Libraries – how companies do not understand open spaces
mtajchert.com
mtajchert.com
Over 10 years later we bought another company and had their local staff over for a visit. Almost immediately a fairly loud person exclaimed "it's so quiet here!" (and not in a good way). Their office was separated into rooms of 4-5 people, so they were used to plenty of banter. Interestingly the quiet ones complained about the loud ones (but not the other way around).
We ended up with a somewhat hybrid model - we took on more space and made more open-plan areas, and small-team offices.
I'm a coder, do I like the solitude to focus. Others need more interaction. I think there's a danger in trying to propogate a one-approach-for-everyone. Different people have different needs. Creating a mix of spaces allows for mentorship at the beginning and an eventual migration to either a solitary space, or co-work space, depending on personality. This approach though never seems to get any press, it's always about the tyranny of open plan, or the soulessness of everyone being locked away in cells. (on HN its always the tyranny of Open plan :)
We should try having more actual offices before we declare it equal but different to the elementrary school recess that are open office plans.
Of course we had that because we didn't have space for walls. When we moved we got a lot more space, made offices, but monthly rent went up about 6 fold. It's a very real cost.
In fact, after salaries, it's our biggest cost by a long way. Given that most people are happy working from home we'll likely downscale our space a lot at our next lease renewal.
Never having worked in a cubicle, I wonder: don't those dividers actually help a bit with noise? Sure, I don't expect them to be individual-office level quiet, but still better than fully open.
I used to work in a building where one "open-office" had dividers mounted on the desks, reaching about the screen height, with carpeted floors and some kind of sound absorbing panels on the ceilings. It was extremely quiet compared to the other "regular" offices that only had the carpets.
When I was in an office, my team was co-located, so we rarely needed a call. Currently my team is mutually remote without an office, so we zoom our preferred environment.
I think there’s a primal aspect to how deeply you are willing to block out your local environment and let your mind go deep on a problem that relates to how safe/secure that environment feels.
Noise is just the most obvious annoyance to talk about, but I don’t think it’s primarily about the noise.
I worked in an open non-cubicle design too, closed back headphones ftw.
What else would you expect? The ones impinging on others were fine with it, the ones being impinged upon not so much.
> Different people have different needs.
This is the bit that people need to keep sight of. People and groups are all different and there’s no one size fits all answer.
Let me take a slight sidebar, after which I'll reconnect to open offices. I've recently studied the philosophy and ethics of pluralism. It was eye opening. If you start an ethical exploration where pluralism (respecting differences in values) is take for granted, and think it through, you do not necessarily end up with relativism (the claim that all values are equally good).
The ethics of pluralism apply to many other areas where people have differences, such as preferences for working environments. The connection is simple: if a group of people need to share a working environment, there will need to be some mechanism by which decisions are made. There is some budget of money and space that will need to be allocated.
Such a decision mechanism is (ultimately, whether it is obvious or not) connected to some underlying values. If the office manager decides based on "taking the pulse" of the office, you run the risk have an appointed person acting in a somewhat authoritarian way. How can you really guarantee the needs of the workers are actually being synthesized in a fair way? This is an incredibly challenging and complex area of philosophy and ethics.
If it is "one person, one vote", there may not be an underlying value system, since it appears to be purely a matter of politics. However, when such a system picks "one person, one vote", they may be missing out on better solutions, such as systems that work hard to find a consensus before simply taking a vote.
I could write hundreds of pages on this, because I've studied many others who have written probably 3 to 5 orders of magnitude more. It seems for the last twenty years, I've found myself disappointed that these topics seem mostly unexamined in most practical work situations. I've had to come to terms with the fact that many people are simply unaware, too busy with other things, or unaware of the importance of these mechanisms. Frankly, it is an uncomfortable place to be... when a big driver of my thinking is "let's make X situation better" but a relatively small number of organizations seem interested or able to make progress.
Instead, I see a parade of fads, usually connected with fairly pathetic PR campaigns (justifications to convince the workers) that such fad is desirable.
[1] - https://medium.com/@jsmathison/i-cant-stop-dreaming-of-eudai...
This idea of the place inspiring beyond ourselves is wonderful.
