On the eve of this September return to work, we invited you to reflect on your perception of remote working and on the conditions for its success… So, as can be seen everywhere, it is a resounding vote in favour of this new way of organising work. But not for everyone, and not just any old how…
A look back at the results of this survey (which you will find in full here).
In this questionnaire, and in the light of the results of our survey conducted in April, at the height of lockdown, we explored the emerging avenues and the perceived advantages and drawbacks.
The lockdown experience was certainly revealing. Only 11% had a bad experience of remote working during that period. So it was from a favourable starting point that 89% of respondents took part in the proposed reflection. But there is a wide diversity of perceptions as people return to work.
Remote working enthusiasts: a good quarter
First of all, while two thirds of respondents would like to work remotely at least half of the time, more than a quarter (29%) see only advantages in it. Remote working is therefore not automatic for everyone, and the wish to adopt it is both reasoned and tempered.
A first surprise: the material conditions of working from home are a difficulty for only a minority of respondents (18%) – and not only Parisians! A minority, certainly, but not a negligible proportion. This is therefore a first parameter to take into account, because it cannot be covered by collective bargaining alone.
Time saved on commuting, so often praised, is a decisive asset for 44% of respondents, and an advantage for 23%. Two thirds, then, are motivated by this time saving. But for the other third, it is not a key factor. And for some, it would even be a loss, a loss of time “for oneself”… An argument to be used with care, then, since it only partly wins support.
Professional effectiveness is, surprisingly or not, another argument in favour of remote working.
In terms of “performance”, 43% say they were “more effective” during lockdown than at the office. And for a good third (39%), it was the same.
Conversely, only 16% feel they were “less effective” than at the office, and 1% “not effective at all”. 17% is no small matter in terms of productivity…
The resistant and the reluctant: one in five
All the more so because, when it comes to the collective effectiveness expected in future with a remote working organisation, only 16% say all will go well for everyone. The majority (63%) admit that, while the move to remote working will be possible overall, it will be difficult for some. And 19% are worried about the effectiveness of their professional team, with 2% clearly pessimistic.
Similarly, while 41% are delighted to have found, thanks to remote working during lockdown, a better balance between their professional and private lives, and 42% to have kept their usual balance, 6% admit that their professional effectiveness suffered, and 11% that the imbalance was at the expense of their personal life.
Once again, this fraction of around 20% expresses real difficulties in moving to remote working – and these difficulties vary, since they are not always the same people.
The determination some companies show to adopt large-scale remote working should therefore be tempered. And those doing so because others are, or under constraint of whatever kind, should be careful and precise in implementing what will be a set of sensitive changes.
Working remotely requires skills, both individual and collective.
At the individual level, autonomy is a key to success. And here, respondents’ perceptions reveal some gems that no doubt also explain why many are so keen on remote working.
Because when asked how often they need guidance and objectives in order to work, 18% need them once a week, and 16% once a month… And better still, 65% apparently do not need them at all!
This should prompt many organisations (and managers) to question the perceived added value of recurring formal meetings – management committees, executive committees, leadership meetings…
Because these collective moments do not seem to be what more than half of respondents miss, whether face to face or remotely…
The hesitant: 50%
Fortunately for supporters of management and real contact, there are other obstacles to the widespread adoption of remote working.
Interpersonal contact is one of them. It was the lack most often expressed in our lockdown survey – personally and professionally. And here we find this driver of professional engagement again.
For two thirds of respondents, informal moments would be a real loss in a working day. Not only for the pleasure of sharing a coffee or a lunch, but also for resolving real difficulties or misunderstandings…
All the more so because video-conferencing systems are only a poor substitute for a good majority. Only 16% find them much better (the enthusiasts and the advocates of formal efficiency?) and 19% find them equivalent to on-site facilitation.
Because 47% consider the interactions less satisfying, and 18% much less so. Here we find the two thirds of people who miss informal moments, for many reasons.
And this is a fine illustration of the diversity of the drivers of professional engagement: some are content with a contractual relationship, while others – and they are still the majority – commit for other, less “rational” “reasons”: for their company, for the service provided, and very often also out of a sense of the collective and “esprit de corps” – on a small or large scale.
This diversity of perceptions and anticipated difficulties clearly reflects the situation companies will face in these coming changes, or transformations. Because while a large majority of staff want a significant increase in remote working, many are not blind to the difficulties everyone will encounter, nor to the less favourable aspects of remote working.
And we did not even ask about the possible offshoring of jobs… Because when the added value of a position comes down to “production” with little interaction, managerial or collective, what is to stop it being moved to a country with lower labour costs?
Fortunately, few say they “produce” without needing to interact with others: 8% not at all, and 20% only a little… 28%, then, who could work from anywhere?
Because for the others, whose added value lies also – or above all – in interactions and in fostering relationships, they need to be able to “see each other”, at least half of the time.
Working better together
So one way of approaching the move to remote working, rather than all or nothing, will no doubt be to work on the proportion of this mode of contribution – and also to improve everyone’s perceived added value of real collective moments.
As an indication, the formula that seems most popular is two or three days of remote working a week – half the time, then. And it is a resounding vote from public-sector employees: an interesting avenue for savings for State services and local authorities, which have to manage their property portfolios in a crisis and speed up the digital transformation of public services.
At the two extremes, 24% would like to be in the office only occasionally (and they are not, for the most part, self-employed), and 15% would like only very occasional remote working (less than one day a week). That leaves 13% who would be happy with one day a week – a way of organising work already fairly common in many companies.
With this balance of forces between enthusiasts, reluctant/resistant and hesitant, the negotiating ground looks complicated, even mined – but also full of good surprises, goodwill and precious allies…
No company, no team, will be able to avoid groundwork, as close as possible to the professions, to personal organisation, to current and future managerial and individual skills. Not everything will be settled by changing legal rules and material compensation. It will be complex, complicated, human… that is what makes work so fascinating, isn’t it?
Leave a Reply