Seventy percent of offices have open designs, even though studies show it is not the best work environment.
In a recent article by Maria Konnikova at The New Yorker, the writer reminisced about her high school in the 1970s with classrooms that opened to the hallway. Since the school was remodeled in 2005, doors have been added to close each classroom from one another.
"Distracting at best and frustrating at worst, wide-open classrooms went, for the most part, the way of other ill-considered architectural fads of the time, like concrete domes," Konnikova wrote.
The change was made to improve performance in the classroom but the open office is still alive and well today.
The idea behind the open office was to improve communication amongst employees but in reality, studies show communal work spaces are distracting.
Organizational psychologist Matthew Davis reviewed more than a hundred studies of open offices in 2011, according to The New Yorker. He discovered that, while they accomplished something symbolically, the spaces shortened employee's attention spans and hindered productivity and creative thinking. Employees satisfaction with their workplace was also damaged.
The science behind some of the negative effects is clear. Employees in open offices lack privacy and a sense of privacy improves workplace performance.
Open offices also induce a sense of helplessness due to a lack of control in the environment. In an open office, workers don't have control over lighting, temperature and noise volume, amongst other things.
Open offices might even have a negative impact on employee health, according to The New Yorker.
In a recent study of more than 2,400 office workers in Denmark, employees who shared an office with another were more likely to use sick leave. And the more employees who shared the space, the more sick leave was taken.
Physiological and health components aside, the biggest hindrance on open office employees might be the space itself. Specifically the noise.
Noise level has shown to decrease cognitive performance including the ability to recall information and perform basic tasks.
Part of the reason the open office is still relevant might be that younger generations feel the benefits outweigh the costs.
"The younger workers also disparaged their lack of privacy and an inability to control their environment. But they believed that the trade-offs were ultimately worth it, because the open space resulted in a sense of camaraderie; they valued the time spent socializing with coworkers, whom they often saw as friends," Konnikova wrote in reference to a 2012 study of a Finnish communications company.
Those benefits might be preferable, but it doesn't mean they are improving employee performance.
In a 2005 study, psychologists found those better able to ignore distractions, not surprisingly, performed better in an open office. However, the more someone multitasks, the less able they are to screen distractions. This type of workplace distraction is something more prevalent than ever, between cell phones, Google and other servie's chat networks and music.
This is probably most true for millennials, who Konnikova says open offices could be negatively affecting in the long run.
"Though multitasking millennials seem to be more open to distraction as a workplace norm, the wholehearted embrace of open offices may be ingraining a cycle of underperformance in their generation: they enjoy, build, and proselytize for open offices, but may also suffer the most from them in the long run," she wrote.
