It is now little over a year since most countries have been through some form of lockdown, of varying duration. In many countries, lockdowns were imposed more than once. Work-from-home (WFH) was the requirement for millions across the world, including India. There was and continues to be disruption on a global scale.

We now have studies—both academic and pop surveys—being quoted on how the pandemic has affected our personal and professional lives, our homes and our workspaces. There has been an explosion of content—audio and video—addressing the ‘what to’ and ‘how to’ of keeping jobs, finding one, coping with new demands and managing stress, staying fit, finding love, discovering resilience, and so on. The list of themes is long.

So also, it seems, is the list of ‘experts’. Just about anyone who can face a camera, navigate applications like Zoom, be reasonably reflective and articulate, in touch with some reading, and maybe have a slide or two on hand if called on to be a presenter, is up for the part. Unnamed studies come in handy. When ‘people’, whose preferences, choices, behaviours and feelings are brought up as the basis for some point being emphasised in a discussion, it may well be referring to those at a dinner table chat the previous night, casual conversations with people, and personal observations and experiences, all amplified and projected to suggest that they represent significant sampling.

Experts never tire of reminding us that with crisis also come the seeds of opportunity, and occasionally, an inflection point. Many have read the signs of a seismic shift in the world of work to the adoption of WFH, with far-reaching consequences for work definition, workspace design, modes of co-working, greater IT infusion into daily life, and so on.

WFH is a response to a crisis. It is not altogether certain that once the pandemic abates, WFH will continue to have its enthusiasts. A hybrid model has been mooted. But of course, as expected, there are experts who are already holding forth, and there are learning opportunities on offer to individuals and organisations for a safe landing into the hybrid model.

Most experts, consultants and professionals that I come across online who speak on the pandemic’s implications for organisational life appear to speak for business organisations and their members. They seem to speak of organisations with size, scale, structures, systems and processes that I suspect they know of from experience, or hold in abstraction, but seldom describe.

Research, wherever quoted, is almost without exception from the US, and I am reasonably sure that most speakers know the attention-grabbing bits, popularised by business magazines and websites, that can safely be recycled. The speaker is emphatic, and graphics take over, obviating the need to persuade the audience for thoughtful engagement. It seems enough to wow participants with numbers that sound impressive—1,000 companies, 50,000 hours, 11 states, 500,000 people…  No one needs to be troubled with the footnotes and the fine print that sets out the limitations of studies, or the definitions and cautions that require nuance and the need to keep enquiry ongoing in the mind.

Appearing prophetic seems important. Bringing up Google or Twitter (or some other brand name that has captured popular imagination) to buttress the point always works. Seldom have I heard a speaker or panellist admit to not having an answer or simply saying, ‘I don’t know (yet)’ or ‘I could be wrong/mistaken’. This doesn’t seem to fit the format; it probably shuts the door on further invites.

I have been wondering about the impact of the pandemic in Europe, Africa, South America and other parts of Asia, on organisations, the world of work (not just businesses), coping behaviours, and structural and systemic shifts. I haven’t searched hard enough for studies or in-depth reporting from these regions. Neither have I paid much attention to the world of work as it applies to small businesses, sole proprietorships, government and administration, traders, artisans, technicians and other such segments of the value-creating engine.

Countries vary in terms of their prevalent economic and political system and relative affluence, sociocultural mores, the legal framework governing rights, duties, commerce and employment, and the extent of infrastructure, including IT and digital access. Given this variety, it may be worth asking, when met with prognostications, as to how broadly or narrowly they must be read into.

It is surely important to speak of and share one’s learning from experience. Equally, everyone needs to hear what the other sees when crystal-gazing. What is missing is the ingredient of circumspection, and in its absence, probable scenarios are passed off as certainties.

Image: “Empty Office” (CC BY 2.0) by rtgregory.