
Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace - __Joker
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/30/google-got-it-wrong-the-open-office-trend-is-destroying-the-workplace/
======
louhike
This article has been discussed several times, mostly
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9404006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9404006)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8815065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8815065).

------
stevesearer
One facet that never comes up in these anti-open office articles is that it is
100% impossible to design the perfect office for you as an individual, for
every other individual, all while designing an office that is perfect for the
organization.

Many people here advocate private offices, which are great, but as soon as you
start putting up walls, you've totally restricted access to natural light in
the interior of the building. Access to natural light and breaking down the
hierarchy that came with private offices (exterior for high-level employees,
corner for the highest) are partly responsible for creating an environment
where open office are desirable alternatives.

With all of condemnation for open plan office happening, I'm excited to see
what the next swing of the pendulum back toward privacy will bring us. Hint:
It won't be private offices.

Some of the things I'm excited about in this regard are:

-Activity-based working office designs

-Increased working from home/telecommuting arrangements

The most important part of office design is to consider your company's
culture, and then develop an office that will best support it rather than
jumping onto what types of designs have worked for the unique cultures of
other companies.

~~~
bryanlarsen
As Joel Spolsky noted, getting natural light to a large number of small rooms
is basically a solved problem: how many hotel rooms do you see without a
window? Sure, private offices are smaller than hotel rooms, but offices
generally have large numbers of meeting rooms, labs and common areas that
don't need windows.

Of course, that means that you need to build office buildings more like
hotels; you can't so easily retrofit existing office buildings.

~~~
snowwrestler
Hotels can do that because their revenue is directly dependent on the quality
of their rooms. No hotel can sell rooms without windows, so every hotel has to
invest in architecture that gives every room a window--either through exterior
convolutions, or a giant hollow atrium to soak up useless interior space.

This is not true of other businesses. A software company makes no money at all
from its architecture, so it can gain a competitive advantage by making more
dense use of its available office space.

Also: who wants a meeting room or common area with no natural light?

~~~
Cthulhu_
Offices should do that because their revenue is directly dependent on the
productivity and happiness of their employees. Likewise, no office builder
should be able to sell offices without windows.

After all, you'll spend more conscious time in the office than in a hotel
room.

------
jguimont
SAP star building in Germany headquarters are a good example of what to do
with office spaces:

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gOgdHlT33Jo/TQ7zXFqaxjI/AAAAAAAAAJ...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gOgdHlT33Jo/TQ7zXFqaxjI/AAAAAAAAAJA/zS6O1oE5zSU/s320/IMG01473-20101217-1045.jpg)

[http://www.mz-
web.de/image/view/2012/4/23/17117282,16301136,...](http://www.mz-
web.de/image/view/2012/4/23/17117282,16301136,dmData,maxh,480,maxw,480,SAPZentrale+%25281334258355914%2529.jpg)

[http://www.donfeidner.de/assets/images/P1000400_SAP_Star_Bui...](http://www.donfeidner.de/assets/images/P1000400_SAP_Star_Building_2.jpg)

The wings have offices which can sit 6 to 8 people and at the center there are
the meeting rooms, restrooms and lunch area.

~~~
wahsd
Group spaces are quite prevalent in Germany from what I can tell. It makes
total sense, in Germany. There is a bit of a difference in the USA though,
where employers think you get productivity out of surveillance. We are not a
very deeply thinking society, so it makes sense on the face of it that if you
can see people working they are being productive. What we miss though, is that
all the surveillance and lack of protections and benefits leads to massive
amounts of squandered energies and effort on busy work. Busy work is work that
is noise which serves a couple different types of purposes. It can make you
look like you are working because you are working on something; whether it is
relevant, important, or useful is totally irrelevant though. It can serve to
make the system as inefficient as possible in order to assure job security.
There are other purposes but those are some of the most prevalent.

At the core of the problem lies a misunderstanding of the problem that open
plans are/were meant to address and can also be tied back to our problem with
management models and incentives in our corporations and society.

It's a complicated matter that I can't do justice here, but if you have
incompetent management trying to satisfy abusive demands from "investors" aka
Wall Street, incompetent management leads to believe the problem of gaining
ever more "productivity" out of a corporation and workers is solved by
squeezing ever harder to get that last drop out. Which incompetent management
and incentives lead them to believe can be done by putting everyone in a big
open space so they feel surveilled and monitored and will do what they can to
appear like a good worker by doing busy work and staying longer doing. This is
largely all due to a system without employee protections where anyone in the
99% can be fired at a moment's notice because some executive screwed up or
needs to be paid more.

It's more obviously presented as exercise metaphor, but the following post
about "Why Productive People Always have Time to
Exercise"[http://riskology.co/sharpen-the-saw/](http://riskology.co/sharpen-
the-saw/) also applies to these types of circumstances.

On a side note: Why the hell doesn't HN support markdown? The site's already
kind of embarrassingly styled, it's shameful that you can't even link somehow.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _The site 's already kind of embarrassingly styled_

That's kinda subjective; it looks fine to me, although I do miss contextual
linking and collapsible comments (a la reddit) - although, this is something
they're working on.

~~~
wahsd
I'm referring to the fact that it's not responsive and does not scale without
zooming.

------
v4n4d1s
They should switch to libreoffice. Fixed everything for me.

~~~
umairsiddique
lol

------
dpcan
The first 2 startups I worked for back in the early 2000's were open offices,
though there were only 6 of us in one room at the first startup, and 3 at the
other.

At the first startup, thankfully, customer service was in an open office in
another part of the small building. Couldn't imagine having to work next to
those conversations.

In the first company it wasn't so bad, we had all our computers circled and
pointed toward the center (mostly) which afforded us a little bit of privacy
at least, but it was awkward looking up to have a thought and making eye
contact with a fellow coder across from me. Though sometimes it was funny. I
think the hardest part was the distraction of being the end-point for anyone's
conversation at any time they felt like talking to me - no matter how good a
coding groove I was in. Or maybe it was having to listen to 2 other coders
figure out a problem together in the same office where I was trying to work.
Hmm. Either way, I prefer private offices.

At the next startup I went to, the computers faced the wall in the office. It
was designed this way so the management could look over our shoulder all day
long. Needless to say, I quit within months. Constantly being questioned why I
was working in a certain file, or viewing part of the project's website that
the boss didn't understand made me cringe. I'd go home grumpy everyday. I'd
eat in my car at a creepy park across the street just to get away from the
place. It was awful.

Worked for myself ever since. In an office.

~~~
webtards
I do wonder sometimes, if all the startups that followed Googs lead into open
offices have been pranked, much like the interview folks who blindly followed
Googs wacky and wanky interview questions, which have also been shown to be a
useless idea. There is probably a pranks team in Goog that publicises the
ideas to see who will blindly follow.

------
ronnier
I truly dislike open offices. The constant sound of mechanical keyboards
clacking really gets to me, and I'm not sure why. I wear headphones listening
to loud music to cancel out the sounds of these damn keyboards.

~~~
laichzeit0
Then there is the open plan office, combined with the clean desk policy. That
way you have to endure the inane yacking going on around you and god forbid
you try and figure something out on a piece of paper while you're working and
go grab a coffee without locking said piece of paper in a drawer or it's a
written warning.

I hate the modern corporate office environment. HR should just be upfront
about what open plan offices are about: saving money. It lets you cram in as
many people in as small an area as possible. That's it. Nevermind if they're
productive or not. We're SAVING MONEY!

~~~
rwallace
This idea that open plan offices are about saving money needs to go in the bit
bucket. If it was really about money, they'd have people working from home,
which offers far greater cost savings. It's not about money, it's about power,
the visible display of subservience.

~~~
redblacktree
I'd say it's both. Starting with the constraint: Employees must be in the
office, so I know they're working, the cheapest option is an open plan.

------
contergan
I fully agree. I currently work for a startup and after we moved into a new
office last month our management had the glorious idea of putting the
programmers next to the customer support team in an open office :/

It's horrible - I have to endure the customer support calls the whole day long
and can't find even 5 min. in silence, in order to concentrate on the
programming tasks I'm supposed to do. I tried putting on headphones and
listening to white noise etc., but that doesn't cut it either. I need silence
to work efficiently and it's been that way ever since I cam remember. My
productivity has absolutely tanked in the open office and coming this Friday,
I will quit the job and spend the coming weeks getting back into self-
employment and working from home.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Have you at least provided feedback to the managers? Like cold, hard feedback
"I cannot work like this, I and my colleagues are going to quit and you're
fucked when we do" kinda feedback.

~~~
mgkimsal
No one ever does this, unfortunately. Getting a group to band together and
threaten collective action is something few people even consider - most people
I know are scared of entertaining that idea.

