Pros

• Improves communication
• Increases workflow
• Can Eliminate markers of rank and occupation
• Allows flexibility of office layout
• Encourages teamwork, sharing and learning by observation
• Savings of 20 per cent or more on office fit-out costs
• Creates common culture
• Reduces real estate costs
• Reduces energy use and cost

Cons

• Stress and insecurity from lack of privacy
• Constant distractions from nearby conversations and noise
• Feelings of dehumanisation in smaller workstations with ill-defined boundaries
• Increased conflict between workers in shared workspaces
• Low job satisfaction, leading to higher absenteeism and staff turnover
• Stress contributing to high blood pressure
• Increased risk of colds, flu
• Low productivity and poor job satisfaction

Below is a recent post written by Tom Peters at www.tompeters.com

The Washington Post reports that Representative Peter Roskam (R-IL), during last week’s hearings, asked automaker CEOs if they’d work for a dollar a year. Chrysler’s Nardelli said yes, GM’s Wagoner said “I don’t have a position on that today,” and Ford’s Alan Mulally, who made $21,700,000 last year, said, “I think I’m okay where I am.”

In the immortal words of Dave Barry, “I’m not making this up.”

Meanwhile CNN’s Kyung Lah reported that the CEO of JAL rides public transit to work, eats in the company cafeteria, and cut his salary below that of his pilots as a personal response to layoffs and forced early retirements that JAL felt necessary to make.

A Financial Times headline on Citicorp reads: “Bank loses over half its value in past three days” “[CEO] Pandit moves to shore up his position as chief.”

As disgusting [DIS-GUST-ING] as Mulally’s “I’m okay” comment was-is, the Pandit headline in its own fashion affected me even more. Citi’s performance is awful—and there’s little or no doubt that Pandit is a major part of the problem. And hence his primary response, following an announced 50,000 plus layoff, is to try and save his own skin? (TP’s considered response: “You miserable, ego-maniacal S.O.B.”)

Have these guys (and they’re almost all guys) no sense of shame? No sense of service? No sense of honor? No sense of sacrifice? No sense of equity?

A little online research Cathy and I did shows that none of the Big Three CEOs had any military service. I do not believe that such service is a generic answer to any particular problem. But I do believe that the uniform absence thereof is perhaps indicative of a lack of a life-as-service, servant leader ethos in general among these three? (The “no military service” piece is almost amusing, in a perverse way, in the case of Nardelli, who is a fanatic believer in some twisted notion of the “military model” of doing business—his willy nilly application of his abominable interpretation of military leadership was one of his many screwups at Home Depot. Part of Nardelli’s, yes, admirable willingness to work for a buck at Chrysler may be the $200 million he took home as a prize for being fired from Home Depot.)

In summary:

Have they no shame?
Have they no sense of service?
Have they no conception of servant leadership?
Have they no soul?
Have they no honor?
Have they no ethos of sacrifice?
Have they no conception of-perception of equity?
(Did any of them go to Sunday School?)

Does it sound like I’m in a pissy mood, maybe still suffering from jetlag following my Middle East trip? Well, I am in a pissy mood, and part of it may indeed be 66-year-old-body-meets-jetlag. But part of it derives directly from Pandit and Mulally and the association of their flavor attitudes to our unfolding economic catastrophe. I’ve spent 40 plus years directly or indirectly on, effectively, one topic: profit through people-centered, people-obsessed leadership. Mulally and Pandit and their not insignificant ilk make me wonder if I pissed away my life in pursuit of an improbable, or even impossible, ideal?

Open plan offices have  become all the rage but who are they effective for?

A crowded Starbucks with young business people working on their  laptops.

JK Rowling  wrote  the first Harry Potter in a crowded  coffee shops.

Who could complain about an open plan office with visible example like those sited above. Research suggest employee’s in an open plan office keep longer working hours as compared to others.

At least three factors lead to increased work hours,
✓    Increased visibility of managers and employee’s leads to the pressure to be in the office
✓    Enhances social engagement, leads people to want to stay longer
✓    More distractions during regular business hours, cause people to find productive time outside 9-5.

Dr Carsten Sørensen, London School of Economics, comments: “The move from individual offices to open-plan was a necessary step to enable better communication and through this speed up decisions. It made everyone visible and immediately accessible. It also made it clear to everyone who is at work and who is not. The fact the open-plan offices and long working hours follow each other is a reflection of increased pressure on information workers.”

Neuroscience suggests  the success open plan offices  places  is  dependent on the age  of the employee base.

For employee’s under 35 open plan is fantastic at building teamwork and  creativity with no detriment to concentrated work. The youthful  brain is  incredibly able to narrow the focus and not be distracted by surroundings.

For those of us over 35 this format is distracting, causes poor conceptual performance and severely reduces productivity. The neuroscience is pretty clear, our brain naturally increases it scanning of the environment as  we get older. The 35+ year old brain will distract itself much more easily.

It would appear that older workers tend to  be less productive and need longer working hours in open plan offices to compensate . For younger workers a stronger sense of team and camaraderie  will develop in open plan offices.

http://www.harari.com/blog/index.php?/archives/179-Lessons-From-Swagelok.html

The media often reports on the incredible salaries made by professional athletes creating the impression its all– ‘Show me the money’. This is a rather narrow view; athletes are no different than you and I, and they base their career a host of goals. Some examples of non-monetary goals are:

• Work in a high profile market to improve endorsement options,
• work for a great coach who will improve the skills
• Live in a specific area of the country
• desire to enhance or maintain a fan base
• Work for a team with strong chances to win the Stanley Cup or super bowl
• The possibility to be named captain,
Depending on the goals of the athlete his free agency gives him options to grow his personal goals and his net worth.

Does free agency truly describe the situation you and I?
I believe not; most of us do not work in a closed system. We not only have many industries to choose from but also many companies in those industries.
Choice is generally considered positive. When you are shopping for detergent you can examine each box, find right one for the combination of cloths, washing machine and stains at a given price an presto you have your ideal detergent.
The key difference with free agency and purchasing detergent is the completeness of the information available to an employee.

As professional basketball player you would know:

• the salary of all players in the league
• team salary budget
• which players are leaving
• other players strengths and weakness
• coaches
• owners
• winning statistics
Unlike the isle at the grocery store it is very difficult examine each company one by one to determine the right combination of attributes to meet your needs.

I have interviewed hundreds of people for various roles I have been repeatedly asked, “what is it like to work here..” “Your website says you believe in training and empowerment is that true?” Unfortunately the interview will not generally yield accurate insight into the organizational culture or working conditions.
I have been an interviewee for jobs were the job description bares little resemblance to the job you accept.
I have seen many senior managers in an interview for in a new company, only to have the interview abruptly ended when both parties realize salary expectations are out of sorts.

Clearly free agency does not exist for employees yet. Information is the key limitation employee’s have. You do not know if you are working for a career you are looking for or just an average one.

My goal is to collect and disseminate information that will help you make better employment choices. These are choices which align with your personality, interests, and goals.

My goal is to balance the information base to the benefit of job seekers and employees