The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is that it was overall a positive experience. Then damn near every company out there made up some nebulous claims about "lost productivity" citing some internal study, and now nearly everyone is back to commuting at least partially.
We know we can live without the commute, we have actual data on its impact on CO2 thanks to the pandemic, and now we're mostly back to commuting. I don't see how anyone could argue that's not a real, tangible change that could've easily stayed.
> The most obvious one would be WFH. We had a global feasibility test, and from the worker's perspective consensus is
WFH was never about the workers perspective, it was enforced and companies had no choice.
That the workers were positive about it is irrelevant to whether companies were productive with it
If you go far back enough in my comment history you'll find me arguing FOR WFH, but I'll still be the first to admit that all companies I personally observed took a huge hit to productivity when WFH was in force.
How is this related? What change was expected from the pandemic?