Hacker News Reader

Comment by grigjd3 | Hacker News Reader

Open offices aren't about worker happiness or efficiency. They're about decreasing costs.

"Penny wise and pound foolish."

Which is to say if you're paying a developer $70K+/year (+taxes/benefits), and you're skimping on a $2K one time cost cubicle, even if that loss results in increased turnover ($$$), reduced morale ($$$), or reduced productively ($$$) then that's an irrational decision.

Employers should consider a "1-2%" per-employee per year "morale fund." If you're paying someone $70K/year the least you could manage is $700-1400 to keep them sweet, it is just good business. Better equipment, software to make them more productive, a nicer chair, whatever.

But I've come to realize that managers rarely make decisions for purely rational reasons. The prestige and internal politics often play a larger role than pure costing.

They're not skimping $2k one time cost on a cubicle. They're skimping on the recurring cost in rent and maintenance on a large facility in which to place that cubicle, plus the cost of that cubicle. My wife was an office manager that worked with a couple startups through expansions, and the costs of office space and office equipment is actually quite a bit higher than you might think.

That said, I still think it's generally a foolish thing to do for many companies and I personally despise open offices. I've recently transitioned to being fully remote, and a hatred of the open office plan was a good part of what pushed me in that direction.

I already have a designated desk area against the wall, we're talking about adding a footprint for a couple of 5cm thick walls which is already my personal space anyway, the only difference is actually enclosing it instead of letting people wander into it because the office is already full.

There is also a cost, particularly in terms of management attention, to arranging offices or cubicles that is really painless if you have an open office. When you add a person, you with an open office you just say: plug your computer in over there. So when I see an open office I think of a company that is expecting a high turn over of employees. It makes sense for a startup, that may be moving to another building in six months anyway. When a company is more established I question it.

Not even that, because reduced productivity (and iirc Facebook reported having to pay their employees 1.5x just because of the bad working environment). It's so that managers look cool when strolling through their workforce, it looks good and hip on recruitment webpages, etc.

> Destroying your employees' productivity for a pic.

There are much easier ways to decrease costs. My experience is that they're done to visually and physically distinguish between office class hierarchies and ranks.

Exactly -- theres seems to be little appreciation in the the thread that it's a simple trade off. Private offices may generally be preferable but exactly at what price?

Would you people not prefer to see the difference in their wage packet? A company that chooses open offices can offer higher wages it doesn't mean they don't care about their employees productivity.

Serious question: if it's about decreasing costs, why not get rid of the workers?

Because the workers are willing to work in a reduced cost workspace.

Unless they are willing to work for free, you can decrease costs by getting rid of them.

Presumably, the demand the business sees justifies the cost of workers. Of course, layoffs happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com