Future of work: how to think about the working methods of tomorrow?

In the wake of a societal revolution caused by AI, the world of work is changing at lightning speed. The “Future of Work” is becoming a tangible reality that redefines how we do society. Businesses are now forced to rethink their approaches, to innovate and to adapt to remain competitive in order to attract the best candidates. But these developments also affect individuals since they question the origin and the very purpose of work. In other words: why do we work and how can we work better? In this article, discover the answers and ideas of Future of Work experts, resulting from our round table organized on the subject.

Why do we work?

Motivation levers

Why do we get up in the morning? How does work enrich us humanly? Three motivational levers can trigger responses:

• the work environment, that is, the place, the atmosphere, and the relationships with our peers;
• the execution of the task, that is to say the very fact of doing our job;
• The mission, that is to say to feel invested in an objective that extends beyond our job (mission often of a societal nature such as a commitment to the environment or in favor of equality for all).

It is interesting to note that none of these levers is unanimously shared by all workers. Each individual is sensitive to one or other of his levers, depending on completely personal reasons. Craftsmen will, for example, be more motivated by the task since the nature of their job constitutes the execution of said task. Workers who massively use digital technology in their daily lives may be more motivated by their work environment (e.g. team life) or the company's mission.

How can these different needs be nourished when there is such a plurality of motivations? Samuel Durand, author of the documentaries Work in Progress, shares the following vision:

The role of the company is to create a favourable environment where everyone can seize their motivational levers. (...) For some, it's obvious, for others, it's not as tangible. This may explain why you may feel out of alignment at times. Perhaps one of the roles of the manager is to help give birth to these motivational levers and to accentuate them to allow employees to feel more committed.

Link your daily life to a mission

So in fact, committing to “a mission” is an essential motivator for many employees. We could even refer to a term that emerged very quickly after the Covid period: the search for meaning. Where to look for this meaning? How do I connect to this mission?

In English, there are two terms to better define the idea:”Meaning” refers to the individual scale;”impact” refers more to the company. Individuals may both seek more meaning in their journey (feel useful) but they may also want to contribute to society (helping disadvantaged populations, for example). After all, some workers legitimately want to see their work benefit other citizens. This is particularly the case of Christophe Roblin, Future of Work Project Manager at Orange:

“It is this superior mission of the company that guides us. How we are all, not always behind a Sherpa or a personality who can actually be useful in carrying out the mission, but behind a vision. A vision of the company that will solve problems or in any case bring innovation for citizens.”

But in practice, how can this be embodied? Communication and transparency are the first steps! It is indeed up to the employee to find the mission that resonates, but companies will reap a greater commitment from employees as soon as they make their public utility for society more visible.

How far can we rethink our concept of work?

Has the contract become a simple modality?

Permanent contracts, freelancing, slashing... Workers are now spoilt for choice. Even if permanent contracts are still the norm for workers and businesses, the advent of freelancing has prompted them to question the nature of the contract for their employees. Charly Gaillard, Founder of Beager and former freelancer, has noticed this in recent years: “companies are more ready to welcome freelancers and to make them work” within their structure.

Beyond the freelance/permanent contract binarity, “slasher” profiles are more and more frequent, especially among the younger generations who no longer satisfy themselves with CDI as a criterion for social success. Christophe Roblin even adds on this subject:

“A community of slashers is being created. Today, in companies, there are permanent contracts, fixed-term contracts, slashers, freelancers, why not interim managers... Finally, we are no longer going to wonder about the nature of our status. That is no longer an issue.”

The diversity of these profiles can be explained in particular by a marked expansion of various ways of working in recent years. This can be seen, for example, with employees who become freelancers to gain flexibility in their daily lives, in a marked departure from the wage system as it is designed today. What if it wasn't just an opportunity to question the principles of wage employment as it is carried out today? Kevin Bouchareb, Group Director of HR Strategy and the Future of Work at Ubisoft, alerts on this need:

“Just because you are subject to a contract of subordination does not necessarily mean that it is essential to define the time, place and methods of action at work. You can completely free yourself from it, while remaining in a mode of subordination.”

