There has been another bout recently of badly-informed, barely-researched anti-open plan workspace ranting, with claims of multiple forms of toxicity including communicable diseases made possible through the over-release of cortisol (never mind the train carriage you were intimately crammed into on your way as this clearly wasn’t a contributor), anxiety and insanity (excusing any impact of the management culture you work in, which is clearly a source of unbridled joy). All these articles usually have one thing in common, over and above of course that the writer personally detests working in open plan but likes to let us know by saying it’s bad for us all – they never offer an alternative. It’s easy to be click-bait negative with a sensational headline and overly-dramatic verbal gesticulating, but it’s not so easy to say – look, I don’t like this even though I appreciate why it’s happened, but here is a workable alternative that I think is better, and the reasons why.
I have therefore set out to make it easy. I would genuinely like to know which workstyle is preferred. You just can’t leave us in this agonising limbo. So, if you’re about to go full Malcom Tucker on open plan, please tell us which of these you would like instead. I have tried to include every workstyle we have used over the last hundred years, and a few that are still evolving.
What follows is not a history as some of the earlier forms that were developed are still with us – in fact none have been so discredited as to have lapsed. Yet none have been so successful that they remain the plum choice if only organisations had the budget, common sense, decency and space available to make it happen. The reason that there are so many variants is that they have all been conceived in the belief that they are right for the time or the need, and that all others don’t cut it. I think I’ve built each type over the years, too.
So, critics of open plan workspace, let’s not be having all this negativity without a constructive offering too. I have even added a reference – so you can just quote that, made from its genre and sub-genre. A summary table is shown below, and a description of each follows. If you can think of a new one, please let the world know. Then we might be able to have a proper debate. Otherwise you’re just adding to the noise, and you’re on mute until you engage.
| Ref | Genre | Sub-genre | Description |
| TIC | Traditional | Individual Cellular | Individual private offices for all staff |
| TMC | Traditional | Mixed Cellular | Private offices for all staff, from 1-10 people |
| TMM | Traditional | Mixed, Manager-centric | Perimeter private offices for 1-10 people, with open plan desking |
| TME | Traditional | Mixed, Employee-centric | Inboard private offices for 1-10 people, with open plan desking |
| OPA | Open | Assigned | Fully open plan, assigned (1:1) desking |
| OTF | Open | Trading Floor | Fully open plan, assigned (1:1) specialist desking |
| OPH | Open | Hotdesk (or Ratio) | Fully open plan, non-assigned desking |
| OPM | Open | Mixed | Fully open plan, some assigned and some non-assigned |
| ALB | Agile | Landscape (Bürolandschaft) | Assigned desking, with range of alternative work settings |
| ABW | Agile | Activity-Based | Range of unassigned work settings for various activities, desks as core |
| ALG | Agile | Lounge | Range of unassigned work settings, no formal desks |
| ASC | Agile | Scrum | Desking arranged for assigned scrums (8-12), with supporting agile space |
| FCW | Flexible | Co-work | Private offices for 1-25 people, access to shared space and amenities |