An online search about office layout will give thousands of links to different articles lauding or scoring the merits of open offices and – by extension –closed offices.
Open offices refers to layouts where a number of employees are placed in a large, open space without any form of physical boundary between their respective work spaces. Generally, each employee will have his or her desk, and possibly a low partition to demarcate the desk’s/workspace’s boundary.
Closed office refers to a layout where employees are spread into different smallish rooms or cubicles.
Over the last years, the concept of open office made huge strides internationally, in particular thanks to a strong tailwind in the form of it being adopted as the layout of choice by a number of major technical companies from Silicon Valley (such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Pixar to name but a few), and having such companies singing its merits.
However, a backlash of sorts has resulted in thousands of criticisms to the concept itself, with ‘experts’ arguing that the open office has had its heyday and is now on the wane as a concept as firms are recognising its drawbacks and going back to the drawing board.
Reading though the debate about the merits and demerits of either layout one cannot but notice the contradictions which characterise it. Both open and closed offices are said to induce and reduce both communication and creativity between and among employees – of course, depending on which side of the debate the author is arguing for. Likewise, both layouts have been said to be detrimental to introverts, as well as bringing out the best of them!
Of course one cannot take such arguments at face value. There are other criticisms which may merit further investigation, such as issues surrounding privacy, employee-concentration, actual time at the work-place, performance levels, camaraderie and so on and so forth.
However, more baffling seems to be the mere existence of the debate itself. To a certain extent, it is all about the merits and demerits of uncritical adoption of what has worked (in terms of layout) for others. To use a less than flattering term – mimicry.
The ultimate decision should rest on familiarity with the business requirements, knowledge of one’s firm’s internal dynamics, and of course sound, informed advice
Yet, the debate is at the same time symptomatic of real business decisions which have been and are being taken, possibly without the necessary contemplation of the relevant pros and cons. To most, it would seem logical that what works for the goose does not necessarily work for the gander. Yet, major brands in the finance, pharmaceutical, automobile and electronics (to cite just a few sectors) have done exactly that and sought to emulate the lauded successes of other global giants with open-office layouts only to have to take a few steps backwards after a few years and reverse at least partially the initial decisions, or create private spaces where employees could retreat from the main open office layout.
A senior manager working within the public sector recently shared an insightful experience which shows how tricky it can be to find the right solution. Circumstances beyond his control dictated that within a few years, his team had to shift from a closed to an open to a closed and again to an open environment. Meanwhile, his team had to grapple with a high staff turnover. Each transition brought mixed results. The first transition to an open-office resulted in staff acrimony, increased levels of anxiety, increased levels of ‘noise’ within the team and finally loss productivity.
The second transition, by which time most of the initial team had changed, was on the other hand more successful. Staff were still not happy with the transition, but were ready to make it work. Notwithstanding some issues with the particular circumstances of the office space in question, it actually resulted in a stronger communication, increased camaraderie, improved sharing and a much higher productivity. In a nutshell, people and attitude were the key and the office layout was merely an important exogenous variable which catalysed the eventual outcome.
Both open office and closed office – as indeed any hybrid combination between them – may work for different businesses and different people. The open-closed office dichotomy may be nothing more than a useful pointer at the issues to look at when taking a decision about the best layout for one’s business. The ultimate decision should rest on familiarity with the business requirements, knowledge of one’s firm’s internal dynamics, and of course sound, informed advice.
www.officeinmalta.com
Emmanuel DeGiovanni is a commercial leasing specialist.