Slashdot Mirror


America's Cubicles Are Shrinking

Hugh Pickens writes "In the 1970s, American corporations typically thought they needed 500 to 700 square feet per employee to build an effective office, but the LA Times reports that today's average is a little more than 200 square feet per person, and the space allocation could hit a mere 50 square feet by 2015. 'We're at a very interesting inflection point in real estate history,' says Peter Miscovich, who studies workplace trends. 'The next 10 years will be very different than the last 30.' Although cubicles have shrunk from an average of 64 feet to 49 feet in recent years, companies are looking for more ways to compress their real estate footprint with offices that squeeze together workstations while setting aside a few rooms where employees can conduct meetings or have private phone conversations. 'Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated,' says Larry Rivard. 'They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever.'"

80 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Causality by Kev+Vance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever."

    Could that be because their office space has become so worthless that anywhere else is preferable?

    --
    F0 07 C7 C8
    1. Re:Causality by JeffSpudrinski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amazing how corporations will justify whatever they want.

      Because people are not given a choice but to work in less space, they therefore say that they don't need it or want it.

      Question: did they ask the workers (really ask them...anonymously)? .02

      -JJS

    2. Re:Causality by dintech · · Score: 5, Funny

      "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever."

      I think it's more accruate that we don't work anywhere. So why should the office be any different. :)

    3. Re:Causality by skids · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, factory farm operators claim that today's livestock has, over time, come to crave the experience of being squeezed shoulder to shoulder.

      (Just kidding.... I think....)

    4. Re:Causality by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Definitely agree.

      And to me "they've learned to work at a kitchen table or wherever" is only a small step away from "they're all on call 24/7, because they can work wherever they happen to be."

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    5. Re:Causality by clone52431 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, animals with herd instincts do feel most calm and protected when they’re being squeezed shoulder to shoulder. So do some autistic people.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    6. Re:Causality by operagost · · Score: 2

      If companies want to save money, they should be eliminating the cubicles and setting up the policies, procedures and infrastructure to have large numbers of employees work from home. It's green and it keeps most employees happier. Besides certain jobs that are obviously well suited for office work, the only barrier to having employees work from home now is the paranoid, incompetent middle manager.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Causality by dintech · · Score: 2

      or spend fifteen minutes cruising around Google Maps

      That sorts out the driving around part, but what do you do to simulate picking up cheap hookers? I think your Sim Kerb Crawler needs more work. (but subscribe me to your newsletter)

    8. Re:Causality by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have (or had) a small cubicle which squeezed a computer, chair, and closet (for coat) in a space barely large enough to lay down.

      BUT the company compensated for that small space by replacing the 4th wall with a window which gave the impression of more space, plus other benefits like being able to wear jeans everyday (nice jeans not wholey jeans), a free lunch, unlimited access to the internet to hear the radio/watch hulu, and so on. Making the cube small doesn't matter if the workers are treated with respect.

      In contrast my new job has no cubes and open space, but you're free to do nothing (no radio, no eating lunch at your desk, no privacy). I don't hate it but I don't like it either. I'd rather have liberty even if it meant my cube was the size of my old dormroom's desk.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Causality by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shocker of shockers... no, not really.

      Once upon a time, workers had to deal with crap working conditions in which getting killed was commonplace. In shitass countries like India, or Malaysia, or China where all the manufacturing has been "outsourced" to for slave-labor wages, this is still true.

      Today, the US has laws and agencies that are supposed to prevent this. But companies run by the soulless, inhuman "I have an MBA and never did a fucking day of real honest work in my life" types will try to get around it however they can.

      OSHA says you have to have an office where phone calls can be private? Fine, we'll give you one "private phone room" for 20 employees. OSHA says you have to have a 30 minute lunch break? Fine, but we'll stick the kitchen in another building 10 minutes walk away, good luck getting there and back and still managing to do anything but bolt your lunch at choking-hazard speeds, sucker, or you can take a bag lunch in and keep it in your desk and you might as well work while eating anyways.

      What we need to do is bust up the megacorporations and get rid of the top-level leech class that don't produce anything. But good luck seeing that happen any time soon. Those tax-evading assholes have too much media control to get the word out about them.

    10. Re:Causality by ebh · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm autistic, and yes, I occasionally need full-body pressure to calm down, but I also need quiet and space to think. I sure as hell don't want to work cheek-by-jowl with a bunch of people I know only by what went into them at lunch and is coming out of them in the afternoon.

    11. Re:Causality by operagost · · Score: 2

      This may be a shocker, but they're goofing off at work, too. That's what I mean about incompetent managers: unproductive employees should be evident whether they're visible or not.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Causality by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is actually somewhat true - we got a dozen hens from a deep-litter farm. Now, in a deep-litter environment the hens are allowed to wander around a big shed with nesting boxes in aisles and a deep layer of straw on the floor. They're fed, they've got room to move and crucially - unlike true "free-range" - they're unlikely to be ripped in half by foxes. It's a pretty good environment for them, really. If you take them out of a deep-litter farm (like when they start to get old, they lay eggs less frequently and become less cost-effective but perfectly okay if you're not looking for an egg every day from each hen) and chuck them into a big field - after you've carefully shot all the foxes, otherwise they won't be there in the morning - then they will instinctively huddle together even closer than they were in the shed. They're really kind of agoraphobic. If you build a small shed for them they'll run inside and won't leave until they get *really* hungry.

