You&#x27;re the boss, so you&#x27;re the only one who can answer that question.  The fact that you&#x27;re asking and don&#x27;t seem to know why really makes me wonder.<p>From the PoV of an engineer, the assumptions we have as to why most companies are now choosing these inhuman workspaces are:<p>- 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.<p>- &quot;collaboration&quot;: this is the reason typically given by managers. It&#x27;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&#x27;t, and needs a lot of intense concentration, then it&#x27;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 &quot;people people&quot; who spend all their time flapping their lips and not doing any real work, so they don&#x27;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 &quot;collaboration&quot; and open offices.<p>Finally, it doesn&#x27;t help that a LOT of the younger generation of programmers seem to just <i>love</i> these open-offices. You might think it&#x27;s a version of Stockholm Syndrome, but I think it&#x27;s because the personality type attracted to programming jobs has completely changed in the last 15 years. Instead of attracting introverts, now it&#x27;s attracting the &quot;brogrammer&quot; crowd.