Unpopular, yes, but you're not wrong because you're talking about only yourself.
I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people.
I think the point many people are trying to make is that open offices decrease productivity for most people.
I don't think people stop there, however. Many people, including the author of the article, go the extra step to say that open offices are bad.
I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices, so when you say stuff like "open offices are a dead end", that's a direct attack on the work habits of a significant part of the population.
The combativeness, I think, comes from the fact that almost everyone has been forced to work in a situation that doesn't work for them. But the solution isn't to try to force everyone to use your favored office situation: that's just doing the same thing to others that was done to you. Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them.
Can you cite a study which asserts this fact?
Is there some threshhold of significance where it becomes acceptable to force everyone into an office space that doesn't work for everyone? Or can we just agree that we don't need to force everyone to work the same way, and people should be allowed to work in the office space that works for them?
This comment strikes me as more malicious than is warranted.
Given actual productivity studies tend to show a big, big decrease in productivity among workers who have individual or small group offices replaced with open office plans, the "significant portion of the population" claim seems unlikely, since they're apparently not significant enough to move the needle in productivity studies.
That's not how statistics work. If 60% of people see a 20% decrease in productivity in an open office and 40% see a 20% increase, then: .6 x .8 + .4 x 1.2 = .48 + .48 = .96, so you'd expect to see a 4% decrease in productivity.
In fact, people who work in open offices could even be the majority if the effects have different magnitudes. Let's say 70% of people experience a 10% increase in productivity when working in an open office, while the other 30% experience a 50% decrease. .7 x 1.1 + .3 x .5 = .77 + .15 = .92. So you could see an 8% reduction in productivity in an open office, even if 70% saw an increase in productivity.
You would, of course, see an increase in productivity in both scenarios if you let people work in the office spaces that are appropriate for their needs.
So would I. Suggesting they're bad for most people means that they're likely "bad" (i.e. not the best available workspace).
> I don't think you can argue against the fact that a significant portion of the population works well in open offices
If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it.
That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices?
Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4].
> Instead, we should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them.
That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space.
The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions."
1. https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-harvard-study-you-o...
2. https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/harvard-research-op...
3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/success/tca-the-open...
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2018/11/07/new-stu...
Why are we trying to force everone into a one-size-fits-all workspace to begin with? Why not let people work in the spaces that work best for them?
> If you're defining "works well" as "gets their work done", then I won't dispute it.
> That's not the issue though. Do they do their best work? Do they lose productivity to the open office? Do they try to find jobs without open offices?
> Yes to all of those questions[1][2][3][4].
What you have is an impressive collection of links that study how the majority of people work best. None of that disproves what I'm saying, which is that there's a significant minority who works quite well in open offices.
> That's the thing, though. Remote-only companies are exactly that. You can opt into an office if you want to -- just gather some coworkers or go to a coworking space.
Sounds great to me. I've no idea why you're bringing this up as if I would disagree with it--I think remote work with the option of coming in to an office is a great idea. It's an effective implementation of what I said: "[W]e should be focusing on finding office situations that work for each of us, and letting others choose office situations that work for them."
> The oppressive decision-making you're referring to is inherent to open-office-only companies, where they say, "If you want to work here, you'll work in a large, loud room full of distractions."
Okay, so why are you attacking the open office when the oppressive decision making is clearly the real problem?
The company I'm currently working for has an open office, and most of the company works from home most of the week. I, the extrovert, have spent exactly one day in the office ever (not by choice--I live too far away or I'd be there every day). So there's nothing inherent to open offices that suddenly turns management into authoritarians.