It always annoyed me that they couldn't even be honest and say it was save rent, they had to make it seem like open floor plan was a positive thing because it "increases collaboration"
It's not enough you want to be cheap but you want to make it seem like you're doing it for our benefit.
I think a lot of founders and their friends are using the office as a replacement for a healthier separate social circle and social life that they lack (a lot of people lack that, and they do too), so for them they're really just hanging out and like the potential for “increased collaboration” for that reason
(1) Healthiest = great social circle at work that bleeds into social circle out of work
(2) Less healthy = great social circle at work, separate great social circle outside of work
(3) Even less healthy = no social circle at work (just a job), great social circle outside work
(4) Worse = great social circle at work, no social circle outside of work (I never seen this situation. If you have a great social circle at work it's practically inevitable you'll do things outside of work)
(5) No social circle anywhere
This being HN I know lots of people will rebel against (1) but there are tons of stories about friends starting companies together and you can be sure they loved spending time together both at work and outside of work.
Just to make it more concrete I can't personally imagine The Beatles just calling their music "a job" and not getting close to their fellow band members. Sure that's a band but it's not really different from other famous business friend founders. I'm pretty confident Larry and Sergei socialized with each other outside of work. Hewlett and Packard. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were certainly friends when starting Apple and socialized outside work.
(4) is common among people who move internationally more than once or twice. Making friends as an adult is already difficult, and knowing that you will move on after a couple of years makes it even more difficult. You have a reason to socialize with your coworkers, so they will become the center of your new social life. If you moved to a popular expat destination, you may be able to find other expats who are similarly disconnected from normal life. Beyond that, making friends requires crossing cultural barriers, which takes a lot of effort and extraversion.
Your rankings make no sense to me. I don't understand why you deem someone who has separate social circles inside and outside of work as "less healthy".
Agreed. This appears to be the most best, and also most resilient option.
God forbid you run into issues with your outside social circle, you've still got your work circle, and the other way around.
I've only had option #1 happen once, and it was when I encouraged a few friends to apply at my company, and even then, it didn't really merge the social circles, I just had some people which were in both. I wouldn't do it again, either.
It's great to have multiple groups of friends, they don't all need to be related through work.
Yeah; the few times I've suggested friends apply for jobs where I work, it's always been with the understanding "in a department different than mine". It's "hey, the culture, comp, and work here is pretty good, you might like it", not "let's work together".
I think what they suggested is actually the reverse: coworkers becoming friends, not friends becoming coworkers.
It makes sense in a way, when you spend 7+ hours a day with those people, you're bound to find some common interests that could bring you closer. What's hard is maintaining those friendships once they're no longer coworkers, as usually those "common interests" are mostly about the company's.
The comment I was responding to listed "and it was when I encouraged a few friends to apply at my company" as the only time they had #1 happen. I was responding to that.
100%. I've had...three people in my life who I stayed close to after changing jobs. Two of them I worked with in two different workplaces, which I think is a large reason why (the relationship necessarily was > a single workplace), but even then, I'm not working with them, have in fact moved across the country from them, and so the relationships have atrophied some (though we still talk periodically).
This seems a little too idealistic, I'm afraid. It'd be amazing to have friends from work with whom one could start companies outside etc. But most folks perceive a job as just "a source of income", nothing more. And that is healthy on its own, otherwise we're in a perpetual servitude of the employers, because we link our personal happiness to "the job".
Are you under 40? I think when I was in my 20s and early 30s I would agree on (1). But when I got married and had kids case (2) became optimal, because my social circle filled up with people who had kids of the same age / went to the same school.
The pandemic then pushed me between (2) and (3) - good social circle at work etc.
(4) is me, as I have a wife and young son. I have great friendships and relationships in work, but my non-work time is with my family. Not as rare as you’d think.
I couldnt disagree more. Maybe if your goal is to start a company with the people you work with this might be true...
But work friends should not be your main friends. It's like saying your main friends should be a group of bowlers but at any moment on any day your local bowling alley could decide you are banned or that if you decide another bowling alley is better you dont get to bring your new friends to it.
Having a social group at work is great but having boundaries between work and personal is much healthier.
Introversion/extroversion isn't a distinctive feature of Myers-Briggs - it shows up in more scientifically-respectable personality measures, like the five-factor (OCEAN) model.
Yes, it features prominently in the MBTI, but my point is that "Whatever people think of Myers-Briggs [my experience is that extroversion is important]" doesn't make a lot of sense because introversion/extroversion is a widely-accepted concept that the MBTI uses, not a concept that comes from the MBTI.
I guess the point of that post is that the same type of managers who want to keep the cube seat warm are the same type of managers who'll want to micromanage WFH; switching to remote won't change their desires and expectations.
Teams can thrive in same room. High cadence communication needs same room (NASA flight control). If the work is not actually about a team delivering value together - concretely, and the only rationale for open space is "hypothetically it would be nice if they collaborated more" open office will create negative multipliers to everything (except facility costs).
The pathology is statistical. On average open offices are bad. Individuals can love and thrive in open offices. I suppose that's why it's so hard to kill them - you can always find a few persons who claim honestly it's the best place for them.
The benefit of open floor plan is very well established: you can get far more employees into a given amount of space (and therefore rent) than you can with cubes or offices.
Pretty sure the open office was a response to the cubicle hell that was prevalent in so many offices. As a child my dad took me to his bring your kid to work day. We sat in his cubicle all day and I felt like I was in prison.
I feel bad that my dad had to deal with that BS. He went full remote as soon as he was able.
Man I'd love a return to cubicles at the least. With enough space open floor plans can feel less terrible but sound just carries across these big open rooms.
It's not enough you want to be cheap but you want to make it seem like you're doing it for our benefit.