Vayre E. Digitalization of Work. New Spaces... Working Times 2022

Digitalization of Work
Technological Changes and Human Resources Set

coordinated by
Patrick Gilbert
Volume 5
Digitalization of Work
New Spaces and New Working Times
Edited by
Émilie Vayre
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022

The rights of Émilie Vayre to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022931283
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-789-7
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Émilie VAYRE
Part 1. Uses of Technology for Business Purposes: Background

and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1. “Spillover” Work via Technology: Organizational

Antecedents and Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Catherine HELLEMANS and Émilie VAYRE
1.1. What is spillover work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Objective parameters of spillover: location, duration, frequency
and intensity of spillover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. Subjective spillover and the meaning of spillover: boundary
theory and preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.3. Spillover control: myself and others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. Organizational background of spillover work via technologies . . . . . 10
1.3. The health implications of spillover work via technologies . . . . . . . 14
1.3.1. From hyperconnection to connection addiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3.2. Spillover, the need for recovery and burnout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4. Avenues of reflection and practical perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
vi Digitalization of Work
Chapter 2. Nomadic, Informal and Mediated Work

and Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Maëlle PÉRISSÉ, Anne-Marie VONTHRON and Émilie VAYRE
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2. Relocated and mediated work: definition and implications for the
quality of work life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1. Nomadic, informal and mediated work practices . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2. Nomadic, informal and mediated work and quality of life at work . 27
2.3. Empirical case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1. Method of investigation used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.2. Study results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4. Contributions of the field study and practical perspectives . . . . . . . . 41
2.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter 3. Leadership and the Use of Technology:

Health Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Valentina DOLCE, Chiara GHISLIERI, Monica MOLINO and Émilie VAYRE
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2. Organizational culture and leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.1. Classical models of organizational culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.2. Presence and always-on cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3. Leadership: an ever-present theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.1. Traits, behaviors and leadership situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.2. Transformational and authentic leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.3. The dark side of leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.4. Leadership and its consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4. Leadership in the Industry 4.0 era. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Part 2. Telework: Organizational, Collective

and Individual Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Chapter 4. Telework: What is at Stake for Health, Quality of

Life at Work and Management Methods? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Émilie VAYRE, Julie DEVIF, Thibault GACHET-MAUROZ and
Christine MORIN-MESSABEL
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2. Telework: a challenge for social cohesion and health at work . . . . . . 76
4.2.1. Telework, risks of discrimination and health degradation . . . . . . 77
Contents vii
4.2.2. Preventing the risks of discrimination, unequal treatment and

damage to health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3. Telework space–time: work–life balance and gender equality . . . . . . 81
4.3.1. Telework and the relationship between work and non-work life . . 82
4.3.2. Telework and gender (in)equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.3.3. Preserving life balance and gender equality in the workplace . . . . 87
4.4. Telework: a challenge for management policy and culture . . . . . . . . 89
4.4.1. Telework, managerial dynamics and remote team management . . 89
4.4.2. Transforming organizational culture and managerial practices . . . 91
4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Chapter 5. Telework in Lockdown: The Employee Perspective . . . 103

Anne-Sophie MAILLOT, Thierry MEYER, Sophie PRUNIER-POULMAIRE and
Émilie VAYRE
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2. The existing literature on imposed teleworking during a
pandemic situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.1. The main determinants of the experience of confined telework
in a pandemic situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.2.2. Varied and complex effects … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.3. Collection method and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.4. The subjective experience of confined telework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.4.1. Reorganizing activity to face an unprecedented situation . . . . . . 111
5.4.2. The evolution of communication methods and
professional relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.4.3. What is the impact on perceived mental and physical health? . . . . 119
5.5. Lessons from confined telework from the employees’ perspective . . . 122
5.6. Conclusion: limitations and perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Chapter 6. (Re)creating the Inhabited Workspace: Rematerialization

Practices of Remote Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Claire ESTAGNASIÉ, Claudine BONNEAU, Consuelo VASQUEZ and Émilie VAYRE
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.2. “Going to work”: from work as a place to work from anywhere . . . . 130
6.3. Space, materiality and remote work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.4. Understanding the (re)creation of workspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.5. Analyzing the types of inhabited workspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.5.1. Living in different physical spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.5.2. Living in virtual spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
viii Digitalization of Work
6.5.3. Living in time as space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

6.6. Practices of (re)creating inhabited workspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.6.1. “Drawing the plan”: the worker-architect and workplace
emulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.6.2. “Laying the bricks”: the worker-bricklayer and
boundary-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.6.3. “Choosing the wallpaper”: the worker-decorator and
identification with the space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.7. Inhabiting the different workspaces: a “meta-work” for which the
individual is solely responsible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Part 3. The Flex Office and Coworking: Conditions of

Appropriation and Psychosocial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Chapter 7. The Flex Office: What are the Challenges for

Organizations and Users? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Nicolas COCHARD and Delphine MINCHELLA
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.2. The origins of the flex office concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.2.1. Towards greater flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.2.2. The contribution of new information technologies . . . . . . . . . . 158
7.3. On the organizational side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.3.1. Towards new paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.3.2. The flex office and economic logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.3.3. Evaluating the effects of the flex office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.4. On the user side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.4.1. Questioning the flex office experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.4.2. The perceived impact of the flex office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.5. The challenge of transforming the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.6. Research and implementation of the post-Covid-19 flex office . . . . . 169
7.7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Chapter 8. Working in a Coworking Space: What are the

Psychosocial Issues? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Julie DEVIF, Christine MORIN-MESSABEL, Lydia MARTIN and Émilie VAYRE
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.2. Coworking spaces: definition, characteristics and user profiles . . . . . 176
8.2.1. The initial objectives of coworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.2.2. Characteristics of coworking: from the common to the specific . . 178
8.2.3. User profiles and motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Contents ix
8.3. The impact of coworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

8.3.1. Coworking, performance and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.3.2. Coworking and professional socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.3.3. Coworking and the work/“non-work” link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
8.4. Conclusion: prospects for future field studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Introduction
Whether the path is steep, the wall vertical

or the ground eroded, the peaks of thought
persist in pointing to the future
Juan La Veryce, 21:1003
NOTE.– To improve readability, this book has been written in accordance

with standard grammatical rules. However, the authors wish to make it clear
that the book is intended for everyone, regardless of gender.
With the digitalization of work, the spaces and temporalities of work and
“out of work” have been totally reworked. Workspaces are multiple and
heterogeneous (individual offices, flex offices, coworking spaces, home,
public transport, etc.). The temporalities of work and those relating to
personal, family and social activities are no longer delimited by the working
day. The modalities of work, management and cooperation are being
disrupted by digital technologies and the mediatization of relationships.
For a little more than a decade, there has been a renewed interest in
mediated and remote work (formal or informal, occasional or regular,
nomadic, at home or in dedicated third places), particularly in large
organizations, which are totally re-structuring their spaces, but also the
modes of access and occupation of these spaces. However, the effects of
these new work environments and new work methods on the relationship
with the organization and work, individual and collective practices, the
Introduction written by Émilie VAYRE.

xii Digitalization of Work
articulation of professional and personal activities, and health and quality of

life at work remain ambiguous.
The aim of this book is to report on the issues and impacts of recent or
emerging forms of work. With this in mind, we will address three main
themes:
– The use of technology for professional purposes – particularly informal
use – and its determining factors from an organizational and management
point of view, as well as its impact on the quality of life at work and the
health of employees (Part 1 of the book).
– The organizational, collective and individual challenges of remote
working – especially home-based telework – and the reconstruction of
social, temporal and spatial reference points that this involves (Part 2 of the
book).
– Strategies for developing new workspaces – flex offices and coworking
spaces, how they are used and their psychosocial impacts (Part 3 of the
book).
Eight contributions support these three main themes, based on a review of

international work in these fields and/or the results of empirical studies
conducted by their authors. Each contribution also aims to give an overview
of scientific knowledge and field practices. We therefore mention lines of
thought and recommendations relating to approaches aimed at contributing
to and supporting the digitalization of work and the transformation of
workspaces and working conditions, where possible, within organizations.
The book brings together contributions (i) from researchers and

practitioners who are experts in the three topics mentioned above, (ii)
mobilizes various disciplines (work and organizational psychology, social
psychology, ergonomics, information and communication sciences,
management sciences), (iii) and has an international dimension (researchers
and practitioners working in Italy, Belgium, Canada and France).
Chapter 1 deals with “spillover” work via digital technologies

(C. Hellemans and É. Vayre). It proposes to characterize this notion by
insisting on its objective and subjective dimensions. It presents the
organizational factors of “spillover” work and its impact on health. Chapter 2
focuses on nomadic, informal and mediated work practices (M. Périssé,
A.-M. Vonthron and É. Vayre). After defining what they cover, the authors,
Introduction xiii
through an empirical study, illustrate what their repercussions are on

recognition at work, organizational involvement and work–life balance.
Chapter 3 deals with changes in organizational culture and leadership styles
and their effects on work and workers (V. Dolce, M. Molino, C. Ghislieri
and É. Vayre). It ends by questioning leadership 4.0 in the era of the fourth
industrial revolution.
Chapter 4 reports on the challenges of teleworking from home from the

point of view of employees’ health, their quality of life at work and
management methods (É. Vayre, T. Gachet-Mauroz, J. Devif and
C. Morin-Messabel). It targets in particular on the identification and
prevention of risks associated with the deployment of this type of working.
Chapter 5 proposes a specific focus on imposed teleworking, as
experimented at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic (A.-S. Maillot,
T. Meyer, S. Prunier-Poulmaire and É. Vayre). Based on a qualitative study,
it addresses the way in which the reorganization of work, in this context,
altered the subjective experience of work, the time structuring of the activity
and professional relationships. Through the metaphor of the inhabited
workspace, Chapter 6 reports on the practices of (re)creating different
workspaces deployed by remote workers (C. Estagnasié, C. Bonneau,
C. Vasquez and É. Vayre). The authors discuss the possible consequences of
this re-materialization of work in spaces that were not originally designed for it.
The book concludes with a discussion of the phases of development of

the flex office (Chapter 7), its effects on the organization of work and its
users, and the organizational transformations that it could bring about
(N. Cochard and D. Mincella). Chapter 8 presents the characteristics of
coworking, but also the way in which work and work life within these spaces
affect performance, productivity, socio-professional integration and the
relationship between work and non-work life (J. Devif, C. Morin-Messabel
and É. Vayre).
Although this book was originally conceived and designed before the
Covid-19 pandemic, this context has strengthened the importance of the
questions and issues it addresses. It should be read in the light of recent,
current and future transformations. It sheds light on them both through the
prism of earlier scientific work in the field, offering rigorously documented
knowledge over time, and through more recent work, anchored in an
unprecedented period, the duration and impact of which we cannot control.
xiv Digitalization of Work
Understanding recent and current forms of work, and building knowledge

to fully grasp the issues and impacts, are resources for transforming
organizations and work. This means: questioning the ways in which work
and the conditions in which it is carried out are envisaged, defined and
conceived; questioning decision-making processes, management, evaluation,
coordination, leadership and cooperation methods; reconsidering the
relationship to work, the attachment and identification with work
organizations, the relationship to others, managers, teammates and
collectives; rethinking the place that work occupies in our lives, the
temporalities of work and workspaces and effectively the relationship
between professional and personal life.
This book lists works that can enlighten and enrich reflections and
explorations around forms of work organization, professional practices and
work environments that are likely to be deployed and favored in the future
(e.g. teleworking, remote management, coworking for employees, flex
offices, homeworking, nomadism), taking into account the risks that the
virus may resurge, that other pandemics may occur, or even that other types
of crisis may arise.
PART 1
Uses of Technology for Business Purposes:

Background and Consequences
Digitalization of Work: New Spaces and New Working Times,

First Edition. Edited by Émilie Vayre.
© ISTE Ltd 2022. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1
“Spillover” Work via Technology:

Organizational Antecedents
and Health Impacts
1.1. What is spillover work?
When we talk about “spillover” work, the first thing we think of is the
number of hours of overtime worked per week, compared to what is set out
in the employment contract. With work mediated by information and
communication technology (ICT), many companies are promoting, or even
encouraging, flexible spaces and flexible working times (Taskin 2006; Peters
et al. 2009; Allen et al. 2013; Grant et al. 2013). Asynchronous remote
working means that the employee can work outside the premises of their
company (space flexibility – we obviously think of home-based teleworking,
or coworking spaces). But asynchronous remote working also means that the
employees can choose their own working hours: working within a flexible
organization might suit them better than working traditional office hours
(9 am to 5 pm), since it allows them to juggle different constraints or
preferences, especially family ones (starting work in the morning before
taking the children to school, leaving the office earlier, going shopping
outside of “rush hour”, resuming work in the evening, in a quiet place, after
the children have gone to bed, in order to “make up” their hours, etc.). In
other words, with the new work organizations made possible by technology,
the notion of spillover can no longer be understood solely in terms of a
Chapter written by Catherine HELLEMANS and Émilie VAYRE.

4 Digitalization of Work
traditional working schedule carried out on the company’s premises. The

“calculation” of working time with regard to the employment contract is thus
complicated objectively, as well as subjectively, as we will see, on the basis
of Clark’s (2000) work on boundary theory, and the preference for a
particular mode of managing these boundaries (Kreiner 2006; Kossek et al.
2012).
1.1.1. Objective parameters of spillover: location, duration,

frequency and intensity of spillover
Location: let us start with two scenarios: either (i) the employee works
their regular hours at their workplace or (ii) the employee teleworks their
contracted hours. In the first case, spillover beyond the prescribed working
time may be anchored at the workplace, or outside the workplace, probably
most often on public transport or at home. The situation is relatively
straightforward and the spillover easy to identify if the working time and
hours are prescribed in the employment contract, in line with standard
practice. In the second case, things become more complex. With remote
working, the autonomy to manage one’s own schedule is generally much
greater: the employee can often work the prescribed hours on a more flexible
schedule, or even completely on their own, the nature and content of the
work permitting (more on this in section 1.1.3 on controlling spillover).
Thus, whether there is spillover or not no longer pertains to the time of day.
In order to identify this spillover, we must count the working time over the
day in relation to breaks, or even interruptions, of varying lengths. Indeed, it
is conceivable that an employee may still be working in the evening, because
they have interrupted their work for several hours during the day to look
after their children or to take advantage of a leisure activity outside of
traditional social time. This would be a “false spillover” from the point of
view of the number of contractual working hours.
Duration: the duration of the spillover could range from a few minutes to
several hours per week or even per day. It is obvious that this duration will
be decisive in assessing the extent of the spillover and its impact on health.
We can only refer here to the extreme situation of “karoshi”, which Uehata
reported 17 cases of in 1978 at the 51st annual meeting of the Japanese
Occupational Health Association. The term is used in cases of death or
permanent disability, following a stroke or ischemic heart attack caused by
“overwork”. The term karoshi has been used in Japan as a socio-medical
“Spillover” Work via Technology: Organizational Antecedents and Health Impacts 5
term in the context of workers’ compensation: the recognition of the link

between the death and the working conditions there depends mainly on the
actual length of time worked during the week preceding the accident. The
criterion used in Japan is a working time of 24 hours (three times that of a
normal working day) on the day preceding the accident or 16 hours per day
(twice the normal time) during the entire preceding week. Iwasaki et al.
(2006) explain that the number of people working 60 hours a week and more
increased rapidly between 1975 and 1988 (when the karoshi was
discovered), reaching nearly 8 million (in Japan), and that while in the
1990s, the number declined to 6 million, probably due to the economic
recession in Japan, the number has tended to increase again since the early
2000s.
Frequency: the frequency of spillover refers to the number of times
(regardless of duration) that the employee works outside the contractual time
of their employment and thus exceeds the number they are contractually
required to work per day, week or month. It goes without saying that mobile
technologies, such as smartphones, tablets or laptops, facilitate a regular and
even continuous connection, which comes to be expected by the company.
The frequency can be very infrequent or almost constant; it can be counted
from work spillover in the morning before working hours, in the evening
after contractual hours, at weekends, or even on holidays and vacations
(Box 1.1). It is highly likely that the higher the frequency of spillover, the
greater the impact on worker health. It should be noted that the criteria used
in Japan for the recognition of karoshi as an occupational disease take into
account, as we have seen, not only its duration (24 hours a day), but also its
frequency (16 hours of work per 24 hours during all the days of the previous
week).
Intensity: the intensity of the spillover is much more subjective and open
to debate. We consider that intensity is the sum of the efforts made during
the spillover work. A light intensity would be, for example, “just” checking
emails outside of contractual hours, without processing them, and without
continuing to think about them afterward (we will return to this aspect later
with the notion of rumination). A stronger intensity would consist of reading
and processing the emails, for example, which may involve a high degree of
attention, reflection, a search for information, necessary many contacts, etc.
Of course, the more complex the emails to be managed, the higher the
intensity. Another example of a high intensity of spillover would be the
drafting and finalization of a complex report under heavy time constraints.

We can therefore see that the intensity will depend on the nature and
quantity of the work to be done in relation to the worker’s skills and the time
they are willing to devote to this spillover work.
We surveyed 157 people with higher education, working in different sectors:

private and commercial (23%), education (12%), medical, paramedical and
psychological care (14%), public administration (24%), other miscellaneous (27%).
In response to the question “Do you use technology for professional purposes
outside of your workplace?”:
– 60.1% say they use their smartphone in the morning or evening, before or after
their normal time of work;
– 46.8% say they use their smartphone on the weekend;
– 44.9% say they use it on their days off.
Laptop usage figures are also high:

– 52.5% say they use their laptop in the morning or evening, before or after their
normal time of work;
– 48.7% say they use their laptop at the weekend;
– 36.7% say they use it on their days off.
To the question “What kind of tools do you use on these technologies for
professional reasons outside your workplace?”:
– communication tools (email, videoconferencing, etc.) for 72.2% of smartphone
users and for 65.8% of laptop users;
– Web-based information search tools (search engine) for 42.4% of smartphone
users and 56.3% of laptop users;
– office tools (word processing, spreadsheet, etc.) for 10.8% of smartphone users
and 63.9% of laptop users;
– tools specific to my work activity for 10.1% of smartphone users and for
44.9% of laptop users.
Box 1.1. Use of technologies when spillover work:

different uses for different purposes
1.1.2. Subjective spillover and the meaning of spillover:

boundary theory and preferences
So far, we have considered spillover from an objective and quantitative

point of view, in terms of exceeding the number of working hours stipulated
in the employment contract. Another way of looking at spillover is to
understand it in a more qualitative way, in terms of exchanges (balance and
imbalances), with reference to both professional and personal areas of life.
Spillover is present when one domain of life encroaches on another domain
of life, whether it is work that encroaches on private life, or private life that
encroaches on work, whether this spillover is agreeable (positive spillover)
or, on the contrary, disagreeable (negative spillover).
1.1.2.1. The theory of boundaries

Clark’s (2000) boundary theory is a theory about the balance between
work and family domains. Work and family can be seen as two separate
domains of life because (for employees, probably less so for the
self-employed) they traditionally take place at different times and in
different places, each with its own rules, roles and expected behavior.
However, whether we like it or not, the boundaries between private and
professional life are not watertight: we can attend to aspects of our private
life during working hours, such as making an appointment with a heating
engineer, worrying about the children getting home safely from school or
organizing an outing with friends, just as we can attend to work-related
aspects during private time, for example, by checking work-related emails at
home in the evening after we have left work, or by finishing reading or
writing a report. According to this theory, people cross the boundary
between the domains of work and family on a daily basis (Clark 2000), as
the boundaries are characterized by flexibility. The availability of mobile
technologies obviously makes these borders more porous.
Flexibility is to be understood both in terms of the malleability of roles

related to a life domain and the permeability of roles related to a life domain
(Ashforth et al. 2000). Both terms refer to observable and unobservable
flexibilities: malleability refers to the ability of one role domain to expand or
contract to meet the demands of another role domain. This is the case, for
example, when a nurse who is taking time off to look after her children
(mother’s role) agrees to come back to work (nurse’s role) to respond to an
emergency that has arisen from a temporary lack of staff. Permeability refers
to the fact that a person is physically involved in one area but
psychologically involved in another. To use the same example, this would

apply if the nurse refused to return to work but could not stop thinking about
her work and her patients while continuing to care for her children during
her time off – or if the nurse agreed to return to work but continued to think
about her children and the different activities she could offer them when she
was back with them.
We can therefore argue that malleability determines the spillover, while

permeability qualifies it. In this way, we can understand how information
and communication technologies affect the malleability of the borders
between domains of life, since it is possible to work from home in the
evening with a laptop or a smartphone. But we can also understand how
these technologies modify the permeability of boundaries, since their
continuous accessibility, or even constant notifications, make it more
difficult to concentrate on the task at hand (belonging to another life domain
than the one that the incoming message notifications relate to).
However, one question remains to be addressed, which relates to the

preference for this flexibility. Does the individual prefer to have zero
flexibility and totally segment their spheres of life, or do they prefer to have
a certain degree of flexibility between their spheres of life, and even a kind
of harmonious total integration?
1.1.2.2. Segmentor or integrator?

If ICT facilitates, or even brings about, a spatial, temporal and
psychological overlap between work and family roles (Fritz et al. 2010),
how does the individual position themselves in relation to these overlaps?
Before the availability of mobile technologies, it was auspicious to say that a
balanced life was achieved when life domains were separated; nowadays, the
debate remains open: teleworking at home during standard working hours
allows individuals to manage some of their private life constraints, such as
putting on a load of washing, popping to the convenience store, going
shopping outside of busy hours, making a start on the evening meal, etc.,
which is often appreciated. In a similar way, checking your emails at the end
of the day during private time allows you to answer them calmly, become
aware of potential problems for the next day and anticipate them in order to
reduce their severity, or even to arrive at work later the next morning.
People who prefer to separate life domains are called “segmentors”. In

contrast, people who prefer to integrate them are called “integrators”.
Between these two extremes, some researchers have proposed more nuanced
typologies, taking into account the “direction” of the interruptions from one
life domain to another in particular. Thus, Kossek et al. (2012) distinguish
six functioning types. “Work warriors” only let their private life be
interrupted by work. “Family guardians”, on the contrary, only let their work
be interrupted by their private life. Two types of integrators also exist: the
“Overwhelmed reactors” who let their two spheres interrupt each other
regularly without control, and the “Fusion lovers” who allow it while
controlling it. The authors also mention a type of moderate integrator, who
tends to accept moderate interruptions between work and private life
domains, excluding, it seems, the family domain: this type has been called
the “Non-work eclectics”. Finally, there are the “Dividers”.
These personal preferences are influenced by the constraints and

imperatives of the various domains of life which, through the ubiquity made
possible by mobile technologies, are present constantly and simultaneously.
Thus, it is not unlikely that an individual’s “preferences” may not actually be
preferences at the outset, but rather refer to “acquired” modes of operation,
set up to adapt to the constraints and imperatives of the various spheres of
life. The question then becomes one of control by the individual over the
constraints and imperatives associated with the different spheres of life.
1.1.3. Spillover control: myself and others
If the connection through technologies is potentially permanent, the

individual can also decide to make himself partially or temporarily
inaccessible, by disconnecting, by disabling automatic notifications or by
deciding quite simply not to respond to them, at least for a while. The
spillover will therefore depend on the control exercised by the worker over
the solicitations he receives… or that he creates himself. Needless to say that
it is not always easy to be in agreement with oneself, or even to live with
oneself. Nor is it uncommon to observe a rather rapid abandonment of our
own rules of life and our good resolutions. Moreover, our freedom and free
will are dependent on our commitments and our willingness to establish
harmonious relationships with those around us. Decisions are therefore not
easy, and conflicts are likely until we find a modus vivendi acceptable to the
majority.
The situation of teleworking, enabled by technology, certainly

exacerbates this. In teleworking, where it is commonly accepted that the
boundaries between areas of life are blurred, self-imposed rules are crucial to
finding one’s way through the “fog”. Getting up at a specific time, taking a
shower before starting work, dressing in something other than a tracksuit for
work, taking breaks – but not too long – respecting one’s schedule, not
stopping work too early or too late, creating an activity or ritual to
symbolically transition from work to personal time (putting on music, going
for a little walk, changing clothes, taking off one’s shoes, having a glass of
wine, etc.). These rules, which are not always easy to respect, come into
contact with the expectations and rules of others around us: the people who
share our lives, friends, as well as colleagues, our hierarchical superior (who
is supposed to represent the rules of the organization), and even clients. If, as
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory explains, people tend to imitate the
behavior of those around them, and more strongly of those with whom they
identify through emotional attachment, then it is likely that we will adopt
behaviors similar to those of our partner or even our colleagues. But it is still
necessary that each other’s constraints and imperatives be sufficiently
transparent and similar; the opposite would complicate things further.
Understandably, the control we will have over our objective and

subjective spillover will also depend on the control that others put in place
in their own professional and private lives, as well as in ours via
interdependence.
As you can imagine, the constraints imposed by the organization that

employs us will determine our spillover.
1.2. Organizational background of spillover work via

technologies
Companies tend to value speed, even immediacy, which they consider

necessary and adaptive to the market. The cult of urgency present in today’s
economic world has been noted by many authors (Aubert and de Gaulejac
2003; Felio 2014). Information and communication technologies have made
it possible to concretely actualize this cult of urgency: the ubiquity and
immediacy of sending, receiving and, quite often, responding. ICT can be
used and made available on a continuous basis, but should this always be the
expectation?
Let us analyze some characteristics of the organization or work that might

encourage spillover work, based on the work of researchers (Thomée et al.
2010; Kinnunen et al. 2011; Sonnentag 2012).
The workload and the level of responsibility at work are certainly the
main factors conducive to spillover work. The level of responsibility is often
linked to the number of employees for whom one is responsible, and this
leads to management work beyond the primary tasks of the function, which
are often carried out as spillover (management of emails, preparation of
meetings, development of a team strategy, etc.).
The expected quality of work, for example, requiring evening or weekend

work, perhaps outside the noisy and busy environment of the workplace.
The nature of the activities during the working day: if the main activities
of the day are meetings, training or appointments (managers, trainers,
teachers, therapists, estate agents, recruitment consultants, to mention just a
few examples), or traveling (trade representatives), with time-consuming
journeys, then it is very likely that managing emails, writing reports,
preparing for the next day, etc., will spill over to the end of the day.
The physical atmosphere of the work environment: too much noise,

linked to the number of people working nearby and the soundproofing of the
premises (think of open spaces, shared offices, etc.), encourage individuals
to carry out certain tasks requiring high levels of concentration via
technology.
The amount of leeway given to the worker by the organization: tight

deadlines and/or rigid schedules will increase the likelihood of spillover
work via technology.
Support and mutual aid between workers, which makes it possible to

compensate for a temporary workload that is too heavy for one worker and
alleviates its spillover.
The expected availability outside normal working hours, from the boss,
colleagues, third parties (customers, suppliers, etc.), often a function of the
company culture, but linked to the very nature of the work: a self-employed
person (doctor, plumber, etc.) will in all likelihood be more available, even
outside normal working hours, given their professional responsibilities, their
links with customers and the desire (or need) to win their loyalty. If the
person works with colleagues or clients on the other side of the globe, the
notion of spillover becomes more complex: what is classed as spillover in
the European time zone will not necessarily be spillover in the US or China.
Organizational strategies put in place for training or career development.

Let us take the example of e-training: if its cost is covered by the company,
can the worker take it during his working day? Furthermore, what is the limit
between “essential” training recommended by the organization, which
should logically take place during the working day and “voluntary” training
required for career development?
The resources, particularly material resources, available to workers.

While technical equipment is generally not a problem in large organizations,
this is not necessarily the case in smaller organizations, particularly in the
non-profit sector: there is no or not enough equipment available (computer,
connection, printer) that is good enough or efficient enough for certain
activities.
And, of course, the rules regarding connection and disconnection,

whether they are absent, present but little known, present but not respected,
present, or respected but little appreciated.
A study by Kreiner (2006) looked at the interaction between boundary

management preferences (preference for segmentation vs. integration) and
the degree of flexibility present in the organization, reflecting on the fit or
mismatch between what the individual prefers and what is possible within
the organization. It showed that people who prefer their life domains to be
more integrated than not, but without this being offered in the organization
(e.g. no possibility of teleworking, no possibility of connecting to the server
outside normal working hours), experienced less conflict between life
domains, but more stress in other domains related to work or the private
sphere (because, in all probability, the constraints in the life domains are
there, and are not easy to manage without the possibility of flexibility). The
results of this study also showed that having neutral attitudes in terms of
preferences was more beneficial for well-being than having strong
preferences for segmentation, even when these preferences and the
possibilities of flexibility offered by the company were well aligned.
Workers face different types of demands in the course of their work, which can
have a significant impact in terms of spillover.
Thus, on the basis of the same survey of respondents, as in Box 1.1:

– 72.2% say they have a lot of responsibility at work;
– 66.4% feel that in recent years their work has become increasingly demanding;
– 52.9% say they are often forced to work overtime;
– 44.3% feel they have to be available outside normal working hours because of
the specific nature of their work;
– 28.6% report that their colleagues expect them to be available for their work
outside of their working hours;
– 35.7% believe that their superiors expect them to be available for their work
outside of their working hours.
When the data is cross-tabulated, we can note that the greater the workload, the
higher the use of ICT outside of working hours; and the more employees are
expected to be available outside of working hours, the higher their use of ICT
outside of working hours.
Figure 1.1. Workload and expected availability as a function of the

frequency of business-related ICT use outside of working hours
Box 1.2. Work demands as a spillover factor through technology

1.3. The health implications of spillover work via technologies
While research points to the broad advantages of using technology,

including outside the workplace (asynchronous communication facilitating
time management, flexibility, autonomy, better concentration, better
performance, etc.), it is rather the limitations, or even the inconveniences,
that are highlighted in scientific studies, even though it may be refuted that
most research is aimed at sounding the alarm or identifying problematic
situations to promote the prevention of health risks.
Let us therefore look at the impact of spillover, via technologies, on

health. “Health” is understood here in the broad sense of the term, which,
much like the World Health Organization’s definition, includes not only the
physical aspects but also the psychological and social aspects of health. We
will not focus our attention on the physical problems specific to the use of
screens for many hours, such as eyestrain or neck pain, nor on questions
relating to the ergonomics of the “workstation” when conducting spillover
work via technologies (ergonomics of the office chair at home, or even the
living room sofa!). Our attention will be focused on the impact of spillover
on psychological health, and in particular on the issues of hyperconnection
and addiction to connection, the need for recovery and burnout.
1.3.1. From hyperconnection to connection addiction
The expressions continuous connection, telepressure, hyperconnection or

mobiquity are used to describe situations in which there is a high reliance on
ICT. These situations of hyperconnection raise many questions about their
consequences in terms of stress, burnout and disruption of private life.
Hyperconnection is generally studied among executives because they, by the
very nature of their work and their responsibilities, are more affected by the
phenomenon. Bobillier Chaumon et al. (2018) have, moreover, highlighted a
feeling of dependence on ICT among executives. Vayre and Vonthron
(2019) have shown, for their part, that overflow work via technologies
reinforced cyberaddiction and eroded the work commitment of executives
(especially their motivation).
Organizations seem to have understood the spiral phenomenon between

the widespread use of ICT, particularly emails, the growing sense of urgency
to respond and the demand for immediate answers. But do they consider
their share of responsibility for the impact of ICT spillover on their

employees?
Drawing a line between the normal and the pathological is a constant demand
and challenge for psychologists. The very definition of work addiction remains a
topic of debate in scientific studies. The first definitions focused on the number of
hours worked, but these definitions were deemed insufficient, particularly with
regard to the phenomenon of presenteeism.
The definition of work addiction, a behavioral, “product-free” addiction, has thus

been supplemented by contributions from the definition of “product-based”
addiction (addiction to psychoactive substances such as alcohol, amphetamines,
nicotine, sedatives, etc.), and in particular the irrepressible desire for the behavior,
the abandonment of other activities for the benefit of the behavior in question, and a
feeling of withdrawal, anxiety or discomfort if the behavior is interrupted.
Spence and Robbins (1992) proposed a definition of “true workaholics” (as

opposed to “enthusiastic workers”, for example) based on three dimensions: a high
level of involvement in work, a strong feeling that we must work all the time and a
low level of pleasure derived from work.
Technology addiction could thus be defined in a similar way by the high use of
technology, a feeling that we always (permanently) have to use technology, and a
low level of enjoyment derived from technology.
One way of distinguishing between connection, hyperconnection and addiction

to technology would be as follows: connection is a neutral term, hyperconnection is
defined solely by the strong connection, regardless of whether someone feels as if
they always have to be connected and whether they derive little pleasure from doing
so, and addiction would necessarily include all three aspects – going online a lot,
feeling strongly that we need to connect and deriving little pleasure from doing so.
Box 1.3. What are the boundaries between connection,

hyperconnection and addiction?
Connection, hyperconnection and addiction to connection need to be

distinguished. As we have understood from the presentation of the
organizational characteristics that lead to overflow via technology,
hyperconnection and addiction cannot be reduced to the voluntary behavior
of employees who are “addicted” to work (Prost and Zouinar 2015). If the
scientific debates on the genesis of work addiction remain open (question of

personality? education? organizational constraints?), and although a right to
disconnect has existed for several years in France1 and Belgium2, work
addiction and hyperconnection are often still valued by companies.
However, their consequences are not negligible, for the individual, their
family, their colleagues and the company in general. Moreover, studies show
that most people who are “addicted” to work deny that they are addicted to
work; they deny it to some extent, until health problems (related to lack of
sleep, unbalanced diet, unhealthy lifestyle) and relationship problems with
those around them become apparent.
The relationship problems may concern private life: conflict with one’s
partner, insufficient investment in children’s learning, non-effective
participation (from total absence to presence conditioned by permanent
connection) in family gatherings or among friends, etc. They can also affect
professional life: the scientific literature highlights the fact that “addicts”
delegate little and poorly, do not trust their colleagues, prefer to work alone,
etc. Understanding this phenomenon should lead companies to stop
promoting hyperconnection and “workaholics”.
1.3.2. Spillover, the need for recovery and burnout
The high level of availability and demands during a working day, coupled
with the presence of mobile technologies by our side after our working day,
decrease the likelihood and effectiveness of quality psychological
detachment from work (Sonnentag 2012). The late use of computer or smart
phone devices stops workers from relaxing and therefore leads to difficulties
in falling asleep, especially due to the excessive stimulation caused by such
extensive use of new technologies (Thomée et al. 2010). Being consistently
busy with work after hours leads to high levels of fatigue and sleep
disturbances, because the need for recovery has not been sufficiently
satisfied (Demerouti et al. 2014). Yet, sleep is crucial because it restores the
physical and psychological resources that have been depleted over the course
of day-to-day activities (Barber and Jenkins 2014).
1 Law No. 2016-1088 of August 8, 2016 on labor, the modernization of social dialogue and
the securing of career paths, known as the “Labor Law” or “El Khomri Law”.
2 Law of March 26, 2018 on strengthening economic growth and social cohesion; see
section 2.2.
Being psychologically detached from work refers both to concrete work

activities – for example, not checking work emails in the evening – and to
not thinking about work-related problems – not ruminating about work in the
evening and thus managing to temporarily put aside thoughts about, for
example, the difficulty of a task or a conflict with a colleague (Cropley and
Millward Purvis 2003; Sonnentag 2012).
It is arguably necessary to distinguish between the spillover effect linked

to two types of heavy workload: chronic heavy workloads and one-off heavy
workloads, which (unlike the former) last for a short period of time (one to
several days). In the case of heavy workloads, the worker will no doubt try
to continue working in the evening to catch up on the backlog that has built
up or even to anticipate the big demands of the next day – in this case, their
psychological detachment will be very limited, if not absent. But working in
spillover in these situations can have beneficial effects for the worker: less
anxiety about the next day’s workload, being able to fall asleep with peace
of mind and with the feeling that the job is done. In the case of a heavy
one-time workload, the spillover and low level of psychological detachment
should only be temporary, and, ultimately, this should not be very
problematic if, once the period of heavy workload is over, the worker
manages to stop working in spillover mode and psychologically detach
himself from the work during his own time.
On the other hand, if the heavy workload is chronic, even permanent, and
the spillover work becomes chronic, then the lack of psychological
detachment will be regular, even permanent. The need for recuperation
during private time will not be satisfied for long periods, and sleep quality
will then necessarily be poor for long periods as well. The worker will start
the next working day in a poor state and will then have to make additional
efforts to complete the tasks prescribed to him/her (Thomée et al. 2010).
This sequencing is what will likely precipitate more significant health
problems, such as burnout.
If recovery is lacking, employees risk burnout. Some authors are now

including the use of information and communication technologies in their
definition of burnout: they see it as the result of constant or repeated
emotional pressure associated with intense involvement with people or work
over long periods of time, exacerbated by information and communication
technologies, which allow users to perform several tasks at once (Leung
2011).
Still based on the same study as described in Boxes 1.1 and 1.2, we found that (i)
the more employees use ICT after working hours, the more rumination they
experience (see Figure 1.2), and that (ii) sleep quality is best when workers just
occasionally use ICT after working hours.
Thus, it is clear that the use of ICT outside of working hours can be beneficial
only if it remains temporary and limited.
Figure 1.2. Rumination and sleep quality as a function of the

frequency of work-related ICT use outside of work hours
Box 1.4. ICT, rumination and well-being
Some authors have focused on the moderating role of recovery

in the link between some work characteristics (work time, work demand)
and well-being. They found that recovery could protect against work-related
exhaustion and thus played an important role in well-being at work
(Siltaloppi et al. 2009). This result was confirmed in a longitudinal study –
conducted over a period of one year: lack of psychological detachment from
work (which is a facet of the lack of recovery) increases emotional
exhaustion (Sonnentag et al. 2010). This is because employees who remain
mentally attached to the various tasks of their job by ruminating are unable
to relax. This inability to relax is amplified when people are already close to
exhaustion: a downward spiral of “lack of detachment – poor sleep quality –
exhaustion” is set in motion and it is increasingly difficult to get out

(Thomée et al. 2010).
1.4. Avenues of reflection and practical perspectives
The challenge is managing to take time out regularly, as often as possible,

to recuperate during private time. What form can this take? Various
strategies are possible (Sonnentag and Fritz 2007; Sonnentag et al. 2008;
Mojza et al. 2010):
– Relaxing activities: not necessarily relaxation, but an activity that
allows us to relax, according to our tastes and preferences. It could be taking
a good bath, preparing a good meal (cutting vegetables can be a very
relaxing activity for some), going for a walk, listening to music, reading a
good book, watching a movie, etc.
– Investing in an activity that brings us something personally, that makes
us grow or allows us to be proud of ourselves: taking language courses,
drawing, photography, etc.
– Activities with one’s circle of friends, family, social network,
community.
Clearly, the idea is to allow our mind not to worry about work for a
while: in other words, to detach ourselves psychologically from work.
Within organizations, current questions about the quality of life, the

boundary between work and private life and work–life balance are
accompanied by reflections on the “right to disconnect” (whether it concerns
free time or the working day). This new right covers a right to isolation,
peace and quiet, the possibility of taking time out and not being required to
respond immediately to a phone call or an email, for example (Vayre and
Vonthron 2019). Over the past 10 years, some large groups or companies,
including those in France and Belgium, have developed charters for the
proper use of technology and the Internet, and in particular email, during or
outside working hours. However, organizational considerations or measures
are still not widespread in French or Belgian companies. When they do exist,
they are often limited to regulating usage, whereas the right to disconnect
simultaneously raises the issue of workload regulation and the “right to rest”.
Beyond the legal aspects, the ability to disconnect from work and to
delimit work and non-work is a real skill associated with the rigorous
organization and control of the time–spaces devoted to the various activities
(Vayre and Pignault 2014). This skill should be supported and developed,
since workers are increasingly obliged to achieve results (rather than means)
and are no longer structured by a temporal framework (but by objectives to
be achieved). As a result, they are more responsible than before for the
spatial and temporal delimitation of their work activity.
As for prevention programs relating to the use of technology, they are

beginning to be developed and applied, but remain very much in the
minority. They are often based on informing employers and employees of
the risks incurred by the unsupervised and controlled use of smartphones,
email, social networks, etc. However, unlike in the United States, the
problematic use of technologies, or even cyberaddiction, is still rarely taken
seriously in France or in Belgium: there are not enough support structures
and prevention is almost non-existent. As the use of technology and
communication tools is widely valued and encouraged in Western societies,
it is easy to understand that cyberaddiction is more socially accepted than
other addictions that occur in professional environments. Moreover, the
current organizational contexts and requirements, which advocate efficiency
at all costs, permanent availability, and the setting of very (or even
unrealistically) high objectives, contribute to conveying a positive image of
the employee addicted to technology and work and are likely to be at the
origin of compulsive attitudes and behaviors with regard to technology
and/or work (Vayre and Vonthron 2019).
In view of these findings, it is important to continue and strengthen the

discussions and approaches already in place within work organizations (and,
where this is not the case, to initiate dialogue within companies) in order to
establish internal policies on uses outside negotiated working hours and to
draw up rules and mechanisms for regulating these uses, which protect
employees from their harmful effects. The knowledge gained from empirical
work in this field can be used to inform discussions and decisions within
work organizations and to raise awareness among decision-makers,
managers and executives of the potentially harmful effects of overflow work
via ICT.
1.5. References
Allen, T.D., Johnson, R., Kiburz, K.M., Shockley, K.M. (2013). Work-family
conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel
Psychology, 66(2), 345–376.
Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E., Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries
and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
Aubert, N. and de Gaulejac, V. (2003). Le coût de l’excellence. Le Seuil, Paris.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Barber, L.K. and Jenkins, J.S. (2014). Creating technological boundaries to protect
bedtime: Examining work-home boundary management, psychological
detachment and sleep. Stress and Health, 30(3), 259–264.
Bobillier Chaumon, M.E., Cuvillier, B., Sarnin, P., Vacherand-Revel, J. (2018).
Usage des TIC et évolutions des pratiques socioprofessionnelles des cadres :
quels repères pour le métier et quelles incidences sur la santé ? Pratiques
Psychologiques, 24(4), 349–373.
Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770.
Cropley, M. and Millward Purvis, L. (2003). Job strain and rumination about work
issues during leisure time: A diary study. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 195–207.
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L., Bakker, A.B. (2014). New ways of working:
Impact on working conditions, work-family balance, and well-being. In The
Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life, Korunka, C. and Hoonakker, P. (eds).
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg.
Felio, C. (2014). L’enjeu psychosocial de l’usage des TIC : témoignages
d’intervenants en santé au travail. In Santé au travail et risques psychosociaux :
tous préventeurs ?, Lagabrielle, C. and Laberon, S. (eds). L’Harmattan, Paris.
Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy, and
productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(5), 977–983.
Grant, C.A., Wallace, L.M., Spurgeon, P.C. (2013). An exploration of the
psychological factors affecting remote e‐worker’s job effectiveness, well‐being
and work‐life balance. Employee Relations, 33(5), 527–546.
Iwasaki, K., Takahashi, M., Nakata, A. (2006). Health problems due to long
working hours in Japan: Working hours, workers’ compensation (Karoshi), and
preventive measures. Industrial Health, 44(4), 537–540.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Siltaloppi, M., Sonnentag, S. (2011). Job demands-resources
model in the context of recovery: Testing recovery experiences as mediators.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(6), 805–832.
Kossek, E.E., Ruderman, M.N., Braddy, P.W., Hannum, K.M. (2012). Work-nonwork
boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 112–128.
Kreiner, G.E. (2006). Consequences of work‐home segmentation or integration:
A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 27(4), 485–507.
Leung, L. (2011). Effects of ICT connectedness, permeability, flexibility, and
negative spillovers on burnout and job and family satisfaction. Human
Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 7(3),
250–267.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., Leiter, M.P., Schaufeli, W.B., Schwab, R.L. (1986).
Maslach burnout inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 21,
3463–3464.
Mojza, E.J., Lorenz, C., Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C. (2010). Daily recovery
experiences: The role of volunteer work during leisure time. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 60–74.
Peters, P., Den Dulk, L., van der Lippe, T. (2009). The effects of time-spatial
flexibility and new working conditions on employees’ work–life balance: The
Dutch case. Community, Work & Family, 12(3), 279–297.
Prost, M. and Zouinar, M. (2015). De l’hyper-connexion à la déconnexion : quand
les entreprises tentent de réguler l’usage professionnel des e-mails. Perspectives
interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, 17(1).
Siltaloppi, M., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T. (2009). Recovery experiences as moderators
between psychosocial work characteristics and occupational well-being. Work &
Stress, 23(4), 330–348.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The
benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(2), 114–118.
Sonnentag, S. and Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire:

Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and
unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3),
204–221.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., Mojza, E.J. (2008). Did you have a nice evening?
A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(3), 674–684.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., Mojza, E.J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when
demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(5), 965–976.
Spence, J.T. and Robbins, A.S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and
preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160–178.
Taskin, L. (2006). Télétravail : les enjeux de la déspatialisation pour le management
humain. Interventions économiques, 34(2), 73–94.
Thomée, S., Dellve, L., Härenstam, A., Hagberg, M. (2010). Perceived connections
between information and communication technology use and mental symptoms
among young adults – A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 66.
Vayre, E. and Pignault, A. (2014). A systemic approach to interpersonal
relationships and activities among French teleworkers. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 29(2), 177–192.
Vayre, E. and Vonthron, A.-M. (2019). Identifying work-related internet’s uses – at
work and outside usual workplaces and hours – and their relationships with
work–home interface, work engagement, and problematic internet behavior.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10,2118.
2
Nomadic, Informal and Mediated

Work and Quality of Life
2.1. Introduction
The deployment of information and communication technologies is

linked in particular to the evolution of employees’ physical mobility outside
the boundaries of the company (Taskin 2010). Recent surveys have shown
that more than 70% of executives in France now work outside their offices,
in a wide variety of spaces (home, public transport, etc.), as well as beyond
normal working hours (evenings, weekends, holidays; Tissot OpinionWay
2011). Concurrently, with the evolution of workspaces (open space, flex
offices), there is a growth in remote, “off-site” or mobile work, whether
formalized with the employer or not (Morel-Al-Lhuissier 2007; Vayre
2017).
Although recent policies on remote working in France (Macron

Ordinance of September 2017) aim to limit “gray” or informal remote work
by relaxing the legal rules around remote working, it is still widespread
(Kouloumdjian 2012; Épitalon 2017).
The distance from the workplace and the establishment of work activity
within the private sphere of individuals through technology raise questions
about the potential effects of informal work practices on the quality of life at
work. Several studies have shown that distancing oneself from one’s
company tends to have an impact on the employees’ degree of commitment,
Chapter written by Maëlle PÉRISSÉ, Anne-Marie VONTHRON and Émilie VAYRE.

as well as on relations between employees. They have also highlighted a

weakening of the work–“non-work” equilibrium of employees with this type
of practice, which is sometimes accompanied by harmful effects for
themselves and those around them. However, there is little research on
nomadic, informal and mediated work practices and their effects on the
quality of life at work. The aim of this chapter is to identify how and why
distance from the workplace and the pursuit of work via technology affect
commitment with the organization, perceived recognition at work and
work/life balance. These effects will be illustrated through the presentation
of a quantitative study conducted among 380 workers with nomadic,
informal and mediated work practices. The results obtained confirm the
impact of the different modalities of these work practices on commitment to
the organization, perceived recognition at work and the balance between
individuals’ life domains.
2.2. Relocated and mediated work: definition and implications

for the quality of work life
There is a lot of research on remote and mediated work. However, it

focuses mainly on remote working situations formalized with the employer
or on the use of technologies in a professional context. As a result, the
scientific literature on nomadic, informal and mediated work practices
remains scarce, although these practices are increasingly widespread and
growing. The conclusions inferred in the course of this theoretical
development with regard to nomadic, informal and mediated work practices
are therefore mainly drawn from studies on formal telework or the extension
of “gray” work, with which they share, depending on the case, several
characteristics (use of technologies, work tasks performed outside the
company premises, informal dimension).
2.2.1. Nomadic, informal and mediated work practices
Nomadic, informal and mediated work is characterized by the

performance of professional tasks outside of a company in several
workspaces (home, public transport, public places, third places dedicated to
work or not, coworking spaces). It is not formalized with the employer and
can be carried out over a variable period of time and at any time of the day.
In this respect, it differs from working from home, the terms of which are in
Nomadic, Informal and Mediated Work and Quality of Life 27
principle defined with the employer, generally by means of an employment

contract, an amendment to it or a charter specific to the organization
(Vayre 2019). Since nomadic, informal and mediated work practices are not
limited in time, they may, however, cover situations of “spillover work”
which designate work activities generally carried out in the evening, during
weekends or employees’ holidays (Metzger 2009)1. As for “extra work”, it
corresponds to work carried out outside official working hours during
periods of time or in spaces more devoted to the employees’ private life, as
pointed out by Sullivan (2003) and Fenner and Renn (2010), who indicate
that these work practices are not carried out on site. As a result, nomadic,
informal and mediated work practices can therefore encompass both
spillover work and “extra” work.
2.2.2. Nomadic, informal and mediated work and quality of life at

work
Quality of life at work refers to “a feeling of well-being at work

perceived collectively and individually that encompasses the
atmosphere, the corporate culture, the usefulness of the work, the
working conditions, the feeling of involvement, the degree of
autonomy and accountability, equality, the right of each
individual to make mistakes, and a re-learning and appreciation
of the work performed” (Caillé and Jeoffrion 2017, pp. 310–311).
A number of studies have already shown that the physical distance from
others in the professional sphere in the context of remote and mediated work
tends to imply a psychological separation and a feeling of exclusion from the
organization and work groups (Golden et al. 2008). Recent studies have
shown that this distancing plays a role in the employees’ level of
commitment2 with their affiliated entity.
Working from home via ICT is, in fact, considered both an advantage by
employees and a gain in terms of autonomy and flexibility, as well as
promoting their commitment at work (de Vries et al. 2018). Several authors
have, moreover, emphasized that the possibility of choosing the
workplace(s) as well as the work temporalities leads to an increase in
1 This concept was discussed in more detail in Chapter 1.

2 Allen and Meyer define organizational commitment as “the bond that has been built
between an employee and their organization” (Louche 2019, p. 112).
commitment towards the company (Hunton and Norman 2010; Lee Mee
Choo et al. 2016). However, other studies qualify these initial findings: they
reveal that remote and mediated work does not have a significant impact on
organizational commitment, nor does it reduce it (Golden 2009; Leslie et al.
2012).
From the point of view of recognition at work, the findings of Dumas and
Ruiller (2014) indicate that relocated work via technologies, carried out on a
regular and continuous basis outside the company, causes a decrease in the
feeling of recognition resulting from a decrease in exchanges (Hannif et al.
2014). Indeed, it is precisely through exchanges with others that recognition
marks are transmitted (Andonova and Vacher 2009). Again, the results on
this topic diverge depending on the studies. Some findings maintain that the
feeling of recognition persists in remote work situations (Ruiller et al. 2017;
Mauroux 2018), particularly through the use of information and
communication technologies that promote social interactions as well as the
maintenance of contacts with one’s professional entourage (Brun and Dugas
2005; Colombier et al. 2007; Klein and Ratier 2012).
With regard to work–life balance, many studies report the presence of

temporal and spatial flexibility in the context of remote and mediated work,
which theoretically facilitates the management of both family and
professional responsibilities (Konradt et al. 2000; Hilbrecht et al. 2008;
Maruyama et al. 2009). It helps employees to improve the balance between
“work” life (which groups together activities of a professional nature) and
“non-work” life (which encompasses the family, social and cultural
activities of individuals). Other researchers, on the other hand, point to the
risks of imbalance, especially when work is done at home (Barnett et al.
2011; Hilbrecht et al. 2013; Popma 2013). The development of spillover
work practices or “supplementary work” thus makes it harder for workers to
maintain the balance between work and non-work life (Ojala 2011; Glass
and Noonan 2012; Hilbrecht et al. 2013; Goussard and Tiffon 2016;
Messenger et al. 2017).
It is important to note that professional and managerial staff (P&MS) are

particularly concerned with professional activities that can go beyond the
temporal as well as geographical boundaries of the workspace. The sphere of
professional life of P&MS encompasses the sphere of family, personal and
social life (Metzger and Cléach 2004). Although it can be a more flexible
form of work and generate more availability for family activities and
relationships, working “outside the company” can, at the same time, lead to
the emergence of tensions within the family unit, an increase in stress in this
sphere and a disruption of professional activities (Maruyama et al. 2009).
2.3. Empirical case study
In order to account for the effects of nomadic, informal and mediated

work practices on the relationship to the organization and the work–life
balance of employees, we conducted a field study.
It aimed to identify how the material and temporal modalities of nomadic,

informal and mediated work practices could influence organizational
commitment and perceived recognition, as well as work–life balance
(interface between work and non-work life and level of satisfaction with this
balance).
Forms of nomadic,
Commitment to the organization
informal and mediated
work practices
Frequency of technology
Perceived recognition at work
use (smartphone,
computer, tablet)
Use of space (transport, Perceived interface between

home, dedicated work and non-work life
and non-dedicated spaces)
Time intensity of Satisfaction with the balances

the activity (duration
in hours)
Figure 2.1. General research model for the study
The research design chosen (see Figure 2.1) considered the impact of
work practices. Previous work in this area and its results enabled us to
support the following hypotheses: (i) we believe that nomadic, informal and
mediated work practices increase employees’ commitment to their
organization and their perceived recognition; (ii) we also believe that
nomadic, informal and mediated work practices have harmful effects on the
interface between work and non-work life, and on perceived satisfaction
with these balances.
2.3.1. Method of investigation used
2.3.1.1. Presentation of the study questionnaire

The study was carried out in France, using a self-completed online
questionnaire, among workers having nomadic and informal work practices
via ICT. The layout of the questionnaire is described in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
The participants were first asked to provide information on the

characteristics of their nomadic, informal and ICT-mediated work situations,
specifying in particular the frequency of use of certain technologies and the
frequency of use of certain workplaces (four-point scales ranging from
“never” to “always”), as well as the temporal intensity of the practices (daily
duration in hours devoted to these practices during a working week).
Characteristics
of nomadic,
Number of options Option details
informal and
mediated work
1. Smartphone/mobile phone
Frequency of use
3 2. Laptop computer
of technologies
3. Touchscreen tablet
1. Public transport
(bus, train, plane, TGV, etc.)
2. Home
Use of space 4 3. Dedicated workspaces (coworking,
telecenters)
4. Non-workspaces
(cafes, restaurants, train stations, libraries)
Temporal intensity
1 1. Duration per day (in hours)
of the activity
Table 2.1. Composition of the research questionnaire, part 1

(modalities of nomadic,, informal and ICT-mediated work)
The workers were then asked to respond to four measurement scales, all
submitted in French (see Table 2.2).
Organizational commitment was measured using the 18-item scale

developed by Bentein et al. (2002). It refers to the three-dimensional model
of organizational commitment of Meyer and Allen (1991), which views
commitment in three components: affective commitment (e.g. “My
organization means a lot to me”), normative commitment (e.g. “It would not
be morally right to leave my organization now”) and continuity commitment,
which includes two sub-dimensions: perceived benefits (e.g. “I would not
want to leave my current organization because I would have a lot to lose”)
and perceived lack of job alternatives (e.g. “I am staying in my current
organization because I don’t see where else I can go”). Responses are rated
on a five-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
The measurement of perceived recognition at work comes from the work

of Brun and Dugas (2005), who consider it to be from the company (e.g.
“My company gives me opportunities to advance in this field”) as well as
from colleagues (e.g. “My colleagues congratulate me or thank me for doing
a good job”) and from superiors (e.g. “My superiors listen when I need to
talk to them about my work”). Here, we refer to the scale developed by Fall
in 2013, comprising 12 items. For each item, respondents position
themselves on a five-point scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to
“Strongly agree”.
The interface between work and non-work life refers to the conception of
Geurts (2000), who assumes that the interaction between work and non-work
life is characterized by four forms of influence (positive vs. negative effects
of private life on work life and positive vs. negative effects of work life on
private life). It was measured by the SWING (Survey Work–Home
Interaction-Nijmegen) scale, translated into French by Lourel et al. in 2005.
With regard to our research objectives, we used a reduced version with
13 items that questions the positive versus negative impacts of work life on
life “outside of work” (Geurts 2000). Participants mentioned the positive
effects of work (e.g. “You manage your time at home more effectively
because of the way you work”) and negative effects of work (e.g. “You are
irritable at home because your work is demanding”) on “non-work” life by
positioning themselves on a four-point frequency scale (ranging from
“Never” to “Always”).
Scales of measurement Number of options Details of dimensions/options

1. Affective commitment
(AC, 6 items)
Commitment to the 2. Normative commitment32
organization (NC, 6 items)
18
3. Perceived sacrifices (continuity
(Bentein et al. 2002) commitment, PSA-CC, 3 items)
4. Perceived lack of employment
alternatives (LA-LET, 3 items)
1. Company recognition (4 items)
Perceived recognition 2. Recognition from superiors
at work 12 (4 items)
(Fall 2013) 3. Recognition from colleagues
(4 items)
1. Negative effects of work life
SWING on private life (8 items)
13
(Lourel et al. 2005) 2. Positive effects of work life
on private life (5 items)
Satisfaction with
1 No sub-dimensions
work–life balance
Table 2.2. Composition of the research questionnaire,

part 2 (scales and dimensions)
Finally, satisfaction with work–life balance was measured through one

question (“Do you feel that your work-life balance is satisfactory?”).
Respondents indicated their level of agreement with the statement (five-point
scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Very much so”).
2.3.1.2. Methods of data collection and contact with participants

We used the random sampling method to recruit our participants. In
addition, in order to reach as large a sample as possible, we used the
snowball survey method (Combessie 2007). This method consisted of asking
participants to tell us about other people who might be interested in the
study.
Workers were contacted in four ways:

– through companies (we have favored work organizations in which
nomadic activities requiring the use of technologies had been identified
beforehand, such as large companies in the tertiary sector or public
structures);
– within coworking spaces (likely to be frequented by mobile workers);

– via professional networks;
– on the basis of explicit announcements posted on social networks.
2.3.2. Study results
2.3.2.1. Characteristics of the participants, identification of their

practices and their level of quality of life at work
The sample is made up of 380 French workers who have nomadic and
informal work practices via ICT. There was an equal proportion of men
(50.8%) and women (49.2%). The average age of the participants is
38.3 years. The vast majority are executives: company managers and
directors (15.8%), company executives (35.5%) or civil servants (11.6%),
middle managers in companies (9.7%) or civil servants (6.6%). More than
half of them are not managers (60.3%). Finally, the majority of workers live
with a partner (64.7%), and 38.9% of them live with their child(ren).
In the context of their nomadic and informal working practices, workers

prefer to use their smartphone/mobile phone (50.8%) and laptop (52.4%).
When they work “outside the company walls” informally, it is mainly on
public transport (“always”: 11.6% or “often”: 31.8%) and from home
(“always”: 38.7% or “often”: 43.9%).
Workers perform their work in a nomadic, informal and mediated manner

for an average of three hours a day. These practices extend over fairly
diverse periods of the day, most often at the very beginning of the working
day (morning, 42.6%), and at the end of the working day, during the late
afternoon (53.4%) and evening (46.1%), sometimes at night after standard
bedtime hours (15.3%). Nomadic, informal and mediated work thus appears
to be a professional activity that extends into periods of time traditionally
devoted to life “outside of work” and takes place on commutes (during
journeys between home and the official workplace) as well as from home.
These initial findings tend to confirm the results of studies that have
demonstrated the relationship between spillover work and mediated and
remote work practices (Konradt et al. 2000; Barnett et al. 2011; Glass and
Noonan 2012; Popma 2013; Vayre and Vonthron 2019).
Theoretical
Average (E-T) M (E-T) Min–Max α
min–max
Overall score of commitment towards

2.83 (0.67) 1.22–5 1–5 (.88)
the organization
Emotional commitment
2.35 (0.54) 1–3.33 1–5 (.77)
Normative commitment
2.7 (1.16) 1–5 1–5 (.91)
Perceived sacrifices
2.91 (1.11) 1–2.5 1–5 (.80)
Lack of alternatives
2.35 (1.03) 1–2.5 1–5 (.78)
of perceived employment
Overall score
3.62 (0.73) 1.5–5 1–5 (.88)
of recognition at work
From the company 3.30 (0.96) 1–5 1–5 (.80)

Superiors 3.87 (0.92) 1–5 1–5 (.86)
Colleagues 3.80 (0.82) 1.5–5 1–5 (.84)
Overall score for the perceived

interface between work 1.20 (0.49) 0–2.76 0–3 (.78)
and “non-work” life
Negative effects 1.10 (0.69) 0–3 0–3 (.75)

Positive effects 1.36 (0.69) 0–3 0–3 (.87)
Overall satisfaction score

3.41 (1.03) 1–5 1–5 -
with regard to life balance
Note. N = 380. Cronbach’s alpha is the number in parentheses and indicates the reliability of
the measures when it is greater than .70.
Table 2.3. Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the model
(mean, standard deviation, sample minimum and maximum,
theoretical minimum and maximum, and Cronbach’s alpha)
As Table 2.3 shows, the workers surveyed have a rather low average
level of commitment to the organization that employs them and, above all, a
normative commitment to it. In addition, they feel that they receive moderate
recognition at work, particularly from their company (whereas they perceive
more recognition from their superiors and colleagues).
When it comes to work–life balance, employees in the survey appear to

perceive slightly more positive than negative effects of their work life on
their non-work life. However, both the positive and negative effects of work
life on private life are moderately felt by the employees. These initial
observations tend to show that the boundaries between work and non-work
life are not very permeable.
Lastly, the workers surveyed consider their work–life balance moderately

satisfactory.
2.3.2.2. Effects of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices on

the quality of life at work
In order to test the relationships between the variables studied, we used
multiple regression analyses. As our results indicate (see sections 2.3.2.2.1
and 2.3.2.2.2), all the relationships between the nomadic, informal and
mediated work practices and the psychological constructs studied are
significant, with the exception of satisfaction with work–life balance, on
which these practices seem to have no effect.
2.3.2.2.1. Effects of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices

on commitment towards the organization and perceived recognition at
work
As mentioned in Figure 2.2, our analyses make it possible to identify the
effects of certain nomadic, informal and mediated work practices on
commitment towards the organization and perceived recognition at work.
Firstly, our results indicate that smartphone and tablet usage frequencies
are strongly associated with commitment and recognition. The more
employees use these technologies, the more commitment they feel towards
their organization and the more recognition they feel.
The frequencies of use of the targeted technologies are also positively

correlated with three of the four dimensions of commitment (affective,
normative and perceived sacrifice). The more employees use their
smartphone or mobile phone, the more affective and normative commitment
they feel towards their company (.204 and .107, < .05). Similarly, the more
they use computers, the more sacrifices they perceive if they leave their
company (.126, < .05).
Forms of nomadic,
work practices
Frequency of use of the

technologies
Smartphone
Computer
B = .151**
Commitment to the organization
Tablet B = .155**
B = .186***
Use of space
B = .173***
Home
Transport B = .272***
Dedicated Perceived recognition at work

places B = .226***
B = .171***
Non-dedicated
places
Temporal intensity
Notes. Results are from multiple linear regressions. The Beta coefficients (B) presented are at
the thresholds: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Figure 2.2. Multiple linear regressions: influence of the modalities

of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices on commitment
towards the organization and perceived recognition at work
The frequency of use of these technologies also affects the three

dimensions of recognition at work (from the company, superiors and
colleagues). Thus, the more the workers surveyed use their smartphone, the
more they perceive overall recognition at work (.283, p < .001). The increase
in the frequency of laptop use is also correlated with the perception of
recognition from superiors (.119, p < .05) and colleagues (.114, p < .05). In
other words, the more employees use their laptop, the more recognition they
receive from their superiors and colleagues.
These initial findings show that there is a relationship between the use of
technology, commitment towards the organization and perceived recognition
at work. These effects are positive, with both commitment and recognition
increasing in parallel with the frequency of smartphone use. Our results
reinforce recent studies that have hinted at the positive effects of technology
on both mechanisms (de Vries et al. 2018). The physical distance from the
company associated with nomadic, informal and mediated work practices is
not necessarily a risk factor for commitment and recognition. Maintaining
contact with the company through technology can in fact counterbalance the
risks inherent in the deterioration of social ties identified in some studies
(Golden et al. 2008). The physical distance does not necessarily appear to be
harmful to work relations or the feeling of belonging to the organization and
does not mechanically limit the signs of recognition at work perceived by the
employee. As we have seen from our results, the use of the smartphone in
the professional context and the practices examined seem to be able to
compensate for geographical distance and to support recognition at work.
Secondly, the results obtained indicate that the time spent on nomadic,
informal and mediated work practices has significant effects on commitment
and recognition.
Thus, the levels of commitment and recognition at work tend to increase

when the amount of time individuals invest in these practices also increases.
Spending more time working nomadically, informally and via ICT promotes
affective and normative commitment (.149 and .188, p < .01), as well as the
perception of sacrifices in the event of departure from the affiliated entity
(.180, p < .001). These results are in contradiction with studies that have
highlighted the existence of negative or more mixed effects of remote and
mediated work on organizational commitment (Golden 2009; Mathieu et al.
2020).
As mentioned in section 2.2.2, the findings of our literature review

showed that the lack of face-to-face exchanges with members of the
affiliated entity could represent a risk by decreasing employees’ perceived
recognition at work (Dumas and Ruiller 2014; Hannif et al. 2014). Our
results again show an inverse phenomenon: the more employees invest
temporally in nomadic and informal work practices via ICT, the more
recognition they perceive from their company (.187, p < .001), their
superiors (.108, p < .05) and their colleagues (.115, p < .05).
Finally, our results underline the effects of the frequency of practices

within spaces dedicated to work or not. In particular, they show that the
frequency of nomadic and informal work at home has beneficial effects on
recognition. The analysis of correlations also confirms that the more
nomadic, informal and mediated work is carried out at home and within
spaces dedicated to work (such as coworking spaces), the greater the
affective (.152, p < .01), normative (.157, p < .0) commitment and the
greater the perception of sacrifice in the event of leaving the company (.165,
p < .01).
The use of spaces also appears to reinforce the level of perceived

recognition from the company and from superiors. Thus, when the workers
surveyed preferred spaces conducive to prolonged work (home or spaces
dedicated to work), they also seemed to feel a high level of commitment to
their company and a high level of recognition at work. These latest results
confirm the previous ones and once again run counter to the studies that
have shown that commitment tends to decrease when employees work
remotely from their affiliated entities (Golden 2009; Leslie et al. 2012).
They do, however, support the studies of Bakker and Demerouti (2007)
and Lee Mee Choo et al. (2016) on the positive effects of remote and
mediated work on the commitment felt by employees towards their
organization.
Forms of nomadic,
work practices
Frequency of use of the

technologies mobilized
Smartphone
B = .154**
Computer Perceived interface between work
and non-work life
Tablet B = .156**
Use of space
Home
Transport
Satisfaction with balances
Dedicated
places
Non-dedicated
places
Temporal intensity
Notes. Results are from multiple linear regressions. Beta coefficients (B) presented are at
thresholds: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Figure 2.3. Multiple linear regressions: influence of the forms of nomadic,

informal and mediated work practices on the balance between work
and “non-work” life and on satisfaction with these balances
2.3.2.2.2. Effects of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices

on work–life balance
The analyses carried out (Figure 2.3) also make it possible to identify the
effects of the frequency of use of technologies and the frequency of use of
places on the interface between work and non-work life. However, no effect
is observed on satisfaction with life balance.
When examining the effects of frequency of use of mobilized

technologies, our results reveal that they turn out to be more precise than
expected. Only the use of the touch tablet influences the perception of
positive effects of work life on “non-work” life (.167, p < .01). The other
technologies have no impact in this area. As for the frequency of use of the
tablet, it is correlated with the perception of the interface between work and
non-work life by employees with nomadic, informal and mediated work
practices (.155, p < .01). Our results show that it is particularly associated
with the perception of positive effects of work life on non-work life (.167,
p < .01).
From the point of view of the time devoted to the practices studied, its
effects are limited to the perception of a positive interaction between work
life and life “outside work”. In other words, it has no impact on the
perception of a negative effect of work on “non-work” life or on with
work–life balance. We find that the more time invested in these practices,
the more the workers surveyed perceive the positive effects of work life on
their private life. These results contradict the studies that have highlighted the
emergence of tensions within the private sphere, stress or family conflicts
linked to nomadic, computerized and mediated work (Maruyama et al.
2009). Our results are therefore more in line with studies on the benefits of
these practices from the point of view of the articulation between work and
“non-work”, particularly in terms of flexibility for family activities and
leisure (Konradt et al. 2000; Hilbrecht et al. 2013).
Finally, our results demonstrate that frequenting places other than the
company has an effect on the perceived interface between work and
non-work life.
The increase in home-based practices leads to an increase in the porosity

between work and private life: the more frequently individuals practice this
form of work at home, the more they perceive negative as well as positive
effects of their work life on their “non-work” life (.121 and .136, p < .05).
On the other hand, we note that the more the workers surveyed practiced
nomadic, informal and mediated work in non-workspaces (cafés, restaurants,
railway stations, libraries), the fewer negative effects they perceived from
their work life on their “non-work” life (-.207, p < .001).
Our literature review emphasized that work–life balance tended to be

weakened by the intensive use of technological tools in the context of remote
work practices (Hilbrecht et al. 2008; Maruyama et al. 2009). Our study
proposes more moderate results by indicating relatively few effects (and
sometimes no effect at all) of the frequency of technology use on the
perceived interface between work and non-work life as well as on perceived
satisfaction with work–life balance. It also adds to the literature on the links
between outsourced and mediated work and work–life balance and follows
on from studies that have suggested that work–life balance improves with
telework.
2.4. Contributions of the field study and practical perspectives
The empirical study, carried out on 380 employees, allows us to measure

the nature of the effects of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices in
a much more precise and nuanced way than previous work in the field would
have suggested.
Our research model thus represents an initial structure for understanding

the effects of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices on the quality
of work life, which can be used in future research. It highlights the existence
of significant effects of the modalities of these nomadic, informal and
mediated work practices on several components of quality of life at work.
These effects focus in particular on commitment towards the organization

and recognition at work and make it possible to highlight forms of practice
likely to promote the quality of life at work.
All the conclusions drawn in the context of our study provide additional
elements of understanding and new data to the existing work aimed at
understanding the consequences of remote and mediated work practices on
the quality of life at work. As we have pointed out, the originality of our
study lies in its research subject: nomadic and mediated work practices have
indeed been scarcely addressed in other research, and even less so in their
non-contractualized form.
Nevertheless, other methodological avenues could be explored. The

processes examined in this research, analyzed over time using a more
qualitative methodology, such as logbooks, could be better understood and
the risks of a possible deterioration in the quality of life could more
effectively prevented. The subjective and comprehensive perception of the
consequences of nomadic, informal and mediated work practices could also
be examined through open interviews, in order to flesh out the results
obtained.
In addition, taking into account the perceptions of the employees’

personal entourage regarding the impact of these practices on family,
personal and social life, in connection with both the positive and negative
impacts identified on the balance between work and non-work life and the
increasingly blurred boundaries between family life with work life would be
a complementary avenue of research. Studies have shown the importance of
the appreciation of employees’ family members in maintaining or, on the
contrary, modifying the modalities of these practices to potentially reduce
the temporal intensity of these practices or the frequency of use of
technologies (Ferhenbach et al. 2009; Scott et al. 2012).
In practical terms, the non-formalized aspect of the nomadic and

mediated work practices discussed in our study can represent a challenge for
both employees and companies. Indeed, the fact that these practices are not
formalized implies that they are not accompanied and regulated by the
organizations. However, given that they partly determine their effects on the
quality of life at work and that they involve potential abuses, they deserve
the attention of practitioners as well as of those working to increase work
commitment and performance, as well as to strengthen the well-being of
employees and prevent risks. For example, it has been shown that
commitment towards the organization and recognition at work are factors
that integrate employees into the company, retain them and enhance their
performance. Additional studies have even highlighted the beneficial effects
of recognition on workers’ health, notably in reducing stress.
In the current context of the Covid-19 health crisis, we are witnessing an

increase in home-based teleworking practices, the objective of which is to
preserve and maintain the economy, employment and the continuity of
certain work activities. This increase brings to the fore (or brings renewed
focus to) issues of health and quality of life at work and outside of work and
questions the formal and informal practices of remote working. It also raises
questions about the viability of mediated and 100% delocalized work via
ICT and its impact on the relationship with the organizations to which
people belong and with work groups, as well as on the balance between
professional and private life.
At the same time, for several years now, the right to disconnect has been
a concern for both work organizations and employees who are anxious about
preserving the quality of life at work and want to limit the invasion of the
private sphere by the work sphere. There is therefore a need to produce
knowledge in this field in order to inform the actors of organizations at all
levels (directors, human resources managers, managers, employees) and to
be able to support the implementation of measures to preserve the quality of
life at work and to promote the psychological and physical health and
performance of employees.
Indeed, it has been observed that remote and mediated work is likely to
accelerate the occurrence of some of the risks to individuals’ health and to
reinforce forms of dependence on work and technologies (Turel et al. 2011;
Wyrzykowska 2014). This is particularly the case when remote work
practices via ICT involve the intensive use of technologies and are part of
professional contexts that encourage, more or less explicitly, the extension of
professional activities beyond usual workspaces and temporalities (Clark
2001; Eagly and Carly 2007; Senarathne et al. 2013; Vayre and Vonthron
2019).
The regulation of these practices is therefore a major issue for

organizations. Continued empirical work in this field could shed light on this
issue and make it possible to define work organization methods that limit
occupational and psychosocial risks.
2.5. References
Andonova, Y. and Vacher, B. (2009). Visibilité et reconnaissance de l’individu au

travail. Communication & Organisation, 36, 136–147.
Bakker, A. and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328 [Online]. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.
Barnett, K., Spoehr, J., Moretti, C., Gregory, T., Chiveralls, K. (2011). Technology
at work – Stress, work and technology across the lifecycle. Report, Australian
Institute for Social Research, Adelaide.
Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F., Vanderberghe, C. (2002). L’engagement des salariés
dans le travail. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 21(3), 133–157.
Brun, J.P. and Dugas, N. (2005). La reconnaissance au travail : analyse d’un concept
riche de sens. Gestion, 30(2), 79–88.
Caillé, A. and Jeoffrion, C. (2017). Prévention des risques psychosociaux au sein
d’établissements publics d’enseignement agricole : quand le diagnostic
organisationnel participe d’une amélioration de la qualité de vie au travail.
Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 23(4), 308–325.
Camps, E. (2008). Sens du travail et rapports vie de travail – vie hors travail chez
trois catégories de télétravailleurs et chez les travailleurs classiques. Psychologie
du Travail et des Organisations, 14(4), 77–92.
Clark, S. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58(3), 348–365.
Colombier, N., Martin, L., Pénard, T. (2007). Usage des TIC, conditions de travail et
satisfaction des salariés. Réseaux, 25(143), 115–146.
Combessie, J.-C. (2007). IV. Sondages, échantillons. In La Méthode en Sociologie,
Combessie, J.C. (ed.). La Découverte, Paris.
Crague, G. (2003). Des lieux de travail de plus en plus variables et temporaires.
Économie et Statistique, 369–370, 191–212.
Dumas, M. and Ruiller, C. (2014). Le télétravail : les risques d’un outil de gestion
des frontières entre vie personnelle et vie professionnelle ? Revue Management
& Avenir, 74(8), 71–95.
Eagly, A. and Carli, L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 85(9), 62–71.
Epitalon, G. (2017). L’entreprise face aux défis du télétravail gris. Report, LBMG
Worklabs, Paris.
Fall, A. (2013). Reconnaissance au travail : validation d’une échelle de mesure dans
le contexte des entreprises. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 65,
189–203.
Fenner, G. and Renn, R. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and
work-to-family conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational
expectations and time management. Human Relation, 63(1), 63–82.
Ferhenbach, J., Granel, F., Dufort, D., Klein, T., Loyer, J.-L. (2009). Le
développement du télétravail dans la société numérique de demain. Report,
Centre d’Analyses Stratégiques, Paris.
Fernandez, V. and Marrauld, L. (2012). Usage des téléphones portables et pratiques
de la mobilité. L’analyse de “journaux de bord” de salariés mobiles. Revue
Française de Gestion, 7(226), 137–149.
Geurts, S. (2000). SWING: Survey work-home interaction-Nijmegen (Internal
Research Report). Report, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Glass, J. and Noonan, M. (2012). The hard truth about telecommuting. Monthly
Labor Review, 135(6), 38–45.
Golden, T. (2009). Applying technology to work: Toward a better understanding of
telework. Organization Management Journal, 6(4), 241–250.
Golden, T., Veiga, J.-F., Dino, R. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on
teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent on
teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication
enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421.
Goussard, L. and Tiffon, G. (2016). Quand le travail déborde… Travail et Emploi,
3(147), 27–52.
Hannif, Z., Cox, A., Almeida, S. (2014). The impact of ICT, workplace relationships
and management styles on the quality of work life: Insights from the call centre
front line. Labour & Industry, 24(1), 69–83.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S., Johnson, L., Andrey, J. (2008). “I’m home for the kids”:
Contradictory implications for work-life balance of teleworking mothers.
Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5), 454–476.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S., Johnson, L., Andrey, J. (2013). Remixing work, family and
leisure: Teleworkers’ experiences of everyday life. New Technology Work and
Employment, 28(2), 130–144.
Hunton, J. and Norman, C. (2010). The impact of alternative telework arrangements
on organizational commitment: Insights from a longitudinal field experiment
(Retracted). Journal of Infromation Systems, 24(1), 67–90.
Klein, T. and Ratier, D. (2012). L’impact des TIC sur les conditions de travail.
Report, Centre d’Analyses Stratégiques, Paris.
Konradt, U., Schmook, R., Wilm, A., Hertel, G. (2000). Health circles for
teleworkers: Selective results on stress, strain and coping styles. Health
Education Research, 15(3), 327–338.
Kouloumdjian, M. (2012). Travail à distance. In Traité de psychologie du travail et

des organisations, Bernaud, J.L. (ed.). Dunod, Paris.
Lee Mee Choo, J., Mat Desa, N., Asaari, M. (2016). Flexible working arrangement
towards organizational commitment and work-family conflict. Studies in Asian
Social Science, 3(1), 21–36.
Légifrance (2017). Ordonnance n° 2017-1387 du 22 septembre 2017 relative à la
prévisibilité et la sécurisation des relations de travail [Online]. Available at:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000035607388/ [Accessed 9
March 2021].
Leslie, L., Manchester, C., Park, T., Mehng, S. (2012). Flexible work practices:
A source of career premiums or penalties? The Academy Management Journal,
55(6), 1407–1428.
Louche, C. (2019). L’implication dans le travail, l’engagement organisationnel et la
satisfaction. In Psychologie sociale des organisations, Louche, C. (ed.). Dunod,
Paris.
Lourel, M., Gana, K., Wawrzyniak, S. (2005). L’interface “vie privée-vie au
travail” : adaptation et validation française de l’échelle SWING (survey
work-home interaction-Nijmegen). Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations,
11(4), 227–239.
Maruyama, T., Hopkinson, P., James, P. (2009). A multivariate analysis of work-life
balance outcomes from a large-scale telework programme. New Technology
Work and Employment, 24(1), 76–88 [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-005x.2008.00219.x.
Mathieu, P., Habib, N., Soulie, J., Fiessinger, C. (2020). Les perceptions du
télétravail chez Michelin : quels enseignements dans le contexte de la
pandémie ? Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise, 3(3),
79–96.
Mauroux, A. (2018). Quels liens entre les usages professionnels des outils
numériques et les conditions de travail ? Report, Dares Analyses, Paris.
Messenger, J., Vargas Llave, O., Gschwind, L., Boehmer, S., Vermeylen, G.,
Wilkens, M. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of
work. Report, Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Metzger, J.L. (2009). Focus – Les cadres télétravaillent pour… mieux travailler.
Informations Sociales, 3(153), 75–77.
Metzger, J.L. and Cléach, O. (2004). Le télétravail des cadres : entre suractivité et
apprentissage de nouvelles temporalités. Sociologie du Travail, 46, 433–450.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Morel-A-Lhuissier, P. (2007). Du télétravail au travail mobile : un enjeu de
modernisation de l’économie française. La Documentation Française, Paris.
Ojala, S. (2011). Supplemental work at home among Finnish wage earners:
Involuntary overtime or taking the advantage of flexibility? Nordic Journal of
Working Life Studies, 1(2), 77–97.
Popma, J. (2013). Technostress et autres revers du travail nomade, 1st edition.
European Trade Union Institute, Brussels.
Ruiller, C., Dumas, M., Chédotel, F. (2017). Comment maintenir le sentiment de
proximité à distance ? Le cas des équipes dispersées par le télétravail. Revue
Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise, 3(3), 3–28.
Schott, A. (2019). Connexion raisonnée : droit à la déconnexion et autres
responsabilités. Le cheminement d’un délibéré d’une PME girondine. Vie et
Sciences de l’Entreprise, 2(208), 55–71.
Scott, D., Dam, I., Páez, A., Wilton, R. (2012). Investigating the effects of social
influence on the choice to telework. Environment and Planning A: Economy and
Space, 44(5), 1016–1031.
Senarathne Tennakoon, K., da Silveira, G., Taras, D. (2013). Drivers of
context-specific ICT use across work and nonwork domains: A boundary theory
perspective. Information and Organization, 23(2), 107–128.
Shore, L., Barksdale, K., Shore, T. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee
commitment to the organization. Academic of Management Journal, 38,
1593–1615.
Sullivan, C. (2003). What’s in a name? Definitions and conceptualisations of
teleworking and homeworking. New Technology Work and Employment, 18(3),
158–165.
Taskin, L. (2010). La déspatialisation : enjeu de gestion. Revue Française de
Gestion, 3(3), 61–76.
Thomas, K.J. (2014). Workplace technology and the creation of boundaries: The
role of VHRD in a 24/7 work environment. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 6(3), 281–295.
Tissot Éditions (2011). 73 % des cadres déclarent travailler hors de leur bureau et
être libérés. Report, Tissot Éditions, Annecy-le-Vieux.
Turel, O., Serenko, A., Bontis, N. (2011). Family and work-related consequences
of addiction to organizational pervasive technologies. Information and
Management, 48(2–3), 88–95.
Vayre, E. (2017). Le passage en télétravail comme source de restructuration des
relations à autrui et des activités. In Les transitions professionnelles : nouvelles
problématiques psychosociales, Olry-Louis, I. (ed.). Dunod, Paris.
Vayre, E. (2019). Les incidences du télétravail sur le travailleur dans les domaines
professionnel, familial et social. Le Travail Humain, 82(1), 1–39.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2118.
de Vries, H., Tummers, L., Bekkers, V. (2018). The benefits of teleworking in the
public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
39(4), 570–593.
Wyrzykowska, B. (2014). Telework and personnel risk. Scientific Journal Warsaw
University of Life Sciences, 14(4), 215–225.
3
Leadership and the Use of

Technology: Health Implications
3.1. Introduction
New technologies have introduced new forms of interaction and

communication between individuals, transformed the functionality of spaces
and the relationship to time, created new professions (and led to the
disappearance of others), supported new forms of work and fueled the
demand for new skills (Schwab 2016; Ghislieri et al. 2018; Vayre 2019).
Exchanges on WhatsApp, phone or video calls, email exchanges, sharing or
commenting on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, and announcements on
LinkedIn are now daily means of social interaction and make us “constantly
active” users (McDowell and Kinman 2017), both as recipients and
producers of information.
These technological changes “determine a series of new behaviors that

gradually lead to new skills, beliefs and dispositions” (Schein 2017, p. 231).
They particularly affect organizational culture, managerial policies and
leadership practices.
In this context, this chapter will first reflect on the interdependence

between organizational culture and leadership. With this in mind, the
contribution of Edgar Schein and some models of organizational culture,
which are associated with current themes in this field, will be discussed. The
second part of the chapter will be devoted to the presentation of leadership
Chapter written by Valentina DOLCE, Chiara GHISLIERI, Monica MOLINO and Émilie VAYRE.

