There’s some pretty compelling research that indicates most people dislike open office designs. It also seems to lower productivity.
Which leads to the question of why so many companies use open office designs. My guess is that open offices make the company seem more cool/laid-back and less stodgy than cubicle farms. This might help to attract employees, even though it actually makes them less happy in the long-run.
My guess is that open offices make the company seem more cool/laid-back and less stodgy than cubicle farms. This might help to attract employees, even though it actually makes them less happy in the long-run.
This is it, basically. You see it a lot in companies based on churning through employees rather than building up a stable longterm workforce. The open-plan spaces look hip and make newcomers feel like they’re working in a Cool Modern Company, so they’re more willing to endure the daily annoyances like half a dozen distracting conversations going on at once across the room. It doesn’t matter that they eventually wear down under the realization that they are working in a Panopticon prison yard. In fact it’s probably considered a feature instead of a bug—I can’t think of a better way to make employees feel small and pressured to perform.
Cubicle farms might seem like the prime example of drudgery, but at least you get your own little space and have an unexposed back.
There’s a good deal of research on how open offices can increase creativity, through concepts like propinquity. An open office may point to the fact that they value innovation over productivity.
That’s the usual argument. The Davis meta-analysis cited in that New Yorker article found that open offices hurt creativity, which is what I would expect from a more distracting environment. Anyway if there is any good counter-evidence I would like to see it.
The New Yorker claims that the 2011 Davis review (not meta-analysis) found that open offices hurt creativity, but I don’t see that in in the paper. It only uses the word “creativity” twice, once citing Csikszentmihalyi, and once in the bibliography. If you have read the paper and claim that it does talk about creativity, can you suggest a better word to search for or give a more specific citation?
Maybe this is the difference between the roles of “predator” and “prey”. As a “prey”, you hate open spaces. As a “predator”, you love them. Guess who has the power to make the decision?
The bosses are probably making the decisions that feel right to them, ignoring the research. And maybe the employees’ ability to endure the increased stress is some kind of costly signalling. (Not sure what exactly is signalled here: loyalty? self-confidence? resistance to stress?)
There’s some pretty compelling research that indicates most people dislike open office designs. It also seems to lower productivity.
Which leads to the question of why so many companies use open office designs. My guess is that open offices make the company seem more cool/laid-back and less stodgy than cubicle farms. This might help to attract employees, even though it actually makes them less happy in the long-run.
This is it, basically. You see it a lot in companies based on churning through employees rather than building up a stable longterm workforce. The open-plan spaces look hip and make newcomers feel like they’re working in a Cool Modern Company, so they’re more willing to endure the daily annoyances like half a dozen distracting conversations going on at once across the room. It doesn’t matter that they eventually wear down under the realization that they are working in a Panopticon prison yard. In fact it’s probably considered a feature instead of a bug—I can’t think of a better way to make employees feel small and pressured to perform.
Cubicle farms might seem like the prime example of drudgery, but at least you get your own little space and have an unexposed back.
There’s a good deal of research on how open offices can increase creativity, through concepts like propinquity. An open office may point to the fact that they value innovation over productivity.
That’s the usual argument. The Davis meta-analysis cited in that New Yorker article found that open offices hurt creativity, which is what I would expect from a more distracting environment. Anyway if there is any good counter-evidence I would like to see it.
The New Yorker claims that the 2011 Davis review (not meta-analysis) found that open offices hurt creativity, but I don’t see that in in the paper. It only uses the word “creativity” twice, once citing Csikszentmihalyi, and once in the bibliography. If you have read the paper and claim that it does talk about creativity, can you suggest a better word to search for or give a more specific citation?
I haven’t read it, I was relying on the New Yorker’s interpretation.
Maybe this is the difference between the roles of “predator” and “prey”. As a “prey”, you hate open spaces. As a “predator”, you love them. Guess who has the power to make the decision?
The bosses are probably making the decisions that feel right to them, ignoring the research. And maybe the employees’ ability to endure the increased stress is some kind of costly signalling. (Not sure what exactly is signalled here: loyalty? self-confidence? resistance to stress?)