Office Space Recommendations

Darien E. Kearney

Sam Houston State University

 Office Space Recommendations

Abstract

This report is a follow-up report that will address our recent discussion concerning office space

issues, and will address ways in which to resolve these issues. In our current space, our capacity

allows each individual to enjoy the quietness of a separated office in order to focus on various

projects, while our administrative and reception areas are open in order to give our office a more

welcoming feel. Conference rooms are beneficial for groups or teams who would like to discuss

what they have accomplished individually with the collective group. Recently, we worked our

way around the office trying to garner sentiment about what our employees would like the new

office space to look like. The information gathered was surmised and presented to our president.

Before the meeting, our initial understanding was that there was a need for more collaborative

opportunities, which were being stifled due to our traditional office workspace. We thought it

would be a great idea to roll out the open-concept across the entire office. This roll out would

allow every department to effectively interact with one another. However, the results of our

meeting suggests, while the open concept may be helpful to our fashion experts, it may

negatively affect some of our other professionals such as IT and Communications. Therefore, the

following report will give a brief overview of our traditional concept versus the open-concept,

and highlight ways in which each concept can be beneficial to our firm.

Open concept popularity

The most important and challenging mission for the firm right now is finding something

that meets everyone’s needs. A workspace must be structured, but flexible enough to

accommodate each employee's changing needs as efficiently as possible. This could possibly

mean that employees would be able to change certain aspects of their workspace. In considering
a design pattern, we consider Frank Lloyd Wright, who designed the SC Johnson Wax Building

“to be an inspiring place to work” (Sisson, 2015). The open design of the SC Wax Johnson

Building, built in 1939, is still considered a historic architectural landmark. This design pushed

the idea of open-concept to the furthest limits as there were no closed spaces on the bottom floor,

and all closed spaces were limited to the executive suites.

In 1964, Herman Miller marketed a more updated concept of the open office designed by

the hands of in house inventors Robert Propst and George Nelson. Interestingly enough, the team

may have sought inspiration from concepts found in 1950’s Germany. Though the first model

would have given each employee a great deal of space, and would have created a sense of

privacy, corporations saw the first model as “too expensive and difficult to assemble” (Sullivan,

2013). The second model allowed companies to fit more cubicles in their space, but still afforded

employees their privacy. These were basic designs, but the idea of the cubicle remains the most

popular way to provide privacy, opportunity for collaboration, and cut costs in today's

workplace.

Pros for open concept

In working to understand more about the open concept, we will start by examining the

benefits. One of the benefits in open offices is the increased amount of collaboration. Open

offices are often conducive to “quick ad hoc meetings” (Burkes, 2015), and are less invasive than

offices that have a barrier such as a door. The idea is that a freer flowing workspace allows firms

to deliver better products. In management's understanding, distracting noises can be mitigated by

side rooms for meetings, and for those who do not need to operate within the open space

environment.
 Another benefit of the open office floor plan is the cost savings to the firm. From a high-

level view, this is an easy idea to grasp because the firm is able to fit a lot more people in a

smaller space. It is generally understood that this is a proven cost efficient method, and there are

ways in which the negative impact of scaling back on costs for privacy can be mitigated.

One of the ways a firm is able to mitigate the negative impact of decreased privacy is the

ability for employees to create their own flexible workspace. As cubicles were the norm in the

1960’s, and were the beginning of the open workspace revolution, so are modular office products

(Manning, 2012). Modular office products are similar to the concept of Legos, and modular

pieces allow employees to remove and add certain components of their office space as they see

fit.

Cons for open concept

On the other hand, we want to work to understand some things that are not so desirable

about the open office concept. One of the ways working in a wall free environment can be

distracting is the unexpected noise level exhibited by neighbors. Everyone has a job to do and

many times that job includes talking to someone else, which can be distracting to those who need

a quieter workspace. Employees are often forced to mask these distracting sounds by using a pair

of sound cancelling headphones to focus on the task in front of them (Tierney, 2012).