models. Transformational and authentic leadership will be discussed, as well

as destructive behavior. The differentiated effects of these will also be
discussed. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of
leaders in the Industry 4.0 era.
3.2. Organizational culture and leadership
Questioning leadership implies questioning the organizational culture,

with one being inseparable from the other. Indeed, leaders’ behaviors are
inherently embedded in the cultural fabric of the organization; the
recruitment, training and appraisal policies of an organization are both the
result and the element through which the organizational culture is
reproduced and reinforced. They are the means through which a given
leadership is selected, defined and valued (Schein 1983). Except in the case
of radical changes in the leadership of an organization, culture tends to be
self-replicating and stable over time. When we talk about culture and
organizational cultures, we are referring to complex concepts, the definitions
of which have been theorized by a large number of researchers, particularly
in the anthropological and sociological fields. Among the main specialists in
the field of organizational culture, one of the best known names is certainly
Edgar Schein, who proposes to consider culture in dynamic evolutionary
terms. According to Schein (1983), culture can be analyzed on three levels,
which are distinguished by their degree of tangibility and depth:
– artifacts;
– espoused beliefs and value;
– underlying assumptions.
Artifacts can be defined as the most tangible expression of culture, the

meaning of which is not easily decipherable without considering the other
levels. The physical environment, the dress code and the level of formality
of language are all examples, albeit not exhaustive ones, of artifacts of a
culture within an organization. Similarly, the management of technology,
such as the habit of keeping the company mobile phone on or off, can be
interpreted as a cultural artifact. The second level is represented by espoused
beliefs and values, which guide how we behave. This second level is the
result of a process that arises when a group is formed and when questions or
difficulties arise for which solutions must be found. The leader plays an
important role in the definition and dissemination of beliefs and values
Leadership and the Use of Technology: Health Implications 51
which, if accepted, can be translated into beliefs and values carried by the
group.
To the extent that actions based on these beliefs allow for satisfactory
and sustainable functioning, they become basic assumptions. These
presuppositions then become anchored and rooted in the work group, to the
point that they are taken for granted. However, although deeper and more
stable, they too are subject to change. According to Schein (2017), cultures
are also dynamic and not fixed; they are driven towards change by external
and internal factors. When leadership is able to accompany and manage the
evolution of the culture, the organization can mature and grow (Schein
2017).
Understanding and describing organizational cultures is anything but

simple. However, in order to make the whole reflection more tangible,
without claiming to be exhaustive, we will, in the following sections, allude
to classical models and examples of current organizational typologies.
3.2.1. Classical models of organizational culture
Many researchers have developed models to describe various types of

organizational culture. Among these models, one of the most recognized is
the competing value framework (CVF), initially developed by Campbell
et al. (1974). Using 39 different indicators, they aimed to identify measures
of organizational effectiveness. These indicators were then summarized by
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) in a two-dimensional model, from which four
clusters of organizational cultures emerge (see Figure 3.1).
Clan culture characterizes organizations that function like a family. The

role of the leader has a parental dimension; loyalty, tradition, participation,
collaboration and team spirit are particularly valued. The organization seeks,
among other things, to maintain a high level of commitment and thus tends
to invest in the development of human resources, promoting ways for staff to
socialize.
Adhocratic culture corresponds to dynamic, flexible and creative work

environments. Members of the organization are encouraged to adopt new
ways of working, generate new ideas and adapt quickly to changes in the
labor market. The management of uncertainty, the ability to take risks,

responsiveness and innovation are particularly valued.
Hierarchical culture is focused on a high degree of control and low

flexibility. It characterizes highly formalized, structured work organizations
governed by strict rules and specific expected behaviors. Among the leader’s
main functions is ensuring compliance with the rules by controlling the
employee.
Market culture characterizes organizations that are highly results-oriented

and particularly competitive. In this type of culture, leaders are generally
very demanding and focus on productivity through the evaluation of the
achievement of measurable objectives. Success is reflected in the ability to
make a profit.
Figure 3.1. Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) two-dimensional model
3.2.2. Presence and always-on cultures
The models described so far provide a framework for understanding the

relationship between organizational culture and leadership styles. However,
the recent economic crises and technological changes pose a different
challenge to organizational culture. From this point of view, cultures of
presence (Ruhle and Sub 2020) and always-on cultures (McDowall and
Kinman 2017) are more intersectional and targeted approaches.
Cultures of presence are those that value presence in the workplace

(Ruhle and Sub 2020). They have given rise to numerous studies on
absenteeism and presenteeism (Johns 2008, 2010). They are also associated
with current questions about the management of new forms of work: remote
working and teleworking. Depending on the assumptions of an organization,
the legitimacy attributed to the presence or absence of behaviors can change
radically (Ruhle and Sub 2020). The legitimacy of the physical presence of
the sick worker can be found in various types of presuppositions that operate
at the level of the group’s unconscious: for example, presuppositions
according to which the unity of a work group is based not on the strength of
the team, but on the strength of the individual in whose absence the team
cannot progress (Ruhle and Sub 2020). However – so as not to fall into the
trap of reductionism – it should be remembered at this point that phenomena
such as presenteeism or absenteeism cannot be explained solely by the
culture of an organization or the behavior of a leader. Other contextual and
personal factors can explain these phenomena (Johns 2010). For example,
presentism can also be interpreted as a reaction to the anxiety, uncertainty
and insecurity generated by recent changes in the labor market and
employment (Ishimaru 2020).
The same interpretative logic applies to always-on styles. The emergence

of this term is concomitant with the digital revolution and the ever more
intense and invasive use of technology (Ghislieri et al. 2018). Having a
smartphone, tablet or a laptop makes it possible to stay connected and work
at any time and from anywhere. The always-on organizational cultural are
characterized by the demand of responsiveness, agility and accessibility via
digital tools (Derks et al. 2015; McDowall and Kinman 2017). Some
practices appear natural and obvious there: keeping one’s company mobile
phone on when returning home, keeping work email notifications active, or
receiving calls or messages from one’s managers outside of working hours
(McDowall and Kinman 2017). With the introduction of technology, new
behaviors become embedded in the basic assumptions of organizations. For
example, in adhocratic cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983), the speed of
response to problems or requests may be seen as a guarantee of adaptation
and contingency management. In market cultures, the permanent availability
of employees may be seen as a condition for competitiveness and profit.
As we have already mentioned, cultures are shaped by aspects that are

external as well as internal to the organization. Leadership plays a
fundamental role in the development, consolidation and implementation of
the organizational culture. There are many different leadership styles and
approaches, and their effects on the performance and well-being of workers
vary.
3.3. Leadership: an ever-present theme
Since the middle of the 20th century, contributions in the field of

leadership have continued to be disseminated in scientific journals and
publishers’ catalogues (Bass 1990; Bass and Riggio 2006). This wealth of
work creates a mess of complex definitions. Leadership is sometimes
defined as a personality dimension and other times as an instrument for
achieving results. It can also be approached from the perspective of group
processes, influence and persuasion processes, and power relations. Finally,
it is also conceived as the art of creating follow-up.
Beyond these discrepancies, leadership can be seen as collectively

referring to the action of being followed and achieving results (Ghislieri
2018). The relationship with followers is a central element of leadership, as
is the goal of achieving results both in terms of productivity and follower
well-being. In the most recent contributions, the leadership relationship
refers more to the “ethics” of transparency, integrity, trust and justice
(Van Knippenberg et al. 2007) – in other words, to the characteristics of
authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner 2005).
Although this chapter is not aimed at reporting on research in this area, it

is important to briefly discuss leadership approaches and styles to introduce
current perspectives on the subject.
3.3.1. Traits, behaviors and leadership situations
Traits, motivations and talents are the characteristic elements of the first
studies on leadership (first half of the 20th century), with leadership
approaches considering that the capacity and the characteristics of leadership
were relatively stable (McKenna 2000). The initial research on this topic,
known as “great man theory”, focused on the personality traits of
emblematic leaders. Indeed, at the time, these were almost exclusively men
(Daft 1999).
From ad hoc reviews of the literature, Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959),
one after the other, concluded that personality was a determining factor with
limited explanatory power for leadership success. In the early 2000s,
50 years later, there was a “return” to the personality trait theory. Beyond the
great personalities that are again the object of analysis, the important role
attributed to extraversion in the relationship between personality and
leadership explains this phenomenon (Judge et al. 2002).
Historically, the study conducted by Lewin et al. (1939), at the University

of Iowa, was a turning point in the evolution of approaches to leadership
(initially based on personality traits). Their work is considered to be a
precursor to behavior-based leadership (Daft 1999). This renowned study
identified three leadership “styles”: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire.
An autocratic leader tends to centralize authority, exercises the power

associated with their position, and expresses it through control, rewards and
forms of coercion. A democratic leader, on the other hand, delegates
authority to their followers, encourages their participation, relies on their
knowledge and skills, and defines their own power through the respect and
influence of their collaborators (Daft 1999). Finally, a laissez-faire leader
tends to be “passive” in their relationship with their team members, avoids
acting proactively and limits their actions to those explicitly required by their
collaborators.
In the decades that followed, between the 1940s and 1960s (Lussier and
Achua 2001), this conceptualization of leadership was further developed,
albeit from different research models, through work conducted at the
University of Michigan (Likert 1961) and Ohio University (Stogdill and
Coons 1957).
The reference to leadership styles, which are anchored in the behavioral

approach, became central in the studies of the 1950s and 1960s, and then
gradually evolved towards a more situational approach. The transactional
approaches (centered on the transaction between leader r and follower) then
took shape in the form of theoretical models (Tannenbaum and Schimidt
1958; Blake and Mouton 1964; Fiedler 1967). Paul Hersey and Ken
Blanchard (1982) define the situational paradigm from the degree of
maturity of the collaborators which, depending on the case, generates four

styles of leadership:
– prescribing, with employees who have a low level of maturity;
– selling, with low-medium level employees;
– involving, when the level is medium-high;
– delegating, when the level of maturity of employees is high.
Dansereau et al. (1975) propose an approach that is now well known: the
leader–member exchange (LMX) approach. It focuses on the determining
factors of the dyadic relationship as well as on its effects on the achievement
of organizational objectives and the turnover rate, as well as the
performance, satisfaction, organizational commitment and citizenship
behaviors of employees (Gerstner and Day 1997; Ilies et al. 2007).
3.3.2. Transformational and authentic leadership
Transformational leadership – just like the leadership described as

“charismatic” (Kreitner et al. 1999) – is characterized by the importance of
the leader’s symbolic behavior. This leadership style is determined by
the leader’s visionary and inspirational messages, his non-verbal
communication, the evocation of values in his speech, and the stimulation
and motivation he provides to his employees on an intellectual as well as an
emotional level. The relationship of trust established as the “commodity of
exchange” in this relationship is seen as a valuable element of individual and
collective “growth”.
For Burns (1978), the transformational leader is one who recognizes the
needs of followers and is able to transform them into new leaders.
Bernard Bass’ (1985) four “I”s model represents the main contribution in
this scenario:
– individual consideration refers to personalized communication,
considered precisely as a basic, founding action towards a growth objective;
– intellectual stimulation is considered as “the way” to give energy to
followers, independently of formal recognition systems;
– inspirational motivation refers to the fact of giving meaning to the work

at hand, by identifying the challenges for the future and the objectives to be
pursued;
– idealized influence focuses on trust, which represents a role model
through which employees can identify.
Transformational leadership (and the Bass model in particular) is still

very influential today, not only in scientific research (Bono and Judge 2004;
Judge and Piccolo 2004), which mainly uses the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, or MLQ (Avolio et al. 1999), but also in professional circles,
where it has become an essential reference used in assessment practices as
well as in the development of training programs for managers.
Over the last 20 years, authentic leadership – a concept that dates back to
the 1990s – has gradually become central to scientific studies and
organizational practices (Avolio and Gardner 2005). In the face of social
changes, successive crises and job-saving plans, authenticity is a value that
responds to employees’ expectations of their leader in terms of taking
responsibility and upholding integrity, transparency, courage and optimism
(Diddams and Chang 2012).
As moral-, transparency- and value-related issues are considered

insufficient in characterizing transformational leadership, some models have
sought to emphasize the ethical dimension of leadership (Avolio and
Gardner 2005; Riggio et al. 2010). Authentic leadership is thus defined by
self-awareness and self-regulation, and is expressed through certain
fundamental elements (Walumba et al. 2008):
– positive psychological capital (confidence, optimism, hope and
resilience);
– a positive moral perspective (ethical and transparent decision-making,
authentic and ethically sustainable actions);
– leading by example;
– support for follower awareness and self-regulation;
– building a close and transparent relationship with one’s own
collaborators based on self-awareness;
– promoting follower development;
– promoting an ethical climate;

– sustainable delivery targets.
Authentic leadership is effective provided it is embedded in an

organizational context characterized by access to information, availability of
resources, perceived support and equal opportunities to learn and grow. In
this way, a virtuous circle can be established: authentic leadership enhances
an inclusive organizational culture which, in turn, promotes the growth of
authentic leadership (Ghislieri 2018).
Unlike transformational or charismatic leadership, authentic leadership

allows for the building of a trusting relationship through a mechanism of
self-disclosure, allowing for the identification of each other’s strengths and
weaknesses, and for a consistent and informed response to situations and
problems encountered (Avolio and Gardner 2005; Diddams and Chang
2012).
3.3.3. The dark side of leadership
Despite the large number of studies on the positive effects of leadership

(Grabo et al. 2017), little research has analyzed its harmful effects. However,
some scholars have recently warned that “misbehavior” or certain behaviors
described as destructive emanating from people with coordinating or
supervisory roles is not uncommon and has significant costs for employees
as well as organizations (Tepper 2007; Aasland et al. 2010).
The expression “dark side of leadership” refers to a wide range of

mobilized expressions: whether described as toxic, abusive or destructive, it
describes negative behaviors by a leader, such as bullying, harassment,
manipulation, micromanagement, or abusive or unethical behavior (McCall
and Lombardo 1983; Pelletier 2010):
As defined by Schyns and Schilling (2013), destructive leadership is a

process through which “the activities, experiences, and/or relationships of an
individual or members of a group are repeatedly influenced by their
supervisor in a perceived hostile mode” (Schyns and Schilling 2013, p. 141).
It refers to a specific form of negative leadership, characterized by the
adoption of systematic and repeated behaviors, which go against the interests
of the organization and alter the well-being and job satisfaction of followers
(Einarsen et al. 2007). Some authors consider that the leader does not
necessarily have the intention to harm, but that destructive leadership results
from the leader’s insensitivity, ineptitude and negligence (Einarsen et al.
2007). Others, such as Krasikova et al. (2013), include “voluntariness” in
their definition, distinguishing destructive leadership from ineffective
leadership.
Other approaches have focused more on the traits of the dark personality
and its impact on organizational outcomes (Spain et al. 2014). One of the
best-known models is the Dark Triad (Paulhus and Williams 2002). The
Dark Triad is a higher-order construct composed of three sub-dimensions:
narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
One of the most visible aspects of “leadership derailment” is the abuse of

power, i.e. the use of power for personal gain, recognition, self-image (at the
expense of others), position and power (Higgs 2009). It often results in
unethical or even illegal conduct. Kets de Vries (1980, 1993) believes that
each individual’s power orientation is deeply rooted in their personality
structure. According to the author, “bad” leadership is therefore the result of
an unresolved sense of self and an unrealistic idea of one’s own power,
accompanied by the fear of losing it.
While personal and psychodynamic perspectives have made it possible to

understand certain characteristics of obscure leadership profiles, they do not
explain why these forms of leadership succeed in asserting themselves and
being valued in certain organizations. The cultural approach is able to
explain why certain abusive behaviors – which are not necessarily the
expression of “warped” personalities – are promoted and even expected.
3.3.4. Leadership and its consequences
The Job Demand-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007)

is a reference framework used in studies that have sought to identify the role
of leadership. This model looks at the way in which certain working
conditions are likely to lead to employee burnout (emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization and reduced professional effectiveness). According to this
model, the risk of burnout is highest when work demands are high and work
resources are limited. Job demands are defined as “those physical,

psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require
sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or
skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or
psychological costs” (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312). Although they
are not necessarily harmful, when they involve high-energy expenditure and
the mobilization of significant resources, without being associated with
sufficient recovery, they can be a source of stress (Meijman and Mulder
1998). Job resources refer to “those physical, psychological, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: a) functional in achieving
work goals, b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and
psychological costs, c) stimulate personal growth, learning, and
development” (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, p. 312).
Although this model has evolved (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Schaufeli
and Taris 2014), leadership has consistently been seen as a key resource,
both in terms of the quality of the relationship with the leader, the social
support received, the exchange of information and the provision of feedback.
As a resource, “positive” leadership promotes well-being, motivation, trust,
personal development as well as pro-social behaviors of followers and
reduces the potentially negative impact of requests (Avolio and Gardner
2005; Hoch et al. 2018). Feeling supported and appreciated by one’s
manager and being trustworthy mitigates the perception of effort in response
to one’s requests or expectations and allows for better regulation of mental
and emotional workload (Väänänen et al. 2003). A recent review of the
literature in the field (Carasco-Saul et al. 2015) also highlighted the
beneficial effects of transformational leadership on the organizational
commitment of employees. Other studies and meta-analyses indicate that
transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated with
trust building, job satisfaction and work quality (Judge and Piccolo 2004;
Banks et al. 2016). With regard to authentic leadership, several studies also
find that it encourages work engagement and organizational citizenship
behaviors among leaders while also promoting employee engagement, trust
and satisfaction (Diddams and Chang 2012; Banks et al. 2016).
Based on a review of studies conducted between the 1980s and 2015,

Arnold (2017) reveals that transformational leadership positively predicts
well-being and negatively predicts unhappiness, while noting that this
relationship is not always direct. Finally, “positive” leadership can also help
to establish transparent communication with employees, promote an
understanding of work–life balance problems and facilitate a consideration

of the constraints they experience outside of work. This is currently reflected
in forms of leadership that are more sensitive to the quality of life, the right
to disconnect and the right to rest, as well as less intrusive behavior with
regard to employees’ private lives.
Although most studies have focused on analyzing the effects of “good”

leadership (Grabo et al. 2017), when leadership is “negative” (Conger 1990),
leading change is impossible: the leader is inclined to pursue personal goals
rather than promote transformative opportunities that can benefit both the
members of the organization and the organization itself. In this regard, many
scientific studies demonstrate that dysfunctional leadership has considerable
negative consequences for individuals as well as for organizations (Ghislieri
and Gatti 2012; Schyns and Schilling 2013). Indeed, it has a negative impact
on the well-being of individuals and can be the cause of physical and
psychological health disorders (Webster et al. 2016). It results in followers
feeling constantly belittled, judged on the basis of their previous mistakes, or
devalued when expressing their own opinions (Tepper 2000; Kelloway and
Barling 2010). Trickle-down leadership, through the climate of control,
criticism and negative feedback it instills, is a source of job tension, work
intensification, work addiction, unease and dissatisfaction, and ultimately
underpins emotional exhaustion, absenteeism and intentions to leave the
company (Tepper 2007; O’Donoghue et al. 2016; Molino et al. 2019). This
relationship is even more pronounced in situations of job insecurity.
The role of leadership is particularly crucial in times of crisis such as the

one we have been experiencing since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic,
during which ensuring effective leadership to maintain activity and manage
remote work has been fundamental (Grabo et al. 2017; Rudolph et al. 2020).
The results of a recent study (Dolce et al. 2020) showed that destructive
leadership in remote work increased the perception of demands and
decreased work autonomy, making it more difficult to recover adequately
and thus promoting emotional exhaustion.
Control-based leadership styles that are rooted in formalized, rigid and

structured hierarchical cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983) are likely to
rely on technology to regulate and control the work of employees. The tools
or applications allow them to transmit regular prescriptions online, via
emails or video calls, and to make demands on employees as much as
necessary, yet these recurrent demands have harmful effects on the
well-being of the individual by increasing the risk of “technological stress”

(Molino et al. 2020), addiction to technologies and the Internet, or even
perceived conflict between professional and private life (Vayre and
Vonthron 2019). Strictly, the same phenomena can be observed in
organizations characterized by market cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh
1983), whose leaders are extremely demanding towards their own team, as in
always-on cultures (Derks et al. 2015; Molino et al. 2020).
3.4. Leadership in the Industry 4.0 era
The fourth industrial revolution, more commonly known in Europe as the

Industry 4.0 era, is defined by the development and implementation of
systems that integrate the physical, biological and digital world with a view
to carrying out missions of various kinds and exploiting advances in several
sectors: artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, Cloud
Computing, biotechnologies, collaborative robotics, augmented reality,
virtual reality, 3D printing and other technologies (Baldassari and Roux
2017). The development of many systems in these areas is associated with a
disruption of technologies, which is rapidly and radically transforming
practically all sectors of business (Schwab 2016), with the objective of
improving both the quality of life and work of employees and the
productivity of organizations. The technologies are reducing costs and
improving the quality of products and services; their use is also protecting
the health and safety of employees in many sectors, reducing the risk of
accidents, including fatalities, in the workplace (Ghislieri et al. 2018).
However, the fourth industrial revolution does not only bring benefits. It
also brings disadvantages for workers and the labor market. Some
approaches point to the disappearance of certain jobs and professions, which
will be taken over in the future by machines and/or artificial intelligence
(Frey and Osborne 2017). In this respect, the fear of the unknown and the
relationship to automatons and robots may increase the phenomena of
resistance to change among workers (Cascio and Montealegre 2016). Other
more optimistic approaches consider that while the ongoing revolution
implies the inevitable and gradual disappearance of certain activities or jobs,
it will at the same time create new jobs, based more on intellectual activities,
to the detriment of physical effort and repetitiveness (Kaplan 2015). In the
long-term, it is essential that considerable investments be made now, in
terms of social protection policies and training, so that the benefits of the
fourth industrial revolution outweigh its drawbacks (Weldon 2016).
“Leaders 4.0” (Kelly 2018; Oberer and Erkollar 2018) are at the forefront
of helping to define strategies for how organizations operate, how workers
are involved and whether they are “for” or “against” these changes. The way
leaders position themselves towards the arrival of Industry 4.0 will probably
be decisive. They are expected to be the protagonists of this revolution and
to seize this opportunity for change to define the direction to be followed,
drawing lines of action. In this regard, it is essential to recognize the need to
rethink and redefine the role and practices of leaders and to therefore support
them in the development of new skills.
Figure 3.2. The four phases of leadership (source: Kelly (2018)). For a
color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/vayre/digitalization.zip
For Kelly (2018) (see Figure 3.2), the fourth industrial revolution requires
forms of leadership and skills focused on learning, innovation and change
management. 4.0 leaders must be able to support the transition to Industry
4.0, encourage experimentation with new technologies, foster idea
confrontation and feedback from employees, be responsive while supporting
employee responsiveness, and provide opportunities and resources for
continuous learning (Kelly 2018; Guzmán et al. 2020).
Leadership 4.0 refers as much to the ability to manage the deployment of

new technologies and to use them as to foster their acceptance and use by
employees (Bolte et al. 2018), and this through a culture oriented towards
innovation, learning and the ability to think outside the box. According to
the Leadership 4.0 matrix proposed by Oberer and Erkollar (2018), digital
leaders are experts in technologies and innovations and are able to recognize
their impacts on people. This matrix helps us to identify leadership styles
based on their orientation towards each of these dimensions (Figure 3.3).
Digital leadership 4.0. (4.0 digital leader) is described as ideal. Seen as more
efficient, productive and responsive, digital leadership seeks to optimize new
organizational models and people’s needs. Too much focus on technology,
to the detriment of people, refers to technological leadership, focused
primarily on the ability to determine how new technologies can be used to
ensure greater added value. A more people-oriented leadership (social
leadership) will focus mainly on the well-being of employees. Finally,
freshmen leadership seems to be neither innovation- nor people-oriented,
and refers rather to the maintenance of traditional production structures and a
focus on product finalization.
Figure 3.3. Leadership 4.0 matrix (source: Oberer and Erkollar (2018)). For
a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/vayre/digitalization.zip
Through 10 dimensions, Guzmán et al. (2020) summarize the main

characteristics of Leadership 4.0. These dimensions refer to responsiveness,
collectivity, learning and innovation, openness, agility, participation,
networking, trust, digital and, finally, collaboration. Each of these
dimensions refers to a combination of competencies. Taking up Mumford
et al.’s (2007) model of leader competencies, Guzmán et al. (2020)
synthesize the most important competencies for Leadership 4.0: these are
cognitive, interpersonal, strategic and business skills, with the ability to
analyze processes related to the dynamic and digital progress specific to
Industry 4.0 being considered the most important. In addition to these skills,
technical skills must be added since it is essential for leaders to be able to
appropriate and mobilize the available technologies.
3.5. Conclusion
Currently, leadership and technological innovation influence each other

(Cortellazzo et al. 2019). Technological progress poses new challenges and
requires leaders to take on new responsibilities, develop new skills to
support change, restructure the organization of their teams and shake up
work habits. But leaders also have the ability to determine the direction,
timing and impact of technological and digital transformations, in the
short- and long-terms.
Leaders have multiple responsibilities. They must participate in the

creation of a digital culture in which people positively welcome
technological transformation; they must define the conditions and mobilize
the necessary means to ensure that employees develop digital skills; they
must help attract, and retain, workers with specialized technical profiles;
they must develop and value the most appropriate strategies for successful
technology deployment (Hess et al. 2016).
Yet, they must also be able to use the new technologies by adopting
“positive” leadership, investing in the relationship with their employees,
building trust, appreciating the autonomy and care of each worker and
limiting the extent to which work spills over into private time.
The role of leadership, however, remains complex and is sometimes a

balancing act. If we recall the initial lockdown period during the Covid-19
pandemic, a considerable proportion of organizations resorted to remote
working. The forced imposition of remote working from wherever people

found themselves in lockdown (Kniffin et al. 2020; Rudolph et al. 2020) led
to an unprecedented and totally improvised reorganization of work activities,
without support or training, nor preparation or negotiation. Throughout the
home-based teleworking experience, information and communication
technologies have enabled the extension of work activity, along with contact
and proximity with the professional environment, and have had both positive
effects (establishment of forms of support and sharing of information,
knowledge and skills) and negative effects (excessive control and demands
and invasion of home and private life). In such a context, the leader–follower
relationship has been decisive as well as sometimes ambivalent; it deserves
to be further explored in additional work if we want to discern its
contributions and limitations and improve both leadership patterns in
telework situations and the management of future crisis situations (Kniffin
et al. 2020; Rudolph et al. 2020).
3.6. References
Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of
destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 438–452.
Arnold, K.A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological
wellbeing: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 22(3), 381–393.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting
to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,
315–338.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4),
441–462.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of
the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Baldassari, P. and Roux, J.D. (2017). Industry 4.0: Preparing for the future of work.
People & Strategy, 40, 20–24.
Banks, G.C., McCauley, K.D., Gardner, W.L., Guler, C.E. (2016). A meta-analytic
review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The
Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press,
New York.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. Free Press,
New York.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Erlbaum,
Mahwah.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). Gli stili di direzione. Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston.
Bolte, S., Dehmer, J., Niemann, J. (2018). Digital leadership 4.0. Acta Technica;
Napocensis-Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics and Engineering, 61(4).
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
901–910.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. Harper Collins, New York.
Campbell, J., Brownas, E., Peterson, N., Dunnette, M. (1974). The measurement of
organizational effectiveness: A review of relevant research and opinion. Navy
Personnel Research and Development Center, Personnel Decisions, Minneapolis.
Carasco-Saul, M., Kim, W., Kim, T. (2015). Leadership and employee engagement:
Proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource
Development Review, 14(1), 38–63.
Cascio, W.F. and Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and
organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 3(1), 349–375.
Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2),
44–55.
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a
digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1938.
Daft, R.L. (1999). Leadership. Theory and Practice. The Dryden Press, Orlando.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G.G., Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. (2015). Smartphone use and
work-home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee
work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
88(1), 155–177.
Diddams, M. and Chang, D. (2012). Only human: Exploring the nature of weakness
in authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 593–603.
Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., Ghislieri, C. (2020). Far away, so close? The role
of destructive leadership in the job demands-resources and recovery model in
emergency telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 196.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., Anders, S. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour:
A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Frey, C.B. and Osborne, M.A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible
are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114,
254–280.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member
exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(6), 827–844.
Ghislieri, C. (2018). La leadership. In Psicologia delle organizzazioni, Argentero, P.
and Cortese, C.G. (eds). Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milan.
Ghislieri, C. and Gatti, P. (2012). Generativity and balance in leadership.
Leadership, 8(3), 257–275.
Ghislieri, C., Molino, M., Cortese, C.G. (2018). Work and organizational
psychology looks at the fourth industrial revolution: How to support workers and
organizations? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2365.
Grabo, A., Spisak, B.R., Van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary
perspective on charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 473–485.
Guzmán, V.E., Muschard, B., Gerolamo, M., Kohl, H., Rozenfeld, H. (2020).
Characteristics and skills of leadership in the context of industry 4.0. Procedia
Manufacturing, 43, 543–550.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Leadership Situazionale. Sperling & Kupfer,
Milan.
Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for formulating a
digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2).
Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism.
Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 165–178.
Hoch, J.E., Bommer, W.H., Dulebohn, J.H., Donguyuan, W. (2018). Do ethical,
authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond
transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2),
501–529.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
269–277.
Ishimaru, T. (2020). Presenteeism and absenteeism: Implications from a study of job
insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health, 62(1), 12158.
Johns, G. (2008). Absenteeism and presenteeism: Not at work or not working well.
In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Cooper, C.L. and Barling, J.
(eds). Sage, London.
Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 519–542.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership:
A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(5), 755–768.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R.G., Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 765–780.
Kaplan, J. (2015). Humans Need Not Apply: A Guide to Wealth and Work in the Age
of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in
occupational health psychology. Work Stress, 24(3), 260–279.
Kelly, R. (2018). Constructing Leadership 4.0. Swarm Leadership and the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1980). Organizational Paradoxes: Clinical Approaches to
Management. Tavistock, New York.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993). Leader, giullari e impostori. Sulla psicologia della
leadership, Raffaello Cortina, Milano.
Kniffin, K.M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F. (2020). COVID-19 and the workplace:
Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American
Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.
Krasikova, D.V., Green, S.G., LeBreton, J.M. (2013). Destructive leadership:
A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of
Management, 39(5), 1308–1338.
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A., Buelens, M. (1999). Organizational Behaviour.
McGraw-Hill, London.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., White, R. (1939). Pattern of aggressive behavior in

experimentally created social climates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2),
271–299.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lussier, R.N. and Achua, C.F. (2001). Leadership. South-Western College
Publishing, Mason.
Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and
performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241–270.
McCall, M.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the Track: Why and How
Successful Executives Get Derailed. Center for Creative Leadership, Colorado
Springs.
McDowall, A. and Kinman, G. (2017). The new nowhere land: A research and
practice agenda for the always on culture. Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(3), 256–266.
Mckenna, E. (2000). Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour.
Psychology Press, Hove.
Meijman, T. and Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In
Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, Drenth, P. and De Wolff, C.
(eds). Psychology Press, Hobe.
Molino, M., Cortese, C.G., Ghislieri, C. (2019). Unsustainable working conditions:
The association of destructive leadership, use of technology, and workload with
workaholism and exhaustion. Sustainability, 11(2), 446.
Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M.L., Russo, V., Zito, M.,
Cortese, C.G. (2020). Wellbeing costs of technology use during Covid-19 remote
working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress
creators scale. Sustainability, 12(15), 5911.
Mumford, T., Campion, M., Morgeson, F. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex:
Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 154–166.
Oberer, B. and Erkollar, A. (2018). Leadership 4.0: Digital leaders in the age of
industry 4.0. International Journal of Organizational Leadership [Online].
Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3337644 [Accessed 10 April 2021].
O’Donoghue, A., Conway, E., Bosak, J. (2016). Abusive supervision, employee
well-being and ill-being: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. In
Research on Emotion in Organizations: Volume 12. Emotions and
Organizational Governance, Ashkanasy, N.M., Härtel, C.E.J., Zerbe, W.J. (eds).
Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Paulhus, D.L. and Williams, K.M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6),
556–563.
Pelletier, K.L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior
and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373–389.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:
Toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management
Science, 29, 363–377.
Riggio, R.E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., Maroosis, J.A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement
of ethical leadership: The leadership virtues – Questionnaire. Consulting
Psychology Journal Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.
Rudolph, C.W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F., Shockley,
K., Shoss, M., Sonnentag, S., Zacher, H. (2020). Pandemics: Implications for
Research and Practice in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ruhle, S.A. and Süß, S. (2020). Presenteeism and absenteeism at work – An analysis
of archetypes of sickness attendance cultures. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 35(2), 241–255.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-
resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging
Occupational, Organizational and Public Health, Bauer, G.F. and Hamming, O.
(eds). Springer, Dordrecht.
Schein, E. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28.
Schein, E. (2017). Cultura d’azienda e Leadership, 5th edition. Translated by
S. Parmigiani. Raffaello Cortina, Milan.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum,
Geneva.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders?
A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.
Spain, S.M., Harms, P., Lebreton, J.M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S41–S60.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factor associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and
Measurement. Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Columbus.
Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmidt, W.H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern.
Harvard Business Review, 36, 95–105.
Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis,
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.
Väänänen, A., Toppinen-Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., Mutanen, P., Vahtera, J., Peiró,
J.M. (2003). Job characteristics, physical and psychological symptoms, and
social support as antecedents of sickness absence among men and women in the
private industrial sector. Social Sciences and Medicine, 57(5), 807–824.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., Van Knippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and
fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 16(2), 113–140.
professionnel, familial et social. Le Travail Humain, 82(1), 1–39.
Walumba, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., Peterson, S.J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.
Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.
Webster, V., Brough, P., Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses
for follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress Health, 32(4), 346–354.
Weldon, M. (2016). The Future Network. A Bell Labs Perspective. CRC Press,
Boca Raton.
PART 2
Telework: Organizational,
Collective and Individual Issues

4
Telework: What is at Stake for

Health, Quality of Life at Work
and Management Methods?
4.1. Introduction
Imposed home teleworking has experienced an exceptional boom during

the Covid-19 pandemic that hit the world in early 2020. While this form of
work organization existed prior to the pandemic, particularly in large
international groups and large-scale public structures, it was still relatively
rare in most European countries (less than 10% of the working population on
average (Eurostat 2020)). The public health situation since 2020 and the
periods of lockdown have made this practice more visible and commonplace,
resulting in a strong media focus on the issue of home-based telework
(whether forced or not). However, since the early 2000s, a significant
number of empirical studies have already been conducted to understand the
impact of telework on organizations, employees and their entourage (Vayre
2019). They have focused specifically on regular, formalized telework,
which is most likely to have significant and observable impacts, compared to
casual and informal telework (Troup and Rose 2012). This work has also
tended to focus on home-based telework, which is more prevalent than
mobile telework or telework in dedicated third-party spaces (Vayre 2019).
In the current context, and with the knowledge that telework will
undoubtedly continue to spread in the wake of the social and economic
Chapter written by Émilie VAYRE, Julie DEVIF, Thibault GACHET-MAUROZ and Christine
MORIN-MESSABEL.
crisis, this chapter aims to report on the issues and effects of telework in
three major ways. The first is an examination of the literature on telework
and its impact on the workload, working conditions and health of
teleworkers. Secondly, we will report on investigations into the challenges of
telework and how well this aligns with our day-to-day lives and gender
equality. Finally, taking into account the findings of the previous sections,
we will report on studies of managerial culture and practices in mediated and
remote work situations. In each of these parts, we will suggest ways of
thinking about and recommending the deployment of telework in the
organizations of the future in a way that respects the health of employees and
their quality of life at work.
4.2. Telework: a challenge for social cohesion and health at work
The benefits of telework from the point of view of professional activity

are relatively well identified in scientific studies in the field. Teleworking
reduces the distractions frequently encountered in the usual work
environment, along with the interruptions to work activity and the stress they
generate, and thus increases concentration (Fonner and Roloff 2010; Biron
and Van Veldhoven 2016). Nevertheless, these initial findings call into
question the context, i.e. the characteristics of the work environments and
the working conditions that employees experience when working on their
employer’s premises. Thus, for some authors, the deterioration of working
conditions and the intensification of work are likely to be at the origin of the
deployment of more flexible forms of work (Bathini and Kandathil 2019).
This form of work organization is also recognized as being able to favor

the efficiency and quality of work as well as performance and productivity
(Martin and MacDonnell 2012; McNaughton et al. 2014; Vega et al. 2015).
On the other hand, since the early 2000s, researchers have been looking at
the intensification, , densification and extension of work associated with
telework (Kelliher and Anderson 2010; Putnam et al. 2014; Solís 2016). In
other words, they believe that teleworkers do not necessarily work better, but
do more work over longer periods and mobilize more resources to perform
their tasks. Thus, research results vary when it comes to examining the
effects of teleworking.
Telework: What is at Stake for Health, Quality of Life and Management Methods? 77
4.2.1. Telework, risks of discrimination and health degradation
A number of studies show that teleworkers tend to allocate the time

previously spent commuting to their work activities(Maruyama et al. 2009;
Vayre and Pignault 2014). However, there are many other factors that can
explain their over-commitment. In this sense, several studies reveal the
importance of psychosocial processes at work, especially those associated
with the representations of telework and the organizational norms in force.
Indeed, some employees feel indebted to their employer and manager for
granting them the “privilege” of remote working and go the extra mile to
repay this debt by engaging in forms of overwork in exchange for the
flexibility they get (Chesley 2010; Kelliher and Anderson 2010). According
to Bathini and Kandathil (2019), the dominant discourse associated with the
deployment of telework in companies, which emphasizes the benefits of this
form of working and reinforces the idea that it is a privilege which not
everyone has access to, is a negotiation strategy which supports managerial
and organizational policies. It leads workers to accept working conditions
and labor costs that they would not have agreed to if they were imposed in a
“traditional” work setting. The deployment of telework as envisaged by the
authors thus reinforces the benefit–cost asymmetry between the employer
and the employee, reveals a significant gap between the dominant discourse
within organizations and the reality of everyday working practices and is
ultimately a means of inhibiting resistance and opposition to the
intensification of work.
Teleworkers are also likely to experience a form of internalized guilt

