Purposeful and productive: work in the future

Smart working and the four-day week are at the center of the debate on work. These are certainly two radical transformations that affect not only companies, but also people and their relational dynamics.

Since work and time are two aspects of our human identity, this debate tends to take on ideological tones. Instead, we need to evaluate these transformations with the rigor and relevance they merit. And to do so, we must first set aside any attempt to marginalize work, a line of reasoning which has recently called into question the centrality of work in personal development. With the support of many “false prophets,” on the one hand, antagonistic attitudes are spreading that amplify the age-old conflict between capital and labor, again relegating work to a mere source of economic sustenance. On the other hand, degrowth approaches exalt the myth of escaping to Arcadia.

Looking at the question in a very simplistic way, the point seems to be simply working less instead of working better, willfully ignoring the fact that for many people, if they lose the social side and the identity-related dimensions of work, they won’t find compensation in alternative activities. Instead, we’re convinced that reinforcing work is essential for individual and collective wellbeing, and quality work is "salvation" for people, as Primo Levi claimed.

The transformation of work we’re facing is not something we can come to terms with by marginalizing work. The real challenge is to build in purpose, to invent the right jobs, positions which are intrinsically gratifying and productive at the same time. Creating jobs of this kind is possible, but complex from an HR standpoint. Remote working and the short week can be options that cultivate purpose in work, but only if this approach to work is properly designed. We need to remember that differentiated access to remote work or short weeks for different populations can have a segregating effect: if only some employees take advantage of these solutions systematically (for example, young people or women), the risk is that these practices will become non-inclusive and thwart fair career paths and fair rewards.

That’s why it makes sense to do rigorous analysis to inform the planning process for new working hours and to evaluate the effects. Trialing the four-day week is the focus of a recent study conducted by SDA Bocconi for the Magister Group, one of the first Italian companies to adopt this method for organizing work.

Our data reveal positive results after a year of testing. The Group's economic performance has grown, and at the same time people's satisfaction has improved. Perceptions of clarity in tasks, work effectiveness, support among colleagues and personal wellbeing have all risen over time as well. But some signs of complexity also emerge relating to the risk of fatigue due to the accelerated work pace. We also note a slight decline in interdependence between colleagues and friendship relationships at work. At present these variations are negligible, but they should be monitored in the long term.

The change in working hours inevitably has repercussions on the pace of activities and on people’s sociability. For this reason, such a change must come be accompanied by organizational interventions to redesign work, enriching it with skills, meaning, room for autonomy and clear communication of results. Also needed are initiatives to bolster mechanisms for coordinating jobs.

Precisely because work and time are central dimensions for both the person and the company, we can’t expect easy answers. Consistent effects from transformations in the world of work will take time, and each change an organization introduces requires long-term monitoring of the value generated for the company, and the value generated for the person and the community.

Originally published in Fortune Italia