Wow, that's unfortunate. I formulated that viewpoint while acting in a managerial role, deciding how to handle office space in a rapidly growing small company. We assumed that since most companies seem to use cubicles, there must be a good reason, right? ;-)

Wrong.

There are some valid viewpoints in favor of cubes. See jcwren elsewhere in this thread for some examples. However, I honestly believe the main motivation for cubes in most companies is "pecking-order." It is easy to establish a hierarchy of importance with cubes. Some go near windows, some are "interior", some are "high-traffic'" You can make cubes tiny, small, medium, large, corner, etc. The managers have to have some visible "perk" to set them apart from the workers, right? Otherwise, why would anyone respect them? (That the manager should be good enough, and demonstrably competent must really frighten most managerial staff...)

We decided, at da Vinci, to aim toward a more egalitarian arrangement. Everyone has an office, even the interns. The owner's office is the same size as mine. Mine is the same size as the most junior programmer in the company. New computers don't always go the most senior person (and rarely go to a "manager").

Every collection of human beings (especially coders with lots of laziness, hubris and impatience) will have a pecking order. However, it is simply irresponsible to sacrifice the most instrumental tool for efficiency and productivity (a quiet, distraction-free workplace) on the altar of "managerial perks."

Good luck with your "powers." Who knows? They certainly didn't have a substantive response to it. Maybe they'll honestly investigate the idea and consider "thinking outside the box." <tongue-in-cheek>People like us usually have a hard time finding "the box," but with patience and honest discourse, even managers can be logical once-in-a-while.</tongue-in-cheek>

;-)

Russ
Brainbench 'Most Valuable Professional' for Perl