You're the boss, so you're the only one who can answer that question. The fact that you're asking and don't seem to know why really makes me wonder.
From the PoV of an engineer, the assumptions we have as to why most companies are now choosing these inhuman workspaces are:
- money: it costs more to have separate cubicles or worse, offices with doors. It costs more both in actual hardware and construction costs, but also in square footage: you can pack more people into little 4x4 desk quads by giving them less personal space. Full-size cubicles need more space. This is probably the #1 reason, though managers will never admit it.
- "collaboration": this is the reason typically given by managers. It's true: having low or no walls between employees makes it easy for them to chatter with each other. If their job needs a lot of chatter, this can be a good thing. If their job doesn't, and needs a lot of intense concentration, then it's a bad thing. So stockbrokers for instance would be well-suited to open-office environments. Engineers and programmers, not so much. But managers are "people people" who spend all their time flapping their lips and not doing any real work, so they don't understand this, and think everyone likes to talk all day. Strangely, a lot of them seem to have walled offices with doors, while they tout the benefits of "collaboration" and open offices.
Finally, it doesn't help that a LOT of the younger generation of programmers seem to just love these open-offices. You might think it's a version of Stockholm Syndrome, but I think it's because the personality type attracted to programming jobs has completely changed in the last 15 years. Instead of attracting introverts, now it's attracting the "brogrammer" crowd.
As a younger programmer, it has nothing to do with being "programmers". It's just that we've never had the opportunity to experience working in a private office with a door that closes. If you have nothing to compare it to, working in an open environment seems fine.
You never did any programming at home, in your room, with the door closed? You always had noisy siblings in your room with you? You always did your studying and homework in school in college with people in the same room as you? You've never actually had any privacy?
I tend to agree with this. I've never had a private office with a door that closes, so how would I know what I'm missing out on? That said, the idea does sound nice and I'd definitely try it out if I had the opportunity.
Fully agree regarding "collaboration". The "money" argument is what I'm arguing against in the post. You can pack more engineers in an open office, but if the software output is low, you're not saving money - you're carelessly wasting resources.
Unfortunately, humans are generally short-sighted. Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Also, I imagine a lot of these managers would disagree with you about the output; they'll claim that collaboration boosts output, improves quality, etc. Of course, it's all just hand-waving with no evidence. To get any real evidence, you'd have to do some kind of study doing identical or similar projects in both environments. And even then, different people are different: some people might actually be more productive in an open environment. It probably really depends a lot on the personality type of the programmer, and on how they prefer to work. A lot of today's hipster programmers really do like open offices.
More than the presence of other people, I find the noise, the chatter, distracting. OTOH, there is some truth to the "collaboration" argument, IMO.
So, what we have done at our office is to just have to more or less equally size open spaces: one library-silent, one meeting-room-noisy. It's not perfect, but cheaper than individual offices, while still allowing you to concentrate when you most need to.
Currently we're in an open space and the moment I can convince the CEO we'll do away with it. Collaboration that matters for my team happens in two places: our morning meetings and in HipChat. Otherwise lots of distractions, sure it can be fun at times, but at what cost?
From the PoV of an engineer, the assumptions we have as to why most companies are now choosing these inhuman workspaces are:
- money: it costs more to have separate cubicles or worse, offices with doors. It costs more both in actual hardware and construction costs, but also in square footage: you can pack more people into little 4x4 desk quads by giving them less personal space. Full-size cubicles need more space. This is probably the #1 reason, though managers will never admit it.
- "collaboration": this is the reason typically given by managers. It's true: having low or no walls between employees makes it easy for them to chatter with each other. If their job needs a lot of chatter, this can be a good thing. If their job doesn't, and needs a lot of intense concentration, then it's a bad thing. So stockbrokers for instance would be well-suited to open-office environments. Engineers and programmers, not so much. But managers are "people people" who spend all their time flapping their lips and not doing any real work, so they don't understand this, and think everyone likes to talk all day. Strangely, a lot of them seem to have walled offices with doors, while they tout the benefits of "collaboration" and open offices.
Finally, it doesn't help that a LOT of the younger generation of programmers seem to just love these open-offices. You might think it's a version of Stockholm Syndrome, but I think it's because the personality type attracted to programming jobs has completely changed in the last 15 years. Instead of attracting introverts, now it's attracting the "brogrammer" crowd.