      Strange, but true. At least, I think it's strange and you'll have to take my word for it that it's true.

    13. Re:Causality by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you considered a career in management?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    14. Re:Causality by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      It all depends on what you work with if the space needed is sufficient or not.

      But when more and more people are stuffed together into a small space you may end up in a situation where the ventilation of the building is insufficient and people will start to be less efficient due to high CO2 levels in the blood.

      And times turn good again? - I'm a bit pessimistic on that because employers will see that they can stuff people tighter and then they will continue to do so even in good times because the furniture they have purchased for compact working needs to be used and not wasted.

      From a point of view - western world seems to pack people tighter and tighter and soon there will be a very small difference between working in the western world and in Asia when it comes to working conditions. Western world is talking about human rights but at the same time the human rights in the western world are silently cut down one slice at a time by various means.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:Causality by clone52431 · · Score: 2

      Going back and re-reading what I wrote, I didn’t mean to imply that autistic people would enjoy being crowded all the time. What works well for calming down obviously would not work well for efficiently getting office work done, in this case.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    16. Re:Causality by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Executive offices are fairly astonishing in size. Part of it is due to tabulatory gigantism -- the need to have the largest possible desk, despite the fact that many don't even "work at a desk". This latter aspect drives a lot of the large executive office syndrome; they "don't work at a desk" therefore they need the space for a living room setup, complete with a big leather couch, designer table, and a couple of chairs and a large flat screen TV & entertainment setup.

      They also need a kitchenette setup (Keurig coffee machine, fridge for beer/pop, liquor, glasses, ice) and in many cases a private bathroom, because they want to be able to offer refreshments and a restroom for them and their guests.

      One of the major ironies about all this space being devoted to them is that it stands empty much of the time due to their extensive travel requirements (cf. justification for Netjets/company airplane).

      I sometimes wonder why they don't skip all the executive suites and instead build a small hotel on corporate campuses and hire a hotel company to manage it. The executives could be given a generic "large" office (of the type generally assigned to on-site senior working managers; large enough for a desk, conference table and four chairs, but not the big suites) and a group of suites in the hotel could be set aside for executives involved in meetings for which their "living room" setup would be required; the hotel's concierge and other staff could be used for food/beverage and other conveniences.

      The side benefit would be a functional hotel that could be used for out of town employees, vendors and others needing accommodations and working on campus.

    17. Re:Causality by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not necessarily. I know for myself, I have a much harder time staying focused and getting work done at home than when I'm "on the job" somewhere. To give you an idea how drastic it is, when I'm trying to "work from home" I barely get anything worthwhile done. When I'm "on the job", I'm one of the best, most efficient guys on the team. I get twice as much done as some of the other guys.

      I really wish that weren't the case, because I'd much prefer working from home.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    18. Re:Causality by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Might be because they are descended from Junglefowl:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Junglefowl
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Junglefowl
      So they'd probably feel happier in jungle-like environments - lots of cover to run into.

      Anyway a small bird that's a weak flyer, not a very fast runner and generally not a very good fighter (there are exceptions of course :) ) is likely to be a bit nervous when there's no cover nearby. Especially if getting "ripped in half by foxes" is a significant possibility.

      --
    19. Re:Causality by oldspewey · · Score: 2

      Your point would be significantly stronger and more compelling if you hadn't opened by calling 3 of the most impressive economic stories in Asia - nations with a total middle class approaching half a billion people - "shitass countries"

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    20. Re:Causality by markov_chain · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're not alone, I'm the same way. It is so bad that I'm seriously considering building some timed interlock system where I would push a button and have the Internet down for X minutes, or a timed door lock that would keep me in a distraction-free room for enough time to get useful work done.

      The irony is I'm supposed to be doing work, and here I am designing a timed lock...

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    21. Re:Causality by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      What part corresponds to shooting foxes?

      Either "rightsizing" or "termination with prejudice".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    22. Re:Causality by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          I'd say it would be terminating (shooting) any aggressive subordinates (foxes) who may have hopes for senior management (raiding the hen house). It's easier to have passive employees (sheep) who can do what you hired them for (slaughter), and not ever hope to move up (continue grazing).

          Many middle-managers see the corporate ladder as being broken below them. They don't want or need their subordinates climbing up to steal "their" promotion, or even their job. Despite that, the middle-managers do see the corporate ladder as their well deserved goal, and will keep trying to climb it. Well, until they are terminated by their superiors who feel that Mr. Middle Manager is pushing too hard to do better.

          Unfortunately, I've seen it in plenty of businesses, where even pushing for equality isn't welcome. One particular case was an employee making $35k/yr. About a year after he started, new people in his department, with equal skills but lower workloads were brought in at $55k. Two more years later new people were brought in with equal skills and even lower workloads and they were making $75k.

          The management saw this as perfectly acceptable. Keep the employee at $35k. Ignore the fact that he does no less than double the work of any other single employee in the department. That employee started becoming rather upset, with just cause in my opinion. He talked to me about complaining to the senior management. I warned him not to unless he had another job lined up. There was no next option at the time. He asked for equal pay to the new hires. They laughed at him. Then over the next month he proceeded to ask twice more. About a week after the second time, he was taken into the conference room, and was told that he was fired. He didn't even have the luxury of collecting his belongings. They preferred to fire the employee making $35k and hire a replacement at $75k, as long as the new employee would accept the fact that there is no opportunity for raises or advancement.

