It's very easy for managers to keep track of their herd, see which face they don't like and flex to the colleague/competition using the always important "how many workers I have under my wing/foot" metric.
I think the only downside of open offices is that productivity takes a significant hit and makes worker health and morale a nightmare. But other than that they are fine.
While I personally am hyper-focused at work (perhaps too much to the point of tunnel vision), I know peers who have received negative comments despite delivering stellar work - all because they look at HN or doing online shopping from time to time.
Yes I like my coworkers, that's why I ask them to join me for lunch. When I work I need silence, which is a precious commodity in an open plan.
What I never even want to imagine is having to go work in a office where then I have to feel lonely. That's the worst of both worlds.
This is empirical, not just a difference of opinion.
I worked in open offices that didn't bother me. Generally large companies with more than 60 employees. The noise becomes an indistinguishable background sound and long conversations are almost non-existent.
It's the smaller ones that annoy me. Those with 10 to 15 people. Conversations are easy to hear and understand, so your brain picks up on them. Since it's small, it turns into a bunch of little friend groups who have constant conversations.
...
Describing it just now, I notice that I am describing a high school class versus a university class. That's exactly how they feel. It only takes one or two disruptive agents to ruin everything.
Well, not until we either put on our maximum NR headphones and play our music at hearing-destroying levels. Maybe by the time we are completely and totally deaf, we will be able to tune it out.
That is exactly what I told my boss when they introduced our new open office and they said "works fine for me".
It goes both ways.
But I get it, I too tend to measure my productivity and whether I've had a good day by the amount of code or functionality I added, not so much the softer skills.
If I needed maximize output for a single day then I'd probably choose a private office, but over a long period of time it definitely hurts me. So the answer to "do I work better or just feel better about it" is: both.
That said, I feel I'm on the extreme end here as I would also cite loneliness and isolation as the single biggest drawback of being an engineer. I think many engineers would list the ability to work alone on your own stuff as a plus.
I also think that those benefits get quickly offset the second that I get a cold that I wouldn't have otherwise, or get pulled away from something for a triviality.
Are employees less depressed? (-->prevents PR issues)
Does the company get more done in the long term? (<--maximized retention)
This is a shit job and being close to other humans makes it easier to cope.
I'm not saying that it's 100% open-office's fault if I don't accomplish much, but I do think it can be a strong contributing factor.
> I do think it can be a strong contributing factor.
Even if it's a small factor, an open office doesn't actually help with collaboration, so it's all downside and no upside.
What I find more frustrating is all of the open-office apologists, that claim that they work better in an open space. Statistically, this seems unlikely, but even if that's true, a vast majority of people work measurably worse with this kind of setup [1].
This isn't everyone, but what's worse is that there isn't actually any kind of cafeteria/sitting-area to eat at my company, and living in NYC, going out to eat every day gets kind of pricey, forcing me to eat at my desk.
I've been debating asking if I can work remote for three days a week.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2014/sep/29/open-...