So, why not find ways of inspiring their employees beyond that particular job? ... What if more companies found ways to inspire people in very honest ways?
I don't particularly like corporate-speak on the walls or vague mission statements. But if there was a way to remind people of the following message, I think it would go a long way: "People will work here for varying lengths of time. While they are here, treat each other with respect. Let's share the best of ourselves. When these efforts align, our organization thrives, and we can keep working together in ways that we can feel good about."
The corollary, I think, would be "If we have to treat each other like sh*t in order for our company to be successful, what the heck are we doing here?" I somewhat prefer the negative phrasing.
Apologies for the idealism. Ultimately, messaging is only as good as its authenticity and follow up. If a company says e.g. "Come to Hooli to do your best work" and then offers ineffective working spaces, it is time to add an asterisk; e.g. "* under the constraints of having to work in a loud, unproductive, distracting environment."
It can’t be truly effective in the long run if you drive people insane on a long road to pernicion.
You’re not the last person to hold your job in most cases. If you plan for it, burnout will be much less of an issue, and your job satisfaction should be equivalently enhanced.
On the other hand, a coworking space might be able to pull off such a model, with a large open area, and then dedicated areas for team collaboration. You don't play by the rules: see you later.
I do think working physically next to others could be quite pleasant. But, given that in almost 23 years of work, I've never experienced this, I'll take remote work instead, since it at least gives me control over the mayhem. And maybe I'll ask if there's budget for some coworking space time. But given the current economy, I'm not holding my breath...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is something quite horrid about a working culture where we think that might ever happen.
If you say "this big open space is like a library: no fixed desks, sit where you want; we expect quiet, there is a 'librarian' who is empowered to ask you to keep the noise down or leave; you do not bring food and drinks into this space other than water; you do not take calls or do meetings in this space", I think most people would get that.
But you would, perhaps, need the librarian to enforce the rules, because you're right, a decent %age of working age adults are utterly self-absorbed and will think the rules should not apply to them.
Perhaps part of the problem is in an open _public_ space like a library, the only person with authority is the librarian. In a company, that person is going to be a mid-level manager at best - what happens when a more senior manager decides they are going to break those rules?
The library had three floors and the rule was the higher the floor, the more you must absolutely uphold the "stay quiet" rule, and the design choices really spoke to this. The first floor (noise = okay) had open work areas; tables without barriers and multiple sockets, no walls between computers, vending machines, couches and other places situated for casual conversation/collaboration.
The second floor still had some open tables, but virtually every work space had some form of enclosure to it. There were also considerably more book shelves that guarded off each work space so it naturally lent itself to having barriers and privacy, and this led to quietness.
Third floor was the most densely packed book floor and the only working spaces were private enclosed ones, and there were far more of these alcoves that were basically a desk + socket for your electronics + lamp. Even the main lighting on the upper floors was different to give a calmer feel.
This worked extremely well as even first years and visitors just implicitly understood from the design that you could have a nice conversation on the first floor (shouting and screaming of course was still stopped, and no music without headphones (and even people who had headphones that leaked noise were held accountable pretty strictly)), but it seemed that the way the workspaces on the other floors were designed led to this quite nicely. The books of course helped asa natural barrier for the 2nd and 3rd floors to intercept other noises without incident.
My current work place, my team has an open floor plan due to a new temporary building and they're still feeling it out. Luckily the team has mostly understood that this is a new situation and they need to be respectful of the fact that they're in a shared space, but as the teams get more comfortable with the building, this is eroding a bit. I can't help but think that the same visual cueing would help a lot to give the impression of "this place is okay for an open conversation, this place is for people who need to focus."
> Perhaps part of the problem is in an open _public_ space like a library, the only person with authority is the librarian. In a company, that person is going to be a mid-level manager at best - what happens when a more senior manager decides they are going to break those rules?
The sad answer is that this sort of position needs a dedicated well-being manager or office manager to guide such items. It can't be a dual role with the primary work, it must be someone whose goal is to ensure the workplace is representing the needs of all employees, and then guiding people to where they can have such conversations and enforcing the zoning. My company has a well-being manager and she takes the job quite seriously in that she is always looking to get feedback on what people need while still enforcing the policies that are created to ensure a healthy work environment.