          Employees are a commodity that can be bought (hired) and sold (fired). Who cares if you lay off the entire department, you can find replacements that are happy to do the same job until they too are terminated. The idea of loyalty is now a one way street. The employer expects the employee to be completely loyal and dedicated to the company. When it's time for the employee to rely on the employer, you're screwed. The idea of "I've been a hard worker, sacrificing my nights, weekends, and holidays for the company, they won't fire me", is long since gone. Right along with yearly raises and any hopes of advancement. You can't trust an employer beyond the next paycheck. If you get one, keep working. If you don't, walk away from it. The most you'll lose is one check, and still keep your dignity intact.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    23. Re:Causality by oldspewey · · Score: 2

      Two out of the three, plus a handful of other developing nations in Asia - some of them for quite lengthy trips and some of them multiple times. Some of the nicest people I've ever met were from "shitass countries," as were some of my most memorable and cherished experiences.

      Shame your own visits didn't manage to penetrate your sense of prejudice. Maybe next time.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    24. Re:Causality by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try that with programmers and watch your productivity go down the loo.

      I was once working as the head of a team with a rather big company I'd rather not name. Let's say it was a German company, known for its big S and its bananaware. We took over a huge internal project. To explain: Internal projects are gold mines. You can charge what you want and the other departments have to pay it because there is simply no other place to get it from. You DO NOT WANT to lose an internal project. For no reason whatsoever. Why? Because even if your cost rises, you just add it to the price tag and they HAVE to pay it. You need money to cross-finance other projects? Jack up the price! It's the (internal) license for money printing.

      So we snatched that project from another department that failed to deliver. That's the only threat there is: Not delivering.

      So what would be the sensible thing to do? Stuff your best and brightest into that project, of course! You MUST NOT lose that project! You can basically hang your whole department onto it and it will hold! The rest of the company MUST pay you!

      What was offered to me? Temp workers. Yes. You heard me. Temps. Not REALLY the most motivated people there are, right? Especially, have you ever hired programmers on a temp worker base?

      Most of you will know, it takes a while 'til a programmer gets productive. Especially when you take over a HUGE project that consists of VERY crappy code that you yourself are still busy digging into. They're basically, at best, useless the first month. If, and only if, they're able to learn by themselves, which most temp proggers are. Because if they were any GOOD proggers, they wouldn't be forced to suffer a temp agency.

      And while they're with you, they spend more time studying the classifieds than the code. Because who in their sane mind wants to work for a temp agency? It's not like programmers are bricklayers or plumbers. There are not THAT many. So even the mediocre ones get permanent jobs easily. In short, no programmer stayed longer than 3 months.

      Eventually, after half a year and a pretty much stalled project I put my foot down and declared that either I get to hire programmers on a perm base or I quit.

      I found a new job pretty soon. In the words I gave my superior back then: "More money, less you".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Causality by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      shitass countries.

      "The law does not provide workers with the right to remove themselves from work situations that endanger health and safety without jeopardizing their continued employment."

      "State governments were responsible for enforcement of the Factories Act. However, the large number of industries covered by a small number of factory inspectors and the inspectors' limited training and susceptibility to bribery resulted in lax enforcement.

      The enforcement of safety and health standards also was poor."

      I'll say it again. Shitass countries.

    26. Re:Causality by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      See, this isn't terrible for people who don't normally work at the office, and spend most of their day in the field. However, it sounds like the parent poster's setup is like that for ALL employees, even those who are always in the office. It sounds awful.

    27. Re:Causality by gnarfel · · Score: 2

      I work for a not-for-profit (not a non-profit, there is a difference) as a Programmer Analyst in Research & Development.

      My cube is about 7'x7', give or take. I had the option to have a door, coat rack, bookshelf, regular shelf, locking drawers, rolling locking cabinets, locking shelves, individual flourescent or incandescent lighting installed, and still can at my discretion.

      I have to say that my company is somewhat awesome, they respect their workforce quite a bit. We all get a few hours of paid time off randomly throughout the year for different events and occasions, we actually can control the temperature of our environments (the CEO _ACTIVELY REFUSED_ to let the maintenance staff put locking covers on the thermostats) and we have mostly unfettered internet access. It's still logged, but there are no blacklists of sites that are blocked. Maybe facebook, myspace, et al...but I wouldn't know, I'd rather not browse those on the company intranet anyways. Purchase requests are handled in a sane way (I need a new chair // Okay! [instead of] I need a new chair // Why? Did something happen to the old one? Can you find room in the budget? Are there any metal folding chairs in the facilities room?)

      While my cubicle may be small, I can eat at my desk...I can close my 'door,' I can chat over the walls of my cube with my neighbors and we all know each other very well. I have a direct PSTN phone number to my desk and I can enable Domain Admin rights for myself anytime I need them.

      I can also listen to Pandora or any other internet radio/music service while I work.

      It's a funny thing when your company trusts you. Our metrics here are meeting deadlines and milestones, not lines of code checked in to the repo.

      Now, let your mind boggle when I tell you this is a financial institution. Thats right, a credit union. You'd never see a bank be this relaxed with their staff.