Another complaint is that open floors plans have the tendency to be disruptive, invasive,

and inefficient. Since the office creates an open door policy kind of atmosphere, it also

encourages more interruptions. Employees can find themselves struggling to keep up with their

goals for the day when too many people stop by and dictate their schedule. Over seventy percent

(Brown, 2017) of employees reported a lack of efficiency in their daily routine due to the

invasive nature of the floor plan.

 Perhaps the most disturbing issue with the open office concept is the decreased

prevention of diseases and sickness. Though open office environments can be collaborative, they

can also be very stressful atmospheres. Stress puts enough strain on the body that employees can

suffer from issues with blood pressure, fatigue, and even flu like symptoms (Monaghan, 2009).

Pros for traditional concept

Alternatively, we will look at some of the benefits and drawbacks of working within a

predominantly traditional office space. When switching from a traditional concept to an open

concept, researchers found that management was the most affected group, who complained about

the noise level and the lack of ability to focus. A survey found that exactly “forty-one” (Brennan,

Chugh, & Kline, 2002, p. 281) percent of respondents attributed their lack of efficiency to noise-

related environments, and ultimately listed it as a top three cause of low productivity. Traditional

offices provide the enclosed barrier that fosters a focus-related environment and drives

productivity in this manner.

Another benefit of traditional workspaces deals with the maintaining the organizational

structure of the firm. Once the barriers are removed, the open concept somewhat diminishes the

job-level boundaries. When experimenting with a new Holarctic (Perez, 2018) style of

management, Zappos found that their turnover rate increased due to a diminished level of

seniority. With job-level boundaries and the most senior level employees receiving the highest

benefits, this may encourage lower level employees to set higher goals of being senior level

employees with the firm.

A third and vital option in favor of traditional workspaces would be the health related

benefits. Closed office environments contain germs and other disease related elements in the one

spot, thus keeping the temporary sickness from spreading. Not only are employees physically
well, they are more emotionally stable as well. This is because closed workspaces present a less

stressful environment, and helps the employee refrain from conforming to unnecessary social

pressures such as appearing to be productive.

Cons for traditional concept

With the benefits of traditional offices come downfalls as well. Research shows that a

shift from the traditional office to an open concept may cause employees to lose their sense of

task identity or understanding of ownership of tasks. In a sense, it may become an excuse for

employees to slack off. The removal of office barriers causes the employee to perceive a sense of

team ownership (Zalesny & Farace, 1987, p. 242) of tasks, where any given task is hard to

identify with one individual. In this shift, employees are coping with the idea that they were not

truly engaged in effective collaboration or teamwork.

Another key downfall in traditional spaces is the lack of space. In areas where space is

the most valuable such as big city offices in downtown, traditional office plans can cause real

problems for a firm experiencing growth. Firms must adapt to an open floor plan in order to keep

internal costs from rising when experiencing growth. Part of the firm’s ability to transition to an

open floor plan rests on the ability for current technology (Bass, 2015) to meet users needs in one

machine as opposed to several machines; thus, extensive equipment and bigger office furniture is

no longer justifiable.

A third downfall of traditional spaces is the lack of flexibility. Today’s level of talented

employees seeks more engagement within their surroundings and they want to develop a sense of

accomplishment by working with others. While the traditional office drives focus, it discourages

collaboration, as we have seen in our own offices. New technology such as laptops, video
conferencing, and shared document are indicative of a mobile environment that fosters

collaboration, and goes against the grain of traditional office plans.

Compare/Contrast Open/Traditional Concept

We can conclude our overview of the pros and cons of traditional and open concepts by

drawing some key comparisons and differences. The first key comparison is the enhanced

productivity for certain groups. Lower level employees enjoy the open space because it helps

them perceive an office with less boundaries, while a traditional concept works well for

management in the opposite manner. Alternatively, the open concept offers a more collaborative

and flexible atmosphere that is most useful in the modern work environment, but meeting rooms

and closed off offices are necessary for those who are able to focus better away from the crowd.

