4 ms·

As an introvert 3 hours in a private office or even cubicle is probably equivalent to working 6 hours working in an open office space in terms of productivity.

• eterm 11y ago
  Perhaps it makes economic sense to have you working less efficiently while saving a large amount on rent. Perhaps if giving an office to an introvert developer they'd have to also give an office* to a large amount of other workers that work better with open offices such as extroverts and people whose jobs require a lot of communication and collaborative work* * . * Because it is a status symbol. * * Which actually covers developers, I sometimes wonder how much of the feedback here is wishful thinking "I'd be so productive if left alone" rather than actual data.
  • falcolas 11y ago
    > Perhaps it makes economic sense to have you working less efficiently while saving a large amount on rent. Open office vs. private office is about $4,000 a year for an employee. Doesn't take much lost productivity to break that barrier.
    • dagw 11y ago
      Perhaps if you're in an office park with arbitrary amounts of office space where costs simply scales linearly office size. Otherwise it tends to be far more than that.
      • falcolas 11y ago
        Define "far more". I was basing that off of the numbers "110" and "160", which are square feet per employee for open offices and executive offices, respectively, and the yearly price of $100 per square foot. All of these figures are on the high side of the range for those figures- you can easily find office space for $20-$60 per square foot outside of SF and NY. Now it's true that if you're dedicated to taking care of your employees, you might have to split the office earlier than you would with open floor plans, but to be frank you were looking at the need to do that anyways, just at a slightly higher employee count.
        • eterm 11y ago
          You're missing the most important part, which is there is far less square feet / person in open plan than with individual offices. The cost per person is much cheaper open plan than with offices.
          • falcolas 11y ago
            EDIT: Mis-read your comment. Far less square footage is true, but the "far less" is not that much less. In the best case, it's a few scant square feet. In the worst (250 for a president-sized office, 60 for an exceptionally cramped open office footprint), it's still only about 190 square feet - which comes to around $19k a year. Still a pittance compared to the other costs of the employee. ORIGINAL: The cost per person scales directly with the cost per square footage - that's the only practical difference between an employee in an open office and in an individual office (well, discounting potential increase production and fewer sick days). There's going to be some additional up-front construction costs when you first take over a space, but when amortized over the fifteen years (which is how the accountants will book those costs), it's going to end up being pretty small. What other costs do you feel that I'm missing?
  • mpg33 11y ago
    It's not so much the case that I am more productive when working in a private space as it is I am less productive working in an busy open space...if that makes sense.
  • theseatoms 11y ago
    As long as people keep tolerating open offices, it might make economic sense for the employer. But for the employee, if it actually affects his personal productivity and overall happiness, it makes sense for him to consider a distracting environment as a cost. (ie require more money)
    • t4ngent 11y ago
      True but unfortunately it is not always easy to tell how distracting an environment will be until you are actually working in it. One of the worst environments I've worked in was when I had a private office but there were 3 very extroverted and juvenile employees stationed right outside my door.