Smart working, missed opportunity? When flexibility is not enough without a cultural change

Agile working, which is the most coherent definition of smart working, is an advanced tool on a par with state-of-the-art machinery and if I know its dynamics, I can use it successfully. Otherwise, I spend my days trying to achieve the same results as before and with methods that no longer work in that context. We come from a century of bossy work culture, where the last person out of the office is well liked, regardless of the result he brings: the same person, from home and where he is not supervised by anyone, how can he suddenly change the way he approaches the tasks he is entrusted with and be productive?

Finally, there is also an issue of context. Social psychology has shown how our results also depend on the spaces we are in, how we dress and how we are influenced by the people in our 'reference group', elements that are missing at home.

From your perspective, what are the most obvious 'distortions' in the implementation of smart working by companies?

The biggest problems are encountered where there is a lack of a culture of goal-oriented work and where there is no careful monitoring of internal communication. In the absence of these two basic conditions, working remotely takes on unpleasant overtones: work teams ignore direction and fall apart, people start looking around for new opportunities, mistrust levels in both directions rise, front lines become hyper-controlling, CEOs backtrack abruptly in fear of having lost governance of the company. The point is that you have to come to terms with the harsh reality: working outside the company is much more complex to manage and it is for everyone, from trainees to top managers. It is not a benefit, it is not a luxury, it is not a solace, quite the contrary. One only has to look at the statistics on work-related stress and people's involvement rates to realise that it can have worrying impacts on well-being.

One of the key points you raise is the need to design work from people's psychobiology. What does this mean in concrete terms?

Marketing has given bombastic names to endless reinterpretations of a few basic psychobiological principles that we have brought back to basics. Corporate wellbeing starts with making managers aware of the role the peripheral nervous system plays in regulating social interactions and in shaping leadership styles by making them adhere to the specific context of their organisation. We work accordingly with tools that are familiar to companies - such as individual and group sessions, psycho-aptitude analyses, organisational models, internal communication strategies and others - and approach them based on what we have learnt from decades of studies in social psychology and neurobiology. The client does not notice the difference during the process, but sees it in the result, which lasts over time because the people involved internalise the tools and methods we transfer to them.

How is the culture of 'continuous availability' negatively impacting well-being and performance?

This is a beautiful question because it encompasses everything: cultural toxicity, difficulties in managing time not bound by office opening hours, the consequences of poorly managed internal communication, the absence of clear rules and expectations on the part of the board.

Again, the extent of the damage is explained by neurobiology. Every time we check our smartphone or receive a notification, the sympathetic nervous system is activated, causing a rush of adrenaline that increases the heart rate and transfers energy from the brain to the muscles, generating tension. It takes 5 to 30 minutes to get back to normal, but if we are connected 24 hours a day, it is impossible to access this state of calm, and we suffer all the effects of chronic stress: heart disease, sleep disorders, anxiety, depression... I think it is too high a price to pay for the boss's complacency.

What, in your opinion, are the pillars on which to build a sustainable and truly productive smart working model?

The first is to have an awareness of what it takes to make all the individuals in the company-system 'work' correctly, considering the readiness of one's own organisation for the paradigm shift.

It is then necessary to adopt in good time and with a gradual shift from the past, a working model with S.M.A.R.T. objectives, i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-related. A third pillar is to communicate a lot and well: keeping a remote team together is impossible if people stop perceiving a 'common meaning', a direction linked to the company vision, goals ahead. Online - and even worse in writing - the para-verbal component of communication is missing and consequently the importance of structured feedback moments and in-person meetings increases to compensate for communication failures that are a harbinger of misunderstandings and relational difficulties.

Last question: looking at the next 2-3 years, what do you expect to happen in Italy with respect to smart working?

People will continue to long for it in its absence and secretly regret the office once they get it: they will try to opt for a hybrid model, which I also think is the most sensible solution. Many companies will try to turn around, risking losing staff, especially younger ones, but - media narrative aside - the problems that are emerging with remobilisation are concrete and increasingly critical. Personally, I hope that sensitivity to the relational-biological point of view will continue to increase, because it is the only way to fulfil the promise of caring for the wellbeing of people in the company, a compulsory step to restoring the much-needed productivity. On the contrary, it would be like asking for rivers of milk from a herd of exhausted cows from which we have taken away the meadow, the rest and even the bucket.