Kelso Harper: you dislike What about your open plan office?You too of office anymore?
COVID has changed how we use office space, and now many employers are starting to rethink their designs.
Today we talk about how insights from the deaf and autistic communities can finally make open-plan offices better for everyone.
I’m Kelso Harper and you’re listening Scientific Americanof science, quick.
[CLIP: Theme music]
Harper: I’m here today with George Musser, Contributing Editor of Scientific American. Thanks for joining us, George!
George Musser: Thank you for inviting me here and letting me rant about the office.
Harper: George, you ran a feature in the April issue about open plan offices, the nemesis of many knowledge workers. So why are open-plan offices so demonized?
Musser: If you’ve ever worked in an open office, it’s no surprise that, like everything in life, there are trade-offs. There are good points and bad points. So let’s start with the good things. That’s how it should be. Being on an open plan makes it easy to run into people, share ideas, and have the chance encounters that get us to the office in the first place.
But on the downside, it’s picky… there’s a sense of exposure. This is especially acute for women, but I think it really applies to everyone…there’s an open office clutter…in my business as a writer, people I’m interviewing and talking to, I mean, in an open plan How do you do that? You’re annoying people, right?
So for anyone who’s ever walked into an open-plan office and stayed there for exactly eight seconds, there are all sorts of problems that aren’t a mystery.
So as people experience open offices, I don’t think the first half of the trade-off, the perception of better communication, really works. So you are giving up something and getting nothing in return.
And this has been confirmed by studies and surveys of thousands of employees working in different types of offices and different environments. In fact, it is almost universally said that there is little interaction in this large open plan. Of course, that whole idea that might have made sense as it did in 1969 didn’t work.
Harper: Well, I’m glad I didn’t design all my office spaces that way. Okay, we’ve known for some time that open-plan offices aren’t for everyone, so why are we writing about open-plan offices now?
Musser: First of all, despite the decades of research that psychologists have done on the pros and cons of offices in general, it’s certainly an open plan office.
However, the pandemic is the main factor at the moment.Many companies are having trouble finding staff. gladly back to the office. Of course you can force them, but they pull people in instead of pushing them back.
There is also a movement towards so-called ‘inclusive design’ or ‘inclusive architecture’, which seeks to make the office better for people with different needs and requirements.
Harper: Well, that sounds like something I could get on board with. So what exactly does that mean?
Musser: It usually refers to designing for neurodivergence in a broader sense, such as people with autism, deaf people, deaf people, and deaf cultures.
Harper: Yeah, I really liked what someone said in your work.You really design the center better when you learn from the margins.Can you explain what you mean by that?
Musser: It’s really important and it’s also the main theme of this project. Usually the accommodation is considered well done. We tweak our offices to make this particular person or this particular class of people do better, but we’re giving up something. I think we need to turn this whole narrative of improving the office for us.
A classic example that designers cite is curb cutouts. Something like a glide path from the sidewalk down to the street makes it easier to push a stroller or push a wheelchair if you’re just walking. This is an example of a small “accommodation” that is of broad utility in practice.
I think the principle of inclusive design is to treat what has traditionally been considered accommodation as good design.
Harper: Wow, that seems incredibly reasonable.
Musser: Yeah, I think this is really important. I think the essential principle here is not to suggest that people with different needs, not to “other” people, are actually very different from themselves.
This is actually what some autistic people pointed out to me….One person said, “People with autism are the canaries in the coal mine. Our needs are actually different than those of typical people—typical people, but more intense and specific.” And this person who said this wasn’t the only one who used the “canary in the coal mine” metaphor. People with autism have the same needs as everyone else – they’re people, right? Each of us has the exact same needs and requirements. People with autism may be more aware of their autism, or they may be approaching the limits of their tolerance.
Harper: That’s right, completely. It makes a lot of sense. Can you give me a concrete example or two?
Musser: absolutely. For example, lighting. Lighting is very important, yet neglected in many office designs that require a lot of lighting. The idea is good, we just fluoresce out of this space. Although most people want the light from the window. They want natural light that is friendlier, easier to read, and less headache-inducing.
