There were certainly some bare-bones companies earlier in my career, but there were also some - Thinking Machines comes readily to mind - that were pretty famous for pampering employees like this. Also, even at the bare-bones companies, people got offices or at least cubes. Of twelve employers in my 30-year career, only two had open offices and less than half of the rest involved sharing with one other. In 2000 I was in the middle of a four-year stint alone in an office with walls, which seems almost unheard-of now. It wasn't until I started WFH full time (2014 I think) that I was able to recapture that experience.
I'll assume you mean offices rather than WFH, since the latter (and its many confounding factors) has been discussed extensively here already. Personally, I was just happier in an office, even if shared with one other. Cubes were second, open plans last, though there were a few times when I appreciated being "in the fray" with everyone else either way. Eliminating the constant sensory assault just makes focus easier, and at the end of the day I could go home with lower cortisol levels. Collaboration was never an issue, as long as there was some space nearby for it and people were willing to use it.
Obviously it can be easier to slack off in an office, or there could be conflict with one's office-mate, and so on, but overall I think offices were worth it. I've also been told by multiple CFOs that the reason for cubes and then for open plans has mostly to do with cost and how various kinds of space are taxed. Every one admitted that the productivity/collaboration claims were just excuses. Which brings us back to WFH vs. RTO, I guess. ;)
What was the actual reasoning? Like, Zuck is a survivor and genius I respect (he's not perfect tho obviously)...but why does he do open plan at FB? Why did any of the tech companies do open plan? Are they thinking about it? Do they measure it? What's the rationale?