      --
      Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
    28. Re:Causality by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you're misunderstanding the OP's (admittedly colorful and not entirely well explained) point about what constitutes a "shitass" country. He isn't trying to say that the people in the country are bad, or that there aren't intelligent and successful people within them, but rather that these countries treat their workers, especially working class factory workers, like shit. Unsafe conditions, exceptionally poor pay, and long hours are the rule in most developing countries, and the ones he lists are particularly well known for them. His point (again, colorfully expressed) is that most companies will treat people as poorly as they can get away with. Here in the US (and even more so in Europe and some other countries) we have laws and some level of enforcement to ensure that there is a reasonable bottom limit to how badly you can be treated. In most "shitass" countries it's even worse.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    29. Re:Causality by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing how corporations will justify whatever they want.

      Because people are not given a choice but to work in less space, they therefore say that they don't need it or want it.

      Question: did they ask the workers (really ask them...anonymously)? .02

      -JJS

      This is strikingly similar to the attitude a previous CTO of mine expressed when we were remodeling workspaces (yes, the CTO got involved in cubicle design). His idea was "big open room, no walls, no cubicles...to foster a 'collaborative working environment'".

      I tried til I was blue in the face to explain to him we don't have a business that benefits from collaboration...individuals work on individual projects mostly. He wouldn't listen.

      After the remodel, and the office sounded like a bus station caffeteria from people talking, using the phone, typing, meetings (nope, no meeting rooms either), etc, most people you'd see would have headphones on to block out the noise. The CTO, he just went into his office and kept the door closed.

    30. Re:Causality by bberens · · Score: 2

      I pretty much agree with your premise but I did want to give a shout out to the other category of consultants. There's some really bright people out there who just prefer to not pay any taxes. They're a very small percentage of the temp pool though. We have a guy who has worked in our office off and on for the last 10 years like that. Works out great for everyone.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    31. Re:Causality by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, if you don't plan to stay with the company for more than a year or so, outsourcing to India is a good idea.

      After a year you'll be asked why your productivity went down. Way down.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Causality by nschubach · · Score: 2

      They needed to change the color of the water bottles... obviously.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    33. Re:Causality by mikael · · Score: 2

      You haven't see some computing labs these days - it's really how many PC's and students can we cram into the room before they start complaining? With so many buy-to-rent landlords, a two bedroom apartment with living room/dining becomes a four-bedroom student flat.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    34. Re:Causality by peragrin · · Score: 2

      That is only mostly rue. there are small companies out there that have actual good employee management relations. I have been lucky so far. however I have also seen your point.

      There is a reason why employee's now a days don't expect to work for one company until retirement any more. It just isn't true. Which begs the question why do we let companies decide our future, and medical care, when on average we don't work for any one for more than 15 years.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    35. Re:Causality by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      As for being a commodity, I know at the least I personally am ingrained deeply enough in too many and too vital a parts of the company's day to day business that I have some pretty solid job security, and I show enough loyalty that I have political capital to spend when I needs it.

      Be careful, I was where you are. I had built the company up from negative cashflow to a healthy net 8-figure company. I was very frugal with expenses. Literally the profit from two days of the year covered all the IT expenses, including hardware and salaries, but not including bandwidth. Things ran wonderfully. Any problems were addressed immediately. I'd get phone calls from about 9am to 4am, and I was always there to answer them and manage them. They'd present an impossible problem, and I'd come back within 15 minutes with a proposal to a solution, and frequently would implement it over the weekend. I managed the IT department from where ever I happened to be. With geographically diverse datacenters, I couldn't possibly be close to them all, but as far as the company was concerned, I was always there to put out any fire.

      We made a huge cost cutting move, dropping bandwidth and hosting costs. Then the bosses started looking at salaries. Why pay someone like me with one assistant, when they could pay a management company 30% of that, and pocket the rest. The day before Thanksgiving, after working there for 8 years, I found I couldn't get on my servers. Something was horribly wrong, and I wasn't getting answers from anyone. I was half way through booking a flight to get to our primary datacenter. I assumed it was a huge intrusion, but we were locked down tight, so I had no idea who or how they were doing it.

      Finally I got a call. "Don't book your ticket. Just wait." That's all I got. Thanksgiving day, I got a phone call from one of the senior management. "You don't work here any more. You will receive 2 weeks severance."

      I've had news trickling in over the subsequent years. From what I gathered from various sources, the folks who were locking me out were using a very manual method, and failed to use our built in methods. Over the next few months, they wiped out everything on the servers, and started from scratch. Everything I touched over those 8 years, they rewrote, to the tune of a low 6-figures. They went to such extremes, because they couldn't find my back doors. I didn't have any, so there was nothing to find. Over those months, I'd get calls and emails from people who knew I ran the network, to tell me the sites were down. I'd tell them that I wasn't working there any more, and it's not my problem.

      Their traffic began dropping after I left. The only thing I can attribute it to was mismanagement of the servers. In reality, it seems the "management company" who took over had no experience with such high volume traffic (to the tune of millions of viewers per day). Their traffic dropped for more than a year after that, until they were able to deploy enough servers to handle it. I still think that's hilarious. They more than doubled the footprint, to handle less load.

      The obvious solution would have been to bring me back to fix their problems. Nope, the pride of the owners wouldn't allow it.

