You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

knb comments on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 26 January 2015 12:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (431)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (431)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 January 2015 03:29:19PM *  5 points [-]

I read a book from a guy who writes many funny stories about animals (sorry, I don't remember his name now). He described how ZOOs often try to provide a lot of space for animals... which is actually bad for non-predators, because their instinct is to hide, and if they cannot hide, they have high levels of stress (even when nothing is attacking them at the moment), which harms their health. Instead, he recommended to give the animals a small place to hide, where they will feel safe.

Recently (after reading "Don't Shoot the Dog", which I strongly recommend to everyone) when I read something about animals, I often think: "What could this imply for humans?"

For me, open-space offices are this kind of scary. I can't imagine working in an open-space office and keeping my sanity. On a second thought, it depends. I probably wouldn't mind having fellow employees in the same room, but the idea of my boss watching me all day long feels really uncomfortable.

Are other people okay with that? (Maybe they consider bosses to be their friends instead of predators.) Or is it just something that the bosses force upon us, and some of us pretend to be okay with it to signal being a "professional" (which is something like being a Vulcan rationalist)?

Could you work in a open space, where your boss would be sitting behind your back all day long? How would you rate such working environment? -- Please answer only if you are an employee in a situation where you make money for living (not a student, not the boss).

EDIT to clarify: I meant sitting in open-space office with your boss (defined as someone who is in hierarchy above you, who gives you commands, even if they are not at the very top of the company). And the boss does not have to sit literally behind your back, but spends most of the time in the room where you work, sitting in the place where they see you.

Submitting...

Comment author: knb 30 January 2015 02:12:18AM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: bramflakes 30 January 2015 03:25:40AM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 January 2015 06:13:15AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: knb 31 January 2015 07:18:01AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 February 2015 09:54:13PM *  1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: knb 02 February 2015 10:25:08PM 0 points [-]

I haven't read it, I was relying on the New Yorker's interpretation.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 January 2015 09:22:08AM *  1 point [-]

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?)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit