A few days ago, Michael Flowersky wrote a blog post that asked the question, What’s the difference between an advocate of open space office and an Idiot? It was an amusing read but I wasn’t going to comment on it until I saw that it kept popping up in my feed. I wasn’t going to comment because it’s hard to see where the controversy lies.
It’s not much of a spoiler to reveal that Flowersky’s answer is “none.” Really, what else could it be? There’s really only one positive thing you can say for open space offices: they’re cheaper. Any other justification you hear is nonsense. “Oh, but it will improve communication and help team building.” Translation: “They’re cheaper.” You can be sure that anyone spouting the improved communication silliness has never had to work in one.
Many small startups have this type of office, of course, but that’s because they’re, you know, cheaper and these companies are barely Ramen profitable. Once they have sufficient income and, more importantly, once their team grows beyond the founders and one or two hires they pretty much have to do something different. That may be a conventional office arrangement or remote working or something similar. As Flowersky says, you can’t get much creative work done in an environment that guarantees continual interruptions and noise.
The ideal office arrangement for our type of work is, of course, private offices with a door. They’re definitely not cheaper. That’s especially true if the company is in, say, San Francisco with hideously large office rents. Perhaps the best solution is to maintain, if you need it, a small office for people to come to and for the occasional in-person staff meeting and otherwise let people work when and where they are most comfortable.