      So... No, you aren't as secure in your job as you'd like to believe. There is always someone who will say anything to take your job, even at a fraction of what you were paid. It may be some kid right out of college (or even high school), a corporation offering "fanatical support", or even a small outfit in India who can take a low 6-figure departmental budget, and offer the "same" service for 200,000 rupees/yr (roughly USD $4,425/yr).

      Don't ever fall into complacency. The minute you do, you'll find yourself with a fat mortgage, car payment, and the only jobs you'll find will barely pay for the gas to get to work and

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. I have no idea.... by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why people still like cubicles.

    The place I worked had an open plane. My team members had connecting desks to each other. If I needed anything (since I worked in ICT - needing someone else is common) - all I had to do it talk, or move my chair a bit. I think cubicles aren't very good for morale anyway.

    1. Re:I have no idea.... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2

      This is what we do where I work, too. There are only 2 of us now, but it was pretty cool back before upper management laid everyone off. It definitely made for higher morale being able to easily communicate, both seriously and for fun, with co-workers and made staying late for projects not quite so awful.

    2. Re:I have no idea.... by nblender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah; not so much.. As you get older and gain more experience (while doing everything possible to prevent being moved into a management track), you value your privacy... During the work day, I have to deal with personal matters (calls from the boy's school, wife, accountant, etc) and having a cow-orker 3 feet away pretending not to listen is not optimal... In an open plan, people have to get up, transfer the call to some meeting room and take it there, while running across the office with paperwork or what have you. Then there's the little mental breaks you take throughout the day to let your mind stew on a hard problem; you don't want someone staring at your monitor from behind you... Don't get me wrong, my employer gets plenty of work out of me and they're very happy with my performance and my pay is commensurate with that assertion..

      Currently, I have a cubicle somewhere in the building... I don't know where it is; I've never seen it. I assume it's like all the other cubicles in the building.. I work in a lab primarily because I need access to hardware and test equipment... The lab is somewhat open-plan but I have a private little corner that I've managed to arrange by moving benches around... It's noisy enough in the lab that I can keep from getting distracted by people milling about or make my phone calls without anyone listening in... I can focus for long periods when I need to and the restricted access to the lab prevents a lot of people from just wandering in for a visit...

      When I need to communicate with my cow-orkers, we all use Jabber.. If you're focused, you can hide your jabber window and not be disturbed... I get to choose when distraction is permissible or unwanted.

    3. Re:I have no idea.... by hosecoat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why people still like cubicles.

      The cubicle wall provides a place to hide when a button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho who is sick of working in a cubicle snaps, and then stalk the office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers.

    4. Re:I have no idea.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The recommendation in Peopleware (which my father's company used, independently) is to buy a load of tall and thick cubicle dividers, leave them in the corner of the office, and let your employees arrange the office to suit themselves. This generally ends up with teams that need to work together joining their desks and using the dividers to make sure that they can talk without interrupting anyone else (and vice versa).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:I have no idea.... by Creepy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Companies like cubicles because they are a vastly cheaper way to convert warehouse type space to office like space, and while they don't completely block out noise, they divert it enough so that while one worker is on the phone with a customer, that customer hears you, not the person sitting next to you talking about her cat.

      Having worked in call centers with cubicles and without, I vastly prefer cubicles, though I'd prefer never to work in a call center again (both of those were college temp jobs).

      I do some telecommuting, but having moved to an Agile team at work makes that a bit more difficult (we don't follow Agile exactly because employees are strewn across about 6 sites, but we do use a lot of collaboration tech to work around that, like virtual teleconferencing and netmeeting-like desktop sharing).

    6. Re:I have no idea.... by DrMaurer · · Score: 2

      I used to have an open area where at least 4 (and sometimes up to 7, before a layoff) people would work, all on the phones with constant interruptions and cross-talk. My nerves got very fried. I couldn't concentrate on anything before I quit because of all that damned noise.

      Now I have an enclosed office with a very heavy door. I rarely close the door, but I just like being able to be able. And I can concentrate so much better in this environment. And, seriously, getting up and walking even to the other side of the building (or picking up that black thing in a cradle behind me) to talk to someone is not even that big of a deal.

      Different people need different things for different jobs, I guess. But the small cubicles remind me of desks used in school. Maybe that's the next step...

      --
      Dan
    7. Re:I have no idea.... by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The place I worked had an open plane. My team members had connecting desks to each other. If I needed anything (since I worked in ICT - needing someone else is common) - all I had to do it talk, or move my chair a bit.

      I would love to go back to a cubicle.

      I am the guy stuck sitting next to you. While you get your quick response by leaning over, I get my train of thought derailed.

      And most of the time, you're bugging me for something you should be able to find for yourself in the documentation or something you should be doing yourself.

      The rest of the office does not exist to do your bidding. Maybe having your own space is bad for your morale, because then you'd have to do your own work, but for me, having my own defined space where I can concentrate without interruption, increases my morale by about 1000%.

    8. Re:I have no idea.... by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have no idea how the whole country has become so oversocialized. Privacy is important to be an individual. How can you know who you are if you have never been alone? Without working alone, how can you realize that it is the individual that does the work, not the collective? How can you get any work done at all when you are constantly distracted (and spied on) by other people? Forcing "togetherness" was a great socialist tool back in the Soviet times, to ensure that you never imagine yourself as an individual, that you never have unapproved thoughts, and that if you do either of those things you can get ratted out and sent to Siberia.

