|
 Since I graduated college and began my professional career, I've
worked in two office environments, and both of them mainly utilized
high-walled cubicles. My previous workplace did have some office spaces
for management, but where I currently work the only physical "rooms" are
conference rooms and bathrooms.
But
the cubicle is actually a minority as far as workplaces go - around 70%
of U.S. companies currently employ an open office plan for their
workspace. Where we used to have halls of offices or cubicle walls, we
now have no walls at all. This is the case with many big-name entities
like Google, Facebook, and eBay, and because of their business success
and innovation they have become icons in this trend.
And
though office layout comparison is not a new thing, I thought I'd offer
a quick look at three different models to discuss what advantages they
tout:
The office
design, where many or most employees have shared or individual offices,
provides maximum privacy, a quieter workspace, little visual
distraction, and (often) more workspace for the employee. Unfortunately,
it also decreases accountability and can encourage isolation, since
oral and visual contact with the supervisor and other employees requires
getting up and moving. The biggest reason the true office is a dying
breed, however, is that offices are not as efficient or flexible in
terms of space, so it doesn't suit companies that are tight on
real-estate.
The
cubicle design was meant to make up for the vices of offices. Cubicles
are more cost-efficient and space-efficient, and are more flexible
because cubicle walls can be moved and adjusted as needed to accommodate
changes in personnel. Cubicles provide some visual privacy, but are
more inviting and less isolating than offices, encouraging employee
interaction. This added communication comes at the cost of reduced
privacy and increased potential for noise and distraction. And while I
have gotten used to listening to my coworkers conversations and phones
ringing, it certainly hasn't aided my productivity.
 The
open office goes beyond the intent of cubicles, by literally tearing
down the barriers to open communication. Being free of cubicle walls,
open offices provide the most flexibility and freedom in terms of use of
space, and the airiness can feel more relaxing. The openness allows
co-workers to easily move about, communicate, and collaborate with each
other. The biggest downside is, no walls means no privacy; many people
(including your supervisor) will be easily able to see and hear whatever
it is you're doing or working on. Also, more efficient use of space
often translates to less space per employee.
Critics
have had their field day with each of these floor plans over the years,
saying why one is better than the other. However, the reality is that
every company is sized and staffed differently, so no cookie-cutter plan
is perfect. Some engineering firms, for instance, may find they have
more space to utilize and find their employees solve problems best by
working independently and free of distraction for large chunks of time.
In this case, an office environment would be preferred. For
idea-centered companies where frequent discussion and collaboration are
essential, or where there are large numbers of employees all working on similar tasks, an open office might be ideal.
As
an introverted engineer, I find I work best when I have a little
privacy. Though I understand the advantages, I think I would be somewhat
flustered and distracted doing my work in an open office space. What
about you? What environment do you prefer for your workplace and
workspace?
References
Washington Post
Forbes
| 
