plan and the privacy of individual offices, cubicles are in many ways worse than either. But also say that open office plans are bad: > And last year Swedish researchers studying the link between office layouts and illness found that people who worked in open-plan offices had the highest risk of becoming ill. The reason, they concluded, was more than just the easier spread of infections. Stress caused by lack of privacy and workers’ inability to control their surroundings played a part, too. > Open-plan offices are noisier and more interruption-prone. Too much noise causes high blood pressure, sleep problems and difficulty in concentrating. And cubicles’ flimsy walls do little to dampen sound. In studies where sound levels were raised from 39 to 51 decibels—roughly equivalent to moving from an average living room to a road with light traffic—participants were more tired and less motivated.