Amazon, Ubisoft… the list of companies announcing they are ending or reducing teleworking seems to be growing day by day. What reality lies behind these decisions? Is this really the end of teleworking?
Thunderclap on teleworking since Amazon announced the end of remote work for all its employees. Since then, everyone (and in particular “big bosses”) questions the benefit of bringing its employees back to the office. So, are we still going to witness the waltz of teleworking?
A little throwback to the past: in 2019, France has approximately 7% of teleworkers part-time. And this while the Concorde Foundation estimated that 25% of employees could carry out part of their activity remotely. Ultimately, the pandemic would only have served to reduce this gap since it is estimated that 20% of employees had access to teleworking in 2021. And these figures remain stablewith all due respect to the gravediggers of teleworking.
4,070 agreements signed in 2021
Why so much emotion today? First of all, renegotiations of company agreements relating to teleworking are underway. 4,070 company agreements relating to this practice were signed in 2021 (versus 1,490 in 2019). And these agreements often focused more on the number of days of teleworking than on its organization.
Three years later, it is clear that all is not rosy on the planet of teleworking. Feeling of isolation, risk of burn-out are all warning signs that require rethinking the organization of this practice, and going beyond a simple count. This context is all the more anxiety-provoking as some employers are tempted to monitor closely what happens when their employees are not in the office. In this regard, the announcements across the Atlantic, widely publicized, add fuel to the mill of those who, fundamentally, are opposed to teleworking.
The effectiveness of the hybrid model
And yet, wanting to eliminate teleworking for the financial health of the company or to improve employee engagement is a mistake. One of the experts on the subject, Nick Bloomprofessor of economics at Stanford, has shown that productivity (when it can be calculated) is significantly similar in hybrid (office/home mix) than in the office 100%. The hybrid model would be slightly more efficient, with a difference of 1 to 3%. Productivity that decreases due to teleworking is observed in organizations that have opted for this practice 100%. There, a 10% drop in productivity is observed. It still has to be compared to the savings generated in terms of real estate.
(Already more than 120,000 newsletter subscriptions The Conversation. And you ? Subscribe today to better understand the world’s biggest issues.)
During a conference organized in October 2024 at Stanford, several researchers analyzed the consequences of the “return to the office” (RTO – Return to the Office) policies of 1,200 companies that have made this choice. First of all, this phenomenon is observed more in cities where the cost of real estate is low. Furthermore, these companies would have the following elements in common: it is a decision by the manager (mainly men), taken at a time when the company is experiencing poor results, and which often causes massive departures, notably of experienced managers.
What commitment are we looking for?
These resignations sometimes resemble disguised layoff plans, since the employer knows very well that not everyone will return to the site. The corporate narrative is that they want to strengthen “affective” commitment (which, let us remember, means “the attachment and loyalty of individuals to their organization”). Paradoxically, the commitment obtained will perhaps be more “calculated”: the employee will not stay because of support for the company’s project, but because he is not sure of finding better elsewhere.
Where does this intuition come from, which has become certainty for some, that the company would do better if all employees returned to the office? For my part, I see it as a form of inheritance of the industrial company model. In this model, the time spent at the workplace (factory) by the employee (worker) can be directly associated with production. You have to be on site on time, and follow the pace set by the production line. Presence is therefore a virtue.
Dated prejudices?
Although this model is no longer the reference in many countries, it has left its mark, such as the view of age, for example, or even working hours. Thus, the idea of “seniors” who struggle to keep up with change is part of this logic of arduous work in the industrial world. Many managers are surprised to find themselves sidelined in this way, at the very moment when they are able to bring so much to the company. Spending time at the office, the famous “presenteeism”, arises from the same logic. However, we know very well that presence in the workplace is not a relevant indicator.
It is therefore high time to change the frame of reference. Indeed, many abuses attributed to teleworking arise from the prevalence of this model in mentalities. No more presenteeism? Welcome to remote availability, where some are reluctant to leave their desks for fear of being seen as a slacker. Finished the production line? Welcome to video meetings which follow one another at an infernal pace, giving employees no respite. As long as we are unable to distinguish between moments of individual work and moments of collaboration, we will continue to align identical days in the office and remotely. As long as we are unable to think about work, we will be unable to choose a virtuous hybrid, that is to say an organized hybrid. It is according to the nature of the work to be carried out that we must make choices regarding hybrid, not according to the wishes of employees or the beliefs of managers.
Teleworking is neither virtuous nor harmful as such. It is no longer experienced as a “reward” but as one of the working conditions offered by the employer. In other words, you will no longer attract candidates by offering them teleworking, as was the case before the pandemic. On the other hand, eliminating this practice today will have a heavy impact on your employer brand and on the commitment of your employees, who will feel betrayed. Fortunately, while many leaders are announcing the “end of teleworking”, the reality is very different. And that’s a good thing because it’s not teleworking that’s the problem: it’s the organization of work as a whole. All that remains is to hope that the current negotiations will take these different elements into consideration.