    9. Re:I have no idea.... by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      My opinion is that if you're using cubicles, you're doing it wrong.

    10. Re:I have no idea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am the guy stuck sitting next to you. While you get your quick response by leaning over, I get my train of thought derailed.

      And most of the time, you're bugging me for something you should be able to find for yourself in the documentation or something you should be doing yourself.

      This is the consequences of the real world of corporations, where they think that "on the job training" is actually some form of training. What it really means is that the new starter is thrown in the deep end, and told to get on with the job straight away. If they are lucky they will be pointed to the documentation, but they won't be provided with time to properly study the documentation or the product, so 99% of the time it is quicker for that person to ask an existing team member rather than start to try and get themselves familiar with the documentation.

      After a couple of people have been through a role that has on the job training, that documentation will be well out of date and unmaintained, and essentially useless. So questions become the only way people can do anything. And then you end up with some people in a team who are constantly answering questions, and their productivity plummets by the metrics that management choose to use: the ones that will make them look great, and the workers not. Which can justify another round of bonuses at the top.

      The rest of the office does not exist to do your bidding. Maybe having your own space is bad for your morale, because then you'd have to do your own work, but for me, having my own defined space where I can concentrate without interruption, increases my morale by about 1000%.

      Hmmm, you must be liked by management in your work place.

      They make you work in an open plan environment, and you attack your colleagues? Well, that plays into the hands of management, and if you are lucky you might get offered some scraps from the table. When you bitch about your colleagues, management have reasons to with hold pay rises, promotions, bonuses, etc., and they can lavish those on themselves instead. If you are lucky they might not be able to come up with an excuse to not reward you, but to be realistic there are probably others playing the same game as you, and ultimately the pressure is for mgmt to reward themselves, and no one else.

    11. Re:I have no idea.... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The place I worked had an open plane.

      If it was open how did you keep the snakes out?

  3. If anybody needs me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll be in the basement, clutching my red stapler.

  4. Worldwide translation by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the USA, office employees are kept in a sort of shoe-box with a size that, for understandable reasons, is measured in feet. Those boxes have shrunk.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Worldwide translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah! Thanks for this. In Britain, a cubicle is somewhere one goes to have a shit. In the USA they call these stalls. In Britain, a stall is a seat in the theatre.

      It's usually not a good idea to confuse any of these things.

    2. Re:Worldwide translation by Toe,+The · · Score: 2

      Briefer version: In USA, shoebox holds you.

  5. Brazil by fussy_radical · · Score: 3, Informative

    Next they'll expect us to share a desk too:

    http://movieclips.com/Mkivg-brazil-movie-the-moving-desk/

    I'm sitting in about 64 ft^2. It sucks but I like making money too.

  6. Co-workers who use speaker phone by spamking · · Score: 2

    Our freaking cubes are so tight (less than 100 square feet) and small that simply talking on the phone is a total pain. There's a guy in the cube next to me who always has to use his speaker phone for EVERY call. I can't even hear myself think when he's on the phone.

    That alone should be reason enough to not support cubicles.

    1. Re:Co-workers who use speaker phone by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the link. I agree white noise is the best way to block out conversations. For me it works better with headphones rather than PC speakers. If you really want to muffle outside noise (but without spending much money or wearing huge studio isolation headphones), try Koss "The Plug" earbuds. I use them for motorcycling and have probably bought half a dozen of them over the years. If they seem to be poking your brain, try trimming the foam plugs a bit shorter.

  7. Welcome to my world by niks42 · · Score: 2

    My personal office space is 36 square feet; I am lucky enough to have a window along one edge. I spend most of my working life with a headset on to shut out the interference to my concentration from my near neighbours, four of whom I could hit with a baseball bat (quite cheerfully, as it happens) without leaving my chair. Welcome to the world of being an IT Architect.

  8. Maybe it's not the cubicles getting smaller by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Funny

    maybe it's the occupants getting larger.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  9. 42 by phrostie · · Score: 2

    I just checked mine and it's 6' x 7'.

    OMG, 42!
    it all makes sense now!

  10. new by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 2

    I am new to this whole work world thing. I write for the most part. My problem with cubicles is this: at times all my co-workers in the cubicles around are making sales calls, or discussing web dev stuff, or just hamming it up, and I find it extremely hard to concentrate. It may just be that I am new to the game, but it does get a bit frustrating.

    1. Re:new by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bring a personal music player and two sets of headphones. Your first set should be a lightweight, open air design. Wear those when you're willing to tolerate interruptions. Your second set should be a big set of noise-reducing headphones that look like something a record producer would wear in a studio. Those are your "Fuck off and let me work!" headphones.

  11. It's not driven by real estate prices by Wansu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In most areas, commercial real estate is going empty.

    This is being driven by a desire to control employees. They want to huddle them close together so they are easier to watch and they tend to police each other.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:It's not driven by real estate prices by jimicus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know how it works in the US, but if the UK is anything to go by your view is probably wrong.

      Commercial landlords - indeed, the entire commercial letting industry - is a law unto itself. My own employer moved offices when our previous landlord would not reduce the rent (even though the going rate was dropping as offices were becoming empty). They were told clearly, in simple terms: rent goes down or we go out. Rent did not go down. We left a couple of months after a number of other tenants in that building did. I wouldn't be surprised if that building is 70 or 80% empty today.