(Metzger and Cléach 2004; Moe and Shandy 2010) because they feel
“lucky” to be able to work without certain constraints, i.e. avoiding
commuting and the stress of transport and distancing themselves from
harmful work environments. This feeling of guilt can generate a form of
pressure and push them to want to do more and to work without limits, to the
point of professional burnout.
The way telework is perceived and judged by others, with a risk of

creating a divide between those who do and those who do less, and those
who work and those who work less, can also weaken social cohesion (Greer
and Payne 2014; Vayre and Pignault 2014). Perceptions of telework often
have negative connotations and are sources of mistrust, and even hostility,
on the part of managers and teammates, who no longer have the usual visual
indicators for assessing the professional investment and activities effectively

carried out by teleworkers. The activation of prejudices and discriminatory
behaviors within and between teams, combined with the fear of losing
recognition from peers and management, are also recognized as a source of
overinvestment in work (Taskin and Edwards 2007; Greer and Payne 2014).
As a result, some teleworkers adopt strategies for using technology to make
themselves visible and accessible, including during non-working hours, in
order to (re)evidence their dedication and commitment to the organization
(Greer and Payne 2014). According to teleworkers, the purpose of such
behaviors is both aimed at counteracting the stigma associated with physical
absence (Sewell and Taskin 2015) and ensuring that they benefit from career
progression opportunities (McDonald et al. 2008).
Empirical studies in this area show, moreover, that the more employees
telework, the less likely they are to benefit from promotions and wage
increases (Golden and Eddleston 2020). The only way to break with these
trends and not be penalized by this mode of work organization is for
employees to extend their working days and hours beyond the formal work
schedule (Golden and Eddleston 2020). Indeed, current organizational norms
and requirements (always-on cultures) generate a mechanism of control and
normative pressure associated with the definition of the ideal worker, who
must be constantly connected, reachable anywhere and at any time, work
without counting the hours, and make many sacrifices to meet organizational
expectations (Derks et al. 2015; Bathini and Kandathil 2019; Charalampous
et al. 2019). These norms conveyed more or less implicitly through
managerial policies, and internalized by managers and peers, are likely to
reinforce the phenomena of overinvestment by teleworkers.
In the face of the organizational and psychosocial mechanisms at work,

the strategies deployed by teleworkers are likely to lead them to close
themselves off in a negative spiral that is harmful to their physical and
mental health. Telework is, in fact, recognized as a source of overwork,
workaholism, professional stress and even burnout (Montreuil and Lippel
2003; Metzger and Cléach 2004; Peters et al. 2008; Ortar 2009). Moreover,
in line with the findings of international scientific research, major surveys
conducted in France before the pandemic observed a significant link
between the development of telework and exposure to psychosocial risks in
various organizations, in terms of unpredictable schedules, perception of an
excessive workload and tension with work colleagues (Anact 2015;
Dares 2016).
But the risks of teleworking at home also concern the physical health of
those who practice it. The disorders associated with prolonged screen work
(eye fatigue, eye disorders, headaches) are already well known (Cail 2014).
However, studies in the field also show that teleworkers are more exposed to
the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders, which manifest themselves in
the form of neck, shoulder, lumbar, wrist and hand pain, because they are
less interrupted, take fewer and shorter breaks, and move around less when
working from home (Montreuil and Lippel 2003). This last observation,
coupled with the prolonged sitting posture, simultaneously raises the
question of the highly sedentary nature of teleworking. Studies underline the
positive links between exposure to sedentary behavior, often of professional
origin, and mental health problems, weight gain, obesity, the occurrence of
cardiovascular pathologies and an increase in all-cause mortality (Biswas
et al. 2015; Desbrosses 2020).
4.2.2. Preventing the risks of discrimination, unequal treatment

and damage to health
The scientific studies referred to in section 4.2.1 highlight the potentially

harmful effects of telework. To prevent these risks, a transformation of the
conception of work and its organization must be initiated within the
structures which wish to propose this form of working or to make more use
of it. This involves the concerted development of mechanisms for
experimenting with and regulating telework, the redefinition of criteria for
evaluating employee involvement and a change in the perceptions conveyed
about teleworkers (Greer and Payne 2014).
Organizations would benefit from developing clear and concrete policies

to support and accompany telework, while leaving the possibility for
everyone to engage in telework (or not) in order to guarantee a climate of
equity, non-discrimination, in terms of promotion and career advancement
opportunities and in terms of the conditions for carrying out the work
activity (working hours and working time (Gálvez et al. 2012)). The way
telework is conceived also deserves to be discussed and to evolve so that it is
no longer seen as a privilege. A dialogue within organizations, addressing
the criteria for telework allocation from the point of view of the activity (and
no longer of the job or position), the discussion of the distribution of
tasks considered as “teleworkable” within teams, departments and the
organization, along with the inclusion of these issues in the framework of job
and skills management, are also likely to help prevent discrimination and
health problems among teleworkers.
Maximizing the number of workers who can, if they wish, access

telework is a major issue of professional equality and organizational justice.
Indeed, studies show that workers who are not eligible to telework (while
others in the organization have access to it) are less satisfied with their jobs,
have more desire to leave the company and consider that the company issues
unfair decisions (Lee and Kim 2018). The procedures for accessing this form
of work should also be collectively defined and communicated in a precise
and transparent manner. It would be appropriate to decentralize access to
telework from the manager–employee relationship to avoid “case-by-case”
scenarios and forms of subjectivity.
From an organizational point of view, the contractualized dimension of

telework is an important element to consider, as it encourages the
formalization of arrangements to accompany and support the move to
telework (in terms of equipment, technical assistance, management, training,
etc.). In order to prevent occupational risks, we have stressed the need to
provide teleworkers with suitable equipment, office furniture and workplans,
and to help them with setting up their workstations at home as well as with
setting up their workstations in their personal environment. In the same vein,
it is necessary to engage in a dialogue and arbitration regarding the
organization of their activities (i.e. the rotation of activities that either rely
on or do not rely on technologies, break and recovery time, etc.). On this last
point, work organizations have a major role to play in raising awareness,
deliberating and supporting the control and delimitation of working time and
connection time in order to avoid overflow work and work overload,
facilitated by the use of mobile technologies and at the origin of the
encroachment of work on private life (we will return to this in section 4.3).
Some studies reveal, moreover, that the formalization of telework directly

affects the way it will be accepted and perceived by all the members of the
organization, its social legitimacy, the establishment of relations of trust
between all the employees (whether they are teleworkers or not) and the
development of social control behaviors on the part of the employees (high
in the case of non-formal telework and perceived as having little social
legitimacy, according to Taskin and Bridoux (2010)).
In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize that while the knowledge

gained from scientific work in this area can inform and guide choices about
telework arrangements and support, these choices are the responsibility of
each organization. They should not, however, be decided unilaterally. These
arrangements should be worked out, discussed and negotiated collectively,
depending on the needs, requirements and constraints, as well as on the
resources specific to the activity, the workers, the groups and the work
organization.
4.3. Telework space–time: work–life balance and gender equality
Another well-known advantage of teleworking – which is among those

most frequently mentioned – concerns flexibility, autonomy, control over
working time and organization of activities (Maruyama et al. 2009;
Sardeshmukh et al. 2012; McNaughton et al. 2014). Teleworkers effectively
have the freedom to structure their work activities; they can choose where,
when and how to work, depending on their work requirements and
constraints as well as on their personal preferences and obligations (Pyöriä
2011; Boell et al. 2016).
While the prevailing narrative is that more flexible forms of work and
telework can improve the quality of life and lead to a better balance between
work and “non-work” life, studies show that counterintuitively teleworkers
work longer hours, put in more effort, are more responsive and make
themselves more available than when working on-site (Taskin and Edwards
2007; Kelliher and Anderson 2010; Putnam et al. 2014).
The autonomy and flexibility offered by the use of technology therefore

seems to come at a significant cost: that of having to define the boundaries
between the professional and private spheres, as well as not allowing oneself
to be invaded by work. Teleworkers are, in fact, confronted with the paradox
of being able to free themselves from the spatio-temporal constraints of work
while at the same time having the feeling of being forced to respond to
professional requests and having to continue their work activity outside the
hours usually dedicated to work (Ter Hoeven and Van Zoonen 2015).
However, it is well known that irregular work rhythms and work overload
can lead to a lack of decent rest time, sleep disorders and physical and
emotional fatigue (van Hooff et al. 2006).
4.3.1. Telework and the relationship between work and non-work

life
This paradox is illustrated by the very mixed results of studies on the

impact of telework on work–life balance.
Indeed, some studies highlight the positive impact of telework on

work–life balance. They emphasize the gains in terms of flexibility and
temporal availability associated with this form of working, as teleworkers no
longer have to travel to their place of work and have more control over the
time of day they devote to work and to “non-work” (Metzger and Cléach
2004; Maruyama et al. 2009; Sardeshmukh et al. 2012; Vayre and Pignault
2014). Telework thus allows for better management, organization,
prioritization of the various activities to be accomplished and better
reconciliation of the multiple roles to be assumed, promoting the perception
of well-being, a feeling of serenity and a better quality of life (Gajendra and
Harrison 2007; Dumas and Ruiller 2014; Duxbury and Halinski 2014).
Nevertheless, even if teleworkers manage to invest and better reconcile their
professional and family spheres, they tend, on the other hand, to disinvest
their personal and social spheres, as they have little time to take care of
themselves, rest, practice leisure activities or go out when they telework
(Hilbrecht et al. 2008; Ortar 2009; Vayre and Pignault 2014).
But telework also has negative effects on the work–life balance. Indeed, it
is often difficult for teleworkers to cope with both work and family demands,
to respond to work and family demands or to regulate the pressure they feel
in both areas of their lives (Golden et al. 2006; Ortar 2009). They underline
their difficulties in (re)establishing a boundary between their different
spheres of activity, , in not spreading themselves too thinly, in containing
and not allowing themselves to be invaded by work, which is becoming
omnipresent, and in carrying out professional and personal activities in the
same space–time without disruption (Metzger and Cléach 2004; Ortar 2009;
Wilton et al. 2011; Dumas and Ruiller 2014; McNaughton et al. 2014; Vayre
and Pignault 2014). The extension of work activities and spillover work
practices on teleworked days are particularly conducive to the perception of
work–life conflict (Solís 2016).
As a result, the emergence of misunderstandings, tensions and conflicts

with family and friends as well as an increase in stress in the private sphere,
from the point of view of the teleworker as well as that of his or her
colleagues, are frequently reported (Metzger and Cléach 2004; Ortar 2009;
Wilton et al. 2011; McNaughton et al. 2014; Vayre and Pignault 2014). The
porosity of boundaries, the interference between life domains and the
intrusion of work into private life thus lead to disruptions in the performance
of work activities and difficulties with concentration, as well as a feeling of
guilt, pressure and unease in both the professional and personal realms.
Finally, some studies underline the isolation of teleworkers, which is
associated with a lack of interaction with friendship and social circles during
telework days because of an increase in sedentary behavior (Hilbrecht et al.
2008; Vayre and Pignault 2014).
However, the results of these studies need to be qualified, as the impact

of telework on work–life balance is not mechanical and linear.
They depend, first of all, on the type of telework. Telework at home

implies above all difficulties in finding a balance between the time and
energy invested in work and those invested in “non-work”, as well as in
delimiting these activities (Camps 2008; Vayre and Pignault 2014). Nomadic
telework, which is more often carried out outside the home, has a negative
impact on the reconciliation of work and “outside work” because of the
centrality of the professional sphere. Because of their frequent travel,
nomadic teleworkers have, in fact, a more intense and concentrated
professional activity and a higher weekly working time than home-based
teleworkers or on-site workers (Camps 2008; Vayre and Pignault 2014).
While working in a dedicated third place facilitates the establishment of a
frontier between work and non-work life and reduces the risk of overflow
work, it does not reduce professional isolation and invisibility (Dumas and
Ruiller 2014).
It is also important to consider the intensity of telework in order to assess

its impact. For example, Solís (2016) shows that the more weekly days
teleworked, the less interference teleworkers perceive between their work
and family life. According to the author, the more employees are present and
work from home, the more they are forced to rigorously organize their
activity and establish strategies to avoid conflict between these two domains
of existence. The same applies to the quality of life perceived by teleworkers
(feeling of security and well-being, good social integration and decent living
conditions): the more frequent telework, the higher it is (Vittersø et al.
2003). In contrast, the general life satisfaction felt by their partner is lower in
this case. The latter point to a spill-over effect of work problems into the
private sphere, with the high workload of teleworkers creating an unbalanced

division of domestic labor (to the partner’s disadvantage).
Living and working conditions at home are also a significant factor to

consider. The comparative study by Solís (2017) shows that telework
contributes to a reduction in the perception of work–life conflict among
people with few family and domestic responsibilities (compared to people
who do not telework). Those who have one or more dependents at home or
telework at home in the presence of a third party, on the other hand, perceive
more conflict (Solís 2016, 2017).
The design and appropriation of a physical workspace within the home,

having a dedicated room, associated with certain behaviors, rules and rituals,
in consultation with one’s personal environment, allow an individual to
separate the work environment from the rest of the home, both spatially and
psychologically (role transition), establish a separation between the
professional and private spheres and avoid spillover work (Fonner and
Stache 2012; Dumas and Ruiller 2014; Greer and Payne 2014; Vayre and
Pignault 2014; Solís 2016).
Finally, the acquisition and/or development of organizational skills, such

as negotiating arrangements with family members, also modulate the effects
of telework on the work/non-work balance. Research shows that telework
generates positive consequences in terms of life balance and mutual
enrichment between work and “non-work” only if teleworkers develop skills
in terms of planning and self-management of work activities (setting goals to
be achieved, identifying and prioritizing tasks to be accomplished,
anticipating time slots and structuring the telework day) and implementing a
rigorous temporal organization of activities (Dumas and Ruiller 2014; Greer
and Payne 2014; Vayre and Pignault 2014).
4.3.2. Telework and gender (in)equality
To our knowledge, there are relatively few pre-pandemic field studies on

the gender-differentiated effects of telework.
Nevertheless, several studies suggest that gender modulates the effects

of telework on the organization of activities and their delimitation.
Alizadeh (2012) thus looked at the activities carried out by teleworkers
(part-time or full-time, at home or in a telecenter), and more precisely during
their break periods. The results indicate that men use these breaks for
activities outside the home (running, picking up children from school), while
women tend to use them for activities within the home. They are therefore
more likely than men to be affected by social isolation and a sedentary
lifestyle, and their deleterious effects on health associated with home-based
telework (see section 4.1).
In a complementary way, Troup and Rose (2012) note that, compared to

informal teleworking versus not teleworking, formal teleworking is more
likely to favor the perception of an equitable sharing of tasks among men, as
their participation is thus formalized and legitimized. On the other hand,
informal telework is more likely to foster this same perception among
women, who in this case feel less pressure and obligation in the family
sphere and can use this type of arrangement only if they feel the need to do
so.
Finally, women who telework find it harder to recover (rest, energy vs.
mental and physical fatigue before, during and after the workday) compared
to those who do not telework, while the opposite is true for men who
telework compared to those who do not (Hartig et al. 2007). Women also
perceive a greater psychological overlap between work and private life as
they find it harder to mentally delineate these two spheres compared to men
who telework.
The imbalance in the distribution of domestic and family tasks, and the
double burden of organizing the family and professional spheres, has an
immediate impact on women’s mental workload, fatigue and health
(Cambois 2016), as well as raises the question of their longer-term effects on
career development. There are several reasons to scrutinize this area.
First, successive surveys conducted by INSEE over the past 30 years

(Champagne et al. 2015) continue to show that women still do more
household and parental tasks than men (71% and 65%, respectively), which
represents about two hours of additional daily work compared to men.
Moreover, as we mentioned in section 4.2, the current management and

evaluation systems associated with internal promotion, the organizational
requirements and the social norms they convey refer to high expectations in
terms of availability, accessibility and responsiveness. Yet, time remains an
incompressible and limited commodity, and time devoted to the family and
domestic sphere cannot be devoted to the professional sphere.
Two surveys carried out in France, targeting the period of the first lockdown
(March–April–May 2020), have shown that the practice of teleworking reveals deep
inequalities, particularly those relating to gender: the COronavirus and
CONfinement survey (COCONEL), carried out by the Institut national d’études
démographiques (Ined), and the monthly household survey (Camme) carried out by
the Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee).
These surveys show that, when employed, women telework as much as men, but
under worse conditions.
Childcare was more likely to be provided by women: overall, 83% of women

living with children spent more than four hours a day providing childcare (compared
to 57% of men) and 6% spent between two and four hours a day (compared to 19%
of men). Of those in employment who were not on special leave for childcare, 80%
of women spent more than four hours per day with children (compared to 52% of
men) and 45% worked a “double day” at work and at home, spending more than
four hours per day working and four hours with children, compared to 29% of men.
Thirty-five percent of those with children had difficulty keeping up with their
schoolwork. This difficulty is more often experienced by women (41% compared to
28% of men), particularly in employment (38% of employed women report this
difficulty compared to 29% of men).
From the point of view of their working conditions at home, more often
surrounded by children (48% of teleworking women were living with one or more
children at the time of lockdown, compared to 37% of men), women are less likely
to have a room of their own. On average, a quarter of women telework in a
dedicated room where they can be alone, compared to 41% of men: most of the
time, they have to share their workspace with their children or other members of the
household (42% of women compared to 26% of men). The gender gap reaches
maximum levels within the professional and managerial staff group: 29% of female
professional and managerial staff have a room specifically dedicated to telework,
compared to 47% of male professional and managerial staff.
Box 4.1. Two surveys on gender inequality

during spring 2020 in France
Finally, some studies point out that the geographical and

socio-occupational distance of teleworkers affects their career development,
which is more likely to stagnate among teleworkers, as they miss out on
professional opportunities for advancement and promotion due to their
physical absence (Gálvez et al. 2012; Golden and Eddleston 2020).
It is important to note that the crisis and the health measures taken during
the lockdown periods made gender inequalities at work particularly visible
(see Box 4.1). Studies have shown that inequalities in the distribution of
domestic tasks and responsibilities during the lockdown periods have more
negatively affected the well-being, job satisfaction and productivity of
female teleworkers, compared to male teleworkers (Collins et al. 2020; Feng
and Savani 2020).
These findings give rise to concerns that forms of mediated and remote
work at home may reinforce existing inequalities between women and men
in these areas and ultimately hinder women’s career development (Collins
et al. 2020).
4.3.3. Preserving life balance and gender equality in the

workplace
The results of the empirical work and the major national surveys
presented above provide the basis for an organizational, social, responsible
and egalitarian policy towards teleworkers. Indeed, new forms of work
organization should not, as some fear, be a way for organizations to absorb
the increase in workload at no extra cost and to solve the difficulties posed
by the deterioration of working conditions, by letting people believe that
they will necessarily and effectively allow employees to regain a balance
between their professional and personal lives, gain autonomy and improve
their quality of life (Bathini and Kandathil 2019).
The increasing complexity of the delimitation of the professional sphere,

inherent in home-based telework, requires the establishment and control of
boundaries in order to reduce tensions and conflicts between work and
non-work life as well as their negative effects on performance and
well-being (Dumas and Ruiller 2014). Certain conditions, which have
already been mentioned, must be respected so that telework is not
counterproductive either for the organization, the employee or their personal
environment. The need to have a separate room dedicated to work, to

rigorously delimit work time–spaces and establish a framework to avoid
overinvestment, to develop self-organization skills, and to (re)negotiate the
boundaries of work and “non-work” within the family unit itself are essential
to ensure decent working conditions and preserve the different aspects of life
(Dumas and Ruiller 2014; Solís 2016; Gądecki et al. 2018). The
responsibility and social control of working time, along with the construction
of regulations and norms in this area, are no longer devolved to work
organizations and managers but fall to teleworkers and their personal
network (Dumas and Ruiller 2014).
The development of such skills, including the establishment of rules of

operation and rituals in consultation with others in the family and social
spheres, is gradual and takes time. These skills are not self-evident and
require employers to implement awareness-raising, training, support and
guidance in these areas (Vayre 2019). Indeed, the development of a
work–life organizational and managerial culture, which takes parenthood
into account, supports practices in favor of professional equality and seeks to
respond to reconciliation issues to avoid dissymmetry between the different
areas of life, intrusions and encroachment of work on “non-work” is a
critical factor for the success of telework (Dumas and Ruiller 2014).
As mentioned in Chapter 1, current questions about the boundary and

balance between professional and private life, the ability to disconnect from
work and to draw a line between work and “non-work” are in line with the
reflections on the “right to disconnect” (Vayre and Vonthron 2019).
Although some major international groups have developed charters of good
practice in this area over the past few years, the formalization of
organizational mechanisms needs to be reinforced. It is therefore necessary
to pursue the steps already taken within work organizations (and where this
is not the case, to initiate a dialogue to this end) in order to establish
negotiated internal policies on (tele)working time and the professional use of
technologies, which protect employees from their harmful consequences.
Finally, given that the current crisis has exacerbated gender inequalities
and the difficulties faced by women, public enterprises and institutions must
be particularly attentive to the gender dimension of their actions (ILO 2020).
Leaders, managers and administrators who are fully aware of the unequal
gendered impact of the crisis and understand the reasons for it will be able to
implement appropriate intervention plans. The promotion of work–family
policies and measures is also an opportunity to encourage men to share

domestic and parental tasks equally. It is important to create equal
opportunities for female and male teleworkers and to provide them with
viable options for balance and quality of life. Telework imposed by
lockdown rules and social distancing alerts us to the risk of regressing on
gender equality, and the telework of the future must not hinder efforts to
achieve diversity and inclusion in work organizations (ILO 2020).
4.4. Telework: a challenge for management policy and culture
The way in which telework affects the manager–employee relationship

has also given rise to much debate and research. Indeed, the deployment of
telework calls into question the processes of evaluation and control of
productivity, as well as of employee investment, which are the responsibility
of managers (Pyöriä 2011; Boell et al. 2016). However, the autonomy
granted to teleworkers reinforces managers’ fear of losing control over their
employees’ activity. As work is difficult to observe and less visible
remotely, managers may feel uncomfortable with the idea of no longer
having the ability to evaluate the work and performance of their team
members. They may sometimes worry that they will have to spend more
time communicating with their team members, animating, coordinating and
regulating individual and collective work, and ensuring the distribution of
efforts made by each employee, as remote work implies transformations of
activities, processes, scope and composition of work units (Beham et al.
2015).
Management styles and organizational culture in many countries,

including France, are based on bureaucratic organizations, presenteeism and
control, and have understandably not been conducive to the deployment of
telework, at least until the global health crisis hit in early 2020.
Organizational cultures based on work–life balance norms and values and
committed to the development of formal telework policies and arrangements
are more conducive to telework deployment (Beham et al. 2015).
4.4.1. Telework, managerial dynamics and remote team

management
Empirical studies in the field show how managerial dynamics are affected
by telework and physical absence (Charalampous et al. 2019). Even when
the tasks to be performed are teleworkable, the appropriate technological

tools are available and organizational norms are in favor of telework,
managers refuse to grant this form of working to subordinates in whom they
have little or no confidence (Kaplan et al. 2018). Moreover, even when a
trusting relationship is already in place, it is called into question by
teleworking, as teleworkers systematically perceive an increase in
supervisory behavior from their direct manager when working remotely
(Sewell and Taskin 2015).
Work in the field has already shown that work organizations and
managers who (i) recognize and value the work done, show satisfaction with
the work done, (ii) are supportive in terms of providing help, information
and advice, as well as encourage, listen and empathize, (iii) allow room for
maneuver and give autonomy, who learn to delegate and trust, through the
measures, policies and practices they deploy, promote teleworkers’ intra-role
performance, proactivity, adaptability, involvement and job satisfaction, life
balance and psychological health, and protect them from feeling isolated and
hindered in their career prospects (Sardeshmukh et al. 2012; Bentley et al.
2016; Solís 2017; Suh and Lee 2017; de Vries et al. 2018; Charalampous et
al. 2019; Nakrošienė et al. 2019).
On the other hand, when organizations (i) have a culture and managerial
policies involving strict rules and a very hierarchical structure, (ii) they lead
employees to feel under pressure and monitored. When managers (i) seek to
closely control the work and the manner in which it is done, (ii) they demand
the execution of tasks and results in reduced or even untenable deadlines and
they request them urgently while demanding immediate responses, (iii) they
mobilize them in an intrusive way outside of temporalities which are in
principle dedicated to life “outside of work”. Under such conditions,
teleworkers tend to perform worse, feel stressed, feel overwhelmed and, over
time, experience professional burnout (Vander Elst et al. 2017; Choi 2020;
Dolce et al. 2020).
However, while there is agreement that telework is conducive to the

development of management by objectives, it should not mean that
employees are left to their own devices, without social and temporal
reference points on which to rely, leading to anxiety and counter-productive
behavior. Indeed, when managers do not give sufficient information to their
teleworking team members about the work objectives to be achieved or the
criteria for assessing their performance, this can lead to feelings of being left
out, fear of being assigned the least interesting tasks, and forms of
uncertainty and anxiety that can lead to burnout (Montreuil and Lippel
2003).
Another challenge for managers concerns the supervision of teams whose

activity and modes of cooperation are affected by telework. The
mediatization of interactions and the dispersion of teammates alter their
ability to co-construct knowledge and know-how (Pyöriä 2011; Sarker et al.
2012). The qualitative study by Boell et al. (2016) demonstrates the extent to
which certain activities require engaging in discussions, sharing ideas, and
comparing and contrasting possibilities in order to make the most
appropriate decisions. The same applies to teamwork activities, which
require an interactional dynamic, both within teams and between different
teams or departments. Physical proximity is also conducive to the sharing of
information and documents, to the possibility of benefiting from advice and
immediate evaluative feedback, formally and/or informally, as well as to the
feeling of integration and belonging to a group (Sewell and Taskin 2015).
However, telework is recognized as deteriorating communication and

co-operation within work teams as well as the quality of professional
relations (McNaughton et al. 2014). The mediatization of relations inhibits
informal relations and spontaneous exchanges, making it more difficult to
share moments of conviviality and regulate tensions, which are nonetheless
essential for work accomplishment, performance, involvement and
professional fulfilment (Golden et al. 2008; Fay and Kline 2011; Vayre and
Pignault 2014; Vayre 2019). The risks of professional and social isolation,
the exclusion of teleworkers and the fragmentation and division of work
collectives are also frequently mentioned (Hislop and Axtell 2007; Wilton
et al. 2011; Sewell and Taskin 2015; Collins et al. 2016).
4.4.2. Transforming organizational culture and managerial

practices
Telework implies a transformation of the organization of work and work

that goes far beyond a simple redistribution or transfer of tasks to be
performed. To prevent these potentially harmful effects, we must bring about
a major change in organizational and managerial culture. This requires the
development of a genuine company policy concerning this new form of
working, the redefinition of managerial practices and the evolution of the
processes for assessing professional efficiency and performance (Greer and

Payne 2014).
In this perspective, organizations have an interest in implementing human

resource and management policies that strengthen teleworkers’ inclusion,
identity and sense of belonging. They can do this by developing
organizational social support systems, reaffirming the organization’s
identity, goals, norms and values to teleworkers, promoting the
establishment/maintenance of quality relationships, and support between
teleworkers and other employees of the organization, while ensuring the
sharing and dissemination of information, knowledge and skills within the
organization to support the organizational socialization of all its members
(Taskin and Bridoux 2010; Bentley et al. 2016; de Vries et al. 2018).
The development of this kind of organizational project needs to be based

on a collective approach. Telework is often thought of in its individual or
inter-individual (manager–subordinate) dimension. The processes of
implementing telework need to be thought through and to established work
arrangements, taking into account the needs and constraints of the individual
activity and the people, as well as the needs and constraints of the collective
activity and the work team, along with their articulation with the needs and
constraints of other teams or departments within the work organization. A
discussion on the organization of (tele)work will be an opportunity to define
and organize work activities by considering the people, the groups and their
interrelations.
The deployment of telework also implies a cultural change within work

collectives (Ruiller et al. 2017). Managers need to be comfortable with the
idea of affording their subordinates the freedom to organize their work
activities as they see fit, and able to delegate and adopt decentralized work
management (Mello 2007). Yet, they must also be able to consolidate their
own managerial positioning and develop management skills for remote
teams in order to propose new benchmarks and objectives to the dispersed
teams, to strengthen their collective identity, to encourage interactions, to
maintain social links and to maintain a sense of proximity and belonging,
while taking into account the health and life balance issues associated with
telework (Seely 2016; Ruiller et al. 2017). In other words, just like
teleworkers, they should be able to benefit from formal training programs in
order to become aware of the difficulties faced by teleworkers and develop
new supervision and support practices (Lautsch and Kossek 2011). This is
rarely the case in practice (Greer and Payne 2014).
According to Frimousse and Peretti (2020), the period of the pandemic

was marked by a fundamental change: the organization of work relied
entirely on field managers instead of being controlled. Actors, at all levels of
the organization, recognized the fundamental role of local managers. They
embodied a response to the crisis, were able to convey strong values, took
care of their team and returned to their core business. The future
organization of work can be envisaged by refocusing the role of managers on
the issues of (i) leadership, coordination, organization of team activities, as
well as links with inter-team activities, (ii) establishment of a dialogue on
work and work life to develop meaningful work, (iii) feedback of real work,
knowledge and recognition of real work and (iv) socio-professional
integration, career building and professional fulfilment. This period
demonstrated that it was possible and viable to adopt a more
partnership-based vision of the company, co-constructed by stakeholders,
concerned with the preservation of nature and the human species (Frimousse
and Peretti 2020).
4.5. Conclusion
While telework brings opportunities, it also brings risks in terms of health

and quality of life at work (workload, exposure to occupational risks and
psychosocial risks, work–life balance, quality of professional relations,
communication and collaboration within teams, management styles),
professional equality, inclusion and social cohesion (equal access to
telework, equal treatment, recognition, career development, gender).
Telework challenges the temporal, spatial and also social dimensions

(roles, identities, aspirations) in both the professional and private spheres
(Gądecki et al. 2018). Yet, it encompasses heterogeneous configurations and
situations depending on the way it is defined, organized, deployed,
accompanied and regulated. What is more, the multiplicity of locations,
temporalities and work activities makes it complex to analyze and
understand its own effects. How can the impact of telework be assessed
without taking into consideration the way in which this form of working is
linked to other forms of working experienced by workers (on-site work in
individual offices, open spaces, flex offices, for example)? How can the
effects be assessed without putting into perspective the work activities that
differ in nature and complexity and are carried out in different work
environments, places and times? How can we understand its impact if we do
not give ourselves the means to understand it in its collective dimension and
to grasp the repercussions on the teams and, more broadly, the professional
and personal environment of teleworkers? It is a real scientific challenge to
grasp the issues and impacts of changes in the way work is conceived and of
changes in the way people work and live now and in the future, both in terms
of developing knowledge and implementing research methods.
The health crisis is likely to shape the growth curve of telework,

especially in Europe and in France, where before the crisis, it was still a
relatively uncommon way of working (Eurostat 2020). However, the way in
which it will be used, the categories of telework that will progress and the
choices that will be made in terms of access to telework are still to be
defined. The scientific community will undoubtedly be mobilized to pursue
investigations in this field in partnership with the actors in the field, in both
the public and private sectors.
The results of empirical research carried out before the crisis period at the
national and international levels, as well as the feedback that has been
structured within work organizations, are valuable sources for feeding the
reflections and thinking about the deployment and support systems for the
post-pandemic modes of work organization “of tomorrow”. They make it
possible to identify the levers to operate and the risks to prevent with a view
to collectively designing and experimenting with work organization methods
and practices that are conducive to the quality of work, social cohesion,
inclusion and employee well-being, while taking into account the specific
characteristics of work organizations, groups and individuals.
4.6. References
Alizadeh, T. (2012). Teleworkers’ characteristics in live/work communities: Lessons

from the United States and Australia. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(3),
63–84.
Anact (2015). Guide méthodologique sur le télétravail (Premiers repères). Agence
Nationale pour l’Amélioration des Conditions de Travail, Lyon.
Bathini, D.R. and Kandathil, G.M. (2019). An orchestrated negotiated exchange:

Trading home-based telework for intensified work. Journal of Business Ethics,
154, 411–423.
Beham, B., Baierl, A., Poelmans, S. (2015). Managerial telework allowance
decisions: A vignette study among German managers. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 26(11), 1385–1406.
Bentley, T.A., Teo, S.T.T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., Gloet, M. (2016). The
role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems
approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215.
Biron, M. and van Veldhoven, M. (2016). When control becomes a liability rather
than an asset: Comparing home and office days among part-time teleworkers.
Biswas, A., Oh, P.I., Faulkner, G.E., Bajaj, R.R., Silver, M.A., Mitchelle, M.S.,
Alter, D.A. (2015). Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease
incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(2), 123–132.
Boell, S., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Campbell, J. (2016). Telework paradoxes and
practices: The importance of the nature of work. New Technology Work and
Employment, 31, 114–131.
Bureau International du Travail (2020). Répondre à la crise du COVID-19 : Réaliser
l’égalité de genre pour améliorer l’avenir des femmes au travail [Online].
Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---gender/
documents/publication/wcms_749262.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2021].
Cail, F. (2014). Écrans de visualisation. Santé et ergonomie. Éditions INRS, Paris.
Cambois, E. (2016). Des inégalités sociales de santé moins marquées chez les
femmes que chez les hommes : une question de mesure ? Revue d’épidémiologie
et de santé publique, 64(2), 75–85.
Camps, E. (2008). Sens du travail et rapports vie de travail/vie hors travail chez trois
catégories de télétravailleurs et chez les travailleurs classiques. Psychologie du
travail et des organisations, 14(4), 77–92
Champagne, C., Pailhé, A., Solaz, A. (2015). Le temps domestique et parental des
hommes et des femmes : quels facteurs d’évolutions en 25 ans ? Économie et
statistiques, 478–480, 209–242.
Charalampous, M., Grant, C., Tramontano, C., Michailidis, E. (2019).
Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A
multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 28(1), 51–73.
Chesley, N. (2010). Technology use and employee assessments of work

effectiveness, workload, and pace of life. Information, Communication &
Society, 13, 485–514.
Choi, S. (2020). Flexible work arrangements and employee retention: A longitudinal
analysis of the federal workforces. Public Personnel Management, 49(3),
470–495.
Collins, A.M., Hislop, D., Cartwright, S. (2016). Social support in the workplace
between teleworkers, office-based colleagues and supervisors. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 31, 161–175.
Collins, C., Landivar, L.C., Ruppanner, L., Scarborough, W.J. (2020). COVID-19
and the gender gap in work hours. Gender, Work Organization, 12(1), 101–112.
Dares (2016). La Prévention des risques professionnels, les mesures mises en œuvre
par les employeurs publics et privés. Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche,
des Etudes et des Statistiques, Paris.
Derks, D., Duin, D., Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. (2015). Smartphone use and
work-home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee
work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88,
155–177.
Desbrosses, K. (2020). Évaluation du comportement sédentaire au travail : quels
outils ? Références en santé au travail, 162, 51–60.
emergency telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 1–22.
Dumas, M. and Ruiller, C. (2014). Le télétravail : les risques d’un outil de gestion
des frontières entre vie personnelle et vie professionnelle ? Management &
Avenir, 8(8), 71–95.
Duxbury, L. and Halinski, M. (2014). When more is less: An examination of the
relationship between hours in telework and role overload. Work, 48(1), 91–103.
Eurostat (2020). How usual is it to work from home? [Online]. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200206-1.
Fay, M.J. and Kline, S.L. (2011). Coworker relationships and informal
communication in high-intensity telecommuting. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 39, 144–163.
Feng, Z. and Savani, K. (2020). Covid-19 created a gender gap in perceived work
productivity and job satisfaction: Implications for dual-career parents working
from home. Gender in Management, 35(7–8), 719–736.
Fonner, K.L. and Roloff, M.E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their
jobs than are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 336–361.
Fonner, K.L. and Stache, L.C. (2012). All in a day’s work, at home: Teleworkers’
management of micro role transitions and the work-home boundary.
New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 242–257.
Frimousse, S. and Peretti, J. (2020). Les répercussions durables de la crise sur le
management. Question(s) de management, 2(2), 159–243.
Gądecki, J., Jewdokimow, M., Żadkowska, M. (2018). One study, different stories:
The multi-method perspective in studying telework. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 67,
77–95.
Gajendra, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007). The good, the bad and the unknown
about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
Gálvez, A., Martínez, M.J., Pérez, C. (2012). Telework and work-life balance: Some
dimensions for organisational change. Journal of Workplace Rights, 16(3–4),
273–297.
Golden, T.D. and Eddleston, K.A. (2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay?
Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103348.
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F., Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential impact
on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(6), 1340–1350.
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F., Dino, R. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on
teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent
teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication
enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421.
Greer, T.W. and Payne, S.C. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes
of successful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(2),
87–111.
Hartig, T., Kylin, C., Johansson, G. (2007). The telework tradeoff: Stress mitigation
vs. constrained restoration. Applied Psychology, 56, 231–253.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S.M., Johnson, L.C., Andrey, J. (2008). I’m home for the kids:
Contradictory implications for work-life balance of teleworking mothers.
Gender, Work and Organization, 15(5), 454–476.
Hislop, D. and Axtell, C. (2007). The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary

studies of work: The case of telework. New Technology, Work and Employment,
22(1), 34–51.
van Hooff, M.L.M., Geurts, S.A.E., Kompier, M.A.J., Taris, T.W. (2006).
Work-home interference: How does it manifest itself from day to day? Work &
Stress, 20(2), 145–162.
ILO (International Labour Organization) (2020). The COVID-19 response: Getting
gender equality right for a better future for women at work. Policy brief [Online].
Available at: https://www.ilo.org.
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., Lockwood, C. (2018). Unpackaging manager
mistrust in allowing telework: Comparing and integrating theoretical
perspectives. Journal of Business Psychology, 33, 365–382.
Kelliher, C. and Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working
practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106.
Lautsch, B.A. and Kossek, E.E. (2011). Managing a blended workforce:
Telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 10–17.
Lee, D. and Kim, S.Y. (2018). A quasi-experimental examination of telework
eligibility and participation in the U.S. federal government. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 38, 451–471.
Martin, B.H. and MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations?
A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and
organizational outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616.
Maruyama, T., Hopkinson, P.G., James, P.W. (2009). A multivariate analysis of
work-life balance outcomes from a large-scale telework programme.
McDonald, P., Bradley, L., Brown, K. (2008). Visibility in the workplace: Still an
essential ingredient for career success? The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19, 2198–2215.
McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Dorn, D., Wilson, N. (2014). Home is at work
and work is at home: Telework and individuals who use augmentative and
alternative communication. Work, 48(1), 117–126.
Mello, J.A. (2007). Managing telework programs effectively. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(4), 247–261.
Metzger, J.-L. and Cléach, O. (2004). Le télétravail des cadres : entre suractivité et
apprentissage de nouvelles temporalités. Sociologie du travail, 46(4), 433–450.
Moe, K. and Shandy, D. (2010). Glass Ceilings & 100-Hour Couples: What the
Opt-Out Phenomenon Can Teach us about Work and Family. The University of
Georgia Press, Athens.
Montreuil, S. and Lippel, K. (2003). Telework and occupational health: A Quebec
empirical study and regulatory implications. Safety Science, 41(4), 339–358.
Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home:
Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower,
40(1), 87–101.
Ortar, N. (2009). Entre choix de vie et gestion des contraintes : télétravailler à la
campagne. Flux, 78(4), 49–57.
Peters, P., Wetzels, C., Tijdens, K.G. (2008). Telework: Timesaving or
timeconsuming? An investigation into actual working hours. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Economics, 19(4), 421–442.
Putnam, L.L., Myers, K.K., Gailliard, B.M. (2014). Examining the tensions in
workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations,
67, 413–440.
Pyöriä, P. (2011). Managing telework: Risks, fears and rules. Management Research
Review, 34, 386–399.
Ruiller, C., Dumas, M., Chédotel, F. (2017). Comment maintenir le sentiment de
proximité à distance ? Le cas des équipes dispersées par le télétravail. Revue
interdisciplinaire management, homme & entreprise, 3(3), 3–28.
Sardeshmukh, S.R., Sharma, D., Golden, T. (2012). Impact of telework on
exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model.
Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Sarker, S., Ahuja, M.K. (2012). Managing employees’ use of
mobile technologies to minimize work/life balance impacts. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 11, 1–15.
Seely, A. (2016). The virtual leader: Developing skills to lead and manage
distributed teams. In Strategic Management and Leadership for Systems
Development in Virtual Spaces, Graham, C. (ed.). IGI Global, Hershey.
Sewell, G. and Taskin, L. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work?
Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization
Studies, 36, 1507–1529.
Solís, M.S. (2016). Telework: Conditions that have a positive and negative impact
on the work-family conflict. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administración, 29(4), 435–449.
Solís, M.S. (2017). Moderators of telework effects on the work-family conflict and
on worker performance. European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, 26(1), 21–34.
Suh, A. and Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its
influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27, 140–159.
Taskin, L. and Bridoux, F.M. (2010). Telework: A challenge to knowledge transfer
in organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
21(13), 2503–2520.
Taskin, L. and Edwards, P. (2007). The possibilities and limits of telework in a
bureaucratic environment: Lessons from the public sector. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 22(3), 195–207.
Ter Hoeven, C.L. and Van Zoonen, W. (2015). Flexible work designs and employee
well-being: Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 30, 237–255.
Troup, C. and Rose, J. (2012). Working from home: Do formal or informal telework
arrangements provide better work-family outcomes? Community, Work &
Family, 15(4), 471–486.
Vander Elst, T., Verhoogen, R., Sercu, M., Van Den Broeck, A., Baillien, E.,
Godderis, L. (2017). Not extent of telecommuting, but job characteristics as
proximal predictors of work-related well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 59, 180–186.
professionnel, familial et social. Le travail humain, 82(1), 1–39.
Vayre, E. and Pignault, A. (2014). A systemic approach to interpersonal
relationships and activities among French teleworkers. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 29(2), 177–192.
Vega, R.P., Anderson, A.J., Kaplan, S.A. (2015). A within-person examination of
the effects of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 313–323.
Vittersø, J., Akselsen, S., Evjemo, B., Julsrud, T.E., Yttri, B., Bergvik, S. (2003).
Impacts of home-based telework on quality of life for employees and their
partners. Quantitative and qualitative results from a European survey. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 4(2), 201–233.
de Vries, H., Tummers, L., Bekkers, V. (2018). The benefits of teleworking in the
public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration,
39, 570–593.
Wilton, R.D., Páez, A., Scott, D.M. (2011). Why do you care what other people
think? A qualitative investigation of social influence and telecommuting.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(4), 269–282.
5
Telework in Lockdown:
The Employee Perspective
5.1. Introduction
In order to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, France implemented a

generalized lockdown on March 17, 2020. Companies made arrangements to
ensure the continuity of their activities and reorganized their organization.
Telecommuting was subsequently deployed on a massive scale as soon as
specific sectors and work activities allowed it.
Before this major crisis, only 3% of employees teleworked in France at

least one day a week on a regular basis, i.e. 1.8 million teleworkers
(Dares 2019). The Eurofound survey (2020) showed that there was
variability within the countries of the European Union. Indeed, people who
stated that they were teleworking from home at the beginning of the
pandemic period represented just one-fifth of the working population for
countries such as Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, whereas they
represented more than 40% of the working population in France, Spain,
Italy, Ireland and Belgium.
In this unprecedented context, how was this switch to telework

experienced and handled by the employees? What were the particular
constraints and opportunities that they faced with regard to confined
telework? What lessons can be learned from this experience for the future?
Chapter written by Anne-Sophie MAILLOT, Thierry MEYER, Sophie PRUNIER-POULMAIRE and

Émilie VAYRE.

