Open Offices Still A Mistake For Employee Productivity, Collaboration

Years ago I wrote that cutting down office space was flawed; that the loss of concentration by workers was more costly than the savings from reduced square footage. I was skeptical of the benefits of collaboration from open offices.

A new study by Harvard Business School professors confirms my skepticism about collaboration. The professors find that collaboration is even lower in open offices, the opposite of what was hoped for:

data-param-cid="62cec241-7d09-4462-afc2-f72f8d8ef40a"
data-player-id="44f947fb-a5ce-41f1-a4fc-78dcf31c262a"
data-playlist-id=3e5e03f9-7925-4400-8f37-b4daede06b7f
data-elements-player="true"
layout="responsive"
width="16"
height="9"
>

… rather than prompting increasingly vibrant face-to-face collaboration, open architecture appeared to trigger a natural human response to socially withdraw from officemates and interact instead over email and IM.

This research used whiz-bank technology: sociometric badges that could detect people standing close to one another, facing each other, and talking back and forth.

I had some great collaborations with colleagues back in the days of real offices. When a person was working hard on a deadline, the door was typically closed. When in the midst of a piece of work that required concentration, I’d leave my door ajar. I could be interrupted, but not casually. And when I was plowing through correspondence or doing simple data manipulations, my door was wide open. A co-worker would walk down the hall and start chatting in my doorway. On good ideas, I’d wave to my chair and invite more conversation. I got help on a couple of projects that I’m proud of to this day, and I gave help frequently.

It seems that people in open offices have taken to the no-interruptions ethos, with electronics as their only alternative. It’s probably too high a hurdle to say, “Let’s find an open conference room and talk.”

The workers have sensed the cost of interruptions, which was my key point. A widely-quoted study by Basex estimated the aggregate cost of work interruptions at $588 billion a year in the United States. That’s a lot, but a number that’s hard to get one’s arms around. I like to think of it in terms of minutes: for a person doing complex work, an interruption can require 20 minutes to get back to where the person was before the interruption. Mistakes also multiply, as when you were thinking about an issue when interrupted, then when you return you remember that you fixed the issue—only you hadn’t.

Here’s the strategy I recommend. Look at a group of workers. If they are doing simple, routine tasks, such as verifying that forms have been filled out properly, then cram them into as little space as possible.

But if you have people who are concentrating on complex tasks—programmers, data analysts, etc.—then create their ideal environment. That means concentration without interruptions. Give them enough space that two colleagues can come in and chat, plus conference rooms nearby. The cost of the space is trivial compared to the value of the employees’ work.

Finally, make the cost of office space the responsibility of the manager of the knowledge workers. If the decision is left to a corporate property manager, then cost will be the primary consideration. Let the person who manages the workers weigh costs and benefits. Suppose that the additional cost of individual offices would be one percent of workers’ salaries and benefits (a wild guess). Let the manager choose: a one percent increase in headcount, or the greater productivity that comes from the workers’ ability to concentrate.