~~~
mkopinsky
It's not about making a collective threat, it's letting management know that
the new conditions are making you consider options "up to and including
departure", and that you think the other devs may be in the same boat.

~~~
snx
Just make sure you don't talk for other people (for example naming your
peers). Otherwise i strongly agree.

------
fridek
Everybody needs a balance between productive alone time and creative
brainstorming time. Most companies I've seen achieve this with an open space
and plenty of WFH for all employees.

Basically we meet 2-3 times a week to organize and share ideas, and spend
there rest of the week heads down at home, coding in whatever pace and setting
we like.

Closed private offices enable people to slack at work and pretend to work 80h
week while actually dozing off most of the day. I'm not saying everybody does
that, but it's certainly a possibility and something I have observed few
times. Once I was tasked with "doing something about" a manager who played
competitively StarCraft at work.

In reality that's a symptom of a larger issue, where we are (consciously or
not) evaluated on how long we stay at the office over how productive we are.
IMO it's nobodys business if I play StarCraft at work, as long as it helps me,
or doesn't prevent me from achieving my objectives.

~~~
hvidgaard
I would argue that if you cannot restrain yourself to be productive in a
closed office, why would you be it from home?

That said, I agree, evaluating on time at the office is the wrong metric, but
for the vast majority of managers, they have no idea how to evaluate it
otherwise because they do not understand the tasks at hand.

~~~
fridek
At home nothing prevents me from not working and I often don't. The difference
is, at home you can spend your time with a book, cooking, with kids or spouse
- which all is refreshing and in general will improve your performance once
you get back to work.

In the office not working constitutes mostly of playing dumb games or reading
hacker news, the latter being kind of ok, but certainly it doesn't leave me
refreshed and willing to go back to my not-so-hip-after-the-latest-js-
framework code.

I don't think it's realistically possible to put a metric on one's
performance, that would allow us to break from time-based evaluations
completely. That being said, I see how my colleagues are progressing with
their work and it has nothing to do with which are working from home, which
from office and there is also no clear time-value correlation either. It has
more to do with how motivated they are, what internally drives them and how
skilled they are.

I have a friend at work who believes deeply in software craftsmanship
principles and it's a privilege to see how he works. He stays at home more
than most of us, but provides a steady and consistent stream of small, high-
quality pull requests, all day, every day. I watch how not slacking at work
can have a great impact on the project and on the team morale. It has very
little to do with an open space, WFH, what kind of laptop you work on and what
blend of coffee you are given. I grew to believe those are just excuses I (and
others) are giving themselves to not fully focus on work. Once I admitted that
to myself, I decided to spend my slacking time in a way that improves my
performance later. I hope one day it will go away completely, or I will get
organized enough to be consistent in my output regardless of interruptions.

------
joelrunyon
The author's argument is basically "I don't like open offices, so they're
bad." Yawn.

I would have liked to see some studies on actual productivity level
fluctuations based on these moves.

Otherwise, it's simply another variation of "I'm not used to it, so it's bad."

~~~
crazy_geek
Study after study show that open distraction office plans are bad for
productivity, and increase stress and sick days -- even among those who like
open office plans.

~~~
hanspeter
Your links to the studies aren't clickable.

~~~
mattmanser
It's kinda tiresome, on HN there's is this rabid pro-open plan brigade, even
though all the studies show otherwise.

It's the same as the "I can work 60 hours productivly" brigade. All the
studies, for over a century (yes, century, not decades) have shown otherwise.
They are studies that show that people delude themselves into thinking they
are more productive than they are. And yet, no matter how many articles and
papers you post, nope.

HN insists.

They are ingrained memes on HN that won't, despite all the evidence you ever
post, go away.

So why bother? You can google it yourself, and then promptly ignore all the
professional studies and still believe in open plan offices. It's simply not
worth the effort.

~~~
ramblerman
It's a conspiracy, and you have proof of this. But are reluctant to show us as
we wouldn't believe you anyway.

Interesting.

~~~
mattmanser
It's not a conspiracy, what tend to happen is you post a bunch of articles and
then the parent starts picking at 1 point in 1 article as if that invalidates
all of them and you get drawn into this long tiresome discussion with what is
nothing but a crackpot using loads of anecdotes or worse, blog posts, against
large scientific studies. And quite often it's nonsense any way, they just
misunderstand it.