Once we have done a literature review on imposed teleworking during the

pandemic, we will then present the results of a qualitative study conducted
during the first lockdown in France (from March 17 to May 11, 2020)
involving about 30 teleworkers of a French company. Beyond the real-time
testimonies, collected during the lockdown itself, the objective was to
understand how employees appropriated work in a lockdown situation, and
how the subjective experience of work, the time structure and professional
relations were affected by it.
5.2. The existing literature on imposed teleworking during a

pandemic situation
Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been a growing body of
literature on telework in lockdown, which allows a better assessment of the
effects of this period on workers. This section will attempt to present the
main factors that determined the subjective experience of confined telework,
on the one hand, and the effects of this period on work and psychological
and physical health, on the other hand.
5.2.1. The main determinants of the experience of confined

telework in a pandemic situation
5.2.1.1. The social and economic dimension and family structure

The unpredictability of this crisis and the lockdown measures taken by
the government left little time for companies to anticipate employees’ needs.
Many of them carried out their work activities with the equipment and tools
they had at home. Although more and more households are equipped,
inequalities persist. There is still a significant disparity in access to
electronic equipment between the lowest-income and the most affluent
households (Gleize et al. 2021). The economic possibilities of households
have thus conditioned the experience of lockdown. Workers sometimes had
to anticipate and organize material and digital resources according to the
simultaneous needs of their family (Fana et al. 2020).
The possibility of isolating oneself to work in a quiet environment was

fundamental and allowed a better reconciliation between work and private
life (Barthou et al. 2020). The type of housing played a role in the
experience of this period. A space with an exterior opening onto a garden or
Telework in Lockdown: the Employee Perspective 105
a balcony favored a feeling of satisfaction (Bourdeau-Lepage 2020) and a

high ratio (square meter per person) decreased the risk of harmful effects on
the psychological health of employees (Escudero-Castillo et al. 2021).
Thus, appropriate working conditions such as material adjustments (an

adapted workstation, necessary computer tools) and mental considerations
(the possibility of concentrating, of working without being disturbed)
determined how well workers adapted to the situation (Carillo et al. 2021).
In addition to space, the number of people confined within the home is a

main factor. The family structure is another central point in the experience of
the period, particularly because of the closure of schools, daycare centers,
nurseries and other care structures during the first lockdown. The home thus
became a place of multiple uses (Durieux 2020) in which the personal and
professional spheres and the spatial and temporal requirements they entailed
overlapped. This accumulation of constraints has made the reconciliation of
work and family responsibilities more complex (OIT 2020) because of the
support that parents had to provide to children (school, homework, care)
(Fana et al. 2020). In addition, the sharing of domestic tasks within the
family structure also played a role. INSEE points out in its 2020 study that
childcare was more likely to be provided by women: 83% of them spent
more than four hours a day on childcare and twice as many women as men
gave up work to care for their children.
5.2.1.2. The professional dimension

Not all companies that have been able to maintain all or part of their
business by teleworking have approached the situation in the same way. The
ease of adoption of contained telework is a result of previous experience
with it: companies that had already experienced it were more prepared for it
(Tokarchuk et al. 2021). Employees who teleworked before the crisis were
more likely to have the right equipment and physical environment (Anact1
2020).
Tokarchuk et al.’s (2021) study also found that SMEs2 were more likely
to adopt goal-oriented work and have more flexibility in management and
reorganization than large companies. On the contrary, large companies were
1 Agence nationale pour l’amélioration des conditions de travail, French National Agency for
the Improvement of Working Conditions.
2 Small- or medium-sized companies.
better equipped with IT tools than SMEs, which favors employees’

adaptation to telework. However, even though ICTs3 appear to be crucial in a
telework organization, providing technological resources is not enough to
create good teleworking conditions (Fana et al. 2020).
Adaptation to confined telework also depends on the size of the teams,

with large teams limiting the possibility of inter-group coordination and
communication, and the level of interdependence of the work (Carillo et al.
2021).
Through the maintenance of communication, regular exchanges, group

cohesion and listening, the role of the manager, although diminished due to
the distance, was decisive (Boboc 2020). The manager’s ability to practice
management by objectives by renouncing supervision and direct control
allowed for better adaptation to the situation (Tokarchuk et al. 2021).
5.2.2. Varied and complex effects …
5.2.2.1. … on work
As a result of government measures to limit the spread of Covid-19,
many establishments and businesses had to close. A whole section of the
economy was put on hold, and the closures resulted in a decrease in the
number of hours worked. In France, 42% of employees reported that their
working hours have decreased, 31% have remained the same, and 27% have
increased (Eurostat in Eurofound 2020).
Results vary with respect to perceived workload. Some surveys indicate a

perceived overall decrease in workload, particularly for employees whose
activity has been partially completed (Abord de Chatillon et al. 2020), while
others indicate an increase in perceived workload for almost half of the
respondents (Anact 2020) and a complexity in its management (Mercier and
Boisson 2020)
This new organization has forced management, human resources and

managers to develop new methods to adapt to the requirements of work
carried out entirely remotely (Dolce et al. 2020). Adjustments have been
necessary and have been made by adapting or redefining objectives (Anact
2020) and by changing the way managers are supervised. Studies are again
3 Information and communication technologies.

divided on this subject. For some, management in lockdown remained

identical to the situation before the pandemic (Fana et al. 2020), while for
others, an overall decrease in control appears in the results with a reversal of
the situation: employees who were more controlled before lockdown felt less
control during this period whereas those who were less controlled reported
more control (Abord de Chatillon et al. 2020). Although the work was
disrupted, it was not the content of the work that was affected but the way in
which the tasks were performed (Fana et al. 2020).
Studies also point to a lack of efficiency perceived by nearly half of

the respondents (Anact 2020), which could be explained by problems
encountered by the company (technical, organizational) or by the worker’s
environment (childcare, Internet connection, lack of a room dedicated to
work) (Pénard and Coulanges 2020). Indeed, working conditions in
lockdown are often less good, and it is sometimes difficult to ensure the
resources necessary for work (Kniffin et al. 2020). Other studies report
better efficiency as a result of fewer interruptions and improved
concentration, flexibility in work and a feeling of autonomy (Baert et al.
2020).
In terms of work relations, the increase in the frequency of remote

meetings has multiple benefits: federating, maintaining relations, supporting
employees and monitoring the evolution of the health situation in order to
better anticipate a reduction in lockdown measures. Working relationships
were unchanged (Anact 2020; IPSOS 2020) and teleworkers felt supported
by their managers and colleagues (Anact 2020; Eurofound 2020). However,
the lack of face-to-face interactions and informal communications with
colleagues is frequently cited in various studies and is accentuated by the
period due to local or national social restrictions designed to control the
pandemic (Abord de Chatillon et al. 2020; Barthou and Bruna 2021;
Carillo et al. 2021). The interactions mediated by digital tools, however,
reduce the quality and even the quantity of the exchange of ideas and
information (Fana et al. 2020).
5.2.2.2. … on mental and physical health

The unprecedented and anxiety-provoking context of the health crisis has
had significant effects. Impacts on the well-being of individuals can be
observed in the countries most affected by the crisis. For example, the level
of satisfaction with life in France compared to surveys conducted before the

crisis has dropped significantly (Eurofound 2020).
Contrary to expectations, employees who had already experienced

teleworking before the crisis reported greater levels of stress than those who
had not worked this way before. These results are explained by the
expectations of the positive effects of teleworking in traditional times,
namely, fewer disturbances and less fatigue due to the absence of
commuting (Abord de Chatillon et al. 2020).
The stress generated by health and professional uncertainty and the

difficulty of reconciling work and private life have made adaptation to
telework difficult (Carillo et al. 2021). As with pre-pandemic telework, the
blurring of boundaries between life spheres and difficulties switching off
(Fana et al. 2020) can be observed. Although a large proportion of
employees felt that they could reconcile their professional and private lives
(Anact 2020), a reorganization of spaces, times and places between the
different confined members was also mentioned as being at the heart of the
difficulties of the lockdown period. Thus, the reconciliation of work and
non-work life was dependent on the employee’s family situation and even
more hampered if the home did not have a designated space for work
(Barthou et al. 2020).
The Pénard and Coulanges’ study (2020) highlighted that this domestic
and professional overload is at the origin of a deterioration in relationships
with children. Although a rebalancing of domestic roles and tasks sometimes
seems to be taking place (Fana et al. 2020), being a woman increases the
likelihood of experiencing a deterioration in well-being during the period
due to existing differences in the assumption of domestic tasks
(Escudero-Castillo et al. 2021). Compared to the pre-pandemic situation,
women report being more affected by insomnia and fatigue and they
have experienced more sadness and irritability since the lockdown
(Bourdeau-Lepage 2020).
In terms of physical impacts, the situation of confined teleworking is

associated with a significantly high risk of developing symptoms of low
back pain for new teleworkers (Chazelle et al. 2020). This period is also
marked by a decrease in recommended physical activity for half of
the French population (Escalon et al. 2020) and the emergence of
musculoskeletal disorders (Fana et al. 2020).
Although a source of stress (Anact 2020; Empreinte Humaine 2020), this

work organization presented a form of resource to cope with the period. The
overall feeling of work life during lockdown was positive for the majority of
the employees interviewed (Eurofound 2020; IPSOS 2020; Tokarchuk et al.
2021). Well-being was higher for those in work than for those who were
unemployed (Escudero-Castillo et al. 2021). The study by Carillo et al.
(2021) points out that the perception of an increased workload even led to
greater satisfaction, better productivity and quality of work, which can be
explained by the fact that employees experienced this increased workload as
a guarantee of their efficiency, or that the company suffered little or no
impact from the health crisis (Carillo et al. 2021). Thus, maintaining work
activity helped to preserve psychological health, protecting against anxiety,
as did the support provided by colleagues and friends (Delicourt 2021).
5.3. Collection method and procedure
In the spring of 2020, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study. The

sample consisted of 31 employees from a large French service sector group.
An explanatory note about the study was sent by email to the employee
network with the agreement of the company, and registration for
participation in the study – presented as independent academic research –
was voluntary.
The interviews, conducted by telephone due to the public health situation,

took place in April. All the employees of the company were confined to their
homes and were teleworking full time using a computer or a tablet provided
by their employer. In fact, within this organization, telework was already
regulated by an agreement which had been put in place more than five years
earlier on a voluntary basis for a maximum of two days per week. A
computer as well as remote access to the server and software necessary for
their activity had, therefore, already been offered to each employee.
In the end, 15 women and 16 men contributed to the study. The average
age was 51 (between 38 and 63), the average length of service was 24 years,
and almost a third (31%) had teleworked under a formal agreement for two
days a week. This proportion rises to almost three quarters (71%) if we
include employees who said they have teleworked informally, regularly or
occasionally.
More than half of the positions involved a high degree of interpersonal

skills: sales positions in contact with customers (N = 19), human resources –
recruitment section (N = 2) – and training (N = 3), while the other positions
were more focused on technical management and processing of files: IT
positions (N = 2), accounting (N = 1) and drafting/underwriting of contracts
(N = 4).
It is important to note that this company did not put any employees on
reduced working schemes during the lockdown period. All employees were
therefore able to continue working, only at home. Among the participants,
three quarters (77%) were confined to a house with outdoor space (the
remaining employees were in apartments with no outdoor space), 61% were
confined to more than two people under the same roof, and 61% were
confined with children (37% of whom were under 15 years old).
The individual semi-structured interviews lasted between 35 and

90 minutes. After indicating that the study was about their experiences of
working in a confined space, employees were reminded that the interview
was being recorded and would be transcribed in full while preserving their
anonymity.
The topics discussed during the interview included first personal and
family characteristics (age, location of lockdown, type of space available for
working at home, family situation, people confined to the same house),
general work characteristics (position held, length of time at the company
and teleworking) and other more specific and subjective characteristics
(feelings about the evolution of the workload, the daily and weekly time
structure, professional relations with the direct hierarchy and with colleagues
during lockdown).
The teleworkers were then asked to describe whether they had

experienced any changes in their family relationships. The last theme was
the psychological and physical health of employees during lockdown.
Thematic analysis of the collected data was carried out on the basis of
pre-established categories from the literature on telework. The first part of
the interview guide focused on the evolution of the organization of the work
activity, the missions, the objectives and the working time structure; the
second part focused on the evolution of professional relations and
communications in terms of frequency and quality of exchanges, and of
informal exchanges; and the last part focused on the evolution of perceived
psychological and physical health.
5.4. The subjective experience of confined telework
Three themes stand out: the reorganization of the activity, the evolution
of relations and communications, and the possible impact of confined
telework on the psychological and physical health of employees.
5.4.1. Reorganizing activity to face an unprecedented situation
In the first instance, work activity was reorganized according to three

components when switching to forced telework.
5.4.1.1. Changing the way things are done

The reorganization of the activity is different for each profession. Let us
look at the respective stories of trainers and salespeople.
Trainers were faced with two imperatives during this period. First, they
had to modify the duration and content of the training courses so that they
could be adapted to distance learning. They pointed out that it was not
possible to carry out training sessions, already scheduled before the
lockdown, over a whole day using technological tools, particularly for
reasons of fatigue. They therefore decided to reduce the size of the groups of
trainees and increase the amount of training sequences while rethinking the
initial content of each training course so that it could be adapted to a distance
format:
It can’t be done in the same format as face to face so I had to

readapt the medium, readapt in relation to the tool, the time, if
it’s a one day or half day training, we’re forced to do it
sequentially instead. (Nora)
At the same time, they had to respond to an increased demand for training
from employees who had more time and wanted to use it to develop new
skills. The trainers had to quickly develop new training content to meet these
demands. These decisions were made collectively but were experienced as
an additional workload:
We would say that what has had the greatest impact on us is the
changes that it has had to bring about in the context of setting
up our training courses […] It has generated a burden and a
rapid reorganization we would say, with a slightly greater
mobilization of the teams. (Céline)
The interviews highlight the importance of the relational dimension in the

training profession. For them, it was a question of trying to recreate an
interactional and pedagogical dynamic despite the distance:
Training is a performance, it’s delivered with soul, it’s an

activity that relies on gestures and eye contact, so yes, from a
distance it’s a bit more complicated. (Jean)
It was a whole reworking of the workshop on several fronts, on

the modus operandi, on the way of communicating as well,
because when it’s in person we see people’s expressions when
it’s not going well, we see their face … Here we don’t see it, so
I am obliged to ask and to work differently, essentially.
Consequently, it takes more time to organize and deliver, and
do everything in fact. (Nora)
Despite their desire to preserve the fundamentals of their professions, the

trainers have had to make compromises, which have led to dissatisfaction:
There is this frustration, having to build solutions that I don’t

feel are completely successful. It’s an adaptation, it’s a worse
way of doing things but it has taken over. (Jean)
For sales people, national restrictions during the lockdown made travel to
customers impossible. Sales people were deprived of their main objective.
However, this allowed them to free up time to process and finalize ongoing
cases, develop new skills and anticipate a return to the field:
I continued to do training during the lockdown and at the same

time I called colleagues for technical information. (Laure)
With the aim of minimizing losses, the company embarked on distance

selling and implemented electronic signatures. This procedure required new
learning and new ways of doing things, which was not without its
difficulties. Employees report that selling by telephone is a totally different
technique from face-to-face selling. It requires new skills, both from the
point of view of the salesperson and the customer:
It’s not our job to sell at a distance and I think that training is
needed. We tend to do a lot of observing the customer face-to-
face and you can tell when they start to switch off a bit …
Whereas on the phone, and many of my colleagues say this, it is
complicated to conclude a contract. (Cécile)
This process is quite complicated […] it requires that clients be

equipped with a printer, that they know how to scan and that
they know how to use computers so that they can scan
documents and send things by email … (Cécile)
The strategies previously employed are no longer effective. Sales

representatives must therefore respond to the requirement to sell remotely,
without having new resources at their disposal, which for some results in
poorer performance and even lower remuneration. This new practice also
calls into question their core business, which, according to them, is based on
direct exchanges and relationships. Face-to-face meetings with customers are
prepared, anticipated and even ritualized:
Going to visit a customer means being welcomed in, it means

preparing a pitch beforehand. You don’t just go there and go
through the motions. You make yourself look presentable and
you stop by … We choose these jobs because we like it. It’s as
if we miss getting caught in the rain. So that’s part of the
pleasure of the job, there are more painful aspects of the job,
but meeting with the customer is always the best part. The
salesperson is a kind of theater actor, so they have to be on
stage. But I don’t have a stage [anymore]. (Louis)
5.4.1.2. Autonomy and flexibility

All the employees stated that they had maintained or increased their
autonomy during this period. For the majority (N = 27), the feeling of having
autonomy was already present before the lockdown, due to the type of job
held. For others (N = 4), this feeling increased and was unanimously
appreciated.
Regarding time flexibility, opinions are more mixed. For some

employees, being online during their usual working hours was imperative.
Some were even afraid to leave their desks for a while. Others emphasized
the difficulties and multiple demands inherent in the implicit requirement of
permanent availability:
Yes, every day to have a meeting, normally it’s every Monday

morning at 6 a.m., but there was the lockdown, there was no
schedule, so you don’t even dare leave your desk. You’re
confined to your chair. At one point I said I had to get up …
(Mélina)
There were times when I missed a Skype call or two and the
next minute it rang again, and for example afterwards I got two
calls on my mobile when I was already on a conference call
with a client so I didn’t pick up […] I took my mobile to call
her and at the same time she called me twice, so I thought this is
crazy […] I had warned her the day before and so there I was on
two lines and I couldn’t do any more. (Estelle)
Finally, the constraints and obstacles to carrying out activities due to the
lack of equipment in the home were also expressed:
Yes, it takes me a little longer because I only have one screen

… Before, I could dispatch different documents and go from
one to the other. Now I’m always minimizing my window and
going to open the other window so yes, it takes a bit longer at
that level. (Lucie)
5.4.1.3. Working hours and time structure of the activity

The experience of working time differs from employee to employee. For
10 employees, working time has not changed. Eight feel that they have
worked less and 13 feel that their working hours have increased. Our
analyses also enabled us to compare the ways in which working hours are
structured, on the one hand, and the experience of employees in terms of
their workload and their family situation, on the other hand.
5.4.1.4. Decrease in activity and structuring of working time (N = 8)

Some of the participants who experienced a reduction in their activity
(due to the reduction in their company’s activity) explained that they had,
despite everything, chosen to maintain the same working hours as before the
pandemic (N = 3).
Nevertheless, two strategies can be identified for coping with this

reduction in tasks. For some of them, the possibility of receiving training
enabled them to compensate for the drop in activity. The other employees
voluntarily reduced the intensity and pace of their work while remaining
mobilized at their desks and available at the same times as before:
I have less so I have time to do my files. I take it easier. (Lucie)
During lockdown, what I made a point of doing was to keep a

certain rhythm, which is why I told you that I get up very early,
so I kept this rhythm of getting up early, having a shower and
getting dressed as if I were leaving for work, except that I don’t
have to commute, that’s all. And then during the lunch break,
well, I allowed myself an hour and a half for lunch, […] to
recharge my batteries a little bit, and in the evening, well, I try
not to finish too late. (Anne)
Other employees have changed their working hours to meet personal

needs (N = 5). Depending on the case, they employed different strategies:
– Working more intensively (including sacrificing their breaks) in order
to be free earlier to take care of their children:
I don’t waste any time, I just crack on with it so that I can free
myself up to look after my daughters in the afternoon. (Franck)
– Splitting up work activity into segments. Employees start earlier in the

morning when the children are asleep, so they can “start” their work without
being disturbed. Then, they will interrupt their work briefly (to respond to a
child’s request) or for a longer period (breakfast, lunch, starting homework,
bedtime). In this case, the activity cannot be compressed because the age of
the children implies more or less continuous supervision:
I didn’t have a schedule because I worked super early in the

morning, I made a little stop at 2:00 p.m. to start the homework,
supervise the homework, etc. I stopped briefly because I had to
feed the little one. I stopped because I had to feed the child.
And then at 2 p.m. we’d start the homework, and so I’d finish
really late. (Marta)
5.4.1.5. Maintenance of workload and work time structure (N = 10)

When the activity has not been affected or has been affected very slightly,
and employees keep the same days, they do not feel any particular change.
For others, however, maintaining the workload is the result of regulation, of

greater control of the activity, in order to avoid being overwhelmed by the work:
I’ve tried to keep myself on a schedule, because I would have

tended to go and put in a few more hours. (Sadia)
It’s a balance. You have to find the right balance and knowing
how to switch off is really helpful, but it gradually drifts and
encroaches onto family life and private life. (Karim)
5.4.1.6. Increased workload and structuring of work time (N = 13)

The increase in work activity was particularly noticeable at the beginning
of lockdown. It is the result of the implementation of a new work
organization and also of difficulties in switching off from work:
I had an initial phase at the beginning of lockdown where I was

overbooked and had so many interviews. (Romain)
I try to switch off, I force myself to do so. The problem is that

we can’t do it all the time. Let’s say that, out of the five days,
there are three days when I log off at 6:30 p.m. That means that
there are two days when I work for longer. (William)
For some, the usual commuting time is reinvested in the working day:
Well, I start earlier and finish later because during the time I’d
normally spend commuting from home to work, I end up
staying at my desk. (John)
The employees also report that remote meetings are added to their list of
tasks, which means that they have to work more intensively, without time for
recreation:
We’re doing Skype after Skype, making phone calls, answering

emails, texting, and things like that. We don’t take breaks
anymore. At noon we eat quickly without a break, we quickly
get back to the office and in the evenings, we stay up far too
late. And while we know it’s temporary, it’s been going on for
over two months. (Maurice)
However, employees report that they are less interrupted in their work by
their superiors or colleagues and believe that this allows them to work more
quickly or in a more qualitative way:
I can work at home, and it’s true that we’re more productive
and there are less interruptions […], in other words, we don’t
have to worry about people bothering us or the telephone
ringing and so on. (Marc)
5.4.2. The evolution of communication methods and professional

relations
5.4.2.1. Changes in communication patterns and the relationship with

the direct hierarchy
At the time of the survey, 29 employees reported having a supervisor.
The results presented here therefore relate to this sub-sample.
Three quarters of the employees reported an increase in the frequency of

exchanges during the lockdown. They explain that this increase is due to the
need for the company to transmit information on the conduct to be followed
during the period concerning the maintenance of activity, objectives and new
procedures and the management’s desire to maintain cohesion. They also
point out that the frequency of exchanges has tended to decrease over time:
Already we have a daily meeting with the manager and the

team, a meeting every day, a department meeting. They are
keen to know how we are getting on and remind us of the
guidelines. (Lucie)
Even though at the beginning I had the impression that it was a

bit too much […] It did calm down after that. The density of
information has already decreased. The procedures have been
put in place, and once they have been put in place you just have
to follow them. (Louis)
The employees agree that the meetings and the information exchanged
were not always necessary and useful for their work:
There are three or four times more meetings. We spend our time
with headphones on. (Romain)
There was one meeting that I attended but it wasn’t, well it

wasn’t of any use to me. (Kelly)
We have a lot of Skype meetings with our managers and with

our colleagues. They end up being extremely time consuming
and it doesn’t help us at work. (Lucie)
A feeling of support from the hierarchy is shared by the majority (22/29).

These same employees specify that this feeling was already present before
this period of lockdown:
I’m lucky enough to have a manager who is extremely attentive

and caring towards her employees and that hasn’t changed.
(Lucie)
He tests the water every day and if you have the slightest
problem, you call him, there’s no problem, and it’s true that
every time I need help, I send him a message and he answers
within a minute. And I find that it’s, I would say that there is
clearly goodwill. (Karim)
However, several employees believe that it is also a means of control:
So sometimes I missed some [calls] when I was right next door,

and they would say “where were you?” when I was next door.
In lockdown I don’t really see where I could have gone. They
have to “monitor” us. They say they call us every day to check
in and everything, but I still see it as a kind of monitoring.
(Dialla)
5.4.2.2. Changes in communication patterns and relationships with

colleagues
The employees do not declare that they had more exchanges with their
colleagues apart from those planned as a team. They consider that it was
mainly professional exchanges that were favored during lockdown:
Today, in distance learning, we are really focusing on the

essentials; time is indeed limited, especially in lockdown. (Jean)
I have less interaction with my peers, and any interactions I do

have are focused on meetings, on the basics. (Emmanuel)
Even though this situation is temporary, employees feel there is a lack

of face-to-face interaction with colleagues, with some mentioning a
deterioration in social ties or even dehumanization:
It lacks a social aspect, it lacks a friendly aspect I think, which

we have lost. And I feel that some people miss it. (Frédéric)
There is less human contact, less exchange, less gesture […] it

does dehumanize things a bit. Moreover, we see a lot less
people and we are less involved in social relations, that’s
undeniable. (Nora)
5.4.3. What is the impact on perceived mental and physical

health?
5.4.3.1. Positive effects …

Among the positive effects on health mentioned in the interviews, the fact
that all employees of the company continue to work and receive their full
salary appears to be reassuring and supportive during this difficult period
(N = 30):
I’m well protected. I’m lucky to be in a big stable company.

(Ludovic)
Most of the participants also feel that the company has prepared for the
return to the office and have no concerns regarding compliance with health
regulations for their return to the company. Strong communication about

prevention and health measures was provided to employees:
We had information, podcasts from management, managers

talking about it again in meetings, so it was … yeah it’s framed
our return to the office. (Romain)
The support, benevolence and tolerance shown to the employees by their

superiors were appreciated and demonstrated the will to maintain contact:
He is kind because he always wanted to check whether we were

in good health, whether we could work and whether we had any
concerns. (Karim)
A reduction in fatigue was mentioned in connection with the elimination

of commuting:
Less fatigue through commuting, so that’s also appreciated.

(Maurice)
A reduction in stress was also highlighted by several employees. First,

because of a feeling of control and a better articulation between their
professional activity and their personal life:
Ultimately, I find that for me it is more psychologically

comfortable to work at home […] I feel better that way, I feel
less stressed". (Laure)
It’s more complicated when you’re in the office, and it’s more
stressful in the office because you’re at a distance. If I have one
of my boys who tells me […] “I have a problem with such and
such a thing” I’m right there and I can handle it with more
calmness and responsiveness than if I’m in the office.
(Emmanuel)
Second, because of physical distance from tense work situations:
She distanced herself. It’s a very, very complicated relationship.

It’s sometimes very electric, there are conflicts of, conflicts of
value of conflicts […] So it actually allowed us to distance the
relationship, to make it less emotional and more professional, in

fact, much more focused. (Pierre)
5.4.3.2. … and not-so-positive effects

However, the harmful effects of confined telework are also noted: 24 out
of 31 employees mentioned unprompted that they were dissatisfied with
their work. Of these, 37% mentioned a decrease in the quality of work done
during the lockdown period:
There is this frustration, having to build solutions that I don’t

feel are completely successful. It’s an adaptation, it’s a worse
way of doing things but it has taken over. (Jean)
I’m not satisfied, not at all, I think it’s more of a patch-up job.
(Maeva)
The feeling of being dispossessed of one’s job is regularly mentioned:
I do a job that is eminently relational and cannot be done by

telephone, so I can no longer do my job. (Louis)
Increased physical and mental (cognitive, visual and auditory) fatigue

was reported on many occasions (N = 16). It is associated with increased
workload, the need to learn new tools, increased screen time, and the lack of
equipment, tools and workstation design at home:
In the evening I would say that I’m exhausted like everyone

else with whom I exchange, because we work intensively, in
fact, the days are full-on. (Emmanuel)
Then during the lockdown, the adoption of Skype or Teams.

Video tools like that. So that means I worked a lot more, I was
at capacity, and Skype is super tiring, it’s exhausting. (Cécile)
It’s a lot to spend the day with a headset on your head, it’s a lot
to be hooked up to your desk for hours on end all day. I’m not
used to that, it’s not something I’d enjoy on a daily basis. On
two occasions I took a paracetamol in the evening, because
you’re in front of a screen all day with a headset on. (Romain)
Finally, concerning the assessment of the overall health situation, 10

employees feel that they have experienced difficult psychological times:
The first week it was very hard … I really didn’t feel well, [I
felt] a bit stressed, a bit anxious. (Celine)
I’m going to dissociate the physical side of things from the

psychological side […] frankly, physically there is no problem,
but psychologically it weighs on me. (Roberto)
5.5. Lessons from confined telework from the employees’

perspective
The objective of this qualitative study was to report on the subjective

experience of telework in lockdown during the time of lockdown itself. We
sought to identify the way in which the employees’ work activity,
professional relationships and perceived health had been altered (or not).
The first element that we noted in this company is that maintaining

professional activity was seen as a way of overcoming the crisis period, as
pointed out by Dolce et al. (2020) and Delicourt (2021).
The thematic analysis shows that telework in lockdown has required a

reappropriation of the activity for all employees, even those who have
teleworked before. And as shown in the study by Fana et al. (2020), it was
not so much the content of the work but the way of doing it that changed in
remote telework. It was a matter of adapting to a new, constrained and
permanent work context and environment.
The results show that the employees were able to mobilize resources and
develop regulation strategies to cope with the upheavals imposed by the
health crisis. In terms of work, the seniority in the company and the expertise
of the people interviewed can partly explain the relative ease with which
they managed the transition period and their set-up in the confined telework
area. In fact, the employees had a good knowledge not only of their job, but
also of the company, its history and its evolution. They had held different
positions within the company and developed strong professional
relationships. This cross-sectional view and a good knowledge of coworkers’
missions allowed cooperation to be maintained in favor of action.
In terms of the evolution of communication and professional relations

during lockdown, relations with superiors were cordial and support from the
hierarchy was particularly appreciated, which is in line with the trends found
in the Eurofound (2020) and Anact (2020) surveys. The job-preserving
nature of the company also helped to maintain social cohesion and build
trust (absence of tensions, fears, mistrust). In a wider perspective, it should
not be forgotten that the employees shared the same fate as all employees in
the country and beyond.
However, communication with superiors is marked by an increase in the

frequency of exchanges and associated with a decrease in their quality.
Indeed, in this social and health context of everything at a distance,
organizations have encouraged local managers to maintain relations and to
show concern for the well-being and challenges of employees. This resulted,
on the one hand, in an increase in meetings in which the amount of
information transmitted was decreasing every day, and on the other hand, in
the fact that they wanted to maintain a link by including one or more teams
whose theme was not related to the core of their work activity. Moreover, as
the survey conducted by Abord de Chatillon et al. (2020) pointed out, the
attempt by managers to recreate a form of emulation and group cohesion
through devices simulating in-person interactions (video coffee breaks,
morning greetings, etc.) seem difficult to implement and maintain in the
long-term.
Concerning professional relations with peers, the results attest to a

perceived decrease in exchanges, which remain focused on the work, and
also to a lack of informal exchanges, which are experienced as
dehumanization. Face-to-face interaction not only allows information to be
better interpreted through eye contact or gestures, but also serves the
organization and well-being at work (Barthou et al. 2020).
Finally, regarding the evolution of self-rated physical and psychological

health during lockdown, a first important element should be highlighted. As
shown in Tokarchuk et al.’s (2021) research, the experience and
implementation of telework for several years have probably allowed the
company and its employees to enter this period in a more serene manner. In
addition, contrary to the results of Abord de Chatillon et al. (2020),
employees who had already teleworked did not report more stress than those
who had never teleworked. In addition to this finding, a sense of
socio-economic security was observed as all employees were able to work
full time while maintaining their salary. This perception of job stability limited
the threat and consequences that, in terms of stress and self-esteem, can be
as negative as the job loss itself (Domenighetti et al. 1999; Sverke et al. 2006).
Just as the literature already stated, the decrease in fatigue is related to the
removal of commuting (Biron and Van Veldhoven 2016). However, the
results also reveal an increase in fatigue in connection with the continuous
and imposed use of technological tools. On the one hand, the learning of new
tools or their unsuitability for the work activity has increased fatigue and
slowed down the performance of the work; on the other hand, the demand
for “tele-communicative immediacy” and the “danger of being permanently
tele-available” (Jauréguiberry 2014) question the extent to which it is
possible to switch off (Delicourt 2021).
The context of confined telework has also caused, for some, a

fragmentation of work schedules associated with the family role; for others,
it has reiterated findings already highlighted in previous studies on
non-pandemic telework, such as the densification or intensification of work
(Sardeshmukh et al. 2012), the decrease in the frequency of breaks, and the
lengthening of the workday (Taskin and Devos 2005).
Moreover, the results highlight the feeling of not doing quality work. The
employees are, given the unanticipated situation, obliged to make
compromises on how to perform their work activity, which conflicts with
their criteria of quality and what they consider to be “good” or quality work
(Clot 2010). Telework organization does not protect against occupational
hazards and harmful effects on health.
5.6. Conclusion: limitations and perspectives
This study helps to bridge the gap between the work on pre-pandemic
telework and confined telework. However, it has limitations.
In the first place, the small size of the sample and the particular
characteristics of the company involved do not allow a generalization of the
variety of situations of confined telework. In fact, the majority of the
employees interviewed were in occupations associated with a high degree of
autonomy in the performance of their work. A few employees had to take
care of young children. Furthermore, extensive and comparative studies
would make it possible to examine the potential differentiated effects of full
remote during the pandemic period, depending on the occupation. In fact, the
statements were obtained in the context of an interview in which the
employees put their own image, as well as that of the company, at stake.
Second, our qualitative study collected elements of life at a given

moment during the time of lockdown. We planned to continue the study by
conducting new interviews with the same employees, in order to assess the
evolution of this feeling after one year.
This period of imposed teleworking in a confined area in a pandemic

context revealed the numerous adaptations of employees and the
organization in the face of the evolution of public health measures and, more
globally, in the face of public health and economic uncertainty. It certainly
revealed dysfunctions that were already present and not very visible in
normal times, but it also brought out original forms of “adaptive
performance” (Park and Park 2021) based on unexpected personal and
collective resources. If companies have been rather reluctant until now,
especially with regard to management, telework has now been established in
organizations. Rather than teleworking being a blip that will end with the
pandemic, it is plausible that many companies will perpetuate this mode of
organization in view of other advantages (real estate costs, in particular) than
those of employee comfort.
From a rational perspective, scientific and empirical work on telework in

times of crisis provides guidelines for practices and actions on the evolution
of different ways of working in the future. Today, the establishment of forms
of consultation and discussion within organizations (social dialogue and
professional dialogue), the commitment to reflect on the organization of
work in the context of a pandemic and also to anticipate the post-pandemic
period are already on the agenda. Based on the studies and surveys
conducted, these approaches are an opportunity to assess the opportunities
and risks of telework in terms of work organization, relationship to work,
professional efficiency, and also health and quality of life (Dolce et al.
2020). The continuation of telework will undoubtedly be accompanied by
other developments that few are currently aware of as a result of the global
pandemic (health, economic, political, social conditions, etc.). As Lederlin
(2020, p. 38) points out, work and the way it is organized must challenge us
at different levels – societal, political and existential – because “it is not only
a vital necessity: it is a form of social activity that shapes our relationship to
nature, to others, to ourselves and to the world”.
5.7. References
Abord de Chatillon, E., Laborie, C., Richard, D., Valette, A. (2020). Quelles
conditions de travail et d’exercice du management en télétravail confiné ?
Résultats de l’enquête réalisée en avril et mai 2020. Report, INP Grenoble IAE,
CERAG, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble.
Albouy, V. and Legleye, S. (2020). Conditions de vie pendant le confinement : des
écarts selon le niveau de vie et la catégorie socioprofessionnelle. Institut national
de la statistique et des études économiques. INSEE Focus, 197.
Anact (2020). Télétravail contraint en période de confinement. Consultation, Agence
Nationale pour l’Amélioration des Conditions de Travail, Lyon.
Baert, S., Lippens, L., Moes, E., Sterkens, P., Weytjens, J. (2020). The Covid 19
crisis and telework: A research survey on experiences, expectations and hopes.
Report, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.
Barthou, E. and Bruna, Y. (2021). Le travail en période de confinement : tensions,
accélérations et opportunités. Hal-03094957.
Barthou, E., Bruna, Y., Deletraz, G. (2020). Enquête (dé)confinement et Covid19 –
synthèse des premiers résultats. Hal-02613500.
Biron, M. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2016). When control becomes a liability rather
than an asset: Comparing home and office days among part-time teleworkers.
Boboc, A. (2020). La frontière entre vie privée et professionnelle à l’épreuve du
confinement : télétravail et déconnexion. La revue des conditions de travail, 10,
37–42.
Bourdeau-Lepage, L. (2020). Le confinement et ses effets sur le quotidien : premiers
résultats bruts des 1e et 2e semaines de confinement en France. Halshs-02650456.
Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T., Klarsfeld, A. (2021). Adjusting
to epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France.
European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 69–88.
Chazelle, E., Chan-Chee, C., Fouquet, N. (2020). Étude de la survenue et de
l’évolution de la lombalgie selon la situation de travail pendant le confinement
lié à l’épidémie de Covid-19, du 17 mars au 10 mai 2020, en France
métropolitaine. Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire, 26, 512–521.
Clot, Y. (2010). Le travail à cœur – pour en finir avec les risques psychosociaux.
La Découverte, Paris.
Dares (2019). Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des

statistiques. Quels sont les salariés concernés par le télétravail ? Dares Analyses
n°051. Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la Formation professionnelle et du
Dialogue social, Paris.
Dares (2020). Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des
statistiques. Activité et conditions d’emploi de la main d’œuvre pendant la crise
sanitaire Covid-19 : enquête Flash. Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la
Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Paris.
Delicourt, A. (2021). Rôles protecteurs de l’activité de travail, du soutien social
perçu et des stratégies de coping en période de confinement et de crise sanitaire.
Psychologie du travail et des organisations, 27(2), 75–88.
emergency telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 196.
Domenighetti, G., D’Avanzo, B., Bisig, B. (1999). Health effects of job insecurity
among employees in Swiss general population. Cahiers de recherches
économiques du Département d’Econométrie et d’Economie politique (DEEP),
1–17.
Durieux, E. (2020). Télétravail et confinement, vers une coexistence vivable.
Technical report, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Paris.
Empreinte Humaine (2020). État psychologique, risques psychosociaux, résilience
des salariés français & déconfinement [Online]. Available at: https://
empreintehumaine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CP-VAGUE-3-SONDAGE-
OPINIONWAY-POUR-EMPREINTE-HUMAINE-2020-VCNG31.pdf [Accessed
3 March 2021].
Escalon, H., Deschamps, V., Verdot, C. (2020). Activité physique et sédentarité des
adultes pendant la période de confinement liée à l’épidémie de Covid-19 : état
des lieux et évolutions perçues. Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire, 3,
2–13.
Escudero-Castillo, I., Mato-Díaz, F.J., Rodriguez-Alvarez, A. (2021). Furloughs,
teleworking and other work situations during the COVID-19 lockdown: Impact
on mental well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(6), 2898.
Eurofound (2020). Living, working and COVID-19. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg.
Fana, M., Milasi, S., Napierala, J., Fernandez-Macías, E., Gonzáles Vásquez, I.
(2020). Telework, work organisation and job quality during the COVID-19
crisis: A qualitative study. European Commission, Seville.
Gleize, F., Legleye, F., Pla, A. (2021). Ordinateur et accès à internet : les inégalités
d’équipement persistent selon le niveau de vie. institut national de la statistique
et des études économiques. INSEE Focus, 226.
Jauréguiberry, F. (2014). La déconnexion aux technologies de communication.
Réseaux, 4(186), 15–49.
Kniffin, K.M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S.P., Bakker, A.B.,
Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D.P., Choi, V. et al. (2020). COVID-19 and
the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.
American Psychological Association, 76(1), 63–77.
Lambert, A., Cayouette-Remblière, J., Guéraut, E., Bonvalet, C., Girard, V.,
Le Roux, G., Langlois, L. (2020). Logement, travail, voisinage et conditions de
vie : ce que le confinement a changé pour les Français. Enquête COCONEL,
note de synthèse n°9, vague 11. Institut National des Études Démographiques
(INED).
Lederlin, F. (2020). Télétravail : un travail à distance du monde. Études, 11, 35–45.
Mercier, E. and Boisson, L. (2020). L’observatoire du bien-être au travail : quel
avenir pour le télétravail après le confinement ? Report, IPSOS, Paris.
OIT (2020). Le télétravail durant la pandémie de Covid-19 et après. Practical guide,
Organisation Internationale du Travail, Geneva.
Park, S. and Park, S. (2021). How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the
adaptive performance concepts. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1),
E1–E15.
Pénard, T. and Coulanges, N. (2020). Le télétravail au temps du COVID. Enquête
CAPUNI crise, Groupe d’Intérêt Scientifique Marsouin.
Sardeshmukh, S.R., Sharma, D., Golden, T. (2012). Impact of telework on
exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 193–207.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K. (2006). Job Insecurity: A Literature Review.
The National Institute for Working Life and the Swedish Trade Unions in
Co-operation, Stockholm.
Taskin, L. and Devos, V. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human
resource management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1),
13–24.
Tokarchuk, O., Gabriele, R., Neglia, G. (2021). Teleworking during the Covid-19
crisis in Italy: Evidence and tentative interpretations. Sustainability, 13(4), 2147.
6
(Re)creating the Inhabited

Workspace: Rematerialization
Practices of Remote Work
6.1. Introduction
The notions of work and space are implicitly linked in everyday

language. From a lexical point of view, by using the expressions “going to
work” or even “going to the office”, we make the place of activity a
symbolic space. Combining container and content, the activity of work is
associated with the place “office”, a term which itself designates an
individual space within a whole (the employer’s premises). This association
between “work” and a specific place comes from the industrial revolution:
the worker went “to work” by physically going to the factory. Since the
1980s, the possibility of working “remotely” has gradually emerged, first via
fax or telephone, then thanks to digital tools and, recently, to collaborative
platforms. The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend, as a large part
of the working population has started to work remotely. “Work” itself can be
seen as a space, which explains why remote workers sometimes need to
perceive and design “their” workspace (putting on shoes at home, walking
around the neighborhood to “make the commute”). While some of the
literature agrees on the immaterial character of telework, the worker’s body
is necessarily inscribed in a physical space, whatever it may be.
So how can we (re)create telework spaces? The research question that

animates this chapter seeks to improve understanding of the experiences of
Chapter written by Claire ESTAGNASIÉ, Claudine BONNEAU, Consuelo VASQUEZ and Émilie VAYRE.

remote work. It allows us to focus on the material and physical dimension of

a mediated activity in a context that has been disrupted by the Covid-19
pandemic.
Through the metaphor of the inhabited workspace, this chapter explores

the practices of (re)creating the various workspaces deployed by remote
workers. To do so, it draws on an exploratory qualitative study conducted in
Montreal with 13 people who were already working remotely before the
Covid-19 pandemic. After developing the concepts of remote work, space
and materialization, we will explain our methodological approach in more
detail. Then, we will present the inhabited spaces and the practices that aim
to recreate these workspaces outside the organization. Finally, we will
discuss the possible consequences of this rematerialization of work in spaces
that were not originally designed for it.
6.2. “Going to work”: from work as a place to work from

anywhere
As the term telework, first coined by journalist Jack Schiff in the

Washington Post in 1972, shows, the notion of work is still strongly linked
to the materiality of physical space. The term telecommuting, chosen by the
researcher Jack Nilles, is interesting since commuting refers to the journey
between the workplace and home (Nilles et al. 1976). The concept of
“telecommuting” remains strongly attached to the idea of the commute
between the city center “office” (since it is mainly a service industry job)
and the “home” (which one imagines to be in a suburban residential area).
According to Nilles, it was no longer a question of bringing the worker to
work, but of bringing the work to the worker thanks to technological tools
(at the time, via the telephone, and especially the fax).
In France, since the 1980s, “teleworking” or “working from home”

(Mauri 1980) has been promoted by the public authorities as a way to
reorganize the territory (Craipeau and Carré 1996). Once again, the notion of
work is associated with the physical place: the private space of the home.
Today, the expression home office is used to designate this form of working.
Therefore, the progressive implementation of remote work via ICTs
historically constitutes the opposite movement of that which, during the
industrial revolution, brought workers together in factories around the
production tool (Taskin 2006).
(Re)creating the Inhabited Workspace: Rematerialization Practices of Remote Work 131
We are thus witnessing a fundamental break in the spatio-temporal

framework of work, a framework that was previously structured around the
notions of space and time (Taskin 2006). With information and
communication technologies, workflows can be freed from the location of
the employee: from the “deterritorialization” of the organization comes that
of the individual at work (Craipeau and Carré 1996). Choudhury et al.
(2019) have recently proposed a distinction between the traditional Working
From Home (WFH) and Working From Anywhere (WFA). While “Work
From Home” (WFH) implies temporal flexibility, “Work From Anywhere”
(WFA) refers to both temporal and geographic flexibility. This distinction
invites us to think of work independently of the material space in which it
takes place. In the same vein, the term “location independent” has appeared
to designate people who can work in any physical space. The expression has
been notably endorsed by The Economist magazine, which predicted that by
2035, more than one billion people could be location independent (Mishcon
de Reya LLP 2019). Paradoxically, this term emphasizes the material space
of work (location) while referring to a person who seeks to escape it.
6.3. Space, materiality and remote work
Over the past 15 years or so, the literature in the field of organizational
studies has taken a “spatial turn”, focusing on how organizational spaces
(material and non-material) are constituted and transformed through
everyday practices (Clegg and Kornberger 2006; Taylor and Spicer 2007).
Strongly inspired by the work of Henri Lefebvre (1974, p. 332), the study of
organizational spaces focuses on the dialectical relationship between (i) the
spatial conceptions constructed by those who order the space (conceived
space), (ii) the spatial acts and sensory perceptions that accompany them
(perceived space) and (iii) the images and symbols with which individuals
give their environment (experienced space). From this perspective, “space is
a dialectical relationship between [what is] perceived, conceived, and
experienced” (Raoul 2017, p. 130).
Since the second half of the 2000s, the stream of sociomaterial practices
(influenced in particular by Bruno Latour and Wanda Orlikowski) has also
tried to go beyond the dichotomy between the social and the material by
focusing on organizational practices (Beyes and Steyaert 2012; Vásquez
2016). These practices are constituted by social and spatial dynamics, and
also participate in the very production of the latter (De Vaujany and Mitev
2013). Thus, part of the literature focuses on the (re)materialization of work

in new ways of working, including in remote work configurations. Not only
does the digital inherently have a very material aspect (Leonardi 2010), but
also the body of the working person is anchored in a physical space (Tyler
and Cohen 2010).
For environmental psychology, individuals create meaning with space in

their everyday interactions (De Vaujany and Mitev 2013). Space is a
component of this environment and the individual provides the unit
(Gustafson 2006, p. 221). Thus, workplaces and their associated technical
artifacts have material properties that constrain or facilitate actors’ actions
(Orlikowski and Scott 2013). From then on, examining the material practices
of space of individuals in the different physical locations from which they
work remotely allows us to better understand their experiences of space,
their relationship to work and its identity dimension.
Justine Humphry uses the term “configuration” to refer to the

stabilization activity carried out by workers in their daily work, including a
range of spatial practices such as customization, decoration and overall
“tinkering” to make a technology work according to a planned action or an
existing pattern of activity. Configuration differs from “connection” in its
emphasis on spatial adjustments and the ability to create an environment
conducive to work interactions and practices (Humphry 2014, pp. 194–195).
With the affordances of communication technologies, the home can thus act
as an economic site of production (Luckman 2019).
Although equated with “immaterial” work (Gorz 2001), the findings for
home-based teleworkers (WFH) apply to remote workers who practice in
other locations (WFA). The example of digital nomads is illuminating: these
individuals who move around while working, abandoning the idea of a fixed
home (Nash et al. 2018), paradoxically find themselves confronted with the
material need to (re)constitute workspaces wherever they stop (Bonneau and
Enel 2018). Unlike home-based workers who seek to avoid moving, they use
ICT to be mobile while working.
Remote work therefore covers a variety of experiences and trajectories.

