[utopkara]

I had an office (in the company which pioneered individual offices for their dedicated building for creatives many decades ago), and I have worked in open office settings. There are times when you want to think on your own, but I don't think it is impossible to achieve if you have a good pair of noise cancelling headphones. In return, you get to interact with peers more openly. Not to mention the cost savings for the company. This is absolutely a win-win. Although, the devil is in the details, and they are neither easy nor cheap: Open office settings have to be implemented with the flexibility to occasionally work from home; ample amount of meeting rooms for impromptu huddles; well designed ergonomics; absolutely relaxing decor and setup.

[notacoward]

The cost-savings argument doesn't really work. For one thing, those savings aren't real. What does "ample amount of meeting rooms" mean? It means a higher seat-per-employee ratio, just to make up for the inconvenience of their main seats not being usable for those huddles. And speaking of inconvenience, time spent walking to/from rooms and waiting outside rooms for the last group to get out and adjusting chairs and wiping boards and picking up your crap is all time not spent producing. I've seen many people lose 5-10 minutes of productivity every hour of every day like that. That's not cost savings. Neither is the effect on productivity when people are in their primary seats. Look at any company's expense breakdown. Personnel will be at or near the top; real estate will be much further down. Keeping people more productive is a much bigger cost savings than cheaping out on real estate.

I contend that there is no way to implement an open-office system that truly reduces costs. The only reason they're so common is a combination of cost insensitivity and cargo culting.

[utopkara]

Meeting room switch does take time, and it is a cost, cannot argue with facts. However, real estate cost is not high only if the company is located in the woods. If one is looking to grow workforce in a central location, the real estate cost is through the roof. Keep in mind that companies do not start at their final size; so the efficiency of the space will be far lower during the earlier stages.

[notacoward]

"In the woods"? Please. There are plenty of places that are rich in tech talent without being as grossly overpriced as Silicon Valley or NYC. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. have substantial offices in many of them, often all right next to each other, and they tend to attract startups as well. There are more reasonably priced options even in Silicon Valley, if some CEO-baby is willing to work somewhere other than their absolute first choice in SF or Manhattan - and if they're not then I seriously question their business acumen. Wherever your office is, your employees need places to live, and you'll have to pay commensurate salaries so they can do so. As a result, the ratio of personnel cost to office-space cost doesn't even change that much, and overpaying for both is financially irresponsible.