Smartize work

To understand the impact of smart working on the lives of individuals and organizations, beyond the various technicalities, we must first grasp the ongoing change, which is far more significant than one might perceive by examining its elements. We are, in fact, in the midst of a large-scale transformation of work: the programming of productive activities increasingly requires less mediation by human operators. It is precisely in this context that the worker can become a smart worker, no longer tied to specific times and places, but connected, through various devices, directly to the production center. Of course, this entails several consequences for the worker, who cannot simply be a part of the connection between various production devices. Thus, the fundamental issue has become the regulation of smart working, aiming to preserve the uniqueness of human action, even in the workplace. The extensive debate on the so-called “right to disconnect” stems precisely from this fundamental need.

Some use the acronym V.U.C.A. to describe this evolving world: we live in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, requiring skills related to greater flexibility, decision-making capacity, and risk acceptance. In other words, it involves developing resilience, a term that is becoming increasingly current, if not trendy. In the past, it was relatively easy to understand where the enemy was: on the other side, with a certain level of predictability and stability over time. However, this traditional geopolitical paradigm has gradually lost its meaning (with the notable exception of the surprising resurgence of a “hot” war in the heart of Europe). In general, in this time of change, we are increasingly forced to use heuristic strategies—simplifying pathways that, while making us quicker, often increase the risk of error. Thus, we frequently fall victim to judgment errors, and in this volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, we can no longer be sure of anything: we live in what can easily be defined as structural uncertainty. It is in this unstable scenario that smart working, a segment of the broader work transformation, fits.

Unfortunately, the term is much overused and misunderstood. It is often used to refer to any form of remote work, primarily the one associated with the pandemic emergency. In reality—at least in our country—we have a specific reference framework: that is defined by the legislation on “agile work” (Law 81/2017). The worker, through an agreement with their company, accepts or obtains the possibility to work in a smart form, remaining fully an employee of the company, without specific time or location constraints, except those derived from the agreement between the parties. It is, in fact, a new way of conceiving work, even subordinated work, characterized by autonomy and responsibility.

What does this new way of understanding work and its organization entail? On one hand, it requires a significant leap in the quality of corporate management culture; on the other, it presents a challenge to traditional industrial relations dynamics. Faced with these challenges and changes of this magnitude, there is a certain inadequacy among the various labor market players. I cannot say whether this inadequacy is “real” or technical, but it is worth noting that there is a perceptible difficulty in understanding the broader change underway and incorporating it into a policy that is not exclusively emergency-driven. Ultimately, it is always a matter of knowledge! We must understand the change to address it effectively. This is a disruptive change in many ways, one that alters the very nature of work itself, and thus should not be approached using methods designed for different objects.

The first consideration I propose is that smart working can represent a positive evolution in the work context, provided its risks are taken into account and mitigated. These risks concern work-life balance, personal well-being related to isolation and weakening of relational dimensions, and the worker’s ability to "live" the company's identity while also deriving part of their own identity from the workplace. Companies will need to actively think about how their people (and their organizational structures) can embrace a truly agile work model without losing the humanizing and dignifying aspects of work. Technology should be used as an enabling and empowering factor in redefining the meaning and purpose of work. Otherwise, the risk is that smart working becomes just another component of a future societal trend, where only individuals functional to the system find their place.

Much will also need to be done to reduce the digital divide that separates the three generations currently present in companies. However, we must remember that the problem is not primarily technical, but organizational and cultural, and the most correct and effective way to address it is to involve workers, rather than offering them solutions to questions they have not asked. In the “The Future of Jobs 2020” report by the World Economic Forum, resilience is highlighted as one of the most necessary soft skills for the future. As we know, resilience refers to the ability to maintain one’s “shape” and performance even in the face of particularly traumatic events. Therefore, we must imagine a new form of corporate leadership capable of managing human resources under conditions of reduced control, focusing on employee responsibility and empowerment while supporting their psychological strain.

For this reason—let me conclude—the spread of corporate welfare practices must also rise to the challenge posed by the evolution of smart working. Through the innovation of welfare plans and services, the organizational process of making work "smarter" can be adequately supported. Even in our country, we are witnessing extremely significant changes in work, so it is not surprising to feel a widespread sense of fear in the face of them. There are two strategies for confronting such fear. The first is the illusion, which acts as an antidote to the uncertainty and fear that we face daily in this world where uncertainty seems structural. The second strategy involves the possibility of rebuilding some “certainties.” To do so without recklessness, it is necessary to view change as an opportunity, embracing the idea that encountering the unexpected can lead to something positive—a Kairos, in which even something unknown can produce a potential good.