LSAG Legal Briefs - Vol 2

The Guardian proclaimed that “Open-plan offices were devised by Satan in the deepest caverns of hell.” A recent Harvard study that attempted to measure collaboration levels after one company’s renovation asked some serious questions about the relationship between technology, office design, and in-person communication, leading countless media outlets to seize on the story and engage in a veritable arms race of provocative headlines. It is a topic that, because nearly everyone has personal experience with a poorly designed workplace, lends itself particularly well to clickbait. It’s unfortunate, because the “open plans” under consideration in these conversations are misrepresentative. They’re extreme examples: barren, bullpen-like spaces that make no attempt at the kind of flexibility and thoughtful design that makes an office like Fried Frank DC so impressive. These straw man “open plans” lack any form of privacy partitions, neglect to offer employees options for where and how to work, and fail to equip employees with the technological and cultural tools they need to make their space work well. A point of contrast: the welcome booklet Fried Frank provides to explain how to use the space and what cultural norms make it enjoyable and effective. In their 2016 U.S. Workplace Survey, Gensler compared the effectiveness of space types across the entire spectrum from individual offices to shared offices and high-, medium-,

and low-panel open spaces, as well as bench seating. Space type proved not to be determinant of high function for innovative companies. Gensler’s “high function” group of respondents—

Space type proved not to be determinant of high function for innovative companies.

Photo Credit: © 2019 Gensler

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD | 11