(by Ruggero Parrotto, President of iKairos - mentoring and social economy and Aidr partner) We have thought so many. We needed a pandemic, with its dead, and all.
It had been talked about for at least thirty years. Since the first pioneering initiatives of Telecom Italia, IBM and some other companies were developed, willing to explore and innovate, helped by some scholars of social and organizational sciences: I think of the late Patrizio Di Nicola, a student of Aris Accornero, I think to Domenico De Masi, who for years has been prodding and lashing the decision makers and managers of our world of work with his enlightened analyzes.
Since then, in conferences, in university classrooms, in televised debates and in collective bargaining, there has been a lot of talk about home telework, mobile work, agile work. But the theme, in Italy, has never really taken root and in a pervasive way. The causes? Many and all linked above all to the fragility of the entrepreneurial and managerial culture in Italy. Because resistance to change is not linked to organizational wealth. Indeed, much more often than imagined, those who fear or reject or postpone a change are precisely those who have the power, those who are aware that changing a balance means taking risks, having to question oneself, giving space to something else, and perhaps to others. . The history of telework first, and then of smart working, in Italy, is a cross-section of the many clichés, of small and large hypocrisies, of small and large amnesias that have often influenced decisions, consequently conditioning fashions, behaviors and people's choices.
A pandemic was needed, with its dramatic and unforgettable legacy, to make even the most fundamentalists feel firsthand that there can be many organizational solutions, and that people, human resources, are resources and moreover human; who have reserves of adaptability that are absolutely not used, and that practices and procedures must be useful tools, not alibis or constraints.
The lockdown was needed, to “discover” all of a sudden that the objectives must be clear, that it is important to take a real interest in what collaborators do, that those who work want to understand and share strategies, feel part of a goal, of a purpose. That it is nice and useful to hear and see each other often, if only to ask "how are you?".
A change of perspective was needed, to re-appreciate the value of free time, the pleasure of being able to hug a friend, the importance of visiting a museum or a square, the pleasure of going to the theater, going to the beach, offering a little of time to those who are ill, to those who have no alternatives. And to understand that all this makes people more serene, more balanced, more attentive, more curious, more resilient, more oriented to solve problems.
But we are all adults (and hopefully soon also vaccinated) in order not to admit that it was not a choice studied, desired, sought, regulated. There was no time. It had to be done in a few days. And within days, millions of people started working from home, far from the traditional place. Many were surprised, because people got used to it immediately, as always happens in every change, even if unwanted. But critical issues, contradictions, inconsistencies emerged, which will certainly be good to take into account, if you don't want to miss a great opportunity.
First of all, our work system, not just that of the public administration, is still too based on the culture of the task and not of the result. Some progress has been made, but we are behind. Working remotely has obviously sparked some emphasis on the importance of skills, know-how, knowing how to solve, but unenlightened managerial power looms ominously. And here, the companies that are further ahead, the best equipped entrepreneurial systems must and will be able to create culture. They will end up promoting and fostering a revolution that will benefit everyone.
But there is also another aspect that involves people, to be observed with attention and simplicity: our homes were not designed to be workplaces. At least in most cases, people don't have enough space to concentrate, and to work well. Making the workplace coincide with the place of rest, recreation, affection, friendships, is not right, it is not beautiful and, as the occupational doctors begin to tell us, it is not even healthy. It is not so for those who work, and in particular for women, who are usually also called to care and family assistance activities, still disproportionate to men. In the long run, even businesses will find a new balance useful: hubs, shared spaces, places full of services, where they can meet and share information, projects, partnerships will be created. Traditional offices will obviously be rethought. And the issue of working time, one of the most debated in recent decades, will lose its morbid and often unjustified centrality. To be smart, remote work must increasingly become a choice, both for the organization and for the person. And it must be flexible, convenient, effective and be based on increasingly advanced technological systems, but also and above all on systems of trust, verifiable and always improving. Everything will be more articulated, complex, fluid. Governing all of this will require a great open mind, and a transparent vision. Putting people at the center can no longer be just a format, an empty slogan used at will. It will be an unavoidable and extraordinarily convenient choice.
So, it may be useful to ask: what will be the right balance once the pandemic is over? Or even better, what progression will be introduced, given the fact that the return to the desired and so-called "normality" will be inexorably gradual? What are the existing and future risks? How long can you live with an emergency? What help can technologies give? What limits is it right to introduce? What training should be made available to bosses and professionals who will still work from home for many months? What skills need to be strengthened? What indications, what suggestions, what precautions will it be important to implement to prevent a great opportunity like this from turning into a boomerang, a failure?
It will certainly not be enough “to spend two days at home and three in the office”. It would mean trivializing problems and opportunities.
We are not talking about a simple novelty. We are talking about a big change. Probably epochal. The ways of working must be rethought. Not just the places. But even those. Mobility systems, meeting places, times and ways of work must be rethought, increasingly integrated with times for rest and culture. The extraordinary opportunities offered by digital innovation must be exploited, but also governed. Country systems, industrial systems, organizational systems, union representation systems, training systems will all be affected by this change.
Diversified answers will be needed: because the needs and problems are complex.
And around a virtual, imaginary table, experts and decision-makers must sit: innovators, sociologists, psychologists, architects, doctors, engineers, managers, trade unionists. Young and experienced people. If you want to take this opportunity, if you want to get out of this incredible and delicate situation sooner and better, if you want to honor the deaths of so many people, then the humility and creativity of women and men must make a difference. We will need observatories, factories of ideas and projects, laboratories, study centers and hubs of applied thinking.
Surely, many intelligent hearts will be needed, with different stories, skills and sensibilities, but all moved by the desire to look up and leave a beautiful mark in the history of humanity.