As in any crisis, major upheavals have emerged from the pandemic. One of these is telecommuting. It has been shown that, from the comfort of their home (or elsewhere), people maintain or increase their productivity, in addition to saving time otherwise wasted in transport and managing to manage some domestic tasks efficiently. Their quality of life has improved significantly and the reduction in their movements has reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which is an absolute necessity.
However, teleworking has its detractors. Many bosses are looking for the winning recipe to encourage staff to return to the office. We even hire change management specialists. But who should change, exactly? The employees (again!) or the managers?
Arguments for a return to the office generally fall into two categories. On the one hand, it is claimed that not being in the office undermines team spirit and impoverishes organizational culture, factors supposedly essential to engagement and productivity. On the other hand, it is argued that the reduction in traffic in the city will lead to the collapse of its social, cultural and economic vitality.
First of all, productivity — and above all the joy of producing — has never depended on a forced team spirit that we want as strongly as friendly or even family ties, any more than it does. It is a close supervision — de visu, in situ — accompanied by periodic and infantilizing evaluations. It stems from measures that do not require any presence in the office: encouragement based on valuing work and respect for individuals, appreciation of the contribution (rather than the evaluation of the person’s performance), professional ties — and not friendly — woven naturally by frequent exchanges, etc. The time and autonomy gained by teleworking staff encourage them to take initiatives, increase commitment and retain them. It gives them wings.
By the way, isn’t there a difference between “team spirit” and “teamwork”? People going through an ordeal or meeting a major challenge would benefit from a team spirit; those working to achieve business goals would benefit from teamwork. And the latter is updated by the complicity of approaches and the complementarity of talents, even from a distance.
In terms of urban vitality, the decrease in the property value of unoccupied buildings could be offset by a new tax pact between the cities and the government by favoring a transfer of tax points. Even better, the desertion of offices could be reversed by their consolidation, their conversion (for example, into housing) and a mix of uses. Thus, the new occupants would generate the desired affluence.
First there was the industrial revolution, then the information revolution; why not now the virtual revolution? Never will another opportunity so perfect to turn the world of work upside down, for the better, will present itself. Perhaps workplace leaders simply need to take the many change management training courses that are all the rage these days rather than enrolling their staff in them.