Read on Twitter
I was reading the first chapters on how you should take Conway& #39;s Law into account when determining your team structure, since software architectures follow the communication patterns in your organization.
This was all very well and good, I was nodding along in agreement pretty much the entire time. I felt the authors were really nailing it.
But then I read a case study at the end of one of the chapters which threw me completely off guard.
Presumably the case studies are there as inspiration or examples to be emulated? It sure seemed that way.
Which is why I was shocked to read about one organization that proudly described how they& #39;d reorganized into an extreme open office plan with free seating.
This was presented as "stream-aligned office layout for flow-based collaboration".
However there is a rich body of research that clearly demonstrates that open offices are a very bad idea, in particular for knowledge workers.
Open offices lead to more sick leave, more stress, lower productivity and lower employee happiness, even poorer communication - the one thing that& #39;s always toted as a benefit. We know this. It& #39;s not up for debate.
The organization in the case study even described how they wouldn& #39;t let developers have multiple screens, because they wanted "uniformity" for whatever reason and whatever that means.
But that& #39;s not all - they also wanted to avoid "people hiding behind their screens".
IF PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO HIDE BEHIND THEIR SCREENS IT IS BECAUSE YOUR SHITTY TOXIC OPEN OFFICE ENVIRONMENT HAS INVADED THEIR PRIVACY AND ERODED THEIR SENSE OF SECURITY.
I can& #39;t believe this is where we are.
I can& #39;t believe people do these things and then have it presented as best practice.
Bet it feels like autonomy when you don& #39;t have a say in how many fucking monitors are on your desk.