      There's all sorts of other things you can get in commercial leases which anyone who didn't know the industry would think absurd. "Repairing leases" (where you have to carry out any repairs to the fabric of the building - all the responsibilities of ownership, none of the benefits!) aren't that uncommon, and if you happen to take on a building which requires a lot of repair work - tough. You can actually be forced to return the building to the landlord in a better state to how you took it on.

      Another one I've heard of is where the landlord charges you £X/square foot then includes things like staircases and toilets in their calculation of how large the office is. (You don't normally include these things when you do this arithmetic - £X/square foot usually means £x/useful square foot, not including staircases, kitchen areas etc). Next thing you know you've accidentally signed yourself to a contract paying double the going rate, you can't get out of it and you can't sub-let it without losing money unless you can find someone equally stupid. For bonus points, the landlord has demanded that the director of the business acts as a personal guarantor - only way out of the contract then is to declare yourself bankrupt.

      Faced with an industry full of sharks like that, anyone with any sense will do everything in their power to minimise their exposure.

    2. Re:It's not driven by real estate prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A couple of years ago, my company decided to vacate one building, and placing all people and equipment in the one remaining building. To save money, of course.
      It would seem almost logical ... if it weren't that they had just signed a 3-year contract without termination clausule to rent the -empty- building!
      Oh, yes, and the same company has published a book, proving that people do get more productive and less errorprone if given enough space!

  12. i'm rooting for 0 square feet by shadowrat · · Score: 2

    I have no need to even be at the office. I can work remotely just fine. Gone are the days of piles of paper and shelves of reference books. I never have to file away physical files. Most of my communications with my coworkers is via instant messaging and email. For reference i am a software engineer. I am currently working on convincing my company to let me work from the road in my RV.

  13. Sq F by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Funny

    American corporations typically thought they needed 500 to 700 square feet per employee

    Who's running these corporations? Millipedes?

  14. In other news... by retech · · Score: 2

    The copious amounts of space top level executives in the USA take up has grown exponentially in the last 30 years. It is estimated that in the next 10 years they will need infinite space to just barely function. "I need more space than a third world factory just for my golf stuff. I have no idea where I'll put all my awards and toys. I'm really super worried about this." One Fortune 500 CEO is quoted as saying.

  15. Misguided Rationalization by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere -- at a kitchen table or wherever."

    Y'know when I was younger I would have worked on a shelf if it meant I had a job and I was doing something I loved, I don't see this as anything new.

    I really can't think of any cube environment I've worked in that was conducive to work, the best environments always seem to have been open, yet not too big. An open room with 6 to 8 people seems to be the magic zone.

    The biggest cube I worked in was at the Provincial Gov't, they had this massive 1960s job that had two chairs, a proper desk, a fully adjustable "computer" desk and a coat rack. I kinda liked that cube because there was enough room for small meetings, pair programming and it gave you some space for thinking (without having three other noisy people two meters away from you all the time). In fact it wasn't until I got into a modern cube farm that I had to go out and buy noise cancelling headphones (though very nearly a noise cancelling shotgun).

    It's weird, with walls people are loud and obnoxious, with no walls they have respect for each other.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  16. Re:Working from Home? by alcourt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work from home and have done so for over ten years now. I've made it work successfully. I will very openly state that many of my coworkers cannot effectively work from home.

    The reasons that work from home isn't always a good idea vary. Some people require the human face to face contact. Others require the firmer separation, the act of actually going to another building to put them in the work mindset. Some do not have a home situation amenable to working from home. Some are just in jobs that require too much interaction with the rest of the team or just cannot be done remotely. (People who's job requires physical access to specific hardware without waiting an hour for the person to get there.)

    Even many of my coworkers who do work from home make excuses to go into the office periodically to meet with peers for lunch. This helps smooth over issues so that work is done more smoothly.

    --
    "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
  17. Desk Space has become irrelevant by kellyb9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the reason for cubicle shrinkage has more to do with how irrelevant desk space has become over the past 30 or 40 years. Everyone works off of computers and doesn't need a large amount of desk space - at least not as large as they had in the past. I have very little on my desk, mostly personal items (pictures, cell phone, MP3 player, etc.). 30 years ago desks would have to accomodate stacks of paper and notepads, and they would also need the ability to spread these items out.

    1. Re:Desk Space has become irrelevant by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That was my first though when I read the summary too... "duh, how obvious" - as we move closer and closer to being truly paperless, officer workers need less and less space to spread out papers or to store files.
       
      I hate to invoke 'kids these days' - but it really does apply here. Anyone under thirty or so has almost certainly never experienced an 'old style' office - when PC's became ubiquitous in the 90's, things changed radically.
       
      My wife is an accountant and CFO for a local business and keeps a set of the ledgers from the 1980's in her office - they fill a shelf three feet long. (She says when she's frustrated because the server is slow or down, looking at that shelf reminds her of how good she actually has it.) She also points out all she has is the ledgers, the ancillary material like invoices, timesheets, sales tickets, etc... would take up even more space. If she wasn't required to keep a physical paper trail of some things for legal and tax reasons, she wouldn't even have a filing cabinet in her office. The old storage room for such stuff is now an employee break room. The refrigerator in the break room is bigger than the annual amount of paper she has to store nowadays.
       
      She also points out that in the 1980's the business required an accountant, two full time bookkeepers, and a full time filing clerk. Today, despite the business being ten times larger, there's just her and a full time data entry clerk. The phone girl files in her spare time.
       
