Last week, my inbox brimmed with breathless inquiries from clients and colleagues wanting to know: Had I read the latest workplace research? A Harvard Business School study on the impact of the open plan had recently gone viral, spawning doomsday headlines that were predictably eye-catching, but all too familiar.
This study found that contrary to popular belief, the open office did not encourage—but rather, inhibited—face-to-face communication. Employees in the study who transitioned to a completely open-plan environment spent 73% less time in face-to-face interactions, while their electronic communications concurrently rose 67%.
After digesting the findings, my colleagues and I engaged in a fervent email exchange (ironic, perhaps, as we sit in an open office). What follows are snippets from our dialogue. The biggest takeaway? It’s time to ditch the tired binary of open vs. closed office.
The rise of the open plan
Fred Schmidt, Global Practice Leader, Corporate Interiors, was not entirely surprised by the findings, having closely watched this trend over the past 30 years. The movement toward open plan—paired with the gradual disappearance of the private office—is the result of the obvious cost savings, architects’ love of clean sightlines, and the growing emphasis on collaboration, he explained.
Despite an increased variety of work settings, “we still fall short of user expectations in the degree of enclosure for individual work,” Schmidt said. The “cockpit office” model of small, enclosed workplaces opening into shared meeting and amenity spaces (“caves and commons”) was a solution discussed in the 1990s that never really took off because of the associated construction and real estate costs.
New study, old story
“Activity-based planning? Open plan? See quickborner,” said Joe Connell, Design Principal, pointing out that the open plan is not new—nor is the backlash. We saw a rash of such headlines about five years ago. (This one was my personal favorite.) “When you add the space reductions allowed by flat monitors and the elimination of paper, and then layer in the complexity introduced by mobility programs, it creates an unease that is difficult to remedy with cappuccino and foosball,” said Schmidt.
Similarly, the study may be new, but the general conclusion is not. Schmidt points out that the findings mirror a 1980s study by Michael Brill of BOSTI Associates that found a direct correlation between the degree of enclosure (panel height) and the self-reported ease of communication.
Study limitations
We had a lot of questions and criticisms, from the sample size (a bit small), to missing information. “I would want to see more replication, a larger data set, and a more nuanced inquiry before making such splashy pronouncements,” said Schmidt.
Mary Baker, Knowledge Coordinator, wondered how wearing a big necklace with sensor technology might have impacted participants’ communication, a factor that the study didn’t address. “Would they feel like lab rats, and might this feeling change their behavior?” she asked.
Also notably absent from the study was a discussion of the nature of the electronic communication (because actual spoken words weren’t recorded). “Sometimes people turn to IM not to communicate about projects, but to chat on a personal level and gossip. Understanding the context might shed light on why some conversations were better suited for F2F, and others were taken online,” adds Baker.
Speaking of context, I was curious about several things: What was the nature of the participants’ work? Do they need to meet face to face? And mostly [cue forehead slap]: Maybe the study participants didn’t meet face-to-face because they didn’t have meeting rooms. Isn’t the availability of more work setting options the missing piece here? More study would be welcome!