3 Reasons the Open Office Has Failed

Over the last decade, companies around the world have been embracing the open-office model. Replacing boxy workstations and narrow hallways with large airy rooms that seem to be wholly against any type of wall with an aim to promote endless flexibility. The contemporary workplace heard these cries of endless praise regarding the open office and there seemed to be no doubt that this was the future of work. Unfortunately, after the flexible office trend took off with flying colors, things have settled down and looking back, many professionals believe that the open plan office isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and today the concept has received significant criticism for inviting new distractions into the professional workplace.

But, rather than completely writing off the workplace of the future, examining employee complaints and potential faults in the architecture of open plan workspaces could ultimately help professionals and workplace experts work out the kinks and make improvements. Let’s look at some of the ways that the open office has failed with hopes that we can make changes for the better in the future. 

The open office lacks balance

Workers today are demanding businesses to be more open and flexible, which was one of the primary factors behind so many companies choosing to shift towards open offices. Today, around 70% of offices in the United States are modeled off of the open concept, but that number is shrinking every day. Due to an increased demand for openness, businesses have jumped head on into removing private space completely, with dire consequences.

A common complaint from open-office workers is that they feel more distracted and unable to work, causing a dip in productivity, thus resulting in more businesses returning to more traditional spaces. Being able to concentrate on work is vital for employee productivity and without a balance between private areas and shared spaces, workers and leaders tend to feel

Companies haven't communicated with their employees

Communication is a vital part of both professional and personal success. From market research to a growing interest in social capital, workers expect leaders to be communicative and transparent. While the open-office aims to boost social interaction by removing physical barriers, one of the most common issues with this change is that employees were not prepared for the shift in workplace dynamics.

Today, many businesses have recognized that they got caught up in the open-office hype and failed to ask their employees if this was something they actually wanted. The backlash currently faced by the open-office is a good opportunity for businesses to reevaluate their communication strategies to be more consistent and collaborative, streamlining decision making easier.

There’s a lack of substance

The open plan office wouldn’t exist if it were for community-driven movements, like coworking. The communal workspace model was developed by freelancers, hackers, and entrepreneurs looking for a place to work that included professional amenities as well as community. Many coworking spaces are centered around large communal areas where members can rent flexible desks. As the response to the movement has been generally positive and is celebrated for boosting worker productivity and happiness, more traditional businesses decided to jump on the trend as well.

Yet, unlike coworking spaces, the majority of corporate open offices were developed based on a top down model, thus the often lack the community that makes these shared workspaces thrive. Without understanding how to work together that includes space for both collaboration and privacy, workers often don’t know how to use the space in a way that will benefit them.

Understanding why the open office has received a negative response is the first step to making improvements. While all of the above-mentioned issues are certainly legitimate, they are in no way irreconcilable. As with all new concepts, the open office has plenty of time grow and mature in order to reach its full potential.