The architecture of office space

We recently began receiving House and Garden thanks to some unused airline miles. Paging through the most recent issue last night, I came across a very short story about an architecture firm. The accompanying photograph’s caption talked about this firm’s move to decentralize authority and facilitate creative peer-to-peer interaction in the office. Basically, the picture showed thirty-some employees all working in one room. No walls. No dividers. No cubicles.

We’ve talked some in recent days of implementing a similar lack-of-hierarchy here at Mission Data International. In our tiny office, each of us full-timers basically oversees and manages a certain aspect of the non-profit, and such a move has the potential to increase ideas and productivity.

A friend of mine, a designer at Dayspring, was recently relocated into the company’s new building. The new building, unlike the old building, is sterile and smitten with cubicles. He’s not used to working in a cube, and has subsequently realized he — like me — is actually less productive when isolated. I’m honestly surprised Dayspring installed cubicles; has anyone, other than the companies who produce and sell the things, ever said anything good about a cubicle? Is there anything good about a cubicle? Perhaps not all people work better in a communal space. My wife found certain employees at her old newspaper job disagreeable in such a context, although this was in large part because of their constant interruptions as much as the idea of a group work space.

Dayspring would do well to take some cues from the aforementioned architecture firm, perhaps especially when it comes to creative activities where brainstorming and critique are an integral part of the process.