For some reason working conditions and working hours are incredibly emotive
subjects, similar to women in tech, that tend to bring out the irrational side
of otherwise lucid HN posters.

------
calinet6
We get it, HN is majority introvert, and really likes logical optimization
using data.

But some things aren't easily measurable. Is it a coincidence that companies
who pioneered the open office plan are also some of the most successful in the
world? Show me how you'd even begin to disprove that and I'll show you a dozen
confounding variables making it silly to even try. What is the true impact of
an open office on a culture of collaborative interaction? And what's the
impact of that type of interaction on success? Hard to measure.

Sometimes we look at the things we can easily make into numbers and assume
they describe the whole truth. Not always so.

"The most important things are unmeasurable." —W. Edwards Deming

~~~
nilkn
Surely you don't actually need to measure anything. Just ask people what they
prefer.

And to be fair, I've met people, online and off, who legitimately like open
offices or would prefer a hybrid. But I've met roughly an order of magnitude
more people who don't like them at all and just want a quiet, personal space.

And you're right, there _are_ a lot of confounding factors when you look at
companies like Google. For instance, I'm sure the prospect of getting filthy
rich was pretty enticing for early employees, who probably found the work
conditions nearly irrelevant in comparison. Same thing goes for Facebook.
There's a well-known notion that some companies are just so successful so fast
that they can basically do anything in terms of office dynamics and it will
work for them. This is commonly applied to Valve's management strategy (or
lack thereof).

Also, you could fairly easily argue that both Google and FB met with the
majority of their success _before_ they engineered massive open office farms.
You could also fairly easily argue that both have been doing a pretty mediocre
job lately, with some successes but lots of failures, mostly just maintaining
their status (especially Facebook, in my humble opinion).

I'd imagine that the more upside there is for employees, and the more
empowered the employees are in general, the more they'll tolerate and perform
well in an open office on average.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I've found asking people to be notoriously unreliable. Folks want quiet and
comfort, sure. But is that the best thing for productivity?

Ok, in this case, probably. But standing desks are apparently a good thing,
and the vast majority of us eschew them. And so on. Anything that seems like
an inconvenience gets demonized as a rule. So just asking is a minefield.

~~~
nilkn
I get what you're saying, but I think there's an easy solution: just ask
people who've experienced both. That way you're not experiencing the classic
but very real problem of people not knowing what they want until they've got
it.

At my workplace, for instance, not once in the history of the company has
anyone with an office _ever_ given it up, under any circumstances, to move
into a cubicle again. Likewise, someone with a cubicle next to a window has
never, in my tenure at the company, moved to a cubicle not next to a window.

As for standing desks, I didn't realize that people actively eschewed them. My
impression is just that they're impractical for a lot of people to actually
obtain. If your workplace doesn't provide them and won't on request, your
options get sort of limited. I have a coworker who made a makeshift standing
desk but it's not very ideal. I imagine a ton of people are in this situation.

Ok, but let's suppose that, by some ingenious study, you're able to determine
that nobody prefers the open office, everybody prefers private offices (quite
strongly), and yet productivity for the company is better with an open office.
That's pretty counter-intuitive, but the world is filled with counter-
intuitive things. Does that mean that companies should all switch to open
offices?

Should a company do something _just_ because it can be shown to increase
productivity? I don't think that's necessarily the case. For instance, it
might be that the productivity gain is somewhat minimal and that over the
years a number of great employees are lost (or not able to be hired) due to
the office layout. So in that case the illusion of temporary increased
productivity will lead to a long-term net decrease in productivity.

~~~
calinet6
That was my point. There are a lot of things that we measure (eg:
productivity) when we should actually be looking at larger goals.

In this case, an open office creates a certain type of culture and work
environment. That might be desirable for the company as a whole, even if it's
suboptimal for some individuals, and even if certain measurements at a low
level are against it.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I buy that, for some companies. As a developer, I can tell you that my
productivity is shot/reduced 90% by a noisy open environment. So I always find
a company that needs my skills, and houses me appropriately to capitalize on
those skills. If I'm a low-level measurement that the company can do without,
so they put me in open plan anyway, I'll leave.

------
wodenokoto
Just a different opinion here. I have never worked in a single office space. I
honestly can't imagine such a thing. But I do know how incredible good I am at
distracting myself at home.

Just having someone around, who are working on a different piece of the same
puzzle is a major motivator.

