| I'm not against collaboration, and maybe open offices can be good if they are treated like public libraries. People can go and discuss things in a room somewhere where they won't bother everyone else. The problem is finding someone (HR, management, etc) who will enforce this policy and actually provide consequences to violating the quiet zone rule. How about a 0.5% salary pay cut every time you randomly interrupt someone's flow via tangent conversation or unwarranted shoulder tap? Open office plans originally exist purely to save on costs. If a company doesn't do it to save on costs, is it appropriate to blame cargo culting in the name of "synergy and collaboration"? If I really need to concentrate and think about something, I need complete silence. No music (even if it is instrumental or repetitive), no headphones, no coworkers taking phone calls, arguing over their code review, or discussing how everyone died in last night's TV episode. My brain for some reason decides it has to eavesdrop on every single conversation within audible range, and trying to re-align myself to the task at hand becomes excruciating since every 5th word I hear is like a call to `Thread.interrupt()`. If you put me next to a jet turbine or some other white noise, I'd do much better. It might even solve my problem permanently by making me deaf. If I already know what I need to do and it's just a matter of hitting the keys on my keyboard, I can tolerate the noise. I commonly joke to my peers that perhaps management is doing us a favor by slowing us down day-to-day so we don't automate our jobs away too quickly. We should all be thankful! Previous HN discussion: The open-plan office is a terrible, horrible, no good idea - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17513843 |