I agree. WFH is a temporary stop gap, but lots of organisations aren't actually efficient at the moment and customer service levels are suffering. That's fine, short term, but not longer term. People will put up with delays etc in the midst of a pandemic, but will expect better/quicker service once it's over.
Businesses will improve and adapt to meet customers needs, not revert to norm. There is nothing tying a telephone to an office desk or a computer to company data. They can be anywhere. There may be legacy documents in paper form residing in folders in cabinets, but businesses will change those types of archaic systems. There is no reason for delays unless staff are unable to communicate with one another or incapable of co-ordinating their workloads, or managing their own times. These are things that can be solved with training, restructuring and redundancy packages.
I do not underestimate the financial incentive companies will have to make these changes.
There may not be a call for full time working in the office, but far more likely a flexible mix of some days in the office, some days at home. That will enable firms to rent smaller office space etc as people will "hot desk" or use meeting rooms, rather than having their own dedicated desk/office.
I see a gradual move over the coming decade, bit by bit. If we head from recession into depression, many of the weaker poorly organised companies will go into liquidation anyways, and this will incentivise those who do retain their jobs to be more adaptive, flexible and willing to change.
Another aspect is training etc. Firms will really struggle with trainees, on the job training, etc., if the trainee/trainer aren't in the same place. Nothing beats the trainee sitting close to the experienced staff to learn the job, learn the workplace procedures, etc. You miss so much if the trainee is at home in town A and the trainer is at home in town B. It'd take a lot longer to train and would be far more disruptive, which reduces the efficiency of the experienced staff.
This is where education of children is critical. If a graduate is incapable of self motivation, research, remote learning, self discipline, time management, etc. by the time they leaves university, and not destined for work in a laboratory/research environment, they may find other more capable students have an easier time getting jobs.
It has always been that way. From the student's perspective the problem has always been defining the skills that will be in demand and then portraying competence and confidence at a job interview. Nothing is going to change except the skills needed to do the job.
All good really, more flexibility all round - probably take 5-10 years for organisations/employees to adapt and find a new equilibrium, with a lot of people leaving one job and moving to another more suited to their preferences.
Yeah. I agree with this sentiment. I just think we'll move more in 10 years that most people think we will. I think employers will find it much easier to differentiate between the capable and the incapable going forward, because there is no room to hide incompetence in a digital only workspace, and far less office politics.