~~~
StevePerkins
Apparently you indeed have never worked in an office space. Because it's
approximately 10% "working on a different piece of the same puzzle", and
approximately 90% "talking about 'Age of Ultron' at top volume for hours
straight".

~~~
mauricemir
Yep more distracting that having executive jet engines being tested out side
your office (I used to work on campus at cranfield)

Though being able to go and watch the spitfire they rebuilt being demoed was
really cool.

------
amolgupta
Not to mention the situation in a startup where the tech team is sitting next
to the sales and marketing teams who are constantly on the phone.

------
doppel
At my current workplace, we have a shared room for the developers and
designers (5-9 people depending on the day and time), while the rest (~20
people) are spread in other bigger open spaces. I find that it works well,
because we are mostly stationary and focused on a specific task, while the
rest (sales, marketing, customer development, etc.) are constantly moving
around, in meetings, visiting customers.

In a mostly-tech company I couldn't imagine not having some compartments so
that you don't suddenly find yourself 1 among 30 people in the same room - I'd
go completely insane.

------
DanielBMarkham
Is this open office = for work of a highly creative and collaborative nature,
the team owns their own workspace, which they customize as they choose, and
folks on the team are in physical proximity?

Or is this open office = packing everybody into one huge area like sardines no
matter what their job role or what their team is doing with little or no
account for ownership?

I find we lump a huge amount of stuff into the category "open office", much of
it crappy, then stand outside and throw rocks at the entire concept.

Let's not do that.

------
chrisBob
There are worse things than open offices. One of the new trends is open _lab
space_. Chemistry labs at UNC made the transition a few years ago.

Did someone, anywhere on the floor, open something that produces hazardous
vapors? Why contain it to one room when you can expose 1/3 of the building?

The University of Michigan's Biology program currently has a building under
construction with the same "feature", and I am sure there are others.

------
teekert
"Meanwhile, “ease of interaction” with colleagues — the problem that open
offices profess to fix — was cited as a problem by fewer than 10 percent of
workers in any type of office setting."

Here it is the other way around, the open office parts of the building are
very quite, nobody dears make too much sound. It is much more social to walk
into an office for a quick chat, only disturbing 1, 2 or 3 others.

~~~
thoastbrot
Just imagine how "ease of interaction" is not a problem if you don't mind not
to interact at all. That's another problem fixed forcefully by open offices. I
like not being alone in my office, having the whole team of a dozen people in
my reach. I don't like loud discussions either, but I can mute those with my
ear plugs. I cannot unmute a solo office box.

------
mark_l_watson
After 14 years working remotely in a home office I worked at Google in 2013 in
an open office. It was an adjustment but I enjoyed it. I shifted my work hours
to 6:15am to 4pm for a few hours of quiet work time everyday. Also, there were
many places to work away from my desk. Most managers seemed to have more
private work spaces.

------
aethertap
The best working environment I was ever part of in terms of productivity was
set up with private offices, but at the team level. We'd have a team of people
who were all working on the same component (five or six people) in a room with
each other, but otherwise insulated from the bustle of the office. It was
hugely helpful to be in a room with all of the people who were relevant to
your work, and no other distractions. That may have just been due to having a
good team, but I have a lot of good memories from that time.

------
vermooten
Lots of people in our organisation equate non-open offices (in our case, cubes
with high walls) with a we've-always-done-things-this-way attitude. And with a
lack of transparency, the desire not to share 9and so remain vital) etc.
However in our UK office we have the opposite - our development room is like a
1980s trading floor, impossible to focus for more than a few minutes at a time
even with sweaty decent headphones.

Work-from-home is the way forward - LINQ combined with trust mean I can work
in my pyjamas. Win!

------
moron4hire
A small amount of friction in communication is a good thing. People become
intellectually lazy if they can ask questions of anyone they want, at will.

------
xasos
Is it really that black and white? I prefer a nice combination where the
workplace is relatively open, but people still have space for privacy. It's
not like Google throws all their engineers into a room...

> If employers want to make the open-office model work, they have to take
> measures to improve work efficiency. For one, they should create more
> private area

Many companies already split up like this, breaking teams down and giving all
the members ample space and privacy. The truly open model that I've seen work
the best is sales teams, where it has a "sales floor" feel and employees can
be energetic making sales.

------
mcv
Articles about how X doesn't work tend to use examples of where X is really
badly implemented. In the case of this article, it seems the office she was
working had a really toxic culture, with micromanaging managers, coworkers
judging you when you leave, excessively noisy people, etc.

