Businesses. Amazon, Google, Meta and Starbucks have decided to put an end to total teleworking – and, most often, to limit it to two days per week at most. These large companies highlight the danger that teleworking poses to their capacity for innovation and the cohesion of their culture.
This turnaround may have been surprising, because of all the prophecies about the “world after” that the Covid-19 pandemic has given rise to, the extension of teleworking is the only one to have been fully realized. In addition, surveys have confirmed, in a large number of countries, the strong support of employees for this method of organization. The limitations of teleworking have, therefore, given rise to numerous debates, even threats of resignation from certain employees, while highlighting the research still to be conducted to shed light on their effects.
Teleworking has become a mass phenomenon in just a few years. In Europe and the United States, between 30% and 60% of companies use it. The arguments in its favor are known. For employees, it removes travel constraints and allows new lifestyle choices (nomads, “tracers” combining work and vacation, distanced third places). But it is only accessible to a minority of them. For companies, teleworking allows significant space savings and access to globally distributed skills. It is, moreover, congruent with the digital transformation of professions and the growth of information workers.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers “Dare to telework! »: Managers facing the challenges of remote work
Read later
Unions and public authorities quickly identified the dangers of teleworking for employees: psychological isolation of workers, unsuitability of homes or dangers for private life. Dangers that the regulations and conventions which govern this form of activity mainly attempt to prevent.
Not conducive to informal interactions
On the other hand, the organizational implications and challenges of the transformations induced by teleworking have not been at the center of public debates. The limitations of teleworking certainly signal a trend toward regaining direct control of work. But the declarations of big bosses fearing that too extensive teleworking would endanger collective creativity or the company culture could not easily be contested.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers “Autonomy in managing one’s time is the essential question posed by the practice of teleworking”
Read later
What is the real effect of teleworking, total or partial, on collective life and team performance? What relationships can be established between teleworkers and employees who do not have this possibility? Is the imposition of a day or two of presence sufficient to limit the risks of internal tensions or the communicational rigidity of remote exchanges?
You have 24.58% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
