There’s been a trend in offices to get rid of cubicles and instead have an open-floor plan so that employees can easily communicate with each other and not be separated. Some companies do it just to save money. While there are various reasons for not having cubicles, here’s a reason for not getting rid of them: honesty. 
Jena McGregor reports in the Washington Post that a research study revealed that people who sit at large desks in larger spaces tend to cheat more. She also mentions “power posing” which is most possible when employees have a larger space because they can lean back and put their feet on their desk. If someone is able to sit in such a way to perceive him- or herself as having power, then that can lead to dishonest behavior. It’s not so easy to do that in a cubicle because the small space confines a worker’s ability to be more expansive, which changes his or her self-perception.
This positive spin on cubicles runs counter to the advice of consultants and commentators who have been advocating open offices for at least a decade. Even McGregor doesn’t totally think that cubicles are so great because in a more recent article, she wrote “A case against the office cubicle,” saying it can make people more isolated.
There have been many studies about workspaces, worker productivity and satisfaction, and company culture, and it seems like nothing is consistently conclusive. So should companies have cubicles or not? The most important thing is for a company to do what’s best for them. Analyze the situation, see what works best for employees, and do it, no matter what the trend may be. You may even discover that standing all day at a desk is the best option, which would make the cubicle argument seem irrelevant.
How is your office set up? Let me know in the comments below.
Hey Barry:
Great insight above, but I’d like to challenge this by correlating the environmental setting and the perception comments from the Post article.
The environment of a large chair and desk represents power or a perception of power. These areas, also called private work stations, send a message of importance that is well recorded in the Mad Men series. Behind your own closed door, in a “private” setting, sure more cheating may occur due to the feeling of isolation. So…don’t forget to mention the private nature and real-estate needed for these large desk.
The cubicle thought too may be flawed. You are isolated by a wall in most cases, but are still vulnerable from behind where you’re sitting to passerbys. The ability to “cheat” is much more difficult. So the environment of a large desk, with a large chair and in a private setting, provides the perception of the ability to “cheat” and get a way with it. That’s the fundamental difference. It’s the environment of the office, not the furniture within.
I tend to think about the office as an extension of who we are and our roles. If you are a software engineer that needs to “wire in”, but still needs to collaborate. Some nice headphones and a low-wall cubicle is a great place to start. If you are a CEO, I challenge, and are rarely in the office, what is the need for the plush office? Is that the best way to use your real estate? Those are my thoughts, what do you think?
Great additional thoughts. Thanks!
I wondering if the lack of cubicles or other small structures which give a measure of privacy actually decreases innovation – if you are out in the open with everything, will you take a chance on calling that new potential client when everyone around you will know that you called? Will you doodle coming up with new designs or processes to handle business if everyone has the opportunity to speculate what you are doing? Also, what about private activities that everyone has to do from time to time during their work day. Will there be a private phone and computer lounge made available for staff to use? Finally, what about people who are really smart and productive, but for whom distractions are a major challenge? Will there have to be some complicated “accommodation” required, or will they just be dismissed as potential or continuing employees because they are perceived as not fitting the culture?
I think that the “open desk and no one has a life outside of what the company requires” may work for firms that are highly dependent on interns or new grads, where people are sprinting to build their reputation for their next job, rather than running the 1500 for the company they are at. I don’t think it works for a mature workforce, that has to dig for results when the easy to reach ideas and business have been gained and maybe exhausted.
I think a mix of closed and open hot desks would work, that people could just choose based on their optimal work environment and the nature of the projects they are involved with. Some like to be a part of everything that is going on, so they could also be accommodated.
Boy, this turned into an essay in itself! Thanks for the article, Barry!
I like Zanna’s comment. I also think that a better-controlled study would compare a person’s integrity in cubicles vs. big private offices to their integrity in other areas of their lives. Steve also has a great point about different work tasks requiring different physical setups. Character is what you display when no one else is watching.
Thanks for the great insight