I've always worked in shared offices, ranging from 3 people to, currently, and
entire department of 40 or thereabouts. Never seems to be a problem. But with
large rooms, you do need to consider acoustics of course. And letting managers
keep a close eye on people is a terrible reason for anything.

------
phkahler
Agree with all of it except the end. Don't fall for the "work from home" bit.
Sure there is privacy, but it's also isolating and destroys the primary
barrier to working around the clock.

------
mattdlondon
How is this Google's fault? Google's name is used in the article title, but
then it is basically not mentioned again apart from in a list of equally well-
known companies?

~~~
jasonwocky
I don't think the article is blaming Google. Just har-har'ing with attitude
that Google maybe isn't as smart as its cracked up to be.

~~~
stevesearer
The title was probably chosen because the editors believe adding something
about Google will generate the most views and sharing.

------
keerthiko
My preference has always been a shared workspace with the option for coders to
pick up their computer and head outside to a coffee shop or unoccupied
conference room or something to hack away in the zone when they felt like it.

This worked especially well when our startup was based out of a coworking
space that had lots of temporary private spaces for individuals aside from the
per-company office rental, when we were just four people.

------
yawz
Peopleware (by Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister) must be a mandatory read for anyone
working in a team and office environment.

------
kendallpark
Every few months there's an opinion piece on HN about open offices. Then
everyone gets into the same debate over whether they like the open offices or
not.

What I'd like to see are new STUDIES about open offices, not the rehashing of
personal experiences and anecdotes.

~~~
frostmatthew
> What I'd like to see are new STUDIES about open offices

The article we're discussing mentions multiple studies...beyond that there's a
great New Yorker article[1] from last year that references a number of
studies. This blog post[2] links to a couple others and addresses
costs/alternatives.

A "study of over 40,000 survey responses collected over a decade has found
that the benefits for workers are quickly outweighed by the disadvantages"[3].
A Washington Post article[4] on office furniture designers realizing (citing
multiple studies) "open-plan spaces are actually lousy for workers." And a
TIME article[5] highlighted decades of research that associated open layouts
with "greater employee stress, poorer co-worker relations and reduced
satisfaction with the physical environment."

[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/currency-tag/the-open-office-
trap](http://www.newyorker.com/currency-tag/the-open-office-trap)

[2] [http://nathanmarz.com/blog/the-inexplicable-rise-of-open-
flo...](http://nathanmarz.com/blog/the-inexplicable-rise-of-open-floor-plans-
in-tech-companies.html)

[3] [http://theconversation.com/open-plan-offices-attract-
highest...](http://theconversation.com/open-plan-offices-attract-highest-
levels-of-worker-dissatisfaction-study-18246)

[4] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-
leadership/wp/2015/04...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-
leadership/wp/2015/04/22/office-designers-find-open-plan-spaces-are-actually-
lousy-for-workers/)

[5] [http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/15/why-the-open-office-is-a-
ho...](http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/15/why-the-open-office-is-a-hotbed-of-
stress/)

------
Exgavin
I'd further add that "agile" workspaces reminds me of sweatshops in India. It
makes other "open" office plans look appealing. It puts the open concept on a
gradient much to your point.

------
bunkydoo
If you don't like this, why not go start your own company or find a new job?
There is nothing forcing you to stay in this job. I for one have to agree that
the communal aspect of working in an open office has its benefits and
downfalls. But if one day I came in and didn't like it to the level you
described - I'd quit and go find a job where I can get right with myself.

~~~
johnaspden
I think this is a good suggestion. I've given up on 'contracting' these days,
solely because I hate open plan, and just consult freelance. I rent my own
office to work in and it's lovely.

I get lonely though! I miss the technical and social conversations we used to
have in the kitchen or round the coffee machine.

What would be ideal is if I were to rent an office inside the company I'm
working for. I would actually be quite happy to pay my client to rent a bit of
their space if it's ever a possibility. After all rental costs are chickenfeed
compared to developer compensation.

~~~
georgehotelling
You could find a coworking space in your area and set up shop there. They
exist to provide that kind of atmosphere to freelancers.

~~~
johnaspden
I'd love to, but they're all bloody open-plan

------
wahsd
Very good piece. I am sure the Author is quite a pleasant person and all, but
I really hate her just for going to the Beats store. She got what she
deserves.

------
ryan90
This conversation again?

