|
|
|
|
|
|
by jasode
3552 days ago
|
|
|
>but it's hardly a glowing recommendation for open offices. To be clear, I'm not "recommending" open offices. Microsoft still has private offices and I believe it's still the majority configuration of their Seattle campus (MS employee can chime in to confirm this.) >We're talking about private offices for engineers who are on the maker schedule, where interruptions are harmful. The Intel programmers don't have private offices either. (The ideology was that the CEO's open cubicle was copied down to the engineers as well.) Also, the problem is that "harmful" open layout has not been proven to lead to business failure nor has "beneficial" private offices proven to lead to business success. We need a company with private offices to beat Facebook/Google/Apple/Intel who all have open offices without doors for their engineers. Instead, what we have is a bunch of articles that do surveys and of course the employees will respond "open offices suck!" What influences the industry is concrete business success and not employee satisfaction surveys that preaches to the choir. If people don't understand that distinction, they are being naive about what it takes to sway the industry. |
|
|
I know at least two of those four companies have very liberal working policies.
If I want to work on a problem with a team member we can take over a meeting room for a few days.
If I want to work from home for a couple of days that's ok as well.
Sometimes I'll go work from a cafe.
Hell, sometimes I'll have an intense meeting then play a couple of hours of table tennis to relax.
Basically if I want quiet time I can easily get it. It's not really like that for most software development jobs at normal companies.