開放式辦公室是否利于工作，學界目前尚未有定論

《職業與環境醫學》（Occupational & Environmental Medicine）雜志本月發表的一項研究表明，較之格子間的員工，開放式辦公室的員工壓力程度較低，活躍程度較高，因為他們會更多地走動起來，與同事互動。

與此同時，以往的一些研究，例如哈佛大學（Harvard）的研究人員今年7月發表的文章，發現開放式辦公室的員工與同事合作與互動的頻率都小于格子間的員工。

盡管這些研究探討的因素并不完全相同，但它們的結果似乎有所矛盾，表明在開放式辦公室的問題上，科學尚未給出定論。

亞利桑那大學（University of Arizona）的OEM研究中，231名政府大樓里的辦公人員在三天時間里佩戴了移動和心臟感應器。研究者發現，在活躍程度上，開放式辦公室的員工比私人辦公室的員工高出32%，比格子間的員工高出20%。

與此同時，哈佛大學的研究人員招募了52位來自《財富》500強的員工，拆掉了他們大樓里某一層的全部格子間，營造了開放的工作環境。在拆除格子間之前的三周和之后的三周，這些員工佩戴了帶有感應器和麥克風的藍牙配件。研究人員也獲得了進入服務器，監控員工電子郵件和即時通訊活動的權限。

結果令人驚訝：在拆除格子間之后，受試者花在面對面互動上的時間減少了73%，而電子郵件和即時通訊工具的使用量分別飆升了67%和75%。

在20世紀60年代赫曼·米勒（Herman Miller）的格子間成為標配之前，美國曾經普遍采用開放式辦公室。可以調整的隔間的誕生，讓公司得以在不提高每個辦公室空間成本和經濟成本的情況下營造出更好的私人空間。不過從20世紀90年代開始，開放式辦公室重新流行起來，如今美國估計有70%的辦公室都有這種設計。支持者表示，開放式設計的采光條件更好，有利于增強員工的幸福感。

不過反對這種設計的也大有人在。

卡比爾·塞加爾在去年《財富》的一篇專欄文章中寫道：“開放式辦公室有著饒舌的同事和愛出故障的復印機，會阻礙你高質量地完成工作?！彼臉祟}直奔主題：“是時候重新引進格子間了?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W）

譯者：嚴匡正

A study published in the journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine this month found that workers in open offices are less stressed and more active than cubicle workers, perhaps because they move around more to interact with colleagues.

At the same time, past research, like that published by Harvard researchers in July, has found that people who work in open offices are less likely than cubicle dwellers to collaborate or interact with their colleagues.

Though the studies didn’t examine the exact same factors, their outcomes seem to send mixed messages, proving—if nothing else—that science has yet to give us a clear-cut verdict on open office plans.

The OEM study by University of Arizona researchers is based on 231 office workers in government buildings who wore movement and heart sensors for three days. Those leading the study found that workers in open offices were 32% more active than people with private offices and 20% more active than cubicle dwellers.

The Harvard researchers, meanwhile, recruited 52 workers from a Fortune 500 company and stripped cubicles from an entire floor of their building to make the workspace open. The workers wore Bluetooth-enabled badges with sensors and microphones for three weeks ahead of the redesign and for three weeks in the new open plan. Researchers were also given access to servers to monitor email and instant message activity.

The results were astounding: After the switch, participants spent 73% less time interacting face to face, while use of email and instant messenger shot up by 67% and 75%, respectively.

The open office plan was common in the U.S. before Herman Miller’s cubicles became the standard in the 1960s. The advent of the convertible partitions offered more privacy without the spatial and financial expense of individual offices. But starting in the 1990s, the open office came back into fashion and now an estimated 70% of U.S. offices have such layouts. Proponents say open designs let in more natural light, which improves employee well-being.

But the design also has its detractors.

“Open plan office spaces, with gabbing colleagues and malfunctioning copy machines, can impede you from getting high-quality work done,” author Kabir Sehgal argued in a Fortune op-ed last year, titled, appropriately: “It’s Time to Bring Back the Office Cubicle.”