by Alex Buckley
Facebook’s new 430,000 square-foot headquarters in Menlo Park, California does not have rooms. Instead, employees work in constant, unavoidable contact and communication with one another in what is now the largest open floor plan in the world. Echoing the very essence of his company, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that “we wanted our space to create the same sense of community and connection among our teams that we try to enable with our services around the world.”
Though Facebook lies on the extreme end of the spectrum, its new campus epitomizes a growing trend towards casual, communal office environments, particularly in Silicon Valley. Google pioneered this movement with its unorthodox work culture; sport courts, nap pods, free food, and multi-person desks have long been staples of the company’s workplace. Something in Google’s formula has worked exceptionally well, and other companies have begun to follow its lead. Today, behemoths like Facebook and Google all the way down to the leanest of startups operate largely in the absence of cubicles, preferring instead the hectic informality of computer rows set up like bar counters and glass-windowed meeting rooms. However, as employees have had time to adapt to the open office, suspicions that its enticing casualness may actually be too good to be true have emerged.
The rise of the informal workplace poses two intriguing questions: why has it taken hold in the technology sector more than anywhere else, and what about these workplaces, if anything, actually works?
To begin with, the goals of a technology company are very different from those of a law firm, hedge fund, or management consultancy. Many businesses exist primarily to serve clients, and executives or boards of directors establish ways of doing so within each one--procedures that prior experience has shown will lead to success. More traditional office environments and corporate cultures reflect this need for consistency. Deviations and distractions from necessarily strict protocols disrupt the status quo and therefore pose unnecessary risks, so employees must focus on their own work in their own spaces, reporting only to an established set of superiors along a chain of command. Technology companies, on the other hand, thrive on innovation and offer employees the opportunity to pursue it. Often innovation is even necessary for longevity--necessary to stave off the handfuls of startups looking to replace a company with more creative and efficient technologies.
Proponents of the informal workplace claim that the lack of privacy among coworkers and the ability to bounce ideas off one another at any time foster a creative environment conducive to this innovation. As Google’s vice president of Real Estate and Workplace Services, David Radcliffe, explained, "Casual collisions are what we try to create in the work environment. You can't schedule innovation, you can't schedule idea generation. And so when we think on our facilities around the world, we're really looking for little opportunities for engineers or for creative people to come together."2 Much of Google’s success can be attributed to its restlessly innovative spirit.
From a practical perspective, then, the differences between office environments in Wall Street and Silicon Valley make complete sense considering each must cater to the type of business conducted. The goals of a financial firm do not align with the goals of creativity and innovation of an open office, and the ease of communication cherished within technology companies does not lend itself to the isolating cubicles of a traditional office. For technology companies, though, the adoption of open offices can come at high costs.
Numerous concerns, from the spread of germs to excess auditory stimulation and distracting coworkers, arise when thinking about the work environment of a 430,000 square-foot communal office. Over the past decade, as more companies have shifted to the open office, various studies have been conducted in order to address such concerns and our productivity in this new workplace.
To begin with, the open office hinders productivity by impairing both physical health and mental acuity. In 2011, a study from the National Research Centre for the Working Environment in Denmark found that the amount of sick days reported increases proportionally to the number of people in a room; employees in open offices took sixty-two percent more sick days than those in private offices.3 From a cognitive perspective, the constant auditory strain of background conversations and relentless keyboard pattering can hinder basic mental functions. Applied psychologist Nick Perham recently demonstrated that the noise of office commotion impairs basic cognitive skills such as arithmetic and recall. Unfortunately, the music many employees use to block out this noise can have the same effect.4
The lack of privacy in the open office further threatens productivity. In 2011, Matthew Davis, an organizational psychologist at the University of Leeds in England, surveyed 38,000 workers about their productivity in open offices. He found that interruptions from colleagues significantly hindered productivity and that more senior employees fared worse than those below them.5 Perhaps the most important recent finding, though, has exposed the detrimental effects of multitasking, an unavoidable feature of the open office. In 2009, a group of psychologists at Stanford showed that chronic media multitaskers--who, for example, switch between phones, computers, and music--are more easily distracted by irrelevant stimuli and take longer to refocus their attention once diverted.6
The informal, open office can certainly work for some people. Millennials who have grown up with levels of stimulation and device-usage far higher than any generation has experienced before may be comfortable writing code on a bean-bag chair for an entire day. However, while coming to work in blue jeans and listening to music or chatter all day may sound like an exciting way to work, a growing body of research shows that the informal office can attack productivity from all angles. Companies should analyze carefully whether the benefits of innovation and communication are appropriate for not only their needs but also those of their employees before eagerly adopting the open office model.
Sources:
Newcomb, Alyssa. "Inside the Facebook Warehouse Where Everyone Works in One Room." ABC News. N.p., 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/inside-facebook-warehouse-works-room/story?id=30027454>.
Blackstone, John. "Inside Google Workplaces, from Perks to Nap Pods." CBS News. N.p., 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-google-workplaces-from-p erks-to-nap-pods/>.
Pejtersen, J., et al. "Sickness Absence Associated with Shared and Open-plan Offices--a National Cross Sectional Questionnaire Survey." Scand J Work Environ Health 37.5 (2011): 378-82. Print.
