3 ms·

Surely you don't actually need to measure anything. Just ask people what they prefer. And to be fair, I've met people, online and off, who legitimately like op

by nilkn 11y ago

Surely you don't actually need to measure anything. Just ask people what they prefer. And to be fair, I've met people, online and off, who legitimately like open offices or would prefer a hybrid. But I've met roughly an order of magnitude more people who don't like them at all and just want a quiet, personal space. And you're right, there are a lot of confounding factors when you look at companies like Google. For instance, I'm sure the prospect of getting filthy rich was pretty enticing for early employees, who probably found the work conditions nearly irrelevant in comparison. Same thing goes for Facebook. There's a well-known notion that some companies are just so successful so fast that they can basically do anything in terms of office dynamics and it will work for them. This is commonly applied to Valve's management strategy (or lack thereof). Also, you could fairly easily argue that both Google and FB met with the majority of their success before they engineered massive open office farms. You could also fairly easily argue that both have been doing a pretty mediocre job lately, with some successes but lots of failures, mostly just maintaining their status (especially Facebook, in my humble opinion). I'd imagine that the more upside there is for employees, and the more empowered the employees are in general, the more they'll tolerate and perform well in an open office on average.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I've found asking people to be notoriously unreliable. Folks want quiet and comfort, sure. But is that the best thing for productivity? Ok, in this case, probably. But standing desks are apparently a good thing, and the vast majority of us eschew them. And so on. Anything that seems like an inconvenience gets demonized as a rule. So just asking is a minefield.
- nilkn 11y ago
  I get what you're saying, but I think there's an easy solution: just ask people who've experienced both. That way you're not experiencing the classic but very real problem of people not knowing what they want until they've got it. At my workplace, for instance, not once in the history of the company has anyone with an office ever given it up, under any circumstances, to move into a cubicle again. Likewise, someone with a cubicle next to a window has never, in my tenure at the company, moved to a cubicle not next to a window. As for standing desks, I didn't realize that people actively eschewed them. My impression is just that they're impractical for a lot of people to actually obtain. If your workplace doesn't provide them and won't on request, your options get sort of limited. I have a coworker who made a makeshift standing desk but it's not very ideal. I imagine a ton of people are in this situation. Ok, but let's suppose that, by some ingenious study, you're able to determine that nobody prefers the open office, everybody prefers private offices (quite strongly), and yet productivity for the company is better with an open office. That's pretty counter-intuitive, but the world is filled with counter-intuitive things. Does that mean that companies should all switch to open offices? Should a company do something just because it can be shown to increase productivity? I don't think that's necessarily the case. For instance, it might be that the productivity gain is somewhat minimal and that over the years a number of great employees are lost (or not able to be hired) due to the office layout. So in that case the illusion of temporary increased productivity will lead to a long-term net decrease in productivity.
  - calinet6 11y ago
    That was my point. There are a lot of things that we measure (eg: productivity) when we should actually be looking at larger goals. In this case, an open office creates a certain type of culture and work environment. That might be desirable for the company as a whole, even if it's suboptimal for some individuals, and even if certain measurements at a low level are against it.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I buy that, for some companies. As a developer, I can tell you that my productivity is shot/reduced 90% by a noisy open environment. So I always find a company that needs my skills, and houses me appropriately to capitalize on those skills. If I'm a low-level measurement that the company can do without, so they put me in open plan anyway, I'll leave.

by nilkn 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

I've found asking people to be notoriously unreliable. Folks want quiet and comfort, sure. But is that the best thing for productivity? Ok, in this case, probably. But standing desks are apparently a good thing, and the vast majority of us eschew them. And so on. Anything that seems like an inconvenience gets demonized as a rule. So just asking is a minefield.

nilkn 11y ago
I get what you're saying, but I think there's an easy solution: just ask people who've experienced both. That way you're not experiencing the classic but very real problem of people not knowing what they want until they've got it. At my workplace, for instance, not once in the history of the company has anyone with an office ever given it up, under any circumstances, to move into a cubicle again. Likewise, someone with a cubicle next to a window has never, in my tenure at the company, moved to a cubicle not next to a window. As for standing desks, I didn't realize that people actively eschewed them. My impression is just that they're impractical for a lot of people to actually obtain. If your workplace doesn't provide them and won't on request, your options get sort of limited. I have a coworker who made a makeshift standing desk but it's not very ideal. I imagine a ton of people are in this situation. Ok, but let's suppose that, by some ingenious study, you're able to determine that nobody prefers the open office, everybody prefers private offices (quite strongly), and yet productivity for the company is better with an open office. That's pretty counter-intuitive, but the world is filled with counter-intuitive things. Does that mean that companies should all switch to open offices? Should a company do something just because it can be shown to increase productivity? I don't think that's necessarily the case. For instance, it might be that the productivity gain is somewhat minimal and that over the years a number of great employees are lost (or not able to be hired) due to the office layout. So in that case the illusion of temporary increased productivity will lead to a long-term net decrease in productivity.
- calinet6 11y ago
  That was my point. There are a lot of things that we measure (eg: productivity) when we should actually be looking at larger goals. In this case, an open office creates a certain type of culture and work environment. That might be desirable for the company as a whole, even if it's suboptimal for some individuals, and even if certain measurements at a low level are against it.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I buy that, for some companies. As a developer, I can tell you that my productivity is shot/reduced 90% by a noisy open environment. So I always find a company that needs my skills, and houses me appropriately to capitalize on those skills. If I'm a low-level measurement that the company can do without, so they put me in open plan anyway, I'll leave.