However, remote workers have one thing in common: the blurring of the
boundaries between personal and professional life (Thompson 2019).
A boundary that seeks to materialize in the various inhabited spaces, since

digital nomadism is part of a post-industrial movement in which the material
means of carrying out work are the responsibility of the workers themselves
(Humphry 2014, p. 201).
6.4. Understanding the (re)creation of workspaces
To understand and account for the (re)creation of workspaces in remote

work contexts, we favored an exploratory qualitative approach. Data collection
was carried out through thirteen semi-directed interviews with people working
partially or totally remotely before the pandemic, and claiming Montreal,
Quebec, as their “homeport”. These interviews were conducted between May
and September 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 crisis. This was a period
characterized by the rapid and massive shift to home-based telecommuting on
a global scale. Although this context is not the core of our research, it has
influenced the research process and the testimonies obtained. Given the health
situation, the meetings, which lasted an average of one and a half hours, were
conducted via the Zoom platform (except for Jeanne1, who was met at her
home). The people recruited had all already been working remotely before the
pandemic crisis. As a result, although some of them had experienced the
transition to 100% remote working with the pandemic, all of them were
ostensibly rather favorable to it.
The thirteen interviewees are distributed in four different contexts of

collaborative telework (see Tables 6.1–6.4): four are employees in a
“traditional” organization and work remotely part-time; the others work
remotely full-time and are, depending on the case, employees (3), company
managers (3) or “self-employed”/freelancers (3).
Participants range in age from 25 to 56, with the majority in their thirties.
There are eight men and five women. The vast majority live with a partner,
are married or in a union. About a third have children. They work in
knowledge-based jobs that can be carried out remotely via digital
technologies (project manager, journalist, manager, entrepreneur, translator,
etc.).
1 All participants were given a pseudonym to preserve their anonymity.

Three core themes emerge from the analysis carried out according to a
bottom-up method (Beaugrand 1988): they revolve around physical spaces
within the home, virtual spaces and time management.
Type of remote
Pseudonym Age Profession Other
worker
Employee working Colleague of Rémi

32 Analyst partially remotely (#2). Married to a
#1 Jeanne years (Private before the pandemic location independent
old Sector) (one or two days a worker and aspiring to
week) be one too
Computer Employee working Colleague of Jeanne

Forensics partially remotely (#1), son of
25
Specialist (occasionally before Jean-François (#5).
#2 Rémi years
the pandemic, which Was telecommuting
old (Private increased to 100% more often in his
Sector) in March 2020) previous job
Has been
self-employed and
Employee, working head of a media
34 Journalist partially remotely company. Has
#3 Rosa years (Private before the pandemic frequented many third
old Sector) (on an occasional places (cafés,
basis) coworking spaces) and
considers herself as a
nomad worker
Employee, working
partially remotely
Project before the pandemic
32
Manager (teleworking at Has burnt out. Has a
#4 Marc years
home one or two child on the way.
old (Public Sector) days per month
before the
pandemic)
Table 6.1. Employees in a “classic” organization

working partially remotely
Type of remote
worker
Product Father of Rémi (#2). Mobile
Manager Full remote worker
55 years worker for 30 years. Has an
#5 Jean-François in a “traditional”
old (Private office in the basement of his
company
Sector) home
Colleague of Stéphane (#7).
Accounting Has been a digital nomad in
System Latin America for several
33 years Consultant Employee of an months, chose this company for
#6 Audrey
old officeless company the possibility to travel, but
(Private today aspires to reconvert (after
Sector) our meeting, left the company
and resumed her studies)
Director of Audrey’s colleague (#6). Has
Professional been working remotely for
45 years Services Employee of an
#7 Stéphane over 15 years. After being
old officeless company
(Private mobile for years, has an office
Sector) at home
Table 6.2. Full-time remote employees
Type of remote
worker
Creative Founder and

34 years Director manager of a Works from home. The
#8 Charbel
old marketing design company is officeless
(Private Sector) agency
Set up his company, created
twenty-three years ago in
Regional France, (most of the
Director employees are in France).
56 years
#9 Arthur Founder and CEO Came in Montreal with a
old (Private Sector)
developer and they were
working together in a
coworking space before the
pandemic
English-speaking
entrepreneur. Has founded
Aerospace two companies before this
32 years Engineer
#10 Rahul Company manager one. Since the pandemic, his
old
(Private Sector) company has gone bankrupt,
and he is now looking for a
salaried job
Table 6.3. Participants who are business owners and work full-time remotely
Type of remote
worker
Has just returned
from several years of
travel (as a digital
26
nomad) because of
#11 Kathleen years Translator Self-employed
Covid-19. Lives alone
old
in the apartment she
just bought in
Montreal
Considers herself as a
location independent
35 worker. Changes
#12 Marie-Pier years Business coach Self-employed country frequently
old with her husband
(except during the
pandemic)
These working
Part-time employed arrangements allow
30 him to have the
Social media worker and
#13 Sami years
manager self-employed at the freedom to work from
old anywhere. Currently
same time
lives with his parents
Table 6.4. Self-employed participants
6.5. Analyzing the types of inhabited workspaces
We identified three types of workspaces “inhabited” by workers, in other

words “lived” by individuals (Olive and Morgenstern 2004; Ourednik 2010).
Our analysis shows that remote workers first inhabit the various physical
spaces within their homes (e.g. dedicated room, office in other rooms,
intra-home mobility) by (re)creating these spaces to make them “habitable”
for work. Second, it appears that the space can be experienced virtually,
through the digital tools made available by the organization. Since the
workers’ bodies are anchored in a physical place, virtual workspaces offer a
hybrid experience. Finally, our analysis highlights the importance of
inhabited space-time as such, since space and time together form the
container of human activity: while time is always used in relation to a given
space, space, on the other hand, is always practiced in relation to certain
times of the day (Melbin 2017).
6.5.1. Living in different physical spaces
While all the respondents worked remotely before the pandemic, only
four of them had a dedicated room to work from home (#5, #6, #7, #8).
Marie-Pier, who claims to be location independent and “100% mobile” in
her work, also tries to set up a room dedicated to work, even though she
changes apartments several times a year:
Whenever possible – it depends on the configuration of the

apartments – I favor using a specific room to work in so that I
can “close the door” on my work day. (Marie-Pier #12)
Others, who were occasionally working remotely, also felt the need to
“close the door” on work once they went 100% remote during the spring
2020 lockdown. To do this, work had to “take the place” of other activities.
For example, Rémi has converted the room he and his partner used to use for
video games into an office and thinks that “it can be distracting sometimes
because there are disruptions”. Marc, a public sector employee, teleworked
before the pandemic occasionally, one or two days a month. In the company,
he had an individual closed office, but at home, there was no dedicated place
to work. His habit was rather to work “from the kitchen table, because it was
comfortable”:
Sometimes it was at the dining room table, but that was a little
rarer, because the dining room table squeaks … And although
the kitchen counter was smaller, it had the advantage of not
squeaking. (Mark #4)
At the beginning of the pandemic, he got his laptop, files, base and two
monitors back and moved them into the vacant room in his apartment,
adjusting them so that he could work standing up.
If there is no extra room available, part of a room can do the trick. Sami,
at 30, still lives with his parents and set up a “small office” in his bedroom
when he switched to 100% teleworking. Previously, he worked in the office
of the agency that employs him part-time and carried out his freelance
activity from his sofa. Both of his parents are also self-employed, so he is
used to sharing the sofa with them, whether to work or relax. For the
members of this family, it is natural that work takes its place in the home,
which is far from obvious for others.
Rosa, a journalist, was mobile for her work when she was a freelancer
and says she can work from anywhere, with a preference for places with “a
bit of traffic anyway”, such as cafes:
I never liked working in an office, within four walls, it’s not my

thing. I need to get some fresh air, go for a little walk, maybe
come back … that’s part of the job. (Rosa #3)
Being forced to work from home during the pandemic with her spouse
and their baby required some adjustments:
It’s quite an art. We changed the configuration of the apartment

at the beginning of the pandemic because it was not at all
adapted to what we do. So, in the middle of the room, we put
the dining room table, the big wooden table and that’s where we
work most of the time, on absolutely uncomfortable Ikea chairs,
so our backs are killing us. (Rosa #3)
According to the respondents, (re)creating a space dedicated to work

requires territorial negotiation with other members of the household. Some
even mention sharing space with pets (#3, #5). During lockdown, Rahul
spent so much time working next to his spouse that he now considers her his
“work community”:
She is not my colleague, but she is my coworker. (Rahul #10)
The entrepreneur has a desk in his bedroom, but often prefers to work at
the dining room table, which is better exposed to daylight. When he finishes
work, he puts his computer and files aside so that he can have dinner on the
same table:
I mean, obviously neither of us feel like having dinner on top of

our laptops. (Rahul #10)
While for Rahul, the end of workday materializes in the action of closing
the computer and removing the dedicated objects (pens, notebooks), for
others, like Jeanne, the separation of the spheres of life is embodied by
moving to one side of the table or the other. To delineate the space between
the “work corner” and the “non-work corner”, she has put up a “barrier” of
objects in the middle of the table, with a computer screen installed in the
“office corner” (see Figure 6.1). The most important thing for her is to have
“a space” where no one gets behind her and where she feels “safe”:
I chose a little corner in the big room to feel protected, so that

no one can really approach me regularly, I would say. If my
husband walks past me, let’s say as he walks through this room,
I’m not in the middle of the room. It’s in a corner, so he’s going
to be separate from a specific place, from my space. (Jeanne #1)
Figure 6.1. Jeanne’s “office” (#1), delimited by the barrier of objects and plants.
For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/vayre/digitalization.zip
Although she would like “a really good chair”, she says she finds her
work area pleasant. Her husband, who is self-employed, has an enclosed
office in the apartment. It is important to her that they are not both “in the
same room”.
For respondents who worked 100% remotely before the pandemic, it is

more a matter of (re)negotiating the territory of each person’s work in the
living space than of creating a workspace as such. Audrey, an employee of
an officeless company, is used to working from home, but the crisis has
changed her habits because her partner usually works “in the office”:
The only thing that has changed for me is that now I’m not
alone in the house working remotely. […] That’s not great, of
course, because we’re both trying to figure out how to work
around one another. We both have confidential calls to make, so
it’s not always easy. (Audrey #6)
The distribution of workplaces in the shared living space is rarely

egalitarian and reflects household priorities. Arthur, a company manager,
asked his employees about the quality of their work environments during the
pandemic. He said he was surprised to get such good results in perceived
comfort, compared to what he observed in video conferencing:
My technical director […] I was surprised by his answer

because he says he is well set up … But then when I saw him
on Zoom, he is on a little school desk! He told me “My wife
and daughters have turned the office into a sewing room or
something, and all my appeals have failed!” (laughs) I asked,
“Can’t you just kick them out?” He tells me, “No, that’s not
possible”. So, his office is being occupied, and he’s happy, but
when you see him on Zoom like that […]. (Arthur #9)
For others, certain rooms are perceived as non-working areas to be

preserved, such as the bedroom or the dining room:
What is very important for me is that I don’t work in the dining

room, for example. I don’t work in my bedroom. Because that’s
it, I find it healthy, not to work and sleep in the same space, not
to work and eat in the same space. (Charbel #8)
Having a place dedicated to work does not prevent one from working in
other places at home. Charbel, for example, likes to change places to find his
creativity:
Most of the time when I really want to be very focused […] I

feel safe and secure in my office. Now, when I have a task to do
and I’m lacking a bit of creativity […] that’s when I need to
change my space a little bit, change my environment. So, I
might take my laptop and, if the weather is nice, go out in the
garden. (Charbel #8)
The entrepreneur and head of a marketing design agency has a dedicated

office room with a large corner desk, two monitors and a bookcase in the
basement of his house. However, he prefers to work outside when the
weather permits, or with a view outside:
I think I need space inside. That’s what I need, I need space,

basically! And so, when I’m not looking at the screen, I’m
doing everything I can to not look at a wall. It feels a bit weird
to me, so I’ve never been fond of it. (Charbel #8)
Most of the respondents include symbols in their workspace that are

relevant to this domain (pencils and notebooks for Audrey and Rahul;
binders for Sami). Others go further. Charbel chose a minimalist, uncluttered
decoration and a wall painted black, because he associates this color with the
imagination and values of his agency. For him, the next step would be to
install “an empty bookcase behind him, with no books but just a shelf on
top”, to represent his ambition to go paperless, a choice motivated by an
ecological commitment. Some people choose to install the opposite symbols
in their workspace, those representing non-work, relaxation and leisure, to
motivate themselves. Marie-Pier likes to set up a meditation area next to her
desk. Audrey’s “zone” includes her desk, plants and “old lamps”, but most
importantly a “hammock in the room, with cushions with Relax written on
them” (see Figure 6.2):
It reminds me that I made the choice, then I remember the

benefits of this type of job – there you go […] Sometimes it’s
harder, it’s less jovial, but I made the choice to enjoy being in
my hammock when I need a break. (Audrey #6)
More than its intrinsic characteristics, it is the experience of the space and
its symbolism that seem to be a source of satisfaction. The search for
brightness is often mentioned (#7, #8, #10), as well as comfort (#10, #13) or
access to “good coffee” (#10, #11). Note that most said they were mobile
within their homes, each moving according to the experience they felt they
needed. Kathleen, a “vagabond translator” by her own definition, practiced
digital nomadism for several years before returning to Montreal during the
pandemic, where she has just bought an apartment. During her years of
travel, she worked from “cafes, coworking spaces, Airbnbs”. With public
spaces closed during the lockdown, she replicates intense intra-home

mobility:
Sometimes I’ll work on my little terrace […] Similarly, at the

dining table, from the sofa, at a desk as well […] so I like to get
up, and I go and reposition myself on a screen when I feel like
my mind is going to sleep a little bit, I get up and I go and work
in another corner of the room (laughs). (Kathleen #11)
Figure 6.2. The hammock in Audrey’s office (#6). For a color version
of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/vayre/digitalization.zip
Several respondents report having furniture associated with certain work

activities. For example, Rosa said she often takes her calls on the same
couch, or Audrey goes to “think” in a dedicated chair:
When I’m going to have like something where I have to rack

my brains, when I have to really be focused and talk to no one
[…] inhabit my thoughts for a long time, I’ll settle into a big
chair! (Audrey #6)
If the physical place does not remind us of work, this reminder can be
through emotions, and in particular, the feeling of discomfort that refers to
“work”:
Sometimes I have stuff to get me to work, that’s psychological,

but I have to be uncomfortable. It’s very weird, it’s that it’s
maybe a little bit distorting my body to start working […] If I’m
too good, I don’t do it. (Rosa #3)
6.5.2. Living in virtual spaces
The question of sensoriality associated with work has been addressed via
certain virtual platforms, which aim to emulate the experience of working in
virtual space. Thus, the “office-less” company where Audrey and Stéphane
work has adopted a software that graphically reproduces a physical office, a
“place” according to Stéphane, where each person is represented by an
avatar in his or her individual office:
For example, I can go and knock on a colleague’s door, the

person will hear the knock, and then they will accept or not
accept that I enter their office, if I enter, then our cameras turn
on, we see each other face to face, we can talk face to face, we
can share our screen. So, it’s really nice because it gives the
impression that people are there. (Audrey #6)
Audrey and Stéphane both say they very much appreciate this tool, which
helps to break the isolation and the “tendency to forget that we are alone at
home” (Stéphane). They mention the virtual office with a vocabulary that
appeals to the sensoriality, and even the physicality, of colleagues:
If I like the colleagues that are around me, I feel like my day is
more fun, more beautiful. If they’re people I just get along with,
nothing more, I don’t really care, but I feel their presence! Even
if they’re not there, I think it’s a nice way to imitate reality.
(Audrey #6)
When the company does not provide such platforms – which are often
cited by 100% teleworking organizations – other digital tools can be used as
“offices”. For Rosa, it is “the famous Slack”. She is constantly connected to
it, indicates her presence “at work” with the green “online” button and says
she is stimulated by “the sense of urgency” conveyed by this tool. At Marc’s

national community-based volunteer organization, employees post their
work availability via the calendar tool in the Microsoft Teams application. A
small light – green, orange or red – indicates the person’s availability, or
how long they’ve been away online. Before the pandemic, Marc used to
indicate his unavailability in the company with a cardboard sign on the door
of his individual office, saying “please do not disturb under any
circumstances”. Now that he is fully telecommuting, he says he suffers from
multiple requests from his colleagues that are deemed irrelevant. As a result,
he has made his unavailability visible in the virtual workspace, emulating the
physical sign he used to use in the physical space:
I sometimes book my day so that I can be “red” and show that

I’m not available. […] I’ve also created a meeting with myself,
where I can log in at any time of the day or night, my status
changes to “call”, and I don’t get any more notifications. (Mark
#4)
Some respondents said that they do not inhabit the virtual space in the
same way as the physical space. Rosa says she is “more present” online than
in person, the written word being her preferred means of expression. Spaces
are not inhabited in the same way either when they are interrelated. For
example, Sami says he likes to work from his bed, but never does so when
he is in a videoconference for fear of being judged. The virtual realm as a
“workspace” can also be used to segment work and non-work time. Audrey
states that she uses different Internet browsers in the personal and
professional domains:
That way I’m always logged into the right accounts. If I’m at
work, I know I have no business going on Facebook, it’s going
to ask me for a password. Whereas if I’m in my personal time
browser, it’s already going to be open. […] Same thing for my
Gmail, it’s not open, so I have to do some steps. It seems that it
helps me disciplining myself! (Audrey #6)
6.5.3. Living in time as space
While some remote workers, like Rémi, follow the same working hours
as in the office, the majority of respondents have defined slightly different
working time zones for remote work. Jeanne, his colleague, respects the
company’s schedule (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) when she teleworks from
Montreal, but takes advantage of the time zone difference when she visits
her family in France to do something else in the morning. Marc says he
works fewer hours remotely because he is more productive and less
interrupted. Rahul, who is more efficient in the evening, works several times
a week between 10 p.m. and midnight, when his girlfriend goes to sleep. As
for Stéphane, he organizes himself according to the periods most favorable
to his own performance, while conceding that teleworking requires an
“entrepreneurial side”:
It’s counter-intuitive to say, “I’m going to work from 9 to 5”,

because there are times of the day when I’ll be fine, and others
when I won’t … I personally know that at 8 o’clock in the
evening I have a boost of energy and my ideas are clearer. […]
I’m able to work from 8 pm to 10 pm and probably be more
productive than I would be for six hours during the day. You
can adapt to your personal performance cycle. (Stephen #7)
Being able to work from other spaces-times is a frequent demand of

remote workers, especially digital nomads. Marie-Pier chose this lifestyle to
escape the famous “9 to 5” and manage her time freely. Nevertheless, the
respondents all say they have difficulty defining the space-time boundaries
of their work:
The ease with which people can go on their mobile phones is a

game changer. Whether people have a virtual or physical office,
it’s a challenge to say to themselves, “I’m done, nothing’s
going to happen after 6 p.m. today”. […] There have been times
in my life when I’ve worked non-stop, it depends on your
personality, I worked in the evening, on weekends, and then
after that I tried to keep it within a limited framework.”
(Stephen #7)
Sometimes the boundary is materially embodied, like Jean-François who,

despite having an office in the basement of his house, felt the need to
symbolize work times by wearing a hat, as a “reminder to himself”, and also
to make his children understand not to disturb him:
Sometimes they would see that it was suppertime and they

would still see me with my hat on […] and then my daughter
would say, “Can we talk to you now? Have you finished
working?” “Sorry, I forgot my hat!” (Jean-François #5)
The experience of space inhabited by work is hybrid: the remote worker

creates objects related to the space-time dedicated to work, which are
superimposed on the reality of physical space. Through their practices,
individuals try to redefine the contours of space.
6.6. Practices of (re)creating inhabited workspaces
The material arrangements (Callon and Law 1995) put in place by the
respondents allow us to reflect on the degrees of materiality of remote work
(Cooren 2015): it is anchored in physical, virtual spaces or in objects related
to the space-time of work. The interviews illustrate ways of making the
recreated workspace habitable. These practices are grouped into three main
axes derived from a construction metaphor:
– The first axis refers to the “architect” worker, who seeks to emulate the
preconceived idea of what a workspace should be through the (re)creation of
his workspace.
– The second refers to the “bricklayer” worker, whose practices rather
consist of (re)constructing the boundaries between work and non-work.
– The third refers to the personalization of the space, in its identical
dimension, operated by the “decorator” worker.
6.6.1. “Drawing the plan”: the worker-architect and workplace

emulation
The dematerialization/rematerialization of remote work raises questions

about the form of work. The concept of “translation”, in the geometrical
sense of the term, makes it possible to evoke this setting in motion of work
and its reincarnation by a change of form in another space (working from
home, for example). This translation could be the geometric translation of
the notion of “extensification”, i.e. the distribution or export of work across
different spaces, scales and time periods (Jarvis and Pratt 2006).
This spillover of work can be “experienced both in terms of the nature of

the work (a temporal spillover) and the place of work (spatial spillover)”
(Jarvis and Pratt 2006, p. 33, cited in Luckman, 2019). Having an office is
the most obvious representation of the materialization of work within the
home, and also of its delineation. Having a room dedicated to work gives a
sense of working “from home”, but not “at home” (Luckman, 2019). This is
particularly the case when the room is located on another floor, as for
Stéphane who “goes upstairs to work”, or Charbel and Jean-François who,
for their part, go downstairs to the basement. Thus, the physical and mental
boundaries offered by the existence of a dedicated office provide a sense of
being more professional, especially vis-à-vis video conferencing clients
(Luckman 2019). Whether the workspace is physically “invisible” or is at
the center of the home (as in Audrey’s case), its continuous accessibility is
likely to lead to difficulties in disconnecting from work.
For the worker-architect, configuring the workspace involves

technological elements (Humphry 2014), such as a good Internet connection,
and also through material elements of comfort associated with work or
performance (coffee for Rahul and Kathleen; ergonomic cushions for Rosa
or Audrey; light for Stéphane or Charbel; plants for Jeanne or
Jean-François). The worker-architect reproduces their idea of a workplace,
often inspired by the aesthetics of start-ups or coworking spaces (Moriset
2017).
In the same way that coworking plays on the imaginary of rupture by

breaking down the traditional codes of work – spatial, temporal,
organizational or symbolic according to Gabay-Mariani (2017) – some
teleworkers define their workspace by the very negation of this activity. For
Audrey, teleworking only consists in “not” going to the office, but the
(re)creation of her space resembles that of a modern company: uncluttered
desk, notebooks, pens, plants. In Marie-Pier’s case, the presence of objects
symbolizing the negation of the representation of work within the space
dedicated to it (a cushion with the injunction Relax, a hammock) testifies to
the material setting up of resourcing activities, which are ultimately aimed at
increasing performance at work. This materialization of productivity tools
can, in part, be seen as an “entrepreneurship of the self” (Cukier 2017).
While personal development in the workplace may be one of the ways in
which employees’ subjectivity is mobilized, self-employed workers, like
Marie-Pier, adopt a discourse that is intertwined with the object of their work
and their own subjectivity.
While the worker-architect does not reproduce the aestheticism of the

work as such, this emulation takes place via sensitivity. According to Rosa,
work must necessarily be carried out in an uncomfortable posture since it is
associated with the idea of suffering (recalling the Latin etymology of
“work”, tripalium, an instrument of torture). In Kathleen’s case, the spaces
from which she carries out her activity do not resemble traditional
workspaces. Her example illustrates the tension between the spheres of
leisure and work among digital nomads (Thompson 2019) recalling the
concept of “devotional leisure”, with work-based identity giving way to
leisure-based identity (Blackshaw 2018). In this case, the space is organized
in such a way as to invisibilize the work that takes place in it.
6.6.2. “Laying the bricks”: the worker-bricklayer and

boundary-building
In the quest for work–life balance, having a dedicated office and fixed
hours is the most obvious demarcation. However, there are other practices
that can help redefine the boundaries between work and non-work. The
“barrier of objects” erected on Jeanne’s dining table to delimit the work area
is a good example of the material embodiment of these boundaries. They
involve not only control by the worker, but also negotiation and
understanding by other household members about each other’s spatial
availability and rights within the home (Luckman 2019). The boundary can
also be symbolically materialized in an object, such as the hat worn by
Jean-François when he works, or the hammock that reminds Audrey of
non-work. For his part, Charbel associates certain music with certain tasks or
times of the day, the symbolic dimension of media allowing him to (re)create
a framework for work and to delimit work and leisure at home (Bengtsson
2006).
Despite these strategies, defining the boundaries between work and

non-work remains complex for most respondents. In particular, it is the
people who say that they do not have precise temporal work boundaries (like
Stéphane) or who remain constantly connected to online collaboration tools
(like Jean-François) who feel the most blurring between life domains. On the
contrary, not having a dedicated office does not systematically pose a
problem: Jeanne certainly works on part of a table delimited by plants and
objects, but she disconnects completely after her working hours. The
difficulty in building boundaries thus seems to stem from the interweaving
of physical, virtual and temporal spaces. It is not enough to materialize a

workspace (a dedicated place); it must also be delimited in time and
disconnected from virtual workspaces. The worker-bricklayer is therefore
faced with a threefold task of constructing boundaries.
However, with the possibility of working 24 hours a day, the freedom to

work anywhere is achieved as long as one is constantly reachable (Luckman
2019), as “the dominant utopian image is no longer freedom from work, but
freedom to work” (Gregg 2008, p. 290). This “freedom to work” is rooted in
professional identity: Rosa has a strong identification with her profession as
a journalist, which she sees as a “life mission”. While she easily conceives
the notion of “work” independently of associated places and can physically
work anywhere, she says she finds it difficult to disconnect from virtual
spaces, as she is “the voice” of those who “don’t have the chance” to express
themselves there (notably the LGBT+ community with whom she is very
involved). The building of boundaries (or the lack of them, in Rosa’s case)
thus has an identity dimension, as well as a space identity as such.
6.6.3. “Choosing the wallpaper”: the worker-decorator and

identification with the space
The worker-decorator configures his or her workspace to make it

habitable (with plants, light, etc.) and also according to his or her
personality. In traditional office work, the personalization and delimitation
of the workspace are achieved through physical markers of self-affirmation,
such as photographs, or the design of the office décor. Elsbach (2003)
emphasizes the connection between the concept of “self at work” and what
the individual defines as his or her identity through the workspace. For the
majority of remote workers, work identity and identification with space are
strongly affected. The expression “my space” is recurrent among the
interviewees. When this space is not clearly delimited, it is the practice of
this same space that covers an identity dimension: defining herself as a
“vagabond translator”, Kathleen replicates her mobile lifestyle within her
home.
We can see the value of examining the identity dimension of work

settings created for their own sake, when no one sees them (Bengtsson 2006,
p. 123), as well as the professional identity they make visible in the
reconstructed workspaces. Although Jeanne does not have a dedicated office,
she is proud of her object barrier and sent a photograph of it to her

colleagues, which enabled her to win the “best desk award”. Charbel
materializes his ecological and paperless commitment through the choice of
an empty bookcase, which will inevitably arouse the curiosity of whoever he
is speaking to by video conference. The furniture thus participates in the
deliberate presentation of oneself to others.
Remote work, through its interweaving of physical space (the worker’s

body in a space) and virtual space (linked to colleagues by videoconference),
has also a performative dimension. When the physical space is not
personalized in accordance with the individual’s work identity, the person
risks being perceived as less professional. The example of Arthur, who says
he is surprised to see his technical director set up with a school desk, or
Sami, who does not do his calls from his bed (although he likes to work
there), show the identity dimension inherent in the creation of remote
workspaces.
6.7. Inhabiting the different workspaces: a “meta-work” for

which the individual is solely responsible?
This research shows that (re)creating an inhabitable workspace requires a

combination of three boundaries: material, of course, and also temporal and
virtual disconnection. These boundaries are characterized by their ephemeral
and constantly renegotiated nature. While the interviewees had all created a
certain work framework before the pandemic (material, virtual and/or
temporal), they all had to renegotiate it during the health crisis. The previous
boundaries were disrupted by the sharing of territory with other members of
the household in telework, the presence of children and relatives, as well as
by the impossibility of mobility associated with the lockdown and public
health measures. Virtual boundaries, rules and rituals of online presence
were also challenged. Our analyses reveal a common thread among all our
participants: the work of configuring and rematerializing work falls to them.
While working “from anywhere” is technically possible, it must nevertheless
be anchored somewhere. Yet, this meta-work of (re)creating workspaces is
the responsibility of remote workers – WFH or WFA (Bonneau and
Enel 2018).
Our study also shows that the roles of architect, bricklayer and decorator
follow one another, or even overlap and combine in a circular fashion.
Through the metaphor of the inhabited spaces of work, it is possible to

understand how the boundaries between spheres of life are created. In
contrast to real work, they are created individually, not collectively
(Bengtsson 2006), and involve a certain amount of self-management. Even
though the company provides the work equipment, the configuration to make
the space “habitable” for work is the responsibility of the individual and
involves additional financial costs (dedicated room, furniture, quiet space),
and also personal costs (negotiation with relatives, organization).
Beyond the material and financial support that could be offered by work
organizations, the articulation and management of areas of existence rests
solely on the shoulders of the worker. This is a responsibility which, in the
face of the promise of autonomy and freedom of remote work, is a source of
ambivalence and likely to generate stress (Lancry 2007). Remote work can
thus expose workers to certain psychosocial risks and to imbalances between
areas of life, the harmful effects of which on workers’ health are well
known. Still, the responsibility for preventing these risks cannot be assumed
by those who may be victims of them.
However, this chapter does not claim to be exhaustive. It presents a point

of view situated in an organizational perspective. The interviews conducted
with these individuals constitute an exploratory process that should be
further investigated in order to evaluate the evolution of these practices. In
this context, it would be interesting to diversify the profiles of the
respondents, in terms of their socio-occupational category, the longevity of
their experience of remote work and their geographical and territorial roots.
Moreover, as this study was conducted at the end of the first wave of the
Covid-19 pandemic, i.e. in a specific context strongly marked by the sanitary
and economic situation, it will be important to compare it with other work
carried out in this context and afterwards, to appreciate its scope. Finally, the
metaphor of the inhabited spaces of work seems to us to be particularly
relevant in view of the increase and probable continuation of remote work. I
could serve as a basis for analyzing the psychosocial risks potentially
associated with the (re)materialization of work.
6.8. References
Allon, F. (2014). The feminisation of finance. Australian Feminist Studies, 29(79),

12–30.
Ashcraft, K.L. (2013). The glass slipper: “Incorporating” occupational identity in

management studies. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 6–31.
Beaugrand, J.P. (1988). Démarche scientifique et cycle de la recherche. In
Fondements et étapes de la recherche scientifique en psychologie, Robert, M.
(ed). Chenelière et Stanké, Montreal.
Bengtsson, S. (2006). Symbolic spaces of everyday life. Nordicom Review, 27(2),
119–132.
Beyes, T. and Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational
theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45–61.
Blackshaw, T. (2018). The two rival concepts of devotional leisure: Towards an
understanding of twenty-first century human creativity and the possibility of
freedom. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 1(1), 75–97.
Bonneau, C. and Enel, L. (2018). Caractériser le méta-travail des nomades
numériques : un préalable à l’identification des compétences requises. Lien
social et politiques, 81, 138–155.
Callon, M. and Law, J. (1995). Agency and the hybrid “Collectif”. South Atlantic
Quarterly, 94(2), 481–507.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., Larson, B. (2019). Work-from-anywhere: The
productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Social Science Research Network,
Rochester.
Cooren, F. (2015). In medias res: Communication, existence, and materiality.
Communication Research and Practice, 1(4), 307–321.
Craipeau, S. and Carré, D. (1996). Entre délocalisation et mobilité : analyse des
stratégies entrepreneuriales de télétravail. Technologies de l’information et de la
société, 8(4), 333–354.
Cukier, A. (2017). Entrepreneur de soi ou travailleur aliéné ? Terrains/Théories, 6
[Online]. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/teth/918 [Accessed 24
February 2021].
De Vaujany, F.-X. and Mitev, N. (2013). Introduction: Space in organizations and
sociomateriality. In Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artefacts and
Practices, De Vaujany, F.-X. and Mitev, N. (eds). Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1972). L’anti-Œdipe, Volume 5. Editions de Minuit,
Paris.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations:

Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622–654.
Gabay-Mariani, L. (2017). Les promesses du coworking : de la rupture à l’utopie,
les nouveaux territoires du travail ? Étude des imaginaires associés à la pratique
du co-working. Sciences de l’information et de la communication.
Gorz, A. (2001). La personne devient une entreprise. Revue du MAUSS, 18(2),
61–66.
Gregg, M. (2008). The normalisation of flexible female labour in the information
economy. Feminist Media Studies, 8(3), 285–299.
Gustafson, C. (2006). Organizations and physical space. In Organizations and
Management Theory, Clegg, S.R. and Kornberger, M. (eds). Liber &
Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.
Humphry, J. (2014). Officing: Mediating time and the professional self in the
support of nomadic work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 23(2),
185–204.
Jarvis, H. and Pratt, A.C. (2006). Bringing it all back home: The extensification and
“overflowing” of work: The case of San Francisco’s new media households.
Geoforum, 37(3), 331–339.
Lancry, A. (2007). Incertitude et stress. Le travail humain, 70(3), 289–305.
Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos, Paris.
Leonardi, P.M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter.
First Monday, 15(6).
Luckman, S. (2019). Organising the home as making space. In The Organization of
Craft Work, Bell, E. (ed.). Routledge, London.
Mauri, L. (1980). Le travail à domicile. Féminin présent, INA, Bry-sur-Marne.
Melbin, M. (2017). Night as frontier. Cultures & Conflits, 1–2(105–106), 29–59.
Mishcon de Reya LLP (2019). What is a digital nomad? Twitter video.
Moriset, B. (2017). Inventer les nouveaux lieux de la ville créative : les espaces de
co-working. Territoire en mouvement, 34.
Nash, C., Jarrahi, M.H., Sutherland, W., Phillips, G. (2018). Digital nomads beyond
the buzzword: Defining digital nomadic work and use of digital technologies.
International Conference on Information, 207–217.
Nilles, J.M., Carlson, F.R., Gray, P., Hanneman, G. (1976). Telecommuting – An

alternative to urban transportation congestion. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, 6(2), 77–84.
Olive, M. and Morgenstern, M. (2004). L’organisation de l’espace habité. Gallia
Préhistoire, 37(1), 181–220.
Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2013). What happens when evaluation goes
online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organization
Science, 25(3), 868–891.
Ourednik, A. (2010). L’habitant et la cohabitation dans les modèles de l’espace
habité. PhD Thesis, ENAC, EPFL, Lausanne.
Raoul, B. (2017). Le territoire comme objet communicationnel : entre “tiers
symbolisant” et “discours social”. Une mise en perspective médiatique.
Communication langages, 193(3), 117–143.
Taskin, L. (2006). Télétravail : les enjeux de la déspatialisation pour le management
humain. Revue interventions économiques, 34.
Taylor, S. and Spicer, A. (2007). Time for space: A narrative review of research on
organizational spaces. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4),
325–346.
Thompson, B.Y. (2019). The digital nomad lifestyle: (Remote) work/leisure balance,
privilege, and constructed community. International Journal of the Sociology of
Leisure, 2(1), 27–42.
Tyler, M. and Cohen, L. (2010). Spaces that matter: Gender performativity and
organizational space. Organization Studies, 31(2), 175–198.
Vásquez, C. (2016). A spatial grammar of organising: Studying the communicative
constitution of organisational spaces. Communication Research and Practice,
2(3), 351–377.
PART 3
The Flex Office and Coworking: Conditions

of Appropriation and Psychosocial Impacts

7
The Flex Office: What are the Challenges

for Organizations and Users?
7.1. Introduction
The implementation of the flex office, which consists of putting an end to

the paradigm of the personal and dedicated workstation, is not without its
share of questions. However, the research that has been conducted to date on
this phenomenon in management sciences remains rather limited. This
research has been developed mainly through two prisms: corporate real
estate and theories of organizations. In this chapter, we propose to review the
main scientific contributions relating to the flex office, first, by reviewing
the genesis of this spatial organization of work, then by proposing a
summary of what the existing research says about the opportunities and risks
associated with the flex office, and finally, by showing why the Covid-19
health crisis could greatly accelerate its development.
7.2. The origins of the flex office concept
7.2.1. Towards greater flexibility
In a way, the flexible office appeared in the 1980s as a spatial translation

of the situation following the Trente Glorieuses (the 30 years that followed
the end of World War II in France). The term “non-territorial office” is
mainly used to refer to how space is used, and IBM had already designed
this by 1970 in the United States through its unallocated cellular offices
Chapter written by Nicolas COCHARD and Delphine MINCHELLA.

equipped with a variety of spaces dedicated to functions other than

individual production tasks. We can see the beginnings of flexibility in the
form of Activity Based Working. Thierry Pillon admits that the experiment,
which was successful on a local level, was not extended due to the
cumbersome nature of IT at the time, which did not allow for mobility
(Pillon 2016).
The conceptualization of the flexible office is the work of two Harvard

professors, Philip Stone and Robert Luchetti who, in 1985, in an article
entitled “Your office is where you are” (Stone and Luchetti 1985), promote a
reduced individual workstation in favor of other spaces that encourage
movement and collective work. Here again, the company is perceived as
reticular, and space is seen as the lever that can activate this network by
splitting up tasks, activities and where they are carried out. The flex office
accompanies the internal and external mobility of service sector employees.
It is therefore clear that while the optimization of surface areas and,

therefore, the major expense item of real estate is an undeniable input, the
flexible office is also the result of both a more uncertain economic
environment and the evolution of working methods that can be described as
“new” for managers in the service sector. The financial approach is therefore
not the only one that is relevant when it comes to thinking about the flexible
workspace.
7.2.2. The contribution of new information technologies
During the 1990s, the expression “new ways of working” was coined to
define executive work. Driven by the digitalization of work, NWOWs
promote a high degree of flexibility and are understood as the possibility for
an employee to choose where, when and how they wish to carry out an
assignment. Management discourse associates this freedom of action with a
whole series of positive consequences, of which we are still largely aware:
satisfaction, well-being, commitment, motivation, performance and
attractiveness. The flexible office seems to be the answer to NWOWs, in line
with a new managerial and organizational culture that tends to focus on
employee empowerment.
At the same time, the office building is becoming digital and “the office
is the computer”. Even before the rise of hand-held devices, it was digital
The Flex Office: What are the Challenges for Organizations and Users? 159
technology that led to a rethinking of work and therefore of workspaces,

whose added value is gradually becoming articulated around the collective
dynamics that it can help to stimulate, particularly in the context of project
work. Going to the office no longer just means going to work at a desk.
While the tertiary sector, under the influence of industrial workspaces,
placed the employee sitting at their desk at the center of the production
system, this reality changed in the 1990s. The tertiary workspace is gradually
becoming a resource that promotes the collective and breaks with the
exclusive individual employee/workstation link.
7.3. On the organizational side
7.3.1. Towards new paradigms
It was in the 1990s that the flex office concept underwent its first phase
of development due to the rise of new information and communication
technology (NICT). It was the company DEGW, headed by Frank Duffy and
John Worthington, that allowed the concept to develop by promoting the
idea that office working had become nomadic. In the 1990s, many IT
companies and consulting firms took up the concept, due to their strong
presence at the client’s premises. The term “activity-based” was coined by
the work environment specialist Erik Veldhoen. In 2004, in his book The Art
of Working, he underlined the potential for this type of concept to achieve
strategic corporate objectives, which the work environment makes an
important contribution to. In 1995, Veldhoen led the transformation project
of Interpolis, an insurance company in the Netherlands. This
“activity-based” project promoted open spaces to facilitate interaction
between managers and employees. The loss of the desk was accompanied by
a range of spaces available to employees according to their needs or desires.
This model is still in use at Interpolis.
In 1995, Andersen Consulting moved to the 13th arrondissement of Paris.

