The Truth About Open Offices

Ethan  Bernstein; Ben  Waber

Article | Harvard Business Review | October 14, 2019

The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions

Abstract

It’s never been easier for workers to collaborate—or so it seems. Open, flexible, activity-based spaces are displacing cubicles, making people more visible. Messaging is displacing phone calls, making people more accessible. Enterprise social media such as Slack and Microsoft Teams are displacing watercooler conversations, making people more connected. Virtual-meeting software such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and Webex is displacing in-person meetings, making people ever-present. The architecture of collaboration has not changed so quickly since technological advances in lighting and ventilation made tall office buildings feasible, and one could argue that it has never before been so efficient. Designing workplaces for interaction between two or more individuals—or collaboration, from the Latin collaborare, meaning to work together—has never seemed so easy.
But as the physical and technological structures for omnichannel collaboration have spread, evidence suggests they are producing behaviors at odds with designers’ expectations and business managers’ desires. In a number of workplaces we have observed for research projects, those structures have produced less interaction—or less meaningful interaction—not more.
In this article we discuss those unintended consequences and provide guidance on conducting experiments to uncover how your employees really interact. That will help you equip them with the spaces and technologies that best support their needs.

Keywords: Buildings and Facilities; Interpersonal Communication; Communication Technology; Design; Human Resources; Performance Productivity; Organizational Design;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Register to Read

Citation:

Bernstein, Ethan, and Ben Waber. "The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions." Harvard Business Review 97, no. 6 (November–December 2019): 82–91.

Nationwide is “on your side,” but did employees feel that way? CAO Gale King and CEO Steve Rasmussen, starting in 2008, invested heavily in a human capital strategy centered around “engagement” at the Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Set in 2014, this case tells the story of those efforts to bolster employee engagement as a key part of the company’s strategy to recover from the financial crisis (which it did far more effectively than most of its peers, rising in the Fortune 500 ranking as a result). From 2008 to 2013, Nationwide has seen employee engagement improve from the third to the sixth decile of Gallup’s North American Finance and Insurance workgroup database. The case details the multi-pronged human capital strategy that Rasmussen and King implemented. It concludes by asking students to consider: will a new initiative aimed at moving Nationwide’s dozen brand under a single umbrella jeopardize the culture gains that Nationwide has achieved over the last six years?

Nigel Le Quesne, CEO of Jersey-based financial services firm JTC, firmly believed that "shared ownership" was at the heart of his company’s successful track record. The firm had seen its revenues, profits, and number of clients and staff grow steadily throughout its over 30-year history, and management attributed much of its competitive edge to its culture in which engaged employee owners had fully aligned interests and collaborated for the greater good of the firm. Le Quesne had seeded the first employee benefit trust with some of his own equity when becoming CEO in 1998, making all employees—from the receptionists to top executives—direct shareholders in the firm. Over time, the employee owned equity had grown from 5% to 23% and the trusts created significant value that had already been directly distributed to employees in two past pay-out events. In 2018, after JTC’s successful IPO, Le Quesne and his leadership team have to decide if and how to adjust the shared ownership tools to their new public markets environment.

In this article, we summarize our research on the value of intermittency for complex problem solving at work and give practical advice on how organizations can improve the rhythm of their people's collaboration. Executives have been counseled to be collaborative leaders and to set the example at the top that they want to see in the rest of the organization. They have taken this message seriously, transparently devoting more and more of their days to in-person and online collaboration. By role modeling such ubiquitous use of collaboration technology, business leaders have helped define an era of always-on collaboration. It is now time to role model a more sustainable, productive rhythm (i.e., patterns of sound _and_ silence) of collaboration.

Faculty & Research

The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author