Workspace management, particularly in the service sector, seems increasingly marked by a form of collective frenzy. A new divide is emerging between senior executives who are demanding a return to the office after the pandemic to better control their teams, and those who are adopting a tolerant approach.
Each has its own line of argument, citing statistics from the media and polling institutes to denounce the flaws in the opposing “system”, while neglecting the middle way of “at the same time”, which seems to work well in many cases.
Why have we reached this point? It would be difficult to give a definitive answer to this question, but we can safely draw a parallel with the evolution of the geopolitical world, which is becoming increasingly rigid and divisive.
If we compare the two opposing trends concerning workspaces, it is striking to note the rise of simplistic ideologies which, on closer inspection, are far from worthy of the demands of enlightened management:
• Forcing people to work face-to-face ensures quality and productivity, while letting employees telework could retain young talent and support their vision of work. Are these two approaches really incompatible ?
• Requiring face-to-face meetings makes it easier to manage and control teams, while telecommuting seems to impose a more flexible and creative management approach. Is it problematic to demand one day a week of face-to-face meetings, while allowing a choice of two teleworking days?
• The presence of fixed workplaces means greater control over employees, while the introduction of flex desks optimizes the use of resources and encourages project-based exchanges. And if, despite a compulsory face-to-face presence, around 25% of employees are often absent, wouldn’t it be wiser to optimize the use of space rather than declare oneself the king of efficiency?
• Technology enables us to communicate securely, both internally and externally, provided we invest the necessary resources. But is it really by constraint that we develop collaboration, or couldn’t we envisage more flexible solutions?
By insisting on a return to the office and imposing “acute controllitis”, companies risk producing the opposite effect of what they’re looking for: a growing demotivation of employees, a detachment from the company, initiatives shattered by often unclear decisions, and a feeling of devaluation, even infantilization, of employees.
It’s high time - and let’s face it, many companies have already understood this - to combine different models of face-to-face, telecommuting, time management and flexible workspaces to create a harmonious whole. All of this, of course, under the guidance of competent managers who have adapted to these new challenges. It is striking to note the absence of certain human resources in this strategic thinking…
With clear organizational rules, attractive workspaces and, above all, an inclusive and benevolent hierarchy, it is possible to achieve prowess daily.
The real challenge lies in the fact that many managers, at all levels (direct, N+2, N+3), often find themselves at a loss when faced with these innovative concepts. And yet, with a little education and sensitivity, it’s entirely possible to find a way of working that’s efficient, effective and harmonious.
Let’s hope that the advocates of extreme approaches will not triumph and that pragmatism, combining several models, will impose itself as the ideal solution within modern companies.
Happy reading and see you soon.