Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomkin | Hacker News Reader

I find this argument slanted towards the introverted programmer. Fact is, the introverted programmer is not the standard anymore. Our open office is a mix of different types of people.

I chose an open office because I worked at a company for 9 years. In the first 5 it was an open office. I'm sure some work was suffered, but we had a culture, which is one thing the author seemingly deliberately avoids talking about. The remaining 4 years were stuffed in a cubicle and the office culture died. It became much easier to blame other people for faults because you no longer had a relationship with your co-workers.

I wouldn't say the author is wrong, just that he presents a slanted viewpoint that caters to other programmer introvert types and what their preferences are - but definitely not a fair assessment of the open office.

View on HN

Everything I've read says that, in order to be maximally productive, software developers needs to have long periods of quiet time where they can focus (I've never seen anything to say this is true only of programmers who are introverts). This, not supporting programmers' introversion, is the reason people criticize open-office plans for software development work.

See, for me that's the problem. This sense that productivity rules all. Why did you become a programmer, or a designer? Was it to be "maximumly productive"? I sure as heck didn't. Productivity is important, but I have to wonder where you decided it was the absolute most important thing. If you dig a bit, I bet that idea didn't come from you - I bet that idea comes from your industry and the social structure around it.

On paper, the development of Color was productive, but in actuality it was a poorly thought out blunder that costed millions of dollars.

Office culture is more important than the product or service you're developing. There, I said it. And I stand by it. The fact of the matter is, I got into this work so I had something to wake to everyday that isn't a complete anti-social "productivity" sinkhole. Every cubicle, or siloed worker represents attrition to company culture. When we were the happiest in our work, we had community tied to it. Think about the classic examples of first economies - what did they all have in common? It wasn't productivity. It was a desire to build, or bake, or design - and it is these markets where happiness was at its height. Don't fool yourselves. You're being productive towards someone else's idea of happiness - not your own.

Last weekend I was at the Amiga's 30th Anniversary event at the Computer History Museum here in Mountain View. A lot of the original Amiga engineers spoke. A couple of things stood out that are relevant here. First, the culture of the company was so positive, and what they built was so impactful, that even 30 years later, they considered it the highlight of their careers.

Second was that the engineers had offices with doors that closed.

As a programmer, I want to build solid, easy-to-use, impactful products that delight people. In order to do that I need to focus, and in order to focus I need long periods free of distraction. It's also satisfying to be able to get into a state of flow. I don't need that all the time, but I need and want it some of the time.

As a (hopefully!) future tech CEO, I want to work with people who want the same. As as Amiga Inc (and many others) have proved, small groups of people with private offices can produce wonderful things and still have a great corporate culture. I also want to make sure I spend my company's or my investors' money wisely and efficiently.

(As an aside, the reason that the Amiga had line-drawing built into hardware is because one of the software developers had experience with line-draw algorithms, recognized that it could be easily put into hardware, and convinced the hardware designer to do so. Which I offer as a counter to the people who think that private offices means people won't collaborate).

Finally, I'm rather taken aback that the director of a design agency would get onto a public forum and announce that he doesn't really care about productivity. Productivity relates to money spent; don't your customers care about how much it costs to engage you?

> Second was that the engineers had offices with doors that closed.

And sometimes that works well. Othertimes it's a hinderance. In this case, I'm arguing that it removes culture from the workplace. There's hardly anyway to deny that. There are also indicators that suggest lowering social interaction is linked with depression; which would have some effect on company culture.

> As a programmer,...

You mean, "you, as an individual person with individual needs", right?

> Finally, I'm rather taken aback that the director of a design agency would get onto a public forum and announce that he doesn't really care about productivity. Productivity relates to money spent; don't your customers care about how much it costs to engage you?

That's an oversimplification of my statement. Our clients pay for us to take our time, to welcome new ideas and research ways to innovate their message, goals or vision. They do care that we spend the extra time – in fact they knowingly pay for it.

Agree, I take the opposite side of this argument as well, and the author is very biased toward a certain personality type. I love open office plans and I think they have intangible benefits that many people discount.

But, I'm tired of arguing against the hivemind on this one. So be it.

Well, he's talking about productivity. You seem to be in a good position to answer that question. Where were you more productive, in the open office, or in the cubicle?

However, a cubicle might not be the best comparison. A cubicle is not the same as an office with a door that closes. As the IBM example elsewhere in these comments said, not all cubicles provide the benefit. A minimum height of the walls being one requirement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com