Slashdot Mirror
Open Offices Make You Less Open (calnewport.com)
Why do companies deploy open office layouts? A major justification is the idea that removing spatial boundaries between colleagues will generate increased collaboration and smarter collective intelligence. Cal Newport: As I learned in a fascinating new study, published earlier this week in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, there was good reason to believe that this might be true. As the study's authors, Ethan Bernstein and Stephen Turban, note" [T]he notion that propinquity, or proximity, predicts social interaction -- driving the formation of social ties and therefore information exchange and collaboration -- is one of the most robust findings in sociology."
But when researchers turned their attention to the specific impact of open offices on interaction, the results were mixed. Perhaps troubled by this inconsistency, Bernstein and Turban decided to get to the bottom of this issue. Prior studies of open offices had relied on imprecise measures such as self-reported activity logs to quantify interactions before and after a shift to an open office plan. Bernstein and Turban tried something more accurate: they had subjects wear devices around their neck that directly measured every face-to-face encounter. They also used email and IM server logs to determine exactly how much the volume of electronic interactions changed.
Here's a summary of what they found: Contrary to what's predicted by the sociological literature, the 52 participants studied spent 72% less time interacting face-to-face after the shift to an open office layout. To make these numbers concrete: In the 15 days before the office redesign, participants accumulated an average of around 5.8 hours of face-to-face interaction per person per day. After the switch to the open layout, the same participants dropped to around 1.7 hours of face-to-face interaction per day. At the same time, the shift to an open office significantly increased digital communication. After the redesign, participants sent 56% more emails (and were cc'd 41% more times), and the number of IM messages sent increased by 67%.
But when researchers turned their attention to the specific impact of open offices on interaction, the results were mixed. Perhaps troubled by this inconsistency, Bernstein and Turban decided to get to the bottom of this issue. Prior studies of open offices had relied on imprecise measures such as self-reported activity logs to quantify interactions before and after a shift to an open office plan. Bernstein and Turban tried something more accurate: they had subjects wear devices around their neck that directly measured every face-to-face encounter. They also used email and IM server logs to determine exactly how much the volume of electronic interactions changed.
Here's a summary of what they found: Contrary to what's predicted by the sociological literature, the 52 participants studied spent 72% less time interacting face-to-face after the shift to an open office layout. To make these numbers concrete: In the 15 days before the office redesign, participants accumulated an average of around 5.8 hours of face-to-face interaction per person per day. After the switch to the open layout, the same participants dropped to around 1.7 hours of face-to-face interaction per day. At the same time, the shift to an open office significantly increased digital communication. After the redesign, participants sent 56% more emails (and were cc'd 41% more times), and the number of IM messages sent increased by 67%.
Fucking duh - every conversation had in the open air adds to the background noise. Not to mention everyone else listening in.
I'm happy these guys studied this. Hopefully the MBAs that climbed up their own asses to strip away our offices will read a copy and choke on it.
The obvious solution is to switch to Libre Offices. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There is a pretext, and there is a reason. The reason is that they're cheaper.
Isn't this obvious? Anyone talking to someone face-to-face in an open office is being rude to everyone in the room. So no longer do you pop into someone's office and chat, but are instead formed to setup a meeting or distract a dozen other people.
If management can't tell who's actually contributing work and who's screwing around and wasting everyone else's time, then it's management that needs to go. You can't expect to get good results if you don't have a useful way of measuring good results. Once most teams get large enough there's probably one person that's contributing several times the value of everyone else in the group. If management can't tell who that person is, they should be the one's being let go.
.
With open offices, you don't even have the sound-absorbing walls of a cubicle to help reduce the noise of co-workers, so everyone tends to wear [noise-cancelling] headphones, isolating themselves from their co-workers.
Open office layouts make you feel like you're under the eye all the time.
Because you are.
It means that you're not trusted to manage your own time and space, that you're not worth your own space (much less a damned window), that you're subject to all manner of extraneous noise, that your security is definitely more of an issue to the point of what you are willing to leave on your desk changes...
Only fucking idiots running on ivory tower thinking and nothing else at all would want to build an open office environment.
Companies are full of those.
Sorry, my bad.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.