      For another example: In my book collection, I have a book on office organization intended for professional engineers, draftsmen, and architects from the 1950's - it dedicates three entire chapters (almost half the book) to the theory and practice of laying out work spaces for engineers and draftsmen. You lay it out one way for buildings, another for ships, a different way for airplanes... All trying to solve the problem of mapping a 3D physical object onto/into a 2D drafting room such that guys (and it was all guys back then) working on adjacent parts/rooms/spaces/systems were close enough to each other to collaborate. (When something like the working drawings for the engine room of a ship could stretch thirty feet or an entire deck could stretch a hundred or more if laid end-to-end this was a real problem.) The offices were open plan because they had to be, because there was no other way to collaborate but to physically transport yourself or the drawing to the individual(s) you needed to communicate with.

  18. Alternative worldwide translation by BenoitRen · · Score: 2

    LOL! Thanks, that really cracked me up. Now, here's an alternative translation for us wacky metric system users:

    In the 1970s, American corporations typically thought they needed 152,40 to 213,36 square meters per employee to build an effective office, but the LA Times reports that today's average is a little more than 60,96 square meters per person, and the space allocation could hit a mere 15,24 square meters by 2015. "We're at a very interesting inflection point in real estate history," says Peter Miscovich who studies workplace trends. "The next 10 years will be very different than the last 30." Although cubicles have shrunk from an average of 19,51 meters to 14,94 meters in recent years, companies are looking for more ways to compress their real estate footprint with offices that squeeze together workstations while setting aside a few rooms where employees can conduct meetings or have private phone conversations. "Younger workers' lives are all integrated, not segregated," says Larry Rivard. "They have learned to work anywhere — at a kitchen table or wherever.""

    1. Re:Alternative worldwide translation by BenoitRen · · Score: 2

      you used inserted commas where you needed decimal points

      I'm European, and therefore use the comma as the decimal mark, you insensitive clod!

  19. Hear hear by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I currently work in an open-plan environment. My job requires some significant coding work (requiring total focus for long periods of time) while all of my colleagues are involved in much more piecemeal work. They have absolutely no comprehension of how frustrating and damaging it is to my productivity to be subjected to their distracted working pattern all day.

    There are definite benefits to working open-plan, but for some tasks it is simply inappropriate and detrimental.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Hear hear by GeckoAddict · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I like to argue for a two-location approach. There are times, especially during a design phase, that collaboration and communication greatly improve my productivity. Then there are times where I have a defined coding task, where putting on my headphones and disappearing into my cube is the best choice for my productivity (working at home is even better, because people can't stop by my desk every 3 minutes there). I think the best approach is to have a shared team area that the team can use anytime (preferably with large whiteboards, a projector, etc), but a private cube/office as well. Having instant messaging (and actually using the away/available statuses) helps keep distractions down at the office as well.

  20. That sounds pretty big. by digitig · · Score: 2

    49 feet seems quite big for a cubicle. But what's the other horizontal dimension?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  21. Re:You don't need a whole lot by GaryOlson · · Score: 2

    But once manglement gets the idea most people can use less space, policy is created forcing less space. Then, getting a cubicle waiver for extra space is now a futile exercise in politics instead of a business process. No one will spend political capital on cubicle space; they just tell the employee to work it out or work in the inadequate space.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  22. Re:Already there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're only already there because you accept their bullshit.

    Turn the fucking phone off when your work day is over, and don't turn it back on until you are back in the next day. If part of your job is to be on call, turn the phone on only when you are on your on call hours.

    A change in attitude like this will severely piss your management off, as they are used to exploiting you. But do some shit that looks like you are trying to help. If you are facing having to do overtime to get a job done, don't do the job and go home - and when management go ballistic tell them that you didn't want to rack up overtime costs for them. And that you are willing to work if they are willing to pay you your overtime.

    Ultimately you need to work what you are contracted to work. Don't flatly refuse to do more, offer your help in the work place, just make it clear that you need to be well compensated. You'll see a lot less kitchen tables if you stop letting them walk all over you.

  23. Re:500 to 700 square feet? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

    That figure for the entire office floor space, not the individual offices/cubes. That is, 500-700 square feet including offices, hallways, break rooms, bathrooms, etc.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  24. Re:Working from Home? by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't like working from home but for a different reason. As a contractor, paid by the hour, I can get 8.5 hours worth of on-site work done in about 4 hours at home... If I'm on-site, I can bill for 8.5 hours. If I'm at home, I can bill for 4 hours. Since my employer (my customer, technically) would prefer I work on-site instead of shelling in remotely, I oblige them by coming in, dealing with distractions and beauracracy, in exchange for billing higher... They're still happy with the quantity of work that gets done and continue to pay me well and renew my contract, year after year.

  25. Effective office? Prove it! by lwriemen · · Score: 4, Informative

    "effective office" cubicle is an oxymoron. There have been many studies over the years that show that open office spaces are counter-productive. The book, Peopleware, by DeMarco and Lister covers this and other topics, related to the management of knowledge workers. At the time Peopleware was written, DeMarco and Lister couldn't find a single productivity study that supported the installation of cubicles.

    People not found at their desks are often practicing the productivity enhancement called, "hiding from the boss". It is often the only way to get work done around a micro-manager.