Comment by rm999 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rm999 | Hacker News Reader

The best work setup I've ever had by far was not private offices or cubicles (and definitely not an open office); it was a hybrid where our team of 3-5 people sat in a large private office. This increased collaboration while enforcing respect. It allowed our team to create a work culture democratically (how do we arrange seating? what noise levels are ok?) that simply isn't possible in an open seating arrangement.

I know this won't be popular here, but I find private offices problematic for a few reasons. First, they hurt collaboration and social interaction quite a bit. This is ok from a single developer's perspective (heavily skewed audience on HN), but it shows on cross-functional teams. I know this can be hacked into a private office setup ("my door is always open"), but in my experience there is a clear difference in collaboration when there is no physical separation between people who are working on a project together. Also, private offices create a hierarchy where some people get big corner window offices while others are in shitty interior offices or cubicles. My favorite thing about the trend towards open offices has been an egalitarianism where the CEO and founders sits at a similar desk as the interns.

This is my favorite environment. A large office per team. It makes me still fell like I have my own personal space while maintaining a team vibe. It's like a research lab where everyone in the lab is focused on the same goals.

Like a pack mentality.

I've worked in that kind of arrangement, too, but it only works well if all the people put into that office are predisposed to it or otherwise able to develop that team atmosphere. Everyone has to be able to get along. That doesn't happen for every group out there.

If it doesn't work out, it can quickly develop the same appeal as a holding cell in a jail - all of the drawbacks of an open office plan in a confined space.

Programmers and engineers are professionals, and in my opinion, it's very unprofessional for a company to provide less than a reasonably private work environment. That means a large cubicle, at minimum. For collaboration, there should also be several open or group spaces. Requiring too much "togetherness," however, is just a sign of poor management and lack of respect for employees.

Have you looked into caves and commons approach?

https://hbr.org/2013/03/give-workers-the-power-to-choose-cav...

That one is good. It cut down on the body count of a too rapidly growing startup I was at about almost decades ago.

In theory, I like working at an office, quite a lot, but the open-office does not work at all for me. Cubes are even fine, but that open elbow-to-elbow thing? Nope.

Ideally (for me), we'd have 2~3 person offices, relatively plentiful small (5~8 person) rooms scattered through, and a large gathering space with white-boards all around (and not dominated by ping-pong).

This is our setup in my gov't agency (NASA): 3-4 engineers per room, typically grouped by either project or functional area. We have a couple of regular conference rooms, and also have a few breakout/collaboration rooms that can't be reserved for meetings as well.

Apparently, it's how it worked in the 1960s too. My group just never went through the various workspace fads because we never had enough money to move or reconfigure the building. I guess that's one upside to moving as slow as the gov't sometimes does.

I did have a cubicle while working with another division, but they were still fairly private.

The downsides: infrastructure is equally as slow to get updated...

I love this idea and it immediately reminds me of the Crystal Clear methodology [1]. A whole team being isolated together means you get more collaboration, cross-pollination and natural communication. It's not perfect either though if you've got annoying people in your team.

[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Clear_(software_develo...)

Often, the most important element of my working space is just the abundance of natural light and windows. A few years ago, I turned down a job offer that would have placed me in a 3-5 person office. It would've been an interior office with no windows at all. I chose to stay at my current job, which had me sitting in a cubicle right next to a huge window with a nice view.

The benefits of a shared office are quite nice, but they can be made up for in a variety of ways. There's no way to make up for the lack of natural lighting and windows if you're stuck in an interior room all day long, every day.

That's exactly how Valve[1] sets up their office, for similar reasons.

[1] - http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.p...

A few photos...

https://officesnapshots.com/2012/03/05/the-valve-offices/

Yes, the "small group office" is my favorite! I had that in 2006 and it was great for teamwork.

If I can't have that, I'll take a small private office with a door that closes. Although the least time I had that was, I think, in 2001?

Peopleware advocates the 3-5 person office, and has some great research to back it up

We have this. 5-7 people per area, some smaller, some larger. Moving to open office space in six months. I think the office culture will take a definite hit.

That's my favorite setup too. Three people sharing a room. You can collaborate and also have some good private conversations without the whole company knowing.

This is my second favorite environment - right behind working from home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com