ADDED: One practice which probably makes sense is to physically separate a quiet reading room from other areas. That way people aren't wandering by and having conversations.
The problem is, you might have one team agree to this, and others not. But how many companies would let one team take control over their physical space? Very few places I know of would even let a lower-level manager relocate people together.
Problems of our working culture somehow seems tied to our hierarchies and specialties. We don't really give individual teams the budget to go find their own space; instead, it's all specialists who have very little interaction (and often zero insight) with individual contributors.
I wonder if companies should be more organized where teams were "mini-businesses". Instead of worrying about setting up one giant space, it was up to the team, with their own support staff (and budget) to figure everything like their working standards up. I suspect that would change culture quite a bit, mostly, because there wouldn't be this weird "this is the way we do things here because there's this massive team nobody interacts with" wall. Instead, if the team felt like they could do things better, they just do it.
My gut is telling me remote work will upend a bunch of things, because workers will feel more empowered.
Preferring written messages over voice calls is incentivized, but still needs work. You can page a physician, but almost always he will call back rather than respond in writing. Sometimes the physician will never enter the order into the electronic health record and so it needs to be entered by the nurse—that's an opportunity for error.
Introducing friction is a good idea. The best places for drawing up medications are ones with doors, it gives a rare moment of silence. Unfortunately there's a culture issue, people will leave those doors open and try to talk to people busy in there.
Newer-built units are much better spaces to work in, generally. They're larger and have these ideas in mind when built. It's rare when a tower can be completely demolished, however. New equipment fills older wings and staff have to squeeze past it.
Please, tell me what is the point to go physically at work in an open space instead of doing remote work if it is to have the rules of a library?
Not interacting with colleagues, not calling, not listening others speaking to know what is currently going on the company...
For the record I do not like going to the office because of the above mentioned reasons. Furthermore, my home office has better equipment. My wife on the contrary loves going to the office although she could work from home.
Does she go to the office for the actual work? Or because she is social?
I don't want to be friends with my co-workers. I am here for a paycheck. Sue me.
I sincerely hope your co-workers are aware of your preferences and give you the wide berth you desire.
Exactly, there's no point going to work physically together unless you're building something physical.
Interaction with colleagues works extremely well using technology: text messages, emails, conference calls, one-to-one video calls, and even the "metaverse" if you're into cutting edge stuff.
Personally, I'd find a workplace with a library area great. But I wouldn't want or prescribe a workplace that is entirely a library.
What's the point of physically going to work if it's not optimized for work? What's the point of commuting if my job is done better at home?
In the team I was, we often talked with each others, be it work related or not. So we ended up often working in others places together (one room for us 3-4 devs).
When I worked in an open office and lived alone I would sometimes be overstimulated. At least eventually I'd get to go home and recover. A workstation in a library-rules space would have avoided the discomfort altogether though. Eat lunch with my coworkers, have high-bandwidth discussions in meeting rooms, chit-chat when coming up for air by the coffee/snacks/ping-pong, but also be able to retreat to my workstation and focus on code once for the bulk of the day.
Come to think of it, that's what college was like. I would study in the bowels of the library, take breaks in the peripheral food and social spaces where I'd often run into people I knew, and go back to my dorm room at night. That was the life.
Which meant there was little reason to go into the office.
I think for collaboration, you want a nice team room (much like a meeting room) where everyone there is actually working together on the same project.
I also don't have half my focus spent on my surrouding (who's saying what, who's moving, who's looking at me for attention...).
I also don't have project managers or commercials chatting around me. I am getting stressed if someone pass by closely behind me.
They're different kinds of work. People usually (to this day) work alone in libraries. People in big open bullpen offices tend to work collaboratively.
Also, those solo library workers don't typically have bosses by whom to be seen collaborating. Or "collaborating."
There is a Star Trek TNG episode called Darmok that describes a culture that only speaks in metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok
Surely we have a better metaphor for a meek but powerful librarian than ...
> Who will be the library nazi that kicks you out when you talk too loudly?
I don't have another word for that kind of person, but I agree that "nazi" should not be used that way.
Library + https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-arch
People go to a library because they want to do work.
The same is not true of an office. Lots of people there would prefer to be somewhere else.
