Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamdave | Hacker News Reader

I don't disagree but

It should be required that whoever makes these decisions should have to dogfood them.

By what mechanism would this occur? I've spent enough time in the military to know human ego will never allow this to happen, it's like asking the fox to put a lock on the hen house, and turn the keys over to the farmer. Outside of exceptional leaders like the ones where lykr0n works-that actually want to be and behave like leaders-very rarely will you see command subjecting themselves to the shit endured by the commanded.

View on HN

I had this same realization. In this context it doesn't work as well, anyway, because senior leaders are in meetings so often that their desk is fairly meaningless.

But to generalize at a higher level -- "by what mechanism do we force management to be decent?" -- the only one I've discovered is to be willing to leave jobs that have management practices that one doesn't agree with.

Unfortunately that advice doesn't work in the general case -- mobility is relatively easy for developers but we don't make up a large part of the population. I feel like the right answer is some changes in our social structure or economy that makes job mobility much (much) easier. Like a BI/Negative Income Tax, or free education, etc.

"In this context it doesn't work as well, anyway, because senior leaders are in meetings so often that their desk is fairly meaningless."

So why do they still have huge window offices? They could lead by example and give up those.

I'm not sure -- I haven't worked long enough at a company where managers had their own office & everyone was in an open office plan.

My experience was that everyone, including the CEO, was in an open office (40+ person startup, 800+ person growth company). But that it didn't really matter all that much because leadership (senior or not) was barely at their desk anyway.

I do agree that if senior leadership wants an open office plan, they should commit to working in such an environment with their teams.

This mirrors my experience (see sibling comment from me). C-levels have open desks, but they're grouped in a corner, surrounded by boardrooms, and the C-levels are rarely at their desk.

VPs and line managers are open like the rest of the employees. And they spend a lot of their time in other meeting spaces.

My employer built out a new HQ last year.

It's all open, including the executive area. The only nod to privacy for the CEO is a corner desk flanked by board rooms on both sides and her admin towards the interior - it's open, albeit semi-protected. Same for the other C-levels.

VP and other non-executive management have the same desks as everybody else, intermixed with their teams.

We do have ample meeting spaces, from drop-in huddle rooms for 2-4 people to normal bookable conference rooms. And we spend a lot of time in them, especially management.

Would private offices work better for the company? I have no idea. But, the current environment doesn't strike me as any worse than the previous HQ, which had high-walled cubes but lacked ample meeting spaces.

Edit - and by "any worse", I mean there are flaws for sure. I'm not arguing open is great. Just no worse than the previous generation of cubes.

In the case of the open office it should be required that the people who make the decision also work in the same office layout. That's not difficult to do. Don't overthink it.

Let's start with CEOs and VPs work elbow by elbow in an open layout and have to buy headphones.

Don't overthink it.

This isn't asking antagonistically, it's a legitimate ask, so I hope you'll understand my tone isn't one of aggression:

How am I over thinking it? The proposed idea is to require leaders sit with their constituents. Leaders are the ones choosing these horrible open office layouts. How do you make them do something that in many cases, as many folks are replying in this thread to the effect of-they do not want to do?

Do you appeal to the board of directors? What does that look like? When one says "this should be required", my immediate thought is, okay how do you implement it, and how do you actually enforce it?

And that's what I'm asking here. I don't think I'm overthinking it, but thinking exactly the question that will need to be answered if that suggestion is to take root anywhere. How do you require the leaders of your company to do something they might not want to do?

CEOs and VPs (and even the layer of middle management below them at a big company) probably have a schedule that's almost 100% full of meetings, so the specifics of where their desk is normally don't even matter.

> I've spent enough time in the military to know human ego will never allow this to happen

It's not human ego: people can be egotistical in any class. It's power.

Hrm. You might be right. Ego and power are quite symbiotic-in that regard, at least in my opinion. But I can definitely see the inherent distinction that you're trying to draw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com