The principle of the layout is that of the unassigned office, with places
available on reservation. Only 300 workstations were planned for three times
as many employees, mainly nomadic consultants who were not present in the
headquarters. The spatial flexibility of this project showed that the
optimization of surface areas could be pushed to the limit if the use allowed
it, which is far from being the case in all organizations. Above all, it raises
questions about the value of the office when the use of it is mainly for
working individually. Going to the office takes on a different meaning as the

value of the workspace gradually surpasses functionality.
Going to the office for an individual production task is therefore

increasingly done in a spirit of service to the user, while the collective
dimension gradually prevails, both in work and in sociability. The
increasingly open office becomes a revelation of new socio-cultural
paradigms, around the duality of individual freedom/collective dynamics
(Pillon 2016).
However, it is indeed from the 2000s that the flex office has developed. It
is worth noting the geographical element at this point, since scientific
research is largely dominated by Anglosphere and Scandinavian areas,
which corresponds to the regions in which the flex office has been massively
implemented since the beginning of the 2000s. For this subject, as for others,
research is naturally developing as the phenomenon develops. It should also
be noted that access to land is not always easy depending on the country and
culture. This body of work therefore allows for a nuanced approach.
7.3.2. The flex office and economic logic
The cost of real estate is the second largest expense for an organization
after payroll. It is therefore only natural to ask how to control it. The flex
office is one of the possible ways in which the costs of the work
environment can be controlled, for two main reasons. On the one hand, it
allows for the optimization of workstation occupancy in a context of more
random employee presence, given that it is only open half of the working
time. The cost factor of a real estate strategy is all the more understandable
in a context of low workstation occupancy. The conjunction of the price of a
square meter and its low occupancy (generally half of the working time) is a
worthy solution to a real problem. While optimization is an absolutely
normal objective, spatial flexibility must integrate organizational reflection,
at the risk of leading to dead ends in the reasoning of real estate projects and
undermining collective performance (Baron 2011).
The financial element is almost always one of the inputs to a flex office
project. With tertiarization coupled with metropolitanization, it is clear that
the price per square meter is higher in locations with high demand and
therefore high value. Therefore, in the uncertain economic climate, many
organizations are focusing on cost reduction, and the flex office is indeed a
means to this end (Oseland et al. 2011; Khanna et al. 2013; Marceau-Houle
2015). In terms of the flex office, it should be remembered, however, that
many projects do not necessarily reduce the surface area and the gain is
mainly in the workstation, which, once shared, is optimized. Hence, the flex
office is defined primarily by the ratio of the number of employees and the
number of workstations, bearing in mind that an individual work position is
usually accompanied by another work position in another area of the
company. And it is the sharing of the workstation that frees up this variety of
work positions. However, it must be emphasized that flex office projects
carried out with the sole aim of reducing surface areas are very rare today
and a design based on a multiplicity of uses with a concern for user
satisfaction is common, from an Activity-Based Working perspective
(Arundell et al. 2018).
Flexibility leads to a reduction in real estate costs in the sense that it often
allows for a reduction in surface area, and also, and above all, for
optimization (de Vries et al. 2008). Flexibility of the workspace leads to
flexibility of the organization, which is better able to absorb changes in the
organization, growth in the workforce or organizational reconfiguration in
particular. However, previous studies show that a project to make work
environments more flexible creates value when it incorporates
considerations of well-being and satisfaction (Petrulaitiene and Jylhä 2015).
7.3.3. Evaluating the effects of the flex office
Real estate expenditure is an investment whose return is difficult to

evaluate. While the economic benefits of the flex office are measurable, the
performance gains, although promised, are little known and probably not
measurable. Flexible workspaces generally entail a 20–40% reduction in
occupancy and costs. But some of these savings can be reinvested to create
better workspaces, even though the gains are not certain (Van Meel 2019).
Numerous studies have sought to verify a promise often made by those

involved in space planning: that of the performance lever that the
transformation can have on individual, collective and organizational
performance (Vischer and Fischer 2005). It should be remembered that the
effects of workspace design on performance are difficult to measure because
the causal links are so varied that it is complicated to attribute performance
to the environmental dimension. But like the open space space before it, the
communication surrounding the deployment of the flex office does not
escape these types of promises, not because they are difficult to keep but
because they are difficult to verify.
In the English-speaking world, there is a culture of post-occupancy

evaluation, which aims to look for discrepancies between the design and the
actual uses in order to allow adjustments with a view to ensuring continuous
improvement (Hay et al. 2018). In France, as in other countries, this
post-occupancy evaluation is rare even though methods exist (Riratanaphong
and Van der Voordt 2015; Pavlavin and Vuolle 2016; Tagliaro 2018). It
essentially involves the search for performance indicators, but the major
difficulty lies in clearly establishing the causal links between a spatial form
and performance. A recent study, based on a cognitive performance
measurement approach, showed that the cognitive overload generated by the
implementation of the flex office led to a decrease in performance. This
hyperstimulation is also accompanied by a decrease in movement despite the
promise of the dynamic environment. This study ultimately indicates that the
economic gains associated with the redesign of workspaces are
counterbalanced by a decrease in performance, objectively measured by the
cognitive approach (Haapakangas et al. 2018).
In the absence of being able to apprehend the performance resulting from

a flex office transformation, research draws on user satisfaction in the
post-occupancy evaluation process (Fleury-Bahi and Marcouyeux 2011;
Moffat et al. 2014). In simple terms, the flex office is far from guaranteeing
user satisfaction, even though there are nuances.
7.4. On the user side
7.4.1. Questioning the flex office experience
Many studies have sought to assess the perceived satisfaction of users in

a flex office environment compared to other types of accommodation (open
space with assigned desks, shared offices and closed individual offices). The
main takeaway is that dissatisfaction is frequent, especially in the individual
dimension. The flex office often comes last in terms of satisfaction and
perceived productivity, while the individual office comes first (Danielsson
2009; De Been and Beijer 2014). The effort put into the material quality of
the new environment, which involves the integration of often much better
furniture and spaces, does not compensate for the loss of the individual
office, which is seen as causing a loss of identity at work. The lack of
personalization is part of this logic and is one of the main negative effects of
the flex office, in addition to the classic negativities associated with open
spaces: in particular, noise, lack of privacy and confidentiality, and
concentration problems (De Been and Beijer 2014).
But make no mistake: preferring a closed and protective space to an open

and exposed one is quite natural. Environmental psychology has largely
developed the invariant character of territorial needs, notably in the 1960s,
with the reading of space through proxemics (Hall 1971). Hence, resistance
to space in the context of the implementation of a shared space is also
considered a natural reflex. The opposite would be almost surprising, which
explains why individuals indirectly try to reclaim a personal space in this
space which is, by definition, impersonal (Donis and Taskin 2017). The
association between decompartmentalized workspaces and dissatisfaction is
direct and reinforced by the non-allocation of a regular workstation, with
perceived performance often lower in such spaces (Bodin-Danielsson and
Theorell 2018). In such decompartmentalized spaces where desks are no
longer assigned, colleagues avoid talking for fear of disturbing one another:
individuals no longer know who they are sitting next to, keep their eyes
glued to their computers and have to go outside if they want to call someone
(Moriceau et al. 2020).
One of the problems with the implementation of the flex office often lies
in a kind of concealment of identity issues, which are nonetheless prevalent,
in favor of discursive elements turned towards the semantics of modernity.
The modernity promoted by the implementation of so-called dynamic spaces
is, however, never really defined and there is often a denigration of invariant
psychological needs in favor of a quest for progress (Antoine 2018). The
rhetoric of movement often prevails over that of anchoring. And the move to
the flex office is synonymous with insecurity at first because one loses one’s
bearings and habits are disrupted (Inalhan 2009).
7.4.2. The perceived impact of the flex office
In reality, the flex office questions the invariable environmental needs of

people, perhaps more than other forms of workspace organization.
Jacqueline Vischer’s pyramid is strongly questioned by flexible spatial forms

(Vischer 2007). Physical comfort, the first level of the pyramid, is most often
provided by a flex office project. It corresponds to a modernization of the
layout with standards of comfort which are certainly disparate in the world,
but are generally increasingly qualitative in terms of lighting, temperature
and air circulation, for example. The second level of the pyramid is that of
functional comfort, which is defined by the capacity of the space to
constitute a resource for work.
With the flex office, functional comfort is questioned. On the one hand,
the loss of the individually allocated office can give the feeling of loss and
therefore deterioration, but on the other hand, since the flex office is a
concept that gives pride of place to a diversity of spaces available outside the
individual workstation, we can consider a gain and an improvement. Finally,
the third level of the pyramid is that of psychological comfort, which is
defined by a strong identity dimension and the notion of meaning. It is
probably here that the flex office is the most disruptive for users since it
disrupts the usual reference points of life in a traditional office while
guaranteeing a more diversified and perhaps richer work experience
(Danielsson 2009).
Figure 7.1. The habitability pyramid (source: (Vischer 2007))
However, numerous studies also highlight the positive elements of the

flex office, particularly in the collective and social dimensions. Overall,
satisfaction is mainly due to the fact that users feel less obligation to
communicate and interact, even though, on this last point, a nuance is needed
because of the problems of confidentiality and privacy that spatial openness
generates. Several studies have shown that closed individual offices, which
are often widely preferred by employees, are even detrimental to exchange,
thus generating strong dissatisfaction (De Been and Beijer 2014). A Dutch
study has shown, for example, that in comparison with the flex office and the
open space, the closed individual office was the least satisfactory in terms of
exchange because the door constitutes a barrier that is more difficult to cross
than in open-plan spatial forms. The interaction then takes on a formalism
that is detrimental to the exchange (De Been and Beijer 2014).
The closed individual office, which is more conducive to the satisfaction

of privacy-related needs, no longer seems to correspond entirely to the needs
of information flow that characterizes the tertiary activity (Haapakangas
et al. 2018). Indeed, the performance of companies is partly played out
through the fluidity of the flow of information. Short and direct circuits are
preferable and the closed individual office can act as an obstacle to these
short circuits because asking a colleague is a less spontaneous process, all
the more so when the interaction is hierarchically asymmetric. That said, the
cognitive overload that can be found in workspaces can also hinder the flow
of information, which is too spontaneous and direct (Seddigh et al. 2014).
Indeed, although corporate real estate professionals promote
decompartmentalization as a vector for more interactions, this has not really
been proven and is more a belief than a fact (Heerwagen et al. 2011; Haynes
et al. 2017; Appel-Meulenbroek et al. 2018).
Another belief associated with the flex office is that the user of the space
will use the space according to the task at hand, assuming that the day is
broken down into several different times. While fragmentation is a fact,
studies highlight the strong tendency of users to always choose the same
workstation and to leave their belongings there throughout the day, even in
the event of prolonged absence. In the same way, the clean desk, which
consists of leaving the workstation without belongings in the evening, is far
from being easily adopted. The user often marks their territory while
possibly indicating their discomfort. To be clear, the transition to so-called
dynamic environments is not always accompanied by practices that are any
different to workspace practices, and nesting behaviors are frequent
(Haapakanagas et al. 2018).
Aesthetics are also often cited in studies as a factor in satisfaction. With a

redesign, users benefit from their workspace being modernized and the
aesthetics being brought up to date. This leads to a gain in physical comfort.
However, it seems that the very qualitative dimension of the overall aesthetic
is a constant in flex office projects. This aesthetic dimension should not be
seen as secondary because, beyond the pleasant side, it carries deeper
messages related to what we can call care. When management aims for a
high level of performance, this impacts on aesthetics and sends the message
that the employee is taken care of by providing them with good physical
working conditions (De Been et al. 2015; Brunia et al. 2016; Rolfö et al.
2017; Rolfö 2018). Moreover, while the flex office is often understood by
employees as a reduction of real estate costs, spending on a qualitative
environment qualifies this aspect slightly. Finally, since a flex office project
is associated with modernization, even though this often remains ill-defined,
qualitative services in the aesthetic dimension make it possible to show an
assumed modernity, with the associated image and attractiveness issues
(Antoine 2018). That being said, studies mention the fact that although the
aesthetic dimension is most often appreciated by users, it does not
necessarily compensate for the loss of the individual office.
The numerous studies available allow us to understand the nuances of the

flex office debate. It has been found that it is not very popular with office
users because it disturbs their environmental needs. At the individual level,
flex office users are reluctant and often resistant because they identify the
losses they will suffer. However, it seems that this reticence dissipates once
this type of environment is used, especially when the spatial rationale forms
part of a wider move towards work flexibility, which is often the case with a
so-called dynamic environment project.
At the collective level, the promises of better interactions between users

are very variably verified and the flex office does not necessarily seem to be
a vector of enriched collective dynamics. In reality, it is rather what the
organization does with the flex office that will feed the dynamics.
At the organizational level, the flex office as a performance lever remains

an untested promise. The research does not say whether organizations are
less or more efficient in flexible environments; however, it is very difficult
to assess this. In fact, if there is performance, it is very difficult to attribute it
to the sole environmental factor of the flex office, as the causal links are
difficult to establish.
Finally, the research stresses that the promotion of the flex office as a
central element in the implementation of the new ways of working and a
certain form of modernity must not be done while ignoring the invariant
needs of users, which are certain to affect the individual, collective and
global performance of organizations (Oseland et al. 2011). On this point, the
research is very clear: thinking about flexible work environments can hardly
be limited to a question of ratio per square meter.
7.5. The challenge of transforming the organization
The implementation of the flex office can be a source of satisfaction if it

goes beyond the mere physical dimension, which is desirable. In its cultural
dimension, the flex office is much more than a spatial project. The flex
office is a project that most often begins with the question of the ratio of
users/number of work positions. It is both a response to a different practice
of the workspace with uses that have evolved, particularly through the
increasing mobility and multi-spatiality of workers, and it is in this that we
speak of optimizing space. But it is also a driving force towards new uses
and a new way of thinking. The flex office must be an overarching project
that combines spatial (within and outside the company walls), organizational
and cultural dimensions. The flex office offers a liberal vision of the work
environment since it supports the idea of self-directed management of
workspace and time by employees.
But naturally, the initial culture of the company determines the ease with
which this liberalism can take hold, and heterogeneity is strong. One study
has shown that organizations that give pride of place to horizontality find
spatial flexibility natural, unlike more vertical organizations. Yet the same
study has highlighted the fact that it is the larger, often more rigid companies
that are most concerned with reducing real estate costs (Nase and Arkesteijn
2018). Indeed, it is through this liberal and cultural approach that flex office
projects manage to nurture satisfaction (Skogland 2017). However, it should
be noted that culture cannot be decreed, as it is a product of the patina of
time.
The positive effects of flexible environments are frequent when the

approach is not limited to the space but has an overarching, cultural
dimension. Users often expect a lot from the space in the context of a
transformation. Professionals in the consultancy and design sector have their
share of responsibility in maintaining these high expectations since they sell

space as a lever for transformation. If this is true, that space is indeed a real
lever of transformation, space cannot do everything and we should not
expect everything from it. Hence, projects aimed at transformation towards a
so-called dynamic work environment succeed when the support is insightful.
However, insightful support requires time, as this is a prerequisite for
understanding the transformation and for building a solid foundation
(Kämpf-Dern and Konkol 2017). Fast-paced change is always experienced
as forced change, which tends to reinforce the feeling that everything has
already been decided in advance and that the support risks being merely
cosmetic and the participation fake (Morgan and Anthony 2008). Finding the
right balance takes time (Ekstrand and Hansen 2016).
Support during the transition, and even more so during the transition to
so-called flexible work environments, must allow for the right diagnosis, the
right contextualization, consider the population and avoid pre-manufactured
solutions (Budie et al. 2019). Even though strategic framing must fall to the
organization’s management, it must provide a clear impetus and direction or
else risk undermining the support strategy. The right balance between
vertical and horizontal should allow for the constructive inclusion of all
stakeholders (Kingma 2018). However, coaching should ideally continue
after the takeover for two reasons. On the one hand, it acts as a form of
psychological support that facilitates the processes of appropriation and
territorialization (Nappi et al. 2020). On the other hand, it is a kind of
functional support that makes it possible to make space a resource and not a
constraint, which may be more the case in flexible environments than in
other forms of planning, because of the specificities of the space and its use.
Finally, it is important to add to these few remarks an important

dimension: that of the time needed to appreciate the advantages and
disadvantages of the reorganization of one’s workspace. It is rare for users to
be overjoyed on the day they discover their new premises. Emotional phases
follow one another and the moment of the transformation is a time of strong
emotional charge (Inalhan 2009; Nappi et al. 2020). Hence, for flexible and
non-flexible environments alike, a post-occupancy evaluation is
recommended several months after the move, generally between eight and
ten months (Vischer and Fischer 2005; Hay et al. 2018). This is the time
needed for emotions generated by the initial transformation to dissipate. As
we have seen, research (notably (Donis and Taskin 2017; Moriceau et al.
2020)) reports strong apprehensions, reticence and resistance to the
implementation of so-called dynamic work environments in theory (Inalhan

2009; Skogland 2017; Budie et al. 2019). However, a posteriori, once the
space has been used for several months, it seems that a gain in satisfaction
can be observed after the switch to so-called flexible or dynamic
environments. Time has the virtue of allowing the space to be used, which
produces phenomena of territorialization, appropriation and attachment. The
gap between the theory and practice linked to so-called flexible
environments can therefore be important, with an initially negative feeling
being followed by a positive post-occupation experience.
7.6. Research and implementation of the post-Covid-19 flex

office
As we pointed out in section 7.2, the principle of the flex office is based
on the idea of the daily workstation, thereby depriving the individual of a
fixed and lasting place in the organization. Naturally, this approach raises a
number of questions, particularly with regard to the possibilities of
appropriation. What do we mean by appropriation in this context? It is a
behavior that involves leaving “traces” of one’s regular use – material or not
(Dale and Burrell 2008) – in a space that is already there (Lefebvre 1974;
Lantz 2012). For example, depending on what the organizational culture
allows and one’s place in the hierarchy, this appropriation will sometimes
take the form of placing a personal photo, a few goodies, or even something
to make tea, on one’s desk. This phenomenon can easily be observed by
anyone visiting an organization with assigned desks, including open spaces.
In fact, it is because people recognize a particular portion of the
organizational space as their own, and therefore feel fully justified, that they
mark their territory.
Beyond the question of decoration or comfort, this essentially translates,

on the part of the employee, into a real emotional charge (Fischer and
Vischer 1998). Delineating one’s workspace is therefore far from trivial
because, as the work of the social psychologist Irwin Altman (1975) has
shown, territorialization exceeds a feeling of belonging to the organization.
But what happens when territorialization is no longer possible at all?
Another aspect that should also be questioned further in relation to the

flex office concerns the implications of the loss of personal space for one’s
identity at work. Indeed, in an organization with a more traditional spatial
layout, where office positions are assigned, not all places are equal (Lussault
2007; Minchella 2020). Material elements such as the proximity of the
general management, the size of the room granted, the fact that it is an
individual space or the quality of the furniture are all elements that inform
the identity of the individual who has it (Minchella 2020). Similarly, the
choices we make about what we show when we territorialize our spaces –
the objects we draw attention to – say things about us and what we want
others to remember about us (Gagliardi 1992).
Let us conclude with a remark related to the Covid-19 crisis, which will
most certainly lead companies to implement flex office set-ups, due to a
more random presence of employees on site, which is a key input of flex
office projects (Haapakangas et al. 2018). Indeed, this health crisis will have
highlighted the importance of the hygiene of the premises in which we work,
given that most organizations, at present, outsource office cleaning (Ottmann
et al. 2020). This in itself is not problematic – on the contrary, client
companies benefit from a level of expertise on the issue that they would not
have had if they had kept this activity in-house (Quélin 2007). Nevertheless,
it is important to know that the contractors who clean the offices are not
allowed to touch employees’ personal belongings.
Thus, the objects we mentioned when we talked about the

territorialization of spaces cannot be sanitized, and consequently, the
personal office cannot be considered perfectly clean. Yet, in essence, the flex
office implies that we leave a surface perfectly empty of personal belongings
at the end of our working day, thus allowing service providers to fully carry
out their mission. It is likely that this aspect of the flex office will work in its
favor after the Covid-19 period.
7.7. References
Altman, I. (1975). Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal/Space,

Territory, and Crowding. Brooks/Cole, Monterey.
Antoine, A. (2018). Unveiling the organisational identity: A spatial approach based
on the office. The case of ORES Picardy Wallonia transition towards an
activity-based workspace, PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Clippard, M., Pfnür, A. (2018). The effectiveness of

physical office environments for employee outcomes: An interdisciplinary
perspective of research efforts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 20(1), 56–80.
Arundell, L., Sudholz, B., Teychenne, M., Salmon, J., Hayward, B., Healy G.N.,
Timperio, A. (2018). The impact of activity based working (ABW) on workplace
activity, eating behaviours, productivity, and satisfaction. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 1–16.
Baron, X. (2011). Repenser l’espace et le temps du travail intellectuel. L’Expansion
management review, (142), 100–108.
Bodin Danielsson, C. and Theorell, T. (2018). Office employees’ perception of
workspace contribution: A gender and office design perspective. Environment
and Behavior, 51(9–10), 995–1026.
Brunia, S., De Been, I., Van der Voordt, T.J.M. (2016). Accommodating new ways of
working: Lessons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of Corporate
Real Estate, 18(1), 30–47.
Budie, B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Kemperman, A., Weijs-Perree, M. (2019).
Employee satisfaction with the physical work environment: The importance of a
need based approach. International Journal of Strategic Property Management,
23(1), 36–49.
Dale, K. and Burrell, G. (2008). The Spaces of Organisation and the Organisation of
Space. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Danielsson, C. (2009). Difference in satisfaction with office environment among
employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 26(3), 241–256.
De Been, I. and Beijer, M. (2014). The influence of office type on satisfaction and
perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(2),
142–157.
De Been, I., Beijer, M., Den Hollander, D. (2015). How to cope with dilemmas in
activity based work environments: Results from user-centred research. 14th Euro
FM Research Symposium, 14.
Donis, C. and Taskin, L. (2017). Résistance par l’espace dans le contexte de mise
en œuvre de bureaux partagés : une approche par la territorialité. Revue
interdisciplinaire management, homme & entreprise, 26(6), 73–85.
Ekstrand, M. and Hansen, G.K. (2016). Make it work! Creating an integrated
workplace concept. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8(1), 17–29.
Fischer, G.N. (2011). Psychologie sociale de l’environnement. Dunod, Paris.
Fischer, G.-N. and Vischer, J.C. (1998). L’évaluation des environnements de travail,
la méthode diagnostique. Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal.
Fleury-Bahi, G. and Marcouyeux, A. (2011). Evaluer la satisfaction envers l’espace
de travail : développement d’une échelle et première validation. E-PTO, 17,
376–392.
Gagliardi, P. (1992). Artifacts as pathways and remains of organizational life. In
Symbols and Artifacts, Views of the Corporate Landscape, Gagliardi, P. (ed.).
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Haapakangas, A., Hallman, D., Mathiassen, S.E., Jahncke, H. (2018). Self-rated
productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of
environmental perceptions and workspace use. Building and Environment, 145,
115–124.
Hall, E.T. (1971). La dimension cachée. Le Seuil, Paris.
Hay, R., Samuel, F., Watson, K.J., Bradbury, S. (2018). Post occupancy evaluation
in architecture: Experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Building
Research & Information, 46(6), 698–710.
Haynes, B., Suckley, L., Nunnington, N. (2017). Workplace productivity and office
type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(2), 111–138.
Heerwagen, J., Powell, K., Hua, Y., Loftness, V. (2011). Relationship between
workplace spatial settings and occupant-perceived support for collaboration.
Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 807–826.
Inalhan, G. (2009). Attachments: The unrecognised link between employees and
their workplace (in change management projects). Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, 11(1), 17–37.
Kämpf-Dern, A. and Konkol, J. (2017). Performance-oriented office environments,
framework for effective workspace design and the accompanying change
processes. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19(4), 208–238.
Khanna, C., Van der Voordt, T., Koppels, P. (2013). Real estate mirrors brands,
conceptual framework and practical applications. Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, 15(3–4), 213–230.
Kingma, S. (2018). New ways of working: Work space and cultural change in
virtualizing organizations. Culture and Organization, 25(2), 1–24.
Lantz, P. (2012). L’espace et le temps quotidien comme enjeu politique. L’homme et
la société, 2(185–186), 45–57.
Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos, Paris.
Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain.

Le Seuil, Paris.
Marceau-Houle, P. (2015). Les aménagements des espaces du travail en tant que
vecteurs de contrôle et de surveillance : le cas des open-spaces dans le contexte
des mutations contemporaines du travail. Sociology Thesis, Université de
Québec, Quebec.
Minchella, D. (2020). Les entreprises à l’heure du Flex-Office. Contexte, enjeux,
vécus. L’Harmattan, Paris.
Moffat, E., Scrima, F., Rioux, L., Mogenet, J.-L. (2014). Satisfaction au travail,
satisfaction environnementale au travail et intention de quitter. Une étude menée
auprès d’une population d’employés de bureau. XVIIIe Congrès de l’Association
Internationale de Psychologie du Travail de Langue Française.
Morgan, A. and Anthony, S. (2008). Creating a high-performance workplace:
A review of issues and opportunities. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(1),
27–39.
Moriceau, J.L., Besson, M., Bia Figueiredo, M., Guerillot, G. (2020). L’espace
agile, oasis ou mirage ? Mise en perspective de quelques difficultés et paradoxes
pour les travailleurs. Terminal. Technologies de l’information, culture & société,
L’Harmattan, 128 [Online]. Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/
terminal/6537 [Accessed 16 April 2021].
Nappi, I., De Campos Ribeiro, G., Cochard, N. (2020). The interplay of stress and
workspace attachment on user satisfaction and workspace support to labour
productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 22(3), 215–237.
Nase, I. and Arkesteijn, M. (2018). Corporate real estate strategies and
organizational culture. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 20(3), 154–176.
Oseland, N., Marmot, A., Swaffer, A., Ceneda, F.S. (2011). Environments for
successful interaction. Facilities, 29(1/2), 50–62.
Ottmann, J., Baron, X., Gheorghiu, M. (2020). Quand les formes de contrôle
contredisent les conditions de l’autonomie dans les services. Le cas d’un
prestataire de maintenance multi service des entreprises. RIMHE, 39(9), 79–94.
Palvalin, M. and Vuolle, M. (2016). Methods for identifying and measuring the
performance impacts of work environment changes. Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, 18(3), 164–179.
Petrulaitiene, V. and Jylhä, T. (2015). The perceived value of workplace concepts for
organisations. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18(3), 164–179.
Pillon, T. (2016). Retour sur quelques modèles d’organisation des bureaux de 1945 à
aujourd’hui. La nouvelle revue du travail, 9 [Online]. Available at: https://
journals.openedition.org/nrt/2860 [Accessed 16 April 2021].
Quelin, B. (2007). L’externalisation : de l’opérationnel au stratégique. Revue
française de gestion, 177(8), 113–128.
Riratanaphong, C. and Van der Voordt, T. (2015). Measuring the added value of
workplace change: Performance measurement in theory and practice. Facilities,
33(11–12), 773–792.
Rolfö, L. (2018). Relocation to an activity-based flexible office. Design processes
and outcomes. Applied Ergonomics, 73, 141–150.
Rolfö, L., Eklund, J., Jahncke, H. (2017). Perceptions of performance and
satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics, 61, 1–37.
Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Bodin, C., Danielson, H., Westerlund, H. (2014).
Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of
health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167–174.
Skogland, M.A. (2017). The mindset of activity-based working. Journal of Facilities
Management, 15, 62–75.
Stone, P.J. and Luchetti, R. (1985). Your office is where you are. Harvard Business
Review, 63(2), 102–117.
Tagliaro, C. (2018). Workplace performance in Italy: Key indicators from key users.
Transdisciplinary Workplace Research Conference, 19–21 September, Tampere,
Finland.
Van Meel, J. (2019). Activity based working. The Purenet Practice Guide [Online].
Available at: https://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/storage/uploads/abwpractice
guidecompressed.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2021].
Vischer, J. (2007). The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers.
California Management Review, 49(2) 1–18.
Vischer, J. and Fischer, G.N. (2005). User evaluation of the work environment:
A diagnostic approach. Le travail humain, 68, 73–96.
de Vries, J.C., De Jonge, H., Van der Voordt, T.J.M. (2008). Impact of real estate
interventions on organisational performance. Journal of Corporate Real Estate,
19(3), 208–223.
8
Working in a Coworking Space:

What are the Psychosocial Issues?
8.1. Introduction
Established in the 2000s, specifically in 2005 in San Francisco,

coworking spaces have since expanded internationally (Moriset 2014). In
2013, there were about 3,000 coworking spaces worldwide, and an estimated
100,000 people frequented such spaces to work (Kubátová 2014). More
recently, several thousand coworking spaces and more than 1.18 million
users have been recorded (Seo et al. 2017). The first references to coworking
in multidisciplinary scientific literature appeared in 2007–2008 and, from
2012 onwards, coworking has gradually become a research topic in its own
right (Flipo and Lejoux 2020).
Although the size, membership model and professional orientation of

coworking spaces vary (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018), there is consensus on
their definition. These places are thus described as open spaces (Blein 2016),
shared by workers who have different profiles (Gandini 2015) but are
generally independent (Kubátová 2014). Moreover, it is thought that ICT
professionals are the main users (Ross and Ressia 2015). Finally, coworking
spaces are characterized by the work-related autonomy and flexibility they
offer those who frequent them (Blein 2016; Bouncken and Reuschl 2018).
In order to better understand the psychosocial issues and the impact of the
implementation of these new workspaces, we have divided this chapter into
Chapter written by Julie DEVIF, Christine MORIN-MESSABEL, Lydia MARTIN and

Émilie VAYRE.

three parts. First, we will take a more detailed look at the definition of
coworking spaces by specifying the initial objectives of these places, their
characteristics and the profiles and motivations of their users. Second, we
will question the effects of these spaces on work, particularly in terms of
performance and productivity, socialization and the articulation between
work and “non-work”. Finally, from the literature review mobilized, we will
suggest some potential perspectives for research.
8.2. Coworking spaces: definition, characteristics and user

profiles
8.2.1. The initial objectives of coworking
Since the end of the 21st century, cities have been pushed to continuously
reinvent themselves, as politicians and local elected officials search for new
urban models (Moriset 2014). The desire to make the city “creative” makes
coworking a particularly valued space in political and media discourses
(Michel 2019). The integration of coworking spaces into the urban landscape
fosters innovation and economic development (Nakano et al. 2020). As an
open space, coworking promotes creativity (Mellard and Parmentier 2020)
and re-energizes work, especially by combating youth unemployment (Rus
and Orel 2016). As part of a capitalist economy, the idea of coworking is
associated with that of urban progress (Moriset 2014). The effects of
coworking on territories are, however, ambiguous because they are often
located in neighborhoods undergoing transformation and contribute to the
gentrification of city centers (Besson 2017). This concentration of
innovation-related activities in urban centers encourages the idea of sharing
and openness to change the future of communities, without considering the
relationship between territory and innovation (Leducq and Ananian 2019).
The proliferation of these spaces can be jointly explained by the digital

revolution, which generates new forms of remote work (Berrebi-Hoffman
et al. 2018; Ortar 2018; Sajous 2019), and also the emerging need for
collaboration and new forms of social ties (Benedetto-Meyer and Klein
2017). In this sense, for work organizations, including those in the public
sector, coworking spaces constitute an alternative to working from home
(Forbes 2014).
Working in a Coworking Space: What are the Psychosocial Issues? 177
However, in practice, it is questionable whether these objectives are

actually achieved. Indeed, the term coworking refers to eclectic spaces (Ross
and Ressia 2015), suggesting that not all coworking spaces are equal and do
not generate the same effects.
As part of an exploratory study conducted in five coworking spaces in France,

located in three cities, we collected the testimonies of founders or co-founders of
these spaces. The following extracts are taken from interviews conducted in this
context.
Interviewee 1 – “The idea was to create a space that was both a place where you
could come to work with all the conveniences of work and, at the same time, this
warm and human side, so you could meet other people and have a nice setting with
music […]. The goal was really to share things, to come to work, but not in a closed
office, so that people could interact with each other, meet, and maybe even unblock
situations, to be able to exchange […]. The goal is connection and it is the fact that
people are exchanging with each other, so we are always happy to see that there are
business connections […]. At the beginning, there were a lot of freelancers,
self-employed people and entrepreneurs who did not necessarily have the means to
take an office, and then gradually, we saw a change in mentality and more and more
employees came to work either starting from a personal initiative, or by being
encouraged by their company, because the company took out a subscription with
us.”
Interviewee 2 – “The first goal is to bring people together and work together.
Coworking is not an activity in itself, it is just a way to be more efficient and to
bring people together […]. It also allows, when there are problems or difficulties on
certain points, people to share, help each other […]. We met a lot of freelancers who
already had clients and who could not do certain tasks for the client because they
either did not have the time or did not have the skills to do it, so they put them in the
common pot and we did them together […]. In fact, the issue today is more about
finding freelancers than finding assignments because, globally, the digital sector is
doing well, there are many needs in the digital sector and our real issue is more
about finding skills than finding assignments […]. We also have expatriates who
have very specific skills […] and start-ups who come looking for a one-off skill to
strengthen the team that does not have that skill, they do not have the skills in-house
so they come and set up next to the freelancers to get their project going.”
Interviewee 3 – “It is just a place that brings together freelancers and makes them
work together, but it is the freelancers who do the work, who go out and get the
work, and they are the ones working on the projects. And besides, they are the ones
who get the whole budget. We do not have anyone to go out and do the canvassing.
We have incoming requests that we give directly to freelancers, but we are not a
business provider; we bring together freelancers and they create activity together
[…]. Ultimately, everything is pooled, so in fact it allows us to develop business for
everyone and everyone finds it interesting […]. Ultimately, what we are is a
coworking space, so the people who come here, they pay to have an office, we just
help them to develop the activity, but we are not going to take all their activity, so
everyone is on their projects, all the activity they have, it does not necessarily go
through us, but it can also become a project shared with other members.”
Interviewee 4 (same coworking space as interviewee 3) – ”We also have

teleworkers, they come here, next to their home. I am getting more and more
requests, because actually, I think employers prefer to put them in a coworking
space rather than being at home.”
Interviewee 6 – “We are what we call a maker space, a shared work space where
we ultimately offer artisans or creative actors work spaces and tools. So, the idea
was to talk about manual skills, to value manual skills through equipped spaces,
with shared workshops and coworking […], it is really their workshop, they have the
key, they are at home, we try to facilitate collaborations and we go and find
freelancers.”
Box 8.1. Coworking spaces: why and for whom?
8.2.2. Characteristics of coworking: from the common to the

specific
Coworking embodies a third place of work (Suire 2013) and is

characterized by a pricing of the occupied space as well as the provision of
equipment and material tools (Burret 2017).
Coworking spaces can be distinguished according to their degree of

specialization (Fabbri 2017). While so-called “generalist” coworking spaces
are open to all and to all fields of activity, specialized spaces are also
differentiated by their openness (Fabbri 2017). Thus, some specialized
spaces target a particular population, while others focus on a particular
sector, and others, which are even more selective, are reserved for a specific
demographic and a defined field (Fabbri 2017). In addition to this brief
typology, there are also community and association-based coworking spaces

(Michel 2019).
Coworking spaces aim to provide an open and friendly working

environment (Mellard and Parmentier 2020). They invite the development of
a sense of community, strengthen the autonomy and participation of each
individual, and allow for the multiplication of work links and the
establishment of reciprocal knowledge (Bouncken et al. 2020). Through the
flexibility they engage, each user is free to come when they wish.
Nevertheless, holding regular events also encourages the creation of links
between coworkers (Michel 2019).
While the main value defended by the establishment of coworking spaces

is openness, a form of enclosure is nevertheless possible, due to the
proximity of these places (Michel 2018). To put it another way, the
development of coworking spaces in particular locations can cause these
same spaces to cut themselves off from the rest of the urban landscape.
Moreover, this effect may extend more broadly to the entire territory, given
their recent rise in rural spaces (Bouncken et al. 2020).
Along with the idea of the shared economy, the coworking phenomenon
is linked to the urban development process in a neoliberal ideology, although
it is experiencing a certain boom in China (Luo and Chan 2020). In this
regard, the authors note the particularity of the Chinese context: while
coworking spaces allow individuals to have a certain amount of leeway
regarding the way they organize their work, these spaces are directly
supported by the Chinese state.
In other words, the neoliberal model is not the only factor at play in the
development of such spaces. Rather, the common denominator in the rise of
coworking spaces seems to be the opportunity that they offer in terms of
combating unemployment (Luo and Chan 2020). However, the authors note
that mass entrepreneurship is succumbing to territorial competitiveness and
commercial objectives, which are more profitable to capitalist groups. In the
same way, the challenge is to promote social mobility rather than to reduce
inequality and thus precariousness (Luo and Chan 2020). In the case of
coworking spaces in the Philippines, it seems that users share common
characteristics with users in economically developed countries (e.g.
self-employed, entrepreneurs, digital nomads), although coworking does not

have the expected effects (Tintiangko and Soriano 2020).
Indeed, coworking maintains the inequalities that exist between

self-employed workers by favoring a minority of them and by making the
majority more precarious (Tintiangko and Soriano 2020). By being based on
a Western and/or developed country economic model, coworking does not
seem to meet the expectations of users in countries with a crisis economy
(Tintiangko and Soriano 2020) or a divergent political system (Luo and
Chan 2020). In a sense, cultural differences need to be considered if these
spaces are to deliver on their promise of reducing the inequality and fragility
of the self-employed. However, in the Korean context, a developing
relationship and networking are essential components of coworking for users
(Seo et al. 2017). Like Western workers who use this type of space, the
organization of events is particularly appreciated (Seo et al. 2017).
8.2.3. User profiles and motivations
From the point of view of their characteristics, the majority of people

who come to work in coworking spaces are graduates (Flipo 2020). They are
generally independent workers, often nomadic, who work in project mode
(Merkel 2015). They are thus similar to the lone eagles, whose activities are
mostly carried out via information and communication technologies, freeing
themselves from the spatial and geographical constraints traditionally
associated with work (Moriset 2014). More specifically, coworkers in
coworking spaces seem to be divided into three dominant profiles: young
self-employed graduates, young entrepreneurs creating a start-up, and
finally, middle-aged self-employed workers who are changing profession
(Blein 2016). This social homogeneity is down to two aspects. On the one
hand, founders are usually self-employed members of the same network of
group of friends. On the other hand, new members are co-opted by existing
members (Berrebi-Hoffman et al. 2018).
Nevertheless, coworkers can also be “freelancers, i.e. professionals

without a stable job, and also workers with full-time or part-time jobs, whose
employer allows them to work on flextime, and increasingly also students or
workers on maternity or parent leave” (Kubátová 2014, p. 571). Jobseekers
are also added to this typology (Boutillier 2020). Thus, users’ profiles are
relatively heterogeneous in terms of professional backgrounds (first job,

unemployment, business creation, etc.) and technical skills (web developer,
consultant, engineer, graphic designer, etc.) (Moriset 2014; Blein 2016;
Boutillier 2020). However, a common denominator seems to emerge in the
profile of coworkers: that of precariousness (Michel 2018).
The attraction of these workplaces can be explained by several factors.

For some, it may be a matter of getting away from a harmful work
environment, escaping the dirigisme of large companies and managerial
rules and procedures deemed oppressive (Gaulejac 2015; Linhart 2015).
These places also represent an opportunity for novice entrepreneurs to test
their entrepreneurial project with limited financial risk (Michel 2019).
Finally, coworking has become a physical space for professionals who no
longer need a fixed place to work but are looking for a working community
(Moriset 2014). The issue here is two-fold. Coworking spaces are, in fact,
structured spaces of tacit cooperation between actors who plan meetings and
re-groupings on these sites in order to cooperate on common projects
(Waters-Lynch and Potts 2017).
It is precisely this sense of community that ensures satisfaction among

coworkers because it helps them to avoid isolation and develop or strengthen
relational networks (Kubátová 2014; Bouncken et al. 2020). By offering a
working environment and tools, on the one hand, and by encouraging
workers’ independence while promoting professional networking, on the
other hand (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018), coworking spaces embody
particularly attractive places in terms of social linkage and working
environment (Grazian 2019). Indeed, the coworking space also makes it
possible to break free of the solitude that working from home can involve by
simultaneously proposing a spatial and temporal framework for work (Blein
2016). In other words, it facilitates the delineation and search for balance
between work and private life, especially for workers who have family
responsibilities and obligations (Orel 2019).
The following excerpts are taken from the exploratory study mentioned in
Box 8.1.
Interviewee 1 – “We have three main families of services. We simply have food
and drinks that we can sell to take away, like in a traditional café […], we have
payment for workspaces, with several offers for the self-employed or for employees,
we contact companies to find out if they want to offer them prepaid time cards, and
then the third major type of offer is spaces for companies that want to hold meetings
or larger events; we can privatize the entire space for company seminars or a room
for a meeting for example […]. There are several types of events. There will be very
professional events, networking type events, or knowledge sharing on a subject. We
will rely on a network of partners on this to help us create these types of events”.
Interviewee 2 – “In addition to the coworking spaces, we also have Digital

Academy training that allows people who are retraining to learn a new job, so it is
short, specialized training that allows them to be very operational […], we also have
workshops that are more about learning basic digital skills”.
Interviewee 3 – “Our goal is to develop a little more, to develop other activities.

