
The office cubicle turned forty this year. Hard to believe that when originally announced, it was greeted as a major improvement in office design. The original concept was the Action Office, the product of Robert Propst, chief researcher for
Herman Miller, the furniture company responsible for such iconic designs as the Aeron chair and the Eames lounger.
According to his
biography, Propst began studying office worker behavior in the mid-1950s. In those days, offices were typically laid out with a bullpen in the center with rows and rows of desks, surrounded by closed-in offices at the perimeter. Propst believed that the office of that era was “a wasteland … [that] saps vitality, blocks talent, frustrates accomplishment. It is the daily scene of unfulfilled intentions and failed effort."
Working with designers at Herman Miller, Propst’s team developed the Action Office – an open, modular, flexible office. One of the main ideas was that productivity would improve if workers could see their work spread out in front on them, instead of stuffed in an inbox. Thus, the new modular office had loads of work surfaces and shelves to display stuff. It even had a feature that allowed workers to raise their desk level so they could work standing up. Cool.
David Franz, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Virginia, studied the cubicle and says that the thinking behind the design of cubicles was utopian. Cubes “eliminated the hierarchical distinctions between managers and workers; every cubicle had an open door, everyone was equally a worker. Empowering and humane, cubicles seemed to create a workplace with a soul.”
So, did the Action Office live up to its promises? Did efficiency improve? I haven’t found any studies that prove this yet, but they may be out there. Have you run across any?