It is therefore not a question of abandoning wage employment but of rethinking it in such a way that it offers a secure environment, without compartmentalizing all the freedom of the worker. This even goes so far as to question the principle of corporate governance. Some are moving towards horizontal governance, where employees can take more part in decisions and become intrapreneurs. Businesses can also join forces with partners (competitors, public institutions, other businesses, etc.) to create synergies around common goals.

Is productivity correlated to the number of hours worked?

Among the most talked about innovations in recent months, the 4-day week is becoming more and more popular. It is a concrete response to a problem that encumbers a majority of workers, cognitive overload. By dint of multiplying tasks and letting ourselves be invaded by incessant notifications (chat, emails, tools...), we can ask ourselves if the productivity of workers is still there. Caroline Loisel, speaker, author and founder of Be Birds, is formal:

“We think we are productive when today we are not. Today's workers are frustrated because they no longer have time for useful work. Forcing them to reduce their number of hours will force them to ask themselves “what do we stop doing that is not useful?”

Organization, prioritization and relaying between teams are the first subjects impacted by the 4-day week. Is it a 32-hour or 28-hour week? Is it the same day off for everyone? What field practices if the teams are not numerous enough to replace a particular profession? The 4-day week necessarily questions management practices. Delphine Zanelli, speaker, trainer, facilitator and creator of the podcast “The Business of Tomorrow” discusses LDLC, the French example of the 4-day week, which is very successful in this implementation :

“It takes a great deal of managerial maturity to trigger changes such as the 4-day week. I know a lot of businesses, big or small, that are not mature enough.”

In other words, if managers support this transformation to ensure the well-being of employees, this method works. If, on the contrary, this practice is imposed without security measures, this could affect both the well-being of employees and their productivity.

The 4-day week is indeed an answer in order to better invest your working time. But it is not the only one. Tristan Goguillot, Head of Product at Lucca, mentions the example of the 9-day fortnight. In other words: 4.5 days every other week. Kevin Bouchareb also mentions a slightly more innovative monthly rhythm for accounting departments: the 3-day week, then 4, then 5 and the last could be a 6-day week where overtime would necessarily be counted.

There is no miracle recipe but each company can find personalized solutions that will make more sense for its internal organization, its business as well as for its employees.

Work less and work better?

In the West, and particularly in France, we are unwittingly cultivating the culture of presenteeism. The number of hours worked is valued more, to the detriment of the originality of ideas or the quality of the work provided, for example. In Sweden, the vision is radically different. The concept of Lagom involves particular attention to work-life balance. It is perceived more positively to leave at 4 p.m. to pick up your children after school than to stay late at work for a night out, interpreted as a possible lack of productivity. One reflects a clear personal development, the other would indicate a lack of efficiency or organization.

This Swedish vision questions us about the flexibility of businesses in the broadest sense. Should employees be encouraged to leave early, for example? It is indeed essential to define a common framework so that the collective refers to it and can collaborate. In this case, “how can we synchronize collectively when the schedules are not necessarily the most suitable for everyone?” asks Charly Gaillard.

To which Kevin Bouchareb offers a first line of answer:

“Collective moments must be sacred because the entire working day does not necessarily involve the collective.”

Indeed, do we need each individual to be reachable at all times of the day? If it is necessary to combat acute reunions, isn't it the same with the over-availability of employees?

The fears are legitimate but the company is and will remain a collective structure. It is necessarily inhabited by corporate rituals, whether they are seminars, strategic meetings, workshops or simply team building moments. But for each individual to reach their full potential, one possible way would actually be to maintain the necessary collective moments and give more weight to individual time that promotes performance.

With all these thoughts, aren't we in a position to better define what work is? Anthropologist James Suzman offers the following definition: work is the expenditure of energy to achieve a specific goal. This obviously questions unpaid work but perhaps above all the way in which we spend our energy. How can we redefine our vision of work so that it makes more sense? Don't these questions signal the start of the 5th Industrial Revolution?