We have already done the training activity, and who knows, we might do an event
activity in future. We are also going to integrate a whole start-up section, precisely
so that start-ups can have access to freelancers to develop their projects”.
Interviewee 4 (same coworking space as interviewee 3) – “We do events quite

often to stimulate business, there are presentations, there are aperitifs, we organize
meals once a week all together […]. We have a big community on our platform, so
all the freelancers in France communicate with one another”.
Interviewee 5 – “Our aim is to bring different communities to life, to make them

cross paths, so we have both workers from the neighborhood with our community of
coworkers, services in the shared space, residents who benefit from the activities,
and then people passing through, like tourists who come for a look around […]. We
have different types of coworkers; when they arrive, some are already in a structure,
with a certain number of employees, and the structure wants to create an activity
here. In this case, they want to find a venue quickly, which makes the coworking
solution an interesting one. And then we also have freelancers who no longer wish
to work from home and wish to join a community”.
Interviewee 6 – “There is really this coworking space, which lives by itself and
ends up being a FabLab type workshop, shared workshop, traditional workshop […].
We also pick up companies that are also part of the economic model. We welcome
companies either for rental, so we privatize certain spaces, and beyond the punctual
privatization of spaces, we are also a stakeholder. There are always spaces that are
reserved for certain companies”.
Box 8.2. Coworking services and events

8.3. The impact of coworking
8.3.1. Coworking, performance and productivity
When looking at the research that focuses on performance and individual

productivity, in a shared environment, it is noted that research focuses on the
concepts of self-effectiveness, perceived productivity and satisfaction in
general. The question of productivity in coworking spaces is posed in terms
of social interactions and work environment (Bueno et al. 2018).
Specifically, having access to communities and relational networks of
professionals in coworking spaces, as well as having a workspace that
distinguishes between private and professional environments, promotes
coworkers’ self-effectiveness, on the one hand, and their performance, on the
other hand (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018).
Focusing on the effects of coworking on work performance, researchers

compared coworking with home-based telecommuting, questioning both
work and performance aspects as well as social, environmental and health
aspects (Robelski et al. 2019). In this rare quantitative study in Germany
(112 people responded to a self-completed online questionnaire), the results
revealed that respondents prefer to work in a coworking environment rather
than working from home. This type of workspace is considered to be
particularly conducive to concentration, productivity, self-organization,
performance, social interaction, separation of private and professional life
and, last but not least, the satisfaction of those who work there. Nevertheless,
these collaborative workspaces are not necessarily an absolute solution,
mitigating, for example, the socio-professional precariousness of
entrepreneurs. In this respect, some entrepreneurial users have ended up
ceasing their activity due to insufficient economic results (Michel 2018).
On this last point, the satisfaction declared by coworkers is more

attributable to the autonomy in the choice of the workspace and the
voluntary nature of the use of these spaces, rather than to the workspace
itself (Robelski et al. 2019). In a complementary way, the main benefits
associated with working in coworking spaces relate, on the one hand, to the
flexibility they offer to their users and, on the other hand, to the potential for
collaboration and the construction of forms of informal social support from
peers (Walden 2019). In the same vein, the value of a coworking space
resides in the relational and human resources which it provides access to,
and not in the reduction of real estate costs (e.g. office rental) or in the
quality of the work environment enjoyed by coworkers (compared to that of

the home) (Waters-Lynch and Potts 2017). In these spaces, each person can
define their own work rhythm, in accordance with their own personal and
professional needs and constraints (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018).
The communication, collaboration and social closeness that are

established there also favor learning, performance and user satisfaction
(Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). While the job satisfaction of coworkers is
often mentioned and reported in these studies, the factors that could explain
it must be questioned (Tintiangko and Soriano 2020). In this regard, the
authors find that digital workers have a particularly high sense of belonging
to the coworking spaces they frequent and express a willingness to maintain
a positive perception of these spaces, even though they have no certainty
about obtaining benefits or achieving their goals within these work
environments (Tintiangko and Soriano 2020).
However, coworking does not always promote job satisfaction. Thus, it is

necessary to take into account the constraints and difficulties encountered in
these spaces, such as noise pollution or the risks associated with sharing
information and knowledge (e.g. involuntary leaks, confidentiality)
(Bouncken et al. 2020). Moreover, for these authors, the relational openness
and social interactions that characterize coworking spaces are not necessarily
a source of individual performance or satisfaction. According to them, they
can even diminish them. Indeed, the multiplication of exchanges can lead to
information overload and mental saturation, and thus reduce job satisfaction.
In this sense, the recommendations focus on the need to design facilities and
layout workspaces that are certainly attractive and also take into account
prolonged exposure to noise and noise pollution if we want to improve
coworkers’ satisfaction and preserve their physical and mental health
(Robelski et al. 2019). The authors also insist on the need to develop
empirical work, targeting in particular the consideration of the risks likely to
be generated in these shared work environments in order to promote the
quality of life and health of their users.
8.3.2. Coworking and professional socialization
Within coworking spaces, exchanges are based on a “loose modality that

is located between collaboration, competition and cooperation” (Gandini
2015, p. 199). While professional collaboration can foster solidarity between
users (Bianchi et al. 2018), cooperative and mutual aid relationships cannot
be decreed: a relationship of trust must develop between coworkers
(Boutillier 2020). In reality, these relationships are often complex to
establish and, as such, may embody a socio-economic utopia of coworking
(Liefooghe 2018). Collaborations, which are not always initiated or
developed by the owners of these spaces, do not seem to fall under a
dominant norm of coworking: rather, they are considered emergent
(Tintiangko and Soriano 2020). Indeed, as coworkers are exposed to risks of
exploitation between peers (e.g. appropriation of one’s own work by a peer),
they have to learn to establish a relationship of mutual trust (Bianchi et al.
2018). The professional networking set up in these workspaces thus
regulates the risks of exploitation between peers, with workers’ reputations
at stake (Blein 2016). Beyond the relationship between workers, some
coworking owners, to avoid competitive relationships between users, limit
the number of workers with the same skills (Blein 2016). However, let us
note that coworking oscillates between cooperative and competitive effects,
becoming a space of coopetition (Bouncken et al. 2018). By fostering
entrepreneurship and innovation, facilitating explicit and implicit knowledge
transfers and stimulating the creation and appropriation of values, these
workplaces can enable cooperation between users, on the one hand, and
coworking spaces, on the other hand, and also put them in competition
(Bouncken et al. 2018).
Furthermore, coworking is distinguished from other shared spaces by the

“organizational originality that characterizes it” (Flipo and Lejoux 2020,
p. 2). The originality discussed here refers to the absence of hierarchy and, at
the same time, to the promotion of empowerment (Bouncken et al. 2020). In
the absence of any authority relationship, these workspaces allow coworkers
to develop their creativity and imagination (Boutillier 2020). In this sense,
they encourage encounters between innovators and have the unique
characteristic of allowing them to organize their work according to
horizontal collaboration modalities (Le Barzic and Distinguin 2010). Indeed,
within these spaces, users self-regulate their schedules, interactions and
relationships, or information sharing (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018).
However, this relationship of horizontality is to be qualified since
community managers can be present and constitute “an essential institution
in coworking-spaces [since they] are responsible for creating atmosphere,
setting up rules, and channeling conflicts […], and thus balance or mediate
coopetition tensions” (Bouncken et al. 2018, p. 405).
The following is also taken from the exploratory study mentioned in Box 8.1.
Interviewee 2 – “When a freelancer arrives, they are in a period of containment.

We have a garden, when we arrive in the village, there is the mayor who takes care
of the village, there are the villagers, there is the containment. This is a time when
the freelancer is there to gain the trust of the other freelancers because we work as a
team. If there is one that does not hold up, it makes everyone else uncomfortable
too. At the end of this containment period, if they have won the trust of the villagers,
they join the village and then that’s it, they have their email address, they are part of
the village. In fact, the ecosystem means that those who do not feel good in the
collective leave on their own, because no one wants to work with them, they do not
have a mission, they do not have an income, and so these people leave on their
own.”
Interviewee 4 – “I put one freelancer in contact with another because I know that
it could be interesting for them to communicate together. It is a real collective at this
level because everyone is together, there is no competition, and everyone wants to
help each other and climb the ladder together. On a daily basis, we have lunch
together, we do activities together, it is a bit of a corporate activity, but there is no
hierarchy. It puts everyone on the same level. It is nicer, more enjoyable”.
Interviewee 5 – “We have a time of exchange every month through a coworkers’

breakfast, which allows us to exchange, to say: is it working, would you like to lead,
or do you have a concern about one topic or another? And then on a daily basis we
have a communication platform, so we have Slack which allows coworkers to pass
on a message to everyone, etc. But in any case, from the experience we can have on
a daily basis, it is important to have someone identified as the facilitator of the space
[…], we have a horizontal organization where everyone has an area of
responsibility”.
Interviewee 6 – “There are bridges between the craftsmen and the self-employed
in general and the selection process, so there is a visit, a pre-registration session and
then afterwards there is a month’s trial on both sides to be able to say ok, we work
together, you work here, yes I feel good, I want to continue working […]. We are no
longer in a hierarchical relationship: everyone is responsible for their activity,
everyone develops, experiments, to create new possibilities. I think that is really the
difference between us and a traditional company, we all work towards a common
project”.
Box 8.3. Integration and organization of relationships in coworking spaces

The much-vaunted socialization within coworking spaces is not unrelated

to the economic stakes involved in their implementation. By being at the
heart of a neoliberal culture, coworking is presented as a space that promotes
self-realization and, at the same time, the commodification of the individual
(Bandinelli 2020). This commodification process applies equally to the
social relations that are inscribed in these spaces where “the links created
can be transformed into commodified relations” (Blein 2016, p. 153). Thus,
the collective as promoted by coworking takes a form that moves away from
its initial definition. Moreover, the flexibility and autonomy offered by
coworking, the heterogeneity of their users’ expectations, as well as the
desynchronization of their attendance, seem to challenge the idea of the
collective, favoring a more individual-centered approach:
Because of coworking-users’ divergent tasks, norms, behavior,

and a possible temporary character of team and project
structures they may not necessarily develop specific
communities of joint values, norms, and behavior role models
that increase commitment and belonging. (Bouncken and
Reuschl 2018, p. 320)
Therefore, the emphasis on the benefits of coworking in terms of social

and professional relationships is to be qualified, or at least questioned (Blein
2016). Such a praise of coworking could conceal its negative effects, which
are very real, such as competition, exploitation between peers and the
insecurity of employment (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). Finally, another
drift is emerging: that of the desertion of “classic” companies (Kubátová
2014). Faced with the attractiveness of independent work, young people, and
also employees, may be more tempted to join coworking spaces, and
companies may then struggle to fill empty positions and find qualified
personnel (Kubátová 2014).
8.3.3. Coworking and the work/“non-work” link
If coworking spaces present opportunities at the professional level, these

effects extend to the articulation between work and non-work life. Indeed,
coworking represents a way to overcome the double difficulty faced by
home-based teleworkers who, on the one hand, are distracted by home life
and interrupted by their family circle and, on the other hand, feel that they
never really leave their work (Blein 2016; Vayre 2019). As a symbol of this
necessary delimitation, some coworkers go so far as to deliberately leave

their computers in the coworking space when they have finished their
working day in order to mark the separation between their professional and
private lives (Ross and Ressia 2015).
In this respect, a recent study looked at the effect of coworking on

work–life balance (Orel 2019). In order to understand this effect, participant
observation was conducted in five coworking spaces in four European
countries (Latvia, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovenia) and combined
with 12 unstructured interviews with coworkers who have small children
(Orel 2019). The results reveal that the presence of community managers,
when regulating collaborative relationships between workers, promotes the
emotional support of coworkers, a point of particular importance for parents.
Nevertheless, if workers are supported with their parenting, the fact remains
that coworking spaces do not offer services related to parenthood (day care
centers, for example). Second, in four coworking spaces, parents tend to get
together to think about managing their parenting duties (organizing
childcare). In this sense, parenthood is linked to professional socialization.
If therefore seems that coworking spaces embody a workplace of choice

for those who seek to preserve their work–life balance while ensuring that
they do not suffer from professional isolation and benefit from sufficient
emotional support to increase their productivity. The spatial and temporal
flexibility of working in a coworking space favors the reconciliation of
different areas of life and the well-being of coworkers, especially those with
children. For the women interviewed, the integration into a relational
network offers them new professional opportunities and a more comfortable
financial situation. The men interviewed, on the other hand, emphasize that
coworking allows them to manage their private and professional lives better.
Finally, for the majority of the interviewees, if coworking allows them to
find a balance, it is mainly thanks to the emotional support between peers,
along with the community and collaboration aspects (Orel 2019).
8.4. Conclusion: prospects for future field studies
Coworking spaces are new phenomena that should be investigated from a

scientific perspective (Bouncken et al. 2018). There are many research
perspectives and questions posed by the new work practices being
established there. There is a growing body of empirical work targeting
coworking spaces that mobilizes both qualitative and quantitative

methodologies (Robelski et al. 2019). Nevertheless, when looking at the
current investigations and data on coworking, there are a large number of
qualitative studies. Most of them are based on semi-structured interviews,
floating or focused observations within these third places, and an analysis of
the social interactions taking place there, while being based on ethnographic
and contextualized approaches. The qualitative, comprehensive and in-depth
approach, through interviews and observations, by investing in a particular
coworking space, thus seems to be favored (Mellard and Parmentier 2020).
Other studies rely jointly on individual semi-directive interviews and a social
network analysis method (Michel 2018). These interviews are conducted
with entrepreneurs who are members of coworking spaces in a
neighborhood, eight of whom are the creators and managers of these spaces
(Michel 2018).
In order to increase knowledge in this field, it is essential to develop more

quantitative studies, especially if we wish to obtain cross-sectional and
generalizable data, regardless of the coworking space considered. In the
same vein, it is relevant to develop the means to compare the practices and
effects of coworking from a cross-cultural perspective. A quantitative survey
examined the working conditions experienced by German coworkers:
perceived stress factor, job satisfaction, and subjective health status in a
coworking experience, and this was compared with the experience of
working at home (Robelski et al. 2019). This type of study could be
replicated in other European or international countries to collect comparable
data and draw comparisons where possible. It is also important to further
investigate the impact of coworking by taking into account the moderating
role of the socio-cultural context and also by controlling for the effects of
socio-demographic characteristics such as coworkers’ age, level of education
and training, and gender (Bueno et al. 2018).
On this last point, recent studies seem to indicate that coworking spaces
are not marked by gender discrimination issues (Bandinelli 2020). However,
further research is needed in this field, looking at coworking contexts from
the perspective of women’s and men’s experiences with regard to gender
dimensions, particularly in terms of reconciling work–life balance and
mental workloads, as is the case with teleworking. A study concerning a
population of male and female start-up founders (often linked to coworking
spaces) shows how the creation and development processes can be a source
of social and gender inequalities: family and educational capital, gendered
socialization, risk-taking, reconciliation of work–life balance and

parenthood, etc. (Flécher 2019).
Finally, further research to account for the differentiated effects of

workspaces and modalities would be worthwhile. Although some studies
compare the experience and impact of working at home against that in a
coworking space (Robelski et al. 2019), they are still too infrequent.
Moreover, workers, whether salaried or self-employed, are more frequently
than before led to multiply their work environments, while few studies seek
to understand how workspaces and temporalities are articulated and
combined, what demands and resources they generate, and how they respond
to the needs and constraints specific to individuals and the activity. The
avenues of investigation in this field are therefore still wide open. Finally,
the role of coworking as a strategy and continuity of neoliberal discourse can
be questioned (Branca Sólio 2017). Research must be developed in the
medium-term to measure the scope and limits of coworking from the point
of view of work, quality of life, reconciliation of work–life balance, and also
on the issue of coworker precariousness.
8.5. References
Bandinelli, C. (2020). The production of subjectivity in neoliberal culture industries:

The case of coworking spaces. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(1),
3–19.
Benedetto-Meyer, M. and Klein, N. (2017). Du partage de connaissances au travail
collaboratif : portées et limites des outils numériques. Sociologies pratiques,
34(1), 29–38.
Berrebi-Hoffmann, I., Bureau, M.-C., Lallement, M. (2018). Makers : enquête sur
les laboratoires du changement social. Le Seuil, Paris.
Besson, R. (2017). Rôle et limites des tiers-lieux dans la fabrique des villes
contemporaines [Online]. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/tem/4184
[Accessed 25 March 2021].
Bianchi, F., Casnici, N., Squazzoni, F. (2018). Solidarity as a by-product of
professional collaboration: Social support and trust in a co-working space. Social
Networks, 54, 61–72.
Blein, A. (2016). Le co-working, un espace pour les transactions hors marché ?
Réseaux, 196(2), 147–176.
Bouncken, R.B. and Reuschl, A.J. (2018). Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon

of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for
entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12, 317–334.
Bouncken, R.B., Laudien, S.M., Fredrich, V., Görmar, L. (2018). Coopetition in
coworking spaces: Value creation and appropriation tensions in an
entrepreneurial space. Review of Managerial Science, 12(2), 385–410.
Bouncken, R.B., Ratzmann, M., Barwinski, R., Kraus, S. (2020). Coworking spaces:
Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing
economy. Journal of Business Research, 114, 102–110.
Boutillier, S. (2020). Le coworking, l’empreinte territoriale. Essai d’analyse d’une
agglomération industrielle en reconversion [Online]. Available at: https://
journals.openedition.org/interventionseconomiques/4845 [Accessed 25 March
2021].
Branca Sólio, M. (2017). Les stratégies du discours néolibéral au XXIe siècle dans le
champ du travail : le rôle du collaborateur et du coworking. Communication &
Organisation, 2(2), 217–230.
Bueno, S., Rodríguez-Baltanás, G., Gallego, M.D. (2018). Coworking spaces:
A new way of achieving productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 16(4),
452–466.
Burret, A. (2017). Étude de la configuration en Tiers-Lieu : la repolitisation par le
service. PhD Thesis, Université Lyon 2.
Fabbri, J. (2017). Les espaces de coworking : ni tiers-lieux, ni incubateurs, ni
FabLabs. Entreprendre & Innover, 4(31), 8–16.
Flécher, M. (2019). Des inégalités d’accès aux inégalités de succès : enquête sur les
fondateurs et fondatrices de start-up [Online]. Available at: https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-02956685/document [Accessed 25 March 2021].
Flipo, A. (2020). Tiers-lieux, mobilité et ruralité : quelles configurations et quels
impacts ? Colloque ADEME, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.
Flipo, A. and Lejoux, P. (2020). Les dimensions sociales et spatiales du coworking :
un état de l’art [Online]. Available at: https://www.espacestemps.net/articles/
les-dimensions-sociales-et-spatiales-du-coworking-un-etat-de-lart/ [Accessed 25
March 2021].
Forbes, T. (2014). Queensland public servants trial digital hubs, flexible work
arrangements [Online]. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-
07/queensland-public-servants-trial-digital-hubs-flexible-work/5724826 [Accessed
25 March 2021].
Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera:

Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(1), 193–205.
Gaulejac, V. (2015). Travail, les raisons de la colère. Le Seuil, Paris.
Grazian, D. (2019). Thank god it’s Monday: Manhattan coworking spaces in the
new economy. Theory and Society, 49, 991–1019.
Kubátová, J. (2014). The cause and impact of the development of coworking in the
current knowledge economy. European Conference on Knowledge Management,
2, 571–577.
Le Barzic, M. and Distinguin, S. (2010). Cantine : un espace de rencontres
physiques au cœur de l’économie virtuelle. Le journal de l’école de Paris du
management, 84(4), 31–37.
Leducq, D. and Ananian, P. (2019). Qu’apporte l’urbanisme à l’étude des espaces de
coworking : revue de littérature et approche renouvelée. Revue d’économie
régionale & urbaine, 5, 963–986.
Liefooghe, C. (2018). Les tiers-lieux à l’ère du numérique : diffusion spatiale d’une
utopie socio-économique. Géographie, économie, société, 20(1), 33–61.
Linhart, D. (2015). La comédie humaine du travail, de la déshumanisation
taylorienne à la surhumanisation. Le Seuil, Paris.
Luo, Y. and Chan, R.C.K. (2020). Production of coworking spaces: Evidence from
Shenzhen, China. Geoforum, 110, 97–105.
Mellard, M. and Parmentier, G. (2020). La créativité dans les espaces de
coworking : le cas de “La Cordée”. Innovations, 61(1), 67–88.
Merkel, J. (2015). Coworking in the city. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in
Organization, 15(1), 121–139.
Michel, B. (2018). Émergence de dynamiques entrepreneuriales au sein d’espaces de
coworking pour entrepreneurs culturels et créatifs. Géographie, économie,
société, 20(3), 295–317.
Michel, B. (2019). Le coworking, entre ouverture et fermeture des espaces
associatifs et communautaires. Réseaux, 214–215(2–3), 289–318.
Moriset, B. (2014). Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of
coworking spaces. 2nd Geography of Innovation International Conference,
Utrecht.
Nakano, D., Shiach, M., Koria, M., Vasques, R., Santos, E.G.D., Virani, T. (2020).
Coworking spaces in urban settings: Prospective roles? Geoforum, 115,
135–137.
Orel, M. (2019). Supporting work-life balance with the use of coworking spaces.
Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, 39(5), 549–565.
Ortar, N. (2018). Mobile/immobile : qu’apporte le télétravail aux familles de grands
mobiles ? In La famille à distance, Imbert, C., Lelièvre, E., Lessault, D. (eds).
Éditions de l’INED, Paris.
Robelski, S., Keller, H., Harth, V., Mache, S. (2019). Coworking spaces: The better
home office? A psychosocial and health-related perspective on an emerging
work environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 16(13).
Ross, P. and Ressia, S. (2015). Neither office nor home: Coworking as an emerging
workplace choice. Employment Relations Record, 15(1), 42–57.
Rus, A. and Orel, M. (2016). Coworking: A community of work. Teorija in Praksa,
52(6), 1017–1038.
Sajous, P. (2019). Le télétravail : sur la voie de la banalisation ? [Online]. Available
at: https://journals.openedition.org/eps/9089 [Accessed 25 March 2021].
Seo, J., Lysiankova, L., Ock, Y.-S., Chun, D. (2017). Priorities of co-working space
operation based on comparison of the hosts and users’ perspectives.
Sustainability, 9(8), 1494.
Suire, R. (2013). Innovation, espaces de co-working et tiers-lieux : entre
conformisme et créativité [Online]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2210127 [Accessed 25 March 2021].
Tintiangko, J. and Soriano, C.R. (2020). Coworking spaces in the global south:
Local articulations and imaginaries. Journal of Urban Technology, 27(1), 67–85.
professionnel, familial et social. Le travail humain, 82(1), 1–39.
Walden, J. (2019). Communicating role expectations in a coworking office. Journal
of Communication Management, 23(4), 316–330.
Waters-Lynch, J. and Potts, J. (2017). The social economy of coworking spaces:
A focal point model of coordination. Review of Social Economy, 75(4), 417–433.
List of Authors
Claudine BONNEAU Chiara GHISLIERI

Université du Québec à Montréal University of Turin
Canada Italy
Nicolas COCHARD Catherine HELLEMANS

Groupe Kardham Université libre de Bruxelles
Paris Belgium
France
Anne-Sophie MAILLOT
Julie DEVIF Université Paris Nanterre
Université Lumière Lyon 2 France
France
Lydia MARTIN
Valentina DOLCE Conservatoire national des arts et
Université Lumière Lyon 2 métiers
France Paris
France
Claire ESTAGNASIÉ
Université du Québec à Montréal Thierry MEYER
Canada Université Paris Nanterre
France
Thibault GACHET-MAUROZ
Université Lumière Lyon 2
France

Delphine MINCHELLA Consuelo VASQUEZ

EM Normandie Université du Québec à Montréal
Le Havre Canada
France
Émilie VAYRE
Monica MOLINO Université Lumière Lyon 2
University of Turin France
Italy
Anne-Marie VONTHRON
Christine MORIN-MESSABEL Université Paris Nanterre
Université Lumière Lyon 2 France
France
Maëlle PÉRISSÉ
Université Paris Nanterre
France
Sophie PRUNIER-POULMAIRE
Université Paris Nanterre
France
Index
A, B cooperation, 181, 184

Covid-19, 75
absenteeism, 53, 61
coworkers, 179–190
activities, 77, 78, 80–84, 89, 91–93
crisis, 75, 87, 88, 93, 94
addiction, 14, 15
health, 94
technology, 15
cultures, 49–54, 58, 64, 65
work, 15, 16
of presence, 53
appropriation, 185
organizational, 50, 51, 53
articulation/link, 176, 187, 188
demands, 60, 61, 66
artifact, 50
dematerialization, 146
autonomy, 4, 14
discrimination, 79
beliefs, 49, 50
domains
boundaries, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 19
family, 9
burnout, 14, 16, 17
life, 7–10, 12
private, 9
C, D
collaboration, 176, 183–185, 188 E, F
collective, 125
efficiency, 76, 92
commitment, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38
exhaustion, 17, 18
affective, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38
extension, 76, 82
continuity, 31, 32
fatigue, 79, 81, 85
normative, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38
mental, 85
communication methods, 117, 119
physical, 81
communications, 107, 110, 111
flex office, 157–167, 169, 170
conditions, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87,
flexibility, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14
105
flexible, 3
of life, 83, 84
fourth industrial revolution, 62, 63
working, 76, 77, 87, 105

G, H, I N, O, P
gender, 81, 88, 93 nomadic, 25–27, 29, 30, 33, 35–42
health (see also crisis), 3–5, 14, 16, open space, 162, 165, 169
17 pandemic, 75, 78, 84, 93, 94
psychological, 14 performance, 76, 87, 89–92
ICT (information and communication preference, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 19
technology), 3, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, presenteeism, 53
18, 20 productive, 90
identification with, 149 productivity, 76, 89
identity, 148–150
dimension, 132, 146, 149, 150 Q, R, S
Industry 4.0, 50, 62, 63, 65
inequalities, 86–88 quality of life, 25–27, 33, 35, 41–43
intensification, 76, 77 recognition, 26, 27, 29–31, 34–38,
interface, 29–31, 34, 40, 41 41, 42
interferences, 83 reconciliation, 188–190
involvement/commitment, 27, 29–31, of different areas of life, 188
34, 35, 37, 38, 42 recovery, 14, 16–19
isolation, 83, 85, 90, 91 relations, 26, 29, 35, 37
professional, 91 rematerialization, 129, 130, 146, 150
social, 85 resources, 51, 58, 59, 63
risks, 28, 37, 42, 43
occupational, 43
L, M
satisfaction, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40
leader, 50–53, 55–60, 64, 66 sedentary, 79
leadership, 49–51, 54–65 behavior, 83, 85
authentic, 54, 57, 58, 60 social
destructive, 58, 61 cohesion, 16, 76, 77, 93, 94
digital, 64 support, 11
transformational, 50, 56–58, 60 socialization, 176, 184, 187, 188, 190
link spheres
“non-work”, 187 of life, 8, 9
lockdown, 75, 86, 87, 89 private, 12
management, 75, 80, 89, 90, 92, 93 spillover, 3–15, 17, 20
manager, 80, 89, 90, 92 stress, 108, 109, 120, 123, 124
managerial, 88, 89, 91
materiality, 130, 131, 146 T, U, V, W
materialization, 130, 132, 147, 151
mediated, 25–30, 33, 35–43 tasks, 105, 107, 108, 115
telework/remote working, 25, 26, 42
Index 199
territory, 123 work-life balance, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35,

use, 161, 162, 167 40, 41, 188–190
values, 50, 56, 57 working time, 114–116, 121
well-being, 54, 59–62, 64 workload, 11–13, 17, 19
work practices, 25–30, 33, 35–43
Other titles from
in
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management
2022
MATHIEU Valérie
A Customer-oriented Manager for B2B Services: Principles and
Implementation
NOËL Florent, SCHMIDT Géraldine
Employability and Industrial Mutations: Between Individual Trajectories
and Organizational Strategic Planning (Technological Changes and Human
Resources Set – Volume 4)
2021
ARCADE Jacques
Strategic Engineering (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 11)
BÉRANGER Jérôme, RIZOULIÈRES Roland
The Digital Revolution in Health (Health and Innovation Set – Volume 2)
BOBILLIER CHAUMON Marc-Eric
Digital Transformations in the Challenge of Activity and Work:
Understanding and Supporting Technological Changes
(Technological Changes and Human Resources Set – Volume 3)
BUCLET Nicolas
Territorial Ecology and Socio-ecological Transition
(Smart Innovation Set – Volume 34)
DIMOTIKALIS Yannis, KARAGRIGORIOU Alex, PARPOULA Christina,
SKIADIS Christos H
Applied Modeling Techniques and Data Analysis 1: Computational Data
Analysis Methods and Tools (Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data
Analysis Set - Volume 7)
Applied Modeling Techniques and Data Analysis 2: Financial,
Demographic, Stochastic and Statistical Models and Methods (Big Data,
Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 8)
DISPAS Christophe, KAYANAKIS Georges, SERVEL Nicolas,
STRIUKOVA Ludmila
Innovation and Financial Markets
(Innovation between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 7)
ENJOLRAS Manon
Innovation and Export: The Joint Challenge of the Small Company
FLEURY Sylvain, RICHIR Simon
Immersive Technologies to Accelerate Innovation: How Virtual and
Augmented Reality Enables the Co-Creation of Concepts
GIORGINI Pierre
The Contributory Revolution (Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 13)
GOGLIN Christian
Emotions and Values in Equity Crowdfunding Investment Choices 2:
Modeling and Empirical Study
GRENIER Corinne, OIRY Ewan
Altering Frontiers: Organizational Innovations in Healthcare (Health and
Innovation Set – Volume 1)
GUERRIER Claudine
Security and Its Challenges in the 21st Century (Innovation and Technology
Set – Volume 12)
HELLER David
Performance of Valuation Methods in Financial Transactions (Modern
Finance, Management Innovation and Economic Growth Set – Volume 4)
LEHMANN Paul-Jacques
Liberalism and Capitalism Today
SOULÉ Bastien, HALLÉ Julie, VIGNAL Bénédicte, BOUTROY Éric,
NIER Olivier
Innovation Trajectories and Process Optimization
UZUNIDIS Dimitri, KASMI Fedoua, ADATTO Laurent
Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 1:
Main Themes
Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2:
Special Themes
VALLIER Estelle
Innovation in Clusters: Science–Industry Relationships in the Face of
Forced Advancement (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 36)
2020
ACH Yves-Alain, RMADI-SAÏD Sandra
Financial Information and Brand Value: Reflections, Challenges and
Limitations
ANDREOSSO-O’CALLAGHAN Bernadette, DZEVER Sam, JAUSSAUD Jacques,
TAYLOR Robert
Sustainable Development and Energy Transition in Europe and Asia
(Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 9)
BEN SLIMANE Sonia, M’HENNI Hatem
Entrepreneurship and Development: Realities and Future Prospects
CHOUTEAU Marianne, FOREST Joëlle, NGUYEN Céline
Innovation for Society: The P.S.I. Approach
CORON Clotilde
Quantifying Human Resources: Uses and Analysis
CORON Clotilde, GILBERT Patrick
Technological Change
CERDIN Jean-Luc, PERETTI Jean-Marie
The Success of Apprenticeships: Views of Stakeholders on Training and
Learning (Human Resources Management Set – Volume 3)
DELCHET-COCHET Karen
Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value Creation
(Economic Growth Set – Volume 2)
DIDAY Edwin, GUAN Rong, SAPORTA Gilbert, WANG Huiwen
Advances in Data Science
(Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 4)
DOS SANTOS PAULINO Victor
Innovation Trends in the Space Industry
GASMI Nacer
Corporate Innovation Strategies: Corporate Social Responsibility and
Shared Value Creation
GOGLIN Christian
Emotions and Values in Equity Crowdfunding Investment Choices 1:
Transdisciplinary Theoretical Approach
GUILHON Bernard
Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
(Innovation Between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 6)
LATOUCHE Pascal
Open Innovation: Human Set-up
LIMA Marcos
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Education: Frameworks and Tools
MACHADO Carolina, DAVIM J. Paulo
Sustainable Management for Managers and Engineers
MAKRIDES Andreas, KARAGRIGORIOU Alex, SKIADAS Christos H.
Data Analysis and Applications 3: Computational, Classification, Financial,
Statistical and Stochastic Methods
Data Analysis and Applications 4: Financial Data Analysis and Methods
MASSOTTE Pierre, CORSI Patrick
Complex Decision-Making in Economy and Finance
MEUNIER François-Xavier
Dual Innovation Systems: Concepts, Tools and Methods
MICHAUD Thomas
Science Fiction and Innovation Design (Innovation in Engineering and
Technology Set – Volume 6)
MONINO Jean-Louis
Data Control: Major Challenge for the Digital Society
MORLAT Clément
Sustainable Productive System: Eco-development versus Sustainable
Development (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 26)
SAULAIS Pierre, ERMINE Jean-Louis
Knowledge Management in Innovative Companies 2: Understanding and
Deploying a KM Plan within a Learning Organization
2019
AMENDOLA Mario, GAFFARD Jean-Luc
Disorder and Public Concern Around Globalization
BARBAROUX Pierre
Disruptive Technology and Defence Innovation Ecosystems
(Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 5)
DOU Henri, JUILLET Alain, CLERC Philippe
Strategic Intelligence for the Future 1: A New Strategic and Operational
Approach
Strategic Intelligence for the Future 2: A New Information Function
Approach
FRIKHA Azza
Measurement in Marketing: Operationalization of Latent Constructs
FRIMOUSSE Soufyane
Innovation and Agility in the Digital Age
(Human Resources Management Set – Volume 2)
GAY Claudine, SZOSTAK Bérangère L.
Innovation and Creativity in SMEs: Challenges, Evolutions and Prospects
GORIA Stéphane, HUMBERT Pierre, ROUSSEL Benoît
Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity
HELLER David
Investment Decision-making Using Optional Models
HELLER David, DE CHADIRAC Sylvain, HALAOUI Lana, JOUVET Camille
The Emergence of Start-ups
HÉRAUD Jean-Alain, KERR Fiona, BURGER-HELMCHEN Thierry
Creative Management of Complex Systems
LATOUCHE Pascal
Open Innovation: Corporate Incubator
LEHMANN Paul-Jacques
The Future of the Euro Currency
LEIGNEL Jean-Louis, MÉNAGER Emmanuel, YABLONSKY Serge
Sustainable Enterprise Performance: A Comprehensive Evaluation Method
LIÈVRE Pascal, AUBRY Monique, GAREL Gilles
Management of Extreme Situations: From Polar Expeditions to Exploration-
Oriented Organizations
MILLOT Michel
Embarrassment of Product Choices 2: Towards a Society of Well-being
N’GOALA Gilles, PEZ-PÉRARD Virginie, PRIM-ALLAZ Isabelle
Augmented Customer Strategy: CRM in the Digital Age
NIKOLOVA Blagovesta
The RRI Challenge: Responsibilization in a State of Tension with Market
Regulation
(Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 3)
PELLEGRIN-BOUCHER Estelle, ROY Pierre
Innovation in the Cultural and Creative Industries
PRIOLON Joël
Financial Markets for Commodities
QUINIOU Matthieu
Blockchain: The Advent of Disintermediation
RAVIX Joël-Thomas, DESCHAMPS Marc
Innovation and Industrial Policies
ROGER Alain, VINOT Didier
Skills Management: New Applications, New Questions
(Human Resources Management Set – Volume 1)
SAULAIS Pierre, ERMINE Jean-Louis
Knowledge Management in Innovative Companies 1: Understanding and
Deploying a KM Plan within a Learning Organization
SERVAJEAN-HILST Romaric
Co-innovation Dynamics: The Management of Client-Supplier Interactions
for Open Innovation
SKIADAS Christos H., BOZEMAN James R.
Data Analysis and Applications 1: Clustering and Regression, Modeling-
estimating, Forecasting and Data Mining
Data Analysis and Applications 2: Utilization of Results in Europe and
Other Topics
UZUNIDIS Dimitri
Systemic Innovation: Entrepreneurial Strategies and Market Dynamics
VIGEZZI Michel
World Industrialization: Shared Inventions, Competitive Innovations and
Social Dynamics
2018
BURKHARDT Kirsten
Private Equity Firms: Their Role in the Formation of Strategic Alliances
CALLENS Stéphane
Creative Globalization
CASADELLA Vanessa
Innovation Systems in Emerging Economies: MINT – Mexico, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Turkey
CHOUTEAU Marianne, FOREST Joëlle, NGUYEN Céline
Science, Technology and Innovation Culture
CORLOSQUET-HABART Marine, JANSSEN Jacques
Big Data for Insurance Companies
CROS Françoise
Innovation and Society
DEBREF Romain
Environmental Innovation and Ecodesign: Certainties and Controversies
DOMINGUEZ Noémie
SME Internationalization Strategies: Innovation to Conquer New Markets
ERMINE Jean-Louis
Knowledge Management: The Creative Loop
GILBERT Patrick, BOBADILLA Natalia, GASTALDI Lise,
LE BOULAIRE Martine, LELEBINA Olga
Innovation, Research and Development Management
IBRAHIMI Mohammed
Mergers & Acquisitions: Theory, Strategy, Finance
LEMAÎTRE Denis
Training Engineers for Innovation
LÉVY Aldo, BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal
Financial Management: USGAAP and IFRS Standards
MILLOT Michel
Embarrassment of Product Choices 1: How to Consume Differently
PANSERA Mario, OWEN Richard
Innovation and Development: The Politics at the Bottom of the Pyramid
(Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 2)
RICHEZ Yves
Corporate Talent Detection and Development
SACHETTI Philippe, ZUPPINGER Thibaud
New Technologies and Branding
SAMIER Henri
Intuition, Creativity, Innovation
TEMPLE Ludovic, COMPAORÉ SAWADOGO Eveline M.F.W.
Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing
Countries
UZUNIDIS Dimitri
Collective Innovation Processes: Principles and Practices
VAN HOOREBEKE Delphine
The Management of Living Beings or Emo-management
2017
AÏT-EL-HADJ Smaïl
The Ongoing Technological System
BAUDRY Marc, DUMONT Béatrice
Patents: Prompting or Restricting Innovation?
BÉRARD Céline, TEYSSIER Christine
Risk Management: Lever for SME Development and Stakeholder
Value Creation
CHALENÇON Ludivine
Location Strategies and Value Creation of International
Mergers and Acquisitions
CHAUVEL Danièle, BORZILLO Stefano
The Innovative Company: An Ill-defined Object
CORSI Patrick
Going Past Limits To Growth
D’ANDRIA Aude, GABARRET Inés
Building 21st Century Entrepreneurship
DAIDJ Nabyla
Cooperation, Coopetition and Innovation
FERNEZ-WALCH Sandrine
The Multiple Facets of Innovation Project Management
FOREST Joëlle
Creative Rationality and Innovation
GUILHON Bernard
Innovation and Production Ecosystems
HAMMOUDI Abdelhakim, DAIDJ Nabyla
Game Theory Approach to Managerial Strategies and Value Creation
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 3)
LALLEMENT Rémi
Intellectual Property and Innovation Protection: New Practices
and New Policy Issues
LAPERCHE Blandine
Enterprise Knowledge Capital
LEBERT Didier, EL YOUNSI Hafida
International Specialization Dynamics
MAESSCHALCK Marc
Reflexive Governance for Research and Innovative Knowledge
(Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 6)
MASSOTTE Pierre
Ethics in Social Networking and Business 1: Theory, Practice
and Current Recommendations
Ethics in Social Networking and Business 2: The Future and
Changing Paradigms
Smart Decisions in Complex Systems
MEDINA Mercedes, HERRERO Mónica, URGELLÉS Alicia
Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 1)
MICHAUD Thomas
Innovation, Between Science and Science Fiction
PELLÉ Sophie
Business, Innovation and Responsibility
(Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 7)
SAVIGNAC Emmanuelle
The Gamification of Work: The Use of Games in the Workplace
SUGAHARA Satoshi, DAIDJ Nabyla, USHIO Sumitaka
Value Creation in Management Accounting and Strategic Management:
An Integrated Approach
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set –Volume 2)
UZUNIDIS Dimitri, SAULAIS Pierre
Innovation Engines: Entrepreneurs and Enterprises in a Turbulent World
2016
BARBAROUX Pierre, ATTOUR Amel, SCHENK Eric
Knowledge Management and Innovation
BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal, LEVY Aldo
Banking Governance, Performance And Risk-Taking: Conventional Banks
Vs Islamic Banks
BOUTILLIER Sophie, CARRÉ Denis, LEVRATTO Nadine
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 2)
BOUTILLIER Sophie, UZUNIDIS Dimitri
The Entrepreneur (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 8)
BOUVARD Patricia, SUZANNE Hervé
Collective Intelligence Development in Business
GALLAUD Delphine, LAPERCHE Blandine
Circular Economy, Industrial Ecology and Short Supply Chains
GUERRIER Claudine
Security and Privacy in the Digital Era
MEGHOUAR Hicham
Corporate Takeover Targets
MONINO Jean-Louis, SEDKAOUI Soraya
Big Data, Open Data and Data Development
MOREL Laure, LE ROUX Serge
Fab Labs: Innovative User
PICARD Fabienne, TANGUY Corinne
Innovations and Techno-ecological Transition
2015
CASADELLA Vanessa, LIU Zeting, DIMITRI Uzunidis
Innovation Capabilities and Economic Development in Open Economies
CORSI Patrick, MORIN Dominique
Sequencing Apple’s DNA
CORSI Patrick, NEAU Erwan
Innovation Capability Maturity Model
FAIVRE-TAVIGNOT Bénédicte
Social Business and Base of the Pyramid
GODÉ Cécile
Team Coordination in Extreme Environments
MAILLARD Pierre
Competitive Quality and Innovation
Operationalizing Sustainability
Sustainability Calling
2014
DUBÉ Jean, LEGROS Diègo
Spatial Econometrics Using Microdata
LESCA Humbert, LESCA Nicolas
Strategic Decisions and Weak Signals
2013
HABART-CORLOSQUET Marine, JANSSEN Jacques, MANCA Raimondo
VaR Methodology for Non-Gaussian Finance
2012
DAL PONT Jean-Pierre
Process Engineering and Industrial Management
MAILLARD Pierre
Competitive Quality Strategies
POMEROL Jean-Charles
Decision-Making and Action
SZYLAR Christian
UCITS Handbook
2011
LESCA Nicolas
Environmental Scanning and Sustainable Development
LESCA Nicolas, LESCA Humbert
Weak Signals for Strategic Intelligence: Anticipation Tool for Managers
MERCIER-LAURENT Eunika
Innovation Ecosystems
2010
SZYLAR Christian
Risk Management under UCITS III/IV
2009
COHEN Corine
Business Intelligence
ZANINETTI Jean-Marc
Sustainable Development in the USA
2008
CORSI Patrick, DULIEU Mike
The Marketing of Technology Intensive Products and Services
DZEVER Sam, JAUSSAUD Jacques, ANDREOSSO Bernadette
Evolving Corporate Structures and Cultures in Asia: Impact
of Globalization
2007
AMMI Chantal
Global Consumer Behavior
2006
BOUGHZALA Imed, ERMINE Jean-Louis
Trends in Enterprise Knowledge Management
CORSI Patrick et al.
Innovation Engineering: the Power of Intangible Networks

Vayre E. Digitalization of Work. New Spaces... Working Times 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vayre E. Digitalization of Work. New Spaces... Working Times 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vayre E. Digitalization of Work. New Spaces... Working Times 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitalization of Work

Technological Changes and Human Resources Set

New Spaces and New Working Times

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2022

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022931283

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Part 1. Uses of Technology for Business Purposes: Background

Chapter 1. “Spillover” Work via Technology: Organizational

Chapter 2. Nomadic, Informal and Mediated Work

Chapter 3. Leadership and the Use of Technology:

Part 2. Telework: Organizational, Collective

Chapter 4. Telework: What is at Stake for Health, Quality of

4.2.2. Preventing the risks of discrimination, unequal treatment and

Chapter 5. Telework in Lockdown: The Employee Perspective . . . 103

Chapter 6. (Re)creating the Inhabited Workspace: Rematerialization

6.5.3. Living in time as space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Part 3. The Flex Office and Coworking: Conditions of

Chapter 7. The Flex Office: What are the Challenges for

Chapter 8. Working in a Coworking Space: What are the

8.3. The impact of coworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Whether the path is steep, the wall vertical

NOTE.– To improve readability, this book has been written in accordance

Introduction written by Émilie VAYRE.

articulation of professional and personal activities, and health and quality of

Eight contributions support these three main themes, based on a review of

The book brings together contributions (i) from researchers and

Chapter 1 deals with “spillover” work via digital technologies

through an empirical study, illustrate what their repercussions are on

Chapter 4 reports on the challenges of teleworking from home from the

The book concludes with a discussion of the phases of development of

Understanding recent and current forms of work, and building knowledge

Uses of Technology for Business Purposes:

Digitalization of Work: New Spaces and New Working Times,

“Spillover” Work via Technology:

1.1. What is spillover work?

Chapter written by Catherine HELLEMANS and Émilie VAYRE.

traditional working schedule carried out on the company’s premises. The

1.1.1. Objective parameters of spillover: location, duration,

term in the context of workers’ compensation: the recognition of the link

drafting and finalization of a complex report under heavy time constraints.

We surveyed 157 people with higher education, working in different sectors:

Laptop usage figures are also high:

Box 1.1. Use of technologies when spillover work:

1.1.2. Subjective spillover and the meaning of spillover:

So far, we have considered spillover from an objective and quantitative

1.1.2.1. The theory of boundaries

Flexibility is to be understood both in terms of the malleability of roles

psychologically involved in another. To use the same example, this would

We can therefore argue that malleability determines the spillover, while

However, one question remains to be addressed, which relates to the

1.1.2.2. Segmentor or integrator?

People who prefer to separate life domains are called “segmentors”. In

These personal preferences are influenced by the constraints and

1.1.3. Spillover control: myself and others

If the connection through technologies is potentially permanent, the

The situation of teleworking, enabled by technology, certainly

Understandably, the control we will have over our objective and