No file cabinets. No assigned desks or phones. A backpack to carry materials from meeting to meeting. And a large swirl of desks and chairs.
There’s much complaining among our cohorts about open space offices. Conceived by German engineer-architects in the 1950s, and now boasting a 70 percent footprint in U.S. workplaces, office openness has long spurred a contentious discussion, with retorts right and left:
“It’s a great concept: Our organization is flatter and executives are more approachable.”
“Help! I can’t hear myself think – and am constantly interrupted.”
“Just think about the other benefits – in terms of real estate savings and increased collaboration.”
“Where’s our focus – and concentration? I go home at night with migraines.”
The two factors missing? One, self-determination – that is, the ability to decide what, where, and how to work – is absent. Millennials, for instance, pride themselves on selecting environments that help them contribute in a big way; the mere presence of open offices indicates that there is no choice and, probably, few options to make a difference. [Quite a few years ago, European workers passed laws to allow forms of co-determination.]
Two, communication. The havoc generated by having to figure out where to work each day, to find colleagues, even to identify the ‘what I need to-dos’ is considerable. Plus, instead of fostering collaboration, open offices often cause us to retreat, requesting every private cubbyhole and avoiding conversations.
What’s your take?
Quisque iaculis facilisis lacinia. Mauris euismod pellentesque tellus sit amet mollis.