So I often hear from people with autism that lighting is actually the most important thing. Fix the lights and you’re 90% done. That’s a big problem.
And noise, just acoustic noise, is difficult for everyone, including those with hearing loss, many of whom have hearing aids like cochlear implants and hearing aids. And certainly autistic people, and really everyone. So while I’m focusing on these groups, I don’t want to identify any of them. I hate noise! You were trying to concentrate and, boom, someone yelled, oops, I lost my train of thought.
Harper: Wow I couldn’t agree more. I just moved and had to replace all the bulbs because they can’t function under cold fluorescent lights.
We also hear perfectly about noise, especially random loud explosions. But I think there are times when you don’t want to be too quiet. For example, you might work in a cafe specifically because you want a little background noise.
Musser: Yeah, this is exactly where I think other community involvement, a sort of overarching design principle, can help. Messy/not messy. Noise/no noise. It’s always been a matter of adjusting and trying to find balance. And people in these communities have had a lot of experience in balancing that in their lives.
An example given to me: A deaf person goes out to a bar after work and people … adjust the environment to suit their requirements. And I think you can learn a lot if you adopt the same principles and apply for an office.
So I guess that’s kind of the message I got from this thing. Open Office will likely stay here for a variety of cultural and economic reasons, but could be thoroughly improved with insights from these communities.
Harper: So how can employers, designers, and others who are reimagining office spaces move forward with these principles in mind?
Musser: I think the most important thing is the engagement of those affected, the meaningful engagement. It’s just part of the broader disability rights movement…they’re demanding meaningful participation in this process, and we should all be demanding it.
Harper: oh yeah! And it’s not just a survey of your big boss turning around and throwing it in the trash.
So the process itself is important, but what does a better outcome look like? It seems like
Musser: Diversity is a really important principle here. Because each person is different, the environment they need is also different. Some people like open plan. Some people need privacy, so you can incorporate it into your office. You can set up a nook on the side or a breakout room. Some people want to continue working from home, and that should obviously be an option for them.
Diversity is also important on another level. In other words, some of these needs are incompatible or in tension with each other. All you can really do is provide both, but in different parts of the office it’s just a different physical part of the office.
Harper: Wow this all makes sense. We are diverse, so our office spaces need to be diverse as well.
Musser: For me, the need for diversity was, in a way, a blessing, but hearing so many different reactions to the office made me appreciate it even more.
One type of office I particularly dislike is this hot desk system. I can’t even keep a family photo on the table. there are them. So, God, it’s terrible. In other words, I would rank it among the deepest circles of hell.
But some people love it! Some people like to move around and have flexibility and control in their day-to-day environment. Good for them. They should be given that chance. Those of us who don’t like this should be given the chance not to participate. So we hope that architects, designers and property managers around the world can actually create more spaces for their individual variations.
Harper: We are definitely not one-size-fits-all, and neither are our needs.
Musser: Exactly, exactly, exactly. Imagine: You walk into a store and all the clothes are medium. You can’t!
Harper: right! We are not all mediums! it’s just a fact.
If you want to learn more about all of this, read George’s excellent feature article in April’s print edition or online at sciam.com. It’s called “The Hated Open Design Office Fix.”
George, thank you for sharing all of this with us. Thank you very much.
Musser: I was very happy to talk with you. You are frustrated with the office, but in the end you like working in the office and you like being with people, right? This is what life is all about.
Harper: completely. Looking forward to meeting you, George. Open office someday.
[CLIP: Theme music]
science, quick is produced and edited by Tulika Bose, Jeff DelViscio, and myself, Kelso Harper. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith.
If you liked this episode, we encourage you to subscribe to Science, Quickly wherever you can get the podcast. Also, check out scientificamerican.com to find all the scientific content you want.
Don’t miss the next episode on Wednesday. The editors of Space and Physics discuss the latest on ‘Oumuamua — the mysterious space visitor who caused such an uproar years ago. Science may have just solved part of the mystery.
For Scientific Americans science, quick, I’m Kelso Harper. Thank you for your attention. See you next time.
