In most recent articles and speeches, the preservation of workspaces is very often opposed to technology, dematerialisation, and digitalisation, which are increasingly seen as “invasive”. Do we have to go to such extremes, if only to create a buzz?
Every industrial revolution has had a major, not to say immense, impact on workplaces and their environments, on the flow of professional activities, on the skills required and on production tools. Why should things be any different today? Jobs are being lost while others are being created, old tools are becoming museum relics to be replaced by new, much more efficient ones, and the nature and location of workflows are changing.
Does this mean that “technologies” and “workplaces” should be systematically opposed? Of course not, if this is properly anticipated and supported.
Let’s take a simple example: the pandemic of 2020-2022 has forced virtually all companies to reinvent their workspace and the way they work. Most of them passed the exam with flying colours, thanks to some fairly simple technological and communication tools…
However, the majority of companies have also realised fairly quickly that professional relationships based solely on communication technology are no guarantee of effective business management.
In a world that is increasingly Manichean and reluctant to compromise - which is surprising given the ‘non-binary’ and ‘inclusive’ movements of all kinds - it is true that finding the right symbiosis between technology and people, face-to-face and remote, is a challenge if not a heresy.
However, the companies that succeed are those that are able to manage the ‘at the same time’ - not according to a French political definition - but based on taking all the parameters into account and subtly integrating the various methods, approaches and tools.
All this seems perfectly coherent and obvious: reading the media and listening to a number of managers and employees, however, this does not seem to be a foregone conclusion!
Examples of good ‘cohabitation’?
• Allowing distance learning while maintaining compulsory face-to-face sessions 2-3 days a week would seem to be a good solution.
• Putting in place support technologies for repetitive and boring activities in favour of more rewarding functions doesn’t seem impossible either.
• Putting in place electronic control tools to check the quality of ‘dangerous’ parts ensures the safety of the product and the personnel.
• Equipping people handling heavy loads with electronic “exoskeletons” will improve safety and improve workers’ health.
It’s all a question of dosage and balance in a company, and all those who have been too extreme have paid the price sooner or later.
The face-to-face workplace is ultimately one solution among others and, combined with technology, a means like any other of achieving the objectives of the company and its staff.
Happy thoughts, happy weeks and see you soon.