Perham, N., H. Hodgetts, and S. Banbury. "Mental Arithmetic and Non-speech Office Noise: An Exploration of Interference-by-content." Noise Health 62.15 (2013): 73-78. Print.
Davis, Matthew C., Desmond J. Leach, and Chris W. Clegg. "The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues." International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 26 (2011): n. pag. Print
Ophir, Eyal, Clifford Nass, and Anthony Wagner. "Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers." PNAS 106.37 (2009): n. pag. Print.
The rise of the informal workplace poses two intriguing questions: why has it taken hold in the technology sector more than anywhere else, and what about these workplaces, if anything, actually works?
To begin with, the goals of a technology company are very different from those of a law firm, hedge fund, or management consultancy. Many businesses exist primarily to serve clients, and executives or boards of directors establish ways of doing so within each one--procedures that prior experience has shown will lead to success. More traditional office environments and corporate cultures reflect this need for consistency. Deviations and distractions from necessarily strict protocols disrupt the status quo and therefore pose unnecessary risks, so employees must focus on their own work in their own spaces, reporting only to an established set of superiors along a chain of command. Technology companies, on the other hand, thrive on innovation and offer employees the opportunity to pursue it. Often innovation is even necessary for longevity--necessary to stave off the handfuls of startups looking to replace a company with more creative and efficient technologies.
Proponents of the informal workplace claim that the lack of privacy among coworkers and the ability to bounce ideas off one another at any time foster a creative environment conducive to this innovation. As Google’s vice president of Real Estate and Workplace Services, David Radcliffe, explained, "Casual collisions are what we try to create in the work environment. You can't schedule innovation, you can't schedule idea generation. And so when we think on our facilities around the world, we're really looking for little opportunities for engineers or for creative people to come together."2 Much of Google’s success can be attributed to its restlessly innovative spirit.
From a practical perspective, then, the differences between office environments in Wall Street and Silicon Valley make complete sense considering each must cater to the type of business conducted. The goals of a financial firm do not align with the goals of creativity and innovation of an open office, and the ease of communication cherished within technology companies does not lend itself to the isolating cubicles of a traditional office. For technology companies, though, the adoption of open offices can come at high costs.
Numerous concerns, from the spread of germs to excess auditory stimulation and distracting coworkers, arise when thinking about the work environment of a 430,000 square-foot communal office. Over the past decade, as more companies have shifted to the open office, various studies have been conducted in order to address such concerns and our productivity in this new workplace.
To begin with, the open office hinders productivity by impairing both physical health and mental acuity. In 2011, a study from the National Research Centre for the Working Environment in Denmark found that the amount of sick days reported increases proportionally to the number of people in a room; employees in open offices took sixty-two percent more sick days than those in private offices.3 From a cognitive perspective, the constant auditory strain of background conversations and relentless keyboard pattering can hinder basic mental functions. Applied psychologist Nick Perham recently demonstrated that the noise of office commotion impairs basic cognitive skills such as arithmetic and recall. Unfortunately, the music many employees use to block out this noise can have the same effect.4
The lack of privacy in the open office further threatens productivity. In 2011, Matthew Davis, an organizational psychologist at the University of Leeds in England, surveyed 38,000 workers about their productivity in open offices. He found that interruptions from colleagues significantly hindered productivity and that more senior employees fared worse than those below them.5 Perhaps the most important recent finding, though, has exposed the detrimental effects of multitasking, an unavoidable feature of the open office. In 2009, a group of psychologists at Stanford showed that chronic media multitaskers--who, for example, switch between phones, computers, and music--are more easily distracted by irrelevant stimuli and take longer to refocus their attention once diverted.6
The informal, open office can certainly work for some people. Millennials who have grown up with levels of stimulation and device-usage far higher than any generation has experienced before may be comfortable writing code on a bean-bag chair for an entire day. However, while coming to work in blue jeans and listening to music or chatter all day may sound like an exciting way to work, a growing body of research shows that the informal office can attack productivity from all angles. Companies should analyze carefully whether the benefits of innovation and communication are appropriate for not only their needs but also those of their employees before eagerly adopting the open office model.
Sources:
Newcomb, Alyssa. "Inside the Facebook Warehouse Where Everyone Works in One Room." ABC News. N.p., 31 Mar. 2015. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/inside-facebook-warehouse-works-room/story?id=30027454>.
Blackstone, John. "Inside Google Workplaces, from Perks to Nap Pods." CBS News. N.p., 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-google-workplaces-from-p erks-to-nap-pods/>.
Pejtersen, J., et al. "Sickness Absence Associated with Shared and Open-plan Offices--a National Cross Sectional Questionnaire Survey." Scand J Work Environ Health 37.5 (2011): 378-82. Print.
Perham, N., H. Hodgetts, and S. Banbury. "Mental Arithmetic and Non-speech Office Noise: An Exploration of Interference-by-content." Noise Health 62.15 (2013): 73-78. Print.
Davis, Matthew C., Desmond J. Leach, and Chris W. Clegg. "The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues." International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 26 (2011): n. pag. Print
Ophir, Eyal, Clifford Nass, and Anthony Wagner. "Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers." PNAS 106.37 (2009): n. pag. Print.