It makes more sense if you think of tech companies as media companies instead of software companies. Facebook doesn't need hundreds of programmers as such, they need hundreds of people to manage their publishing platform which happens to be done using programming. This is of course true for many industries that uses software, but someone like Facebook is probably close to media than, say, manufacturing.

Open offices and headphones are the Uber model of facilities. We aren't paying for a quiet environment, you have to buy your own tiny office and wear it on your head.

FWIW, the last two companies I've worked at provided everyone with noise canceling headphones as well as a privacy shawl that you can cloak over your head and monitor.

It was at Microsoft that the change occurred: some management consultant at Microsoft issued the fatwa "beware the guy in a room". A person who isn't actively engaged with The Company at all times, who is off doing his own thing, is a huge productivity risk because he lengthens his manager's OODA loop.

If the OODA loop seriously got dragged into this nonsense, that is ridiculous. That would almost be the exact opposite of Boyd's strategy.

It wasn't described in OODA loop terms but rather in terms of "going dark". You don't want to have a developer "go dark" for too long. Of course that means that what management wants is exactly the opposite, for the developer to be continuously accountable and hence, always available.

Jim McCarthy, the originator of the "guy in a room" quote, has indicated that it's not to be taken merely metaphorically, that offices encourage isolation and "going dark", and open plan is key to productivity, collaboration, and accountability.

Jim McCarthy made that observation while he was a manager at Microsoft (not a management consultant, though after he left MS he became one). He's absolutely right - dudes alone in a room all too often are doing the wrong thing very effectively.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1416996.Dynamics_of_Softw...

That feels pretty resolvable without forcing everyone to work in each other's lap wearing huge headphones.

In my experience daily standups are often enough to keep everyone on the same page and make sure no one is dashing off in the wrong direction.

As a counterpoint, I'm not sure I would want to work/program in a non-open environment anymore. Software is a collaborative act to me, these days.

Different learning styles.

I once worked with a programmer who needed to externalize thoughts before he could make sense of them. He needed a sounding board and was constantly talking to anyone who would listen and respond. That was his thought process.

I, on the other hand, need to internalize thoughts before I can make sense of them. I need silence to process and chew on a problem for at least a couple of minutes before I can talk about them to others. That is my thought process.

We worked together on exactly one feature. He would get frustrated because when he talked to me, he got nothing in return. I was too busy listening to respond and as a result he kept talking, which frustrated me to no end because he gave me no time to process what he was saying.

Neither of us got what we needed, so he finished the feature by himself and I moved on to a different one.

My co-worker loved open office plans. I hate them.

I'd say the main tradeoff of open office plans and active pair programming is that it requires a lot of empathy for the differences of others' communication and learning styles. That goes both ways for those that need to listen/digest and those that like to talk. Not everyone has the same capacity and thus would prefer to be more of a solo contributor. I am kind of in between - I love pairing but after several weeks I need a break and prefer to be an individual contributor for a while.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with empathy. You can empathize with somebody else's need to either work alone or work with other people, but that doesn't really change anything. Pair programmers still need people to talk to and no matter how quiet they are they will always hamper the efforts of those who need silence.

Something that doesn't often get mentioned is it also works the other way around: if the quiet programmers exert their influence over the open office so it's quiet, that hampers the efforts of those who need to verbalize to think. The "oppression" goes both ways.

I'm not naive. I don't think companies will ever go back to individual offices for everyone. But putting a soundproof barrier down the center of a bullpen is doable. One side is for the loud folks, the other for the quiet ones. Everyone can hop from one side to the other as needed.

Hmm, a super talkative programmer, I've never met one.

I've met quite a few. In an open office it's easier to ignore or gracefully leave the conversation. With individual offices you'll get pulled into tangential/"fun" discussions after a meeting when the team is on the way back to their offices. I could keep going, but you get the picture... After working with enough diverse programmers, you will see some varieties.

> In an open office it's easier to ignore or gracefully leave the conversation.

Not when people are having a conversation with the people sat next to / opposite you and you're trying to finish a complicated feature. An office or cubicle would help (but probably not stop these assholes) because it sends the signal that this is a workspace, not a communal chat space.

It's helpful if you don't refer to the loud folk as assholes for the crime of being themselves. I've never had a coworker tell me "no" when I've asked them if they could take their conversation to a meeting room because I need to concentrate to finish X feature. If the office is especially noisy, I'll camp out in empty meeting rooms.

We have plenty of communal areas away from desks (e.g. the kitchen area is the size of this section of office) for people to have conversations - they know this already. But open plan softens (if not erases) the distinction between "communal area" and "work area".

Also we don't have enough meeting rooms to accommodate even scheduled meetings which means "camping out in empty meeting rooms" is a non-starter of a suggestion, sadly.

I've had 2 reporting to me. I am not naturally one myself. Its a trait that has to be monitored and kept in check to certain degree but is I think a very good trait when properly focused on work (while at work).

I've had VPs ask me about how productive those programmers were with side remarks about seeing them frequently talking with front desk and hr (presumably socially). One was really productive so not really an issue for me but not good having to explain that.

> I've had VPs ask me about how productive those programmers were with side remarks about seeing them frequently talking with front desk and hr (presumably socially).

Developers like that are hugely valuable in a start-up, they talk to everyone, get to know what their jobs are, and are the people you go to when you need to know what the problems internal users are facing really are.

I feel much more comfortable having conversations with collaborators in an office where I know my conversation isn't bothering anyone else.

<thought bubble>Please don't sit next to me. Please don't sit next to me. Please don't sit next to me.</thought bubble>

From my experience it's almost cyclic. In any set of tasks there is a phase where there's a lot of direct communication to get the ball roaling, but then there will be a zone where asynchronous communication will be ok as long as a response comes within dozens of minutes. Then at the end of a cycle there will be more discussions about the produced features/goods and it sall starts again.

I wish it was easier to move from an open space model to a walled one depending on the needs. After a few years I started hating having headphones all day long, so my solution is to get away from my desk and find odd places where few people go, but it's of course not scalable nor comfortable.

Personally, I enjoy being able to talk about programming issues with the other dev without having to leave my chair, BUT we also spend more time than we should talking about Rihanna's butt, sports or whatever...

You can actually collaborate better, if you can huddle up with your mates in an enclosed space. (So you don't bother all the other people who want to get stuff done.)

Yep, that's what meeting rooms are for. They should be plentiful....

Yes, offices for say 4 people and meeting rooms for talking to people when you don't want to annoy your neighbours.

What makes you think it was not those days?

This is what the espresso machine is for :)

What type of work do you do?