The bright and dark side of smart working in the public sector: employees' experiences before and during COVID-19

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to understand how the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) influenced public employees' perception of smart working and how this approach was used during the pandemic. The authors asked about smart working's positive and negative aspects and how these changed during the pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThe authors explored the strengths and weaknesses of smart working before and after COVID-19. The authors interviewed 27 Italian public employees who had experienced smart working before the pandemic. The questions and discussion aimed to broadly explore the strengths and weaknesses of smart working and smart working's impact on working performance, work relationships and work–life balance (WLB).FindingsSmart working had a widespread and positive impact on organizational flexibility. Smart working improved the response and resilience of Italian public organizations to the pandemic. However, some critical factors emerged, such as the right to disconnect and the impact on WLB.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors suggest that the pandemic exposed the need for public administrations to consolidate work flexibility practices, such as smart working, by paying more attention to the impact of these practices on the whole organization and human resources management (HRM) policies and practices.Originality/valueThis study makes an important contribution to the literature on the public sector by discussing the positive and negative aspects of smart working. The study also provides managerial and policy implications of the use of smart working in public administrations.

Telework in public organizations: A systematic review and research agenda

“…First, several scholars have recognized the exceptional nature of the accelerated and coercive introduction of full‐time mandatory remote work from home, referring to it as COVID‐work (see, e.g., Boulet & Parent‐Lamarche, 2022; Carillo et al, 2021; Todisco et al, 2023), which needs to be “judged separately from conventional telework” (Kim, 2023, p. 559). We agree with this caveat and highlight that some recent consequences of telework also derive from its interplay with the pandemic measures.…”

“…Work-life balance 9 Chinyamurindi, 2022;de Velasco et al, 2023;Lopes Junior & Daniel, 2022;Morea et al, 2023;Todisco et al, 2023;Williamson et al, 2023) 3 Williamson et al, 2023) Self-reported individual productivity 5 (Chow et al, 2022;da Silva & da Rosa, 2022;de Velasco et al, 2023;Williamson et al, 2023) 2 (da Silva & da Rosa, 2022; ) 4 (Kahn et al, 2022Varotsis et al, 2022;Williamson et al, 2023) Resilience 6 Mayers et al, 2023;Ridde et al, 2022;Rivera Macias & Casselden, 2022;Todisco et al, 2023) Affective Job satisfaction 2 Sociability 2 (Cellini et al, 2021;Rivera Macias et al, 2022) Travel costs 2 (Cellini et al, 2021;Todisco et al, 2023) Turnover intentions 2 (Leider et al, 2023, Lewis et al, 2023 Note: A complete list of references is available online in the Harvard Dataverse, at the link provided in the data availability statement.…”

“…Of the 120 studies included in our review, 60 use data collected prior to the pandemic, 54 studies use data collected after its outbreak, and six of them compare data from pre‐ and post‐pandemic (Lewis et al, 2023; Todisco et al, 2023; Williamson, Colley, & Foley, 2022). In this section, we focus on all the 60 studies whose data (or part of them) were collected after the outbreak of the pandemic.…”

The new normal of remote work: exploring individual and organizational factors affecting work-related outcomes and well-being in academia

“…Scholars interested in the subject have highlighted the need to investigate how remote working has led to enduring changes in the work organization ( Vyas et al, 2022 ). Following this aim, Todisco et al (2023) conducted a study to examine the experiences of public sector employees with remote working, reporting that, after the pandemic, remote working significantly enhanced organizational flexibility and adaptability. However, issues still emerged regarding the right to disconnect and maintaining a healthy work-life balance.…”

Is Smart Working Beneficial for Workers’ Wellbeing? A Longitudinal Investigation of Smart Working, Workload, and Hair Cortisol/Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…In Italy, SW denotes a form of flexible work arrangement that implies an organization by phases, cycles, and objectives, the possible use of technological tools for carrying out the work activity, and the absence of constraints in time or place, thereby enabling remote working (Law 81/2017). Interestingly, SW was originally proposed to enhance competitiveness and foster work–life balance (Law 81/2017; see also [ 7 ]) However, to date, research has shown conflicting results, with SW being associated with both positive and negative consequences for workers’ wellbeing, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”