—
The arguments for or against open design offices continue to accumulate in one way or another, without the issue being resolved definitively. Workers who consider them places where they find it impossible to concentrate, distractions, greater number of mistakes or lack of privacy are common complaints, which contrast with many other arguments in their favor ranging from greater cohesion and communication, workers who move and They exercise more or they stress less than in private offices, or of course, cost. Many years of discussion, fervent supporters from one side and the other, and no clear answer.
Why do not clear answers appear? Very simple: because we are proposing open offices without carrying out a redefinition of the work model. A redefinition more and more necessary, but that collides with all kinds of cultural barriers or even measures in the opposite direction, such as the retrograde, absurd and impossible claim that all workers sign every time they enter or leave work .
The nature of work has evolved tremendously since the industrial revolution, and it is increasingly necessary to take this evolution into account if we do not want to fall into increasingly ridiculous and unsustainable extremes. Posing work as a physical place to which you must necessarily go and in which you have to carry out a series of tasks is increasingly anachronistic. It is increasingly clear that the office of the future is the one that does not exist : technology allows the jobs we do to be increasingly independent of certain means, from a place or a given moment, and science shows that working from remotely is not only positive , but also involves the elimination or redefinition of absurd political aspects and often counterproductive. All work teams should work remotely, and doing so, in addition, would offer many advantages in terms of productivity, less frustration, less pressure on the environment and health.
Raising an open office has nothing to do with changing the blueprints, removing the walls and putting people to work in a panopticon, and companies that do so will fail. An open office should set up comfortable workplaces for those who want to use them more or less regularly, never assigned, and a good number of infrastructures for those tasks that are interesting to do in the office: some meetings, events, production tasks that they need specific equipment, etc.
Do workers complain that they do not concentrate when they are in an open office? That is, neither more nor less, because there are jobs that it is completely absurd to consider doing in an open office. If you need concentration, look for concentration elsewhere, be it your home, a telecommuting center, the terrace of a bar or whatever you want. Find yourself the place where you like to work, in which you focus properly, and use it whenever you want to concentrate. Go to the office when you really need to see someone, exchange information for whatever reason it seems to be better to exchange in person, when you need a facility or a certain means, or when you have to gather a number of people and want use professional and adequate facilities. But do not go to the office or to “see you work,” or to “look like you work,” or to “compete in the time of entry or exit,” or any of those stupidities of the last century of an economy post-industrial. In the current technological context, all that trash is simply unnecessary. If you think you have to necessarily have your workers in a controlled environment and under your watchful eye to produce, hire workers you can trust, change the methods of management control, or better devote yourself better to something else.
The open offices are good if the company that adopts them has rationalized their working methods, and has set out to optimize them for the current technological context. If you’re not going to do that, just do not consider an open office, because you’ll generate more problems than solutions. If you are not willing to change your working methods, to rethink the needs of each position and to trust your workers, thinking of an open office is an absurd waste of time. If you want an open office to make sense, start thinking about how, in the current technological context, work should be considered.
—
This post was previously published on www.enriquedans.com and is republished here with permission from the author.
—
—
What’s your take? Comment below or write a response and submit to us your own point of view or reaction here at the red box, below, which links to our submissions portal.
◊♦◊
Sign up for our Writing Prompts email to receive writing inspiration in your inbox twice per week.
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member, today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
A $50 annual membership gives you an all-access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class, and community.
A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group, and our online communities.
A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community.
Register New Account
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
◊♦◊
Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
Photo credit: Istockphoto.com