Not sure about yall, but I like to talk to myself as I'm coming up with and implementing a solution. Even if I'm whispering, I'm sure others can hear me and would find that distracting.
I really like the idea of the library as an open space and the most valuable idea I would gather is to have tons of noolks and crannies where desks are spaced far apart. This wouldn't work with people sitting side by side. Even the clacking of keyboards gets distracting after a while.
Conversations were discouraged not only by the library rules. The acoustics also made it difficult to understand what even people sitting nearby said.
Not many libraries or offices built today could justify the expense of such architecture, though.
My library has a hodgepodge of flat tables for 4, easy chairs, a few carrels, study rooms that can be reserved, a cafe with a dining area, etc. The computer labs are like sardine tins. This British library was designed thus because everybody went to the library to read books and write on paper, but since my library includes packets of vegetable seeds and tickets to museums, everybody goes to the library to do all sorts of disparate things, so the furniture must be versatile enough to accommodate everything, while discouraging sleeping.
Libraries formerly observed a strict code of silence, and this floorplan appears to cater to solitary readers, so a library, being filled with solitary patrons pursuing their own research goals, does not serve as an analog to a workspace with teams who collaborate and communicate actively.
The worst jobs I ever held were in call centers. I pity everyone who phones me from a call center because I can hear the cacophony behind them. It was truly impossible for me to concentrate or hear myself think. Working alone in a modern library is a little better than that.
The worst I experienced was in Singapore. Kids running around like it was a playground. Or teenage couples using it as a place to date. The last one is a big wtf head scratcher to me.
In both my current and previous US city, downtown libraries function as de facto daytime homeless shelters. On the one hand this is good, as people in unfortunate circumstances can get Internet access, apply for jobs, and retain access to email. On the other hand some of those people browse porn, play music, and watch videos without headphones on the library computers. Others wander in off the street to have loud conversations with the front desk staff.
Where I live now, this feels like the library’s main purpose. Either as a cause or a consequence, library staff seem to see themselves as social workers first, activists second, and librarians third, as reflected in the library’s public services and calendar of events.
Around ten years ago I didn't have the money for an office so would work a few hours each day in the 'quiet' section of our local library. I could sometimes go a whole 5 minutes without wanting to murder someone.
Companies have managers, product managers, salespeople, support, etc, etc, etc. All of whom NEED to be able to talk a lot to do their jobs.
But this again has to be enforced from the top. Not just for some employees. If the CEO or higher executives cannot uphold this, there is no point.
Rules were clear. It was for focussed and quiet work. Meetings and calls needed to be done outside.
Nobody speaks. Nobody plays music. There is just the Clacking.
I go to the library pretty much every week. I would describe it as quieter than the open plan office I used to work in, but much louder than my home office. People frequently carry on full conversations on their phones in the library, and some people just sit and chat with their neighbors.
I don't think the stereotype of libraries as hushed temples of study is true anymore, except in some specific cases. In the 2000s, a lot of local library branches in my area pivoted into being community gathering places and general resource hubs, and the norms around making noise changed a bit. I've never heard a librarian shush anybody for talking.
Collaboration is certainly valuable, but at the same time, I have a hunch that 90% of the time spent collaborating, is spent getting the stuff done that you agreed to do. Also, much of the communication involved in collaboration is not necessarily done best in front of an audience. These may be a couple of the reasons for reports that open-plan offices actually degrade collaboration.
A lot of the time I spent in libraries as a grad student was doing work that contributed to a collaboration. Likewise a lot of the coding that I do in isolation.
"Recent research shows that such offices result in 73 per cent less face-to-face interaction, and a 67 per cent increase in email interaction." https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/325959
Have you never studied with other people together at a library? Most of my time spent in library during high school and university was spent working together on assignments or studying in groups for exams. It's not just me, whenever I go to my local libraries, they're always full of students studying (many studying in groups).
Meanwhile out on the floor I have tried to (politely) call people out for e.g. having Zoom standup participants on full blast in the middle of the sea of desks. They shrugged and said, "it's an open office. You can wear headphones." This company prided itself on empowering engineers, providing them with the tools and resources to do their best work, and in some ways lived up to that. But the way we made it a totally individual burden to jam the noise or seek refuge elsewhere really undermined it.