Another way in which the two plans are alike is their desire in some way or another to

create an element of privacy. Although the traditional office space provides the utmost level of

privacy due to its natural barriers, open offices are able to provide some privacy with raised

modular walls, privacy screens, and headphones. In contrast to privacy, open concept offices

provide more cost efficient incentives, especially to firms who really covet space in time of rapid

expansion.

A third way in which both plans are similar is the approach to attract and retain top talent.

Traditional spaces foster an environment of superiority, and these spaces give employees a goal

to reach. Open concept also help attract and retain top talent by giving employees a sense of

pride and accomplishment when working in a collaborative atmosphere. On the other hand,

health issues in traditional workspace are less of a problem as opposed to the open space,

because traditional offices are able to better contain illnesses; and they cause less stress, which

leads to long-term emotional stability of employees.

 Impact on company culture and image

The impact of the firm’s brand image depends on what the firm wishes to display. If

firms are more creative in nature, an open concept may be best, because the open concept breeds

an image of creativity and collaboration. On the other hand, a traditional office breeds the image

of people operating under a strict set of rules where internal employees are encourage to climb

the corporate ladder, and external users are introduced to the structure and discipline of the firm.

Conclusion/recommendations

To conclude this report, it is clear that some aspects of each concept would greatly

benefit our firm. Adapting a concept similar to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Johnson Wax Building

would be beneficial in allowing our firm to provide a space for everyone to be inspired.

Traditional office spaces will host top executives; meeting rooms will provide a quiet

atmosphere for those who need it. Though we may not be able to provide private offices for non-

executive IT and communications personnel, we will place these two functions in a section away

from the creative designers, who tend to be a little more lively and active. In addition, we will set

up random open meeting spaces without barriers, equipped with chairs, and laptop connections

for creative members who wish to meet in an open environment not tied to any one individual’s

desk.
References
Bass, J. (2015, January 27). Why trad itional office d esks are about to d ie out. City A.M.
London, England: NewBank Inc. .
Brennan, A., Chugh, J. S., & Kline, T. (2002, May). TRADITIONAL VERSUS OPEN OFFICE
DESIGN: A Longitudinal Field Study. ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, 34(3), 279-299.
Brown, E. G. (2017, December). The Open Office Plan: How to Gain Collaboration without
Losing Concentration. Nonprofit World.
Burkes, P. (2015, June 14). Open offices in Oklahoma City foster collaboration. The
Oklahoman. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America: NewsBank Inc.
Manning, I. (2012, February 26). Open offices gain popularity. Worcester Telegram & Gazette
(MA). NewBank Inc.
Monaghan, G. (2009, February 8). The mad ness of open-plan offices - Sharing space. The
SUnday Times. London, England: NewsBank Inc. .
Perez, T. K. (2018). Open Vs. Closed Space Work Environments. From The Perspective:
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/businessandtechnology/open-vs-closed-space-
work-environments/
Sisson, P. (2015, October 5). Frank Lloyd Wright's Visionary SC Johnson Buildings, the "Shape
of Things to Come". From curbed.com:
https://www.curbed.com/2015/10/5/9914538/frank-lloyd-wright-sc-johnson-
administration-building
Sullivan, T. (2013, January 24). Where Your Cubicle Came From. From Harvard Business
Review: https://hbr.org/2013/01/where-your-cubicle-came-from
Tierney, J. (2012, May 20). Rethinking open offices - Top complaint: noisy. Lexing ton Herald-
Leader (KY). NewsBank Inc. .
Zalesny, M. D., & Farace, R. V. (1987, June). TRADITIONAL VERSUS OPEN OFFICES: A
COMPARISON OF SOCIOTECHNICAL, SOCIAL RELATIONS, AND SYMBOLIC
MEANING PERSPECTIVES. Academy of Management Journal, 30(2), 240-259.