> Anyone who says productivity, focus and happiness doesn’t take a huge hit in open office settings is fooling themselves or lying to you.

I work way better in an open office, but I fully acknowledge that I am not likely your average worker.

The problem with open offices is that you only get one option: be around everybody.

My company has something like 15-20 offices anyone can use at any point with a big open floor in the middle for collaboration. That is in combination with a flexible WFH and office culture. Best of both worlds IMO.

even ignoring productivity of workers, I don't see why most companies wouldn't prefer to cut down on expenses like office space. Some industries will always need a chunk of their workforce in office, but even downsizing office size helps. Plus you can recruit almost globally for talent and employees don't have to deal with long commutes which are going to drain people mentally

You can't even claim remote work doesn't scale, there are multiple billion dollar public companies that are remote first and basically every company continued to function just fine during the pandemic

Power. Management really doesn't give a shit about being the most productivity, in reality those who have been deemed "above workers" want to feel that way and be able to observe their serfs in the field toiling away. It absolutely terrifies them that having a task master breathing down the neck of workers may not actually be necessary for things to get done, because why else did they spend 2 whole years paying 150k for that MBA from an Ivy League if their role is truly pointless.

Dealing with all these contradictions is very hard and may require a review of how we imagine "work" on a societal level, so it's much easier to force everyone back into the office and sweep it back under the rug.

in theory it should solve itself, companies that adapt or new companies that form will be more efficient and cost effective and put these other companies out of business.

In the short term these people can use words to justify decisions but eventually it will show up in the bottom line and everybody will find out which model is superior

This is discussed very heavily in economic theory. Basically possession of capital is such a powerful advantage it basically destroys a lot of the adaptation that should be forced. You see this a lot with VC companies, like Uber needing to subsidize every ride or Internet providers monopolizing by endlessly buying each other and merging instead of improving customer service.

Can you elaborate on this or offer some resources to learn more? This squares with my experience, but I haven't seen this thought specifically elaborated on. I am very interested to learn more.

This would be an excellent example of a market failure and a key area of policy research.

I remember when I worked for a large fortune 50 company, once we had an old school exec up there, and he was introduced as "the guy who brought the open office to our NA locations"

It was supposed to be a positive thing (certainly the management team saw it as that) but there was silence. It was really weird, actually.

I remember the days of being with other 9 people in two adjacent rooms as the worst days of my working and non working life.