Open Plan Offices

Schumpeter, one of my heroes from the Economist, had a bit of a swipe at modern offices this week. A book has been written casting some doubt on the methods from Silicon Valley, and this clearly gains his (or her) approval. No doubt Schumpeter is one of those who prefers to work far away from others.

Which for me is the point. Context is everything. Horses for courses. Whatever works.

I used to like an open plan office, and as I became more senior and even had some influence over office design, I tried to have an open feel. But there was good open plan and bad open plan. What were the key factors for me?

Space, light and sound are always important. Everyone should have some natural light. And we should all have enough space. In practice, that might mean not being immediately overlooked, and a little space to walk around without bumping into others. Wide corridors help too. So does having the heavy furniture and large cupboards in a dedicated area, not blocking light or views. This also helps dissipate noise, as do carpets and high ceilings. Nowadays, headphones and microphones are useful as well.

One key to all this was the height of the partitions. Make them too low, and everyone overlooks everyone else. But too high and you end up with cubicles like prison cells. So I liked something about two feet higher than a desk. That way, if you were sitting down you could not see others sitting down, except maybe the tops of their heads, but you could see people standing up or walking. You had some privacy, but also lots of light, no claustrophobia, and a chance to start conversations. It helped also if there were not long rows of desks – blocks of two by two seemed to work well.

The other key was plenty of meeting rooms of all types. Informal areas by coffee machines, small rooms for ad hoc conferences of two to four, and larger rooms for bigger meetings all had a place. The small rooms could also be used to work undisturbed, take private phone calls, join phone conferences without annoying others and so on.

Most open plans fail one or more of these tests. Usually designers are more concerned about saving space than making effective workspaces. That is one reason why open plan became unpopular; it was an excuse for packing people in like sardines.

These are some good practices for open plan, but there are two other huge factors at play. One is our personal styles. The other is the type of work we will be doing.

We are all different, and our working styles differ too. I am someone who likes to do desk work in productive batches, but with frequent short breaks. I have never minded interruptions either. If I need to think, I often do it away from the desk, so I’ll take walks around the office or even outside. Finally, my physical capacity to concentrate has limits, so there are parts of the day when I’m not really productive at all.

All of these preferences favour open plan. If I am stuck in a room on my own, it actually hinders my concentration, since I have to create my own breaks and interruptions rather than just observe what is going on around me. And during the less productive periods I just get bored and frustrated. In a room of my own, my potential to help others is also wasted, since I am always happy to break for a chat or to be interrupted with a question.

That is just me. But I know people who respond badly to interruption and need a silent and consistent work environment. When they have it, some of these people can be productive for hours at a time. These folk are usually better in their own room, or at least tucked away in a quiet corner somewhere.

Then there is the type of work. How much time are people on the phone or computer? What about in private meetings? How much informal collaboration is required, and how many larger meetings? Does personal work need space, for example large designs or models? A research facility, a marketing office and a call centre should not usually look the same.

Even with all these factors, there are some universal good practices. Many relate to hierarchy. In the company I visit in Romania, most of the staff reside on a well-designed second floor, but all the bosses are on the sixth floor. The second floor is largely open plan, with some individual offices around the sides. But the sixth floor has only conference rooms and huge individual offices, guarded by secretaries.

The effect this has and the damage it causes is obvious. Many sixth floor residents have never even been to the second floor. They have no idea how their staff work, and build no sort of personal relationship. They are remote from the action and the customer. Visits to the sixth floor cause trepidation for all. The sixth floor and its residents are universally feared and despised. Decisions involving the sixth floor have to be made formally, hence slowly and often badly.

This sounds like a caricature, but you would be amazed at how often I have seen this, and how long it persists once it is there (bosses come to value their isolation and privileges). Once I became a line manager, I always wanted to be close to my team, and to experience a similar working environment to them. Was there an element of checking up on them, or worse, a sort of Ricky Gervais desire to be considered one of the lads? I don’t think so, but maybe. In any case, the genuine advantages are enormous. And on the rare occasion that my boss felt the same way and moved close to me, I always developed a more productive working relationship.

Bosses sometimes use excuses to justify status. They claim that visiting customers expect fancier surroundings, and that more private meetings are required. HR liked to try the privacy argument too. I never bought into this. Usually it is just ego at work, combined with insecurity and laziness. As for customers, I remember once visiting Tesco and Sainsbury in the UK within two weeks of each other, in the 1980’s. Tesco had a workmanlike hut near a store and a warehouse, while Sainsbury had plush central-London offices. It did not surprise me that one company marched forwards and the other backwards over the following ten years.

The Tesco story shows that office style is also a powerful leadership weapon. Leaders can make a clear statement about what they want their company to become. Frugality, less hierarchy and proximity to customers were obviously important to Tesco. Shell retail went through a brief period like that too – we were all shunted into cheap offices next to petrol stations – and I personally admired it and found it effective. Then a senior manager was fired, and it was back to business as usual instantly, with predictable consequences for customer focus and speed of decisions.

What might all this mean at a personal level? There are a few lessons.

One lesson is to work out your own preferred working style and then fight for it. You might need to experiment to discover it, and it might vary depending on the type of work you are doing. Be careful not to react against bad design or bad management but only to personal things. Then don’t get lured by ego once that fancy office is offered to you.

Next, learn about companies through their styles. This might be useful if you thinking of working for someone, do deals with them or even invest in them. Offices tell true stories.

Finally, remember the good practices, as you always have some scope, no matter what your environment. As a line manager, understand that your staff differ and try to respond. If you are arranging meetings, always try to visit the room in advance, and look out for abundant light, especially natural light. In the same way as there is rarely a good meeting with more than eight participants, there is also rarely a good meeting in a bad meeting room.