Smart working perception in banking companies’ employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional pilot study

1Introduction

During the evolution of the SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) pandemic, following the total lockdown established in Italy in March 2020 [1], Smart Working (SW) has been recommended in the phases of highest incidence of contagions [1–3]. SW corresponds to non-conventional organisational models that, thanks to modern technologies, are characterised by higher flexibility and autonomy in the choice of working spaces, time and tools, providing the employees with the best working conditions to accomplish professional tasks [4]. In the last years, and especially during the current health emergency, many different kinds of flexible work have been implemented without regulation, adopted as substitute working modes [5].

Especially at the beginning of the pandemic, during the first (Spring 2000) and the second (Autumn 2020) waves, many governments introduced working home quarantine to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and this lead to a decrease in consumption, stopped movement both internally and externally, and a consequent crisis in several sectors, such as including tourism, production, and services, small and medium factories [6]. However, in these periods, the organizational justice determined by the remote work has been an issue, and has been taken in place considering both Ethical elements and Job satisfaction of workers [7], both in private and publicsectors.

According to Sontel data, the relevance of remote working in Italy has raised significantly during the pandemic period: the percentage of companies declaring to have resorted to it went from 28.7% in 2019 to 82.3% in 2020 [8]. During the COVID-19 emergency SW became merely Working from Home (WfH), enabling to preserve safety of both workers and clients and ensuring business continuity. One of the professional sectors that, even before the outbreak of the pandemic, was resorting to SW is the banking one, in an attempt of transforming the overall bank activity in a smarter and more flexible direction [9, 10]. These previous experiences helped the sector reacting promptly and efficiently to the COVID-19 emergency and the process of transition of SW, that is crucial to reduce workplace presence at the office without consequences on the provision of professional services [10].

Positive effects related to the implementation of SW do exist: higher efficiency at work, better concentration on the job, reduction of psychological stress and a better work-life balance [11–13]. On the other hand, the overlapping between work and family life [14], the social isolation and a reduction in the amount of free-time for personal activities have been detected [13, 15]. The effectiveness of agile work is also influenced by the organization of the physical space, which makes it possible to separate work from the family environment [16, 17]. These elements can have an impact on the life-balance and subsequently on bank workers’ health, although scientific literature is lacking of studies evaluating the bank workers’ perception of SW/WfH and its impact on their lives. In year 2016 Mannocci et al. [18] analysed the level of stress among bank workers in Italy, showing an increase in the levels of stress among these workers. Exposure to stress factors can be associated to unhealthy habits, poor mental and physical health, with potential heavy consequences in terms of public health [19, 20].

This study aims at evaluating the attitude and opinions of the bank employees on SW, focusing on the demographic, social and occupational characteristics of the respondents such as gender, age, marital status, educational level and professional classification.

2Methods

A cross-sectional study, according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [21], was carried out (Table 1). The research was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021.

3Results

4Discussion

The results underline that SW could increase the chance for workers to find a balance between work and private life, particularly for younger people, who lived far from the office and the once with a part-time job. On the other hand, people older than 45 years, with lower educational level and living near the workplace are in general less favourable to SW/WfH.

Focusing on the individual and company’s perceived productivity, younger employees, with a higher level of education, single, childless and living more than 50 km away from the office are those reporting an improvement in productivity. Unsurprisingly, people with children, which stayed at home due to the school closure during the pandemic, complained of a decrease in productivity. However, the literature points out how the impact of children at home varies depending on their age. If taking care of an infant is considered a major distraction, having a teenager that can help with household tasks boostering the productivity [24].

The respondents showing an overall higher propensity for SW were those living more than 50 km away from the office. It has been detected that commuters use the time previously occupied by the trip to the workplace to integrate their hours of sleep, with an overall gain in terms of wellbeing [25, 26].

Conversely, our study shows that older workers, who lived near the office and the ones with a lower educational level seemed to be more reluctant towards this new digital practice. However, some studies highlight different findings [24]. Previous studies reported heterogeneous feedbacks to WfH: a survey conducted among Austrian workers showed that the quality of life improved in a segment of this population (53%) and decreased in another one (43%). Likewise, reported productivity increased in 37% of the cases and decreased for 67% of the respondents [25]. Moretti et al. [27] showed that 39% of the subjects doing SW perceived themselves to be less productive, but 51% were equally satisfied. Hallmann as well underlines how 34.6% of workers working from home reported an increased well-being, while 34.4% described a worse condition [26].

The main side effect of WfH is the contamination between daily life and working activities [28]. Hilbrecht et al. [12] highlight that the concurrence between work and personal life causes either an encroachment of working activities into the social and family sphere or an overlap between family concerns and daily working life. These issues can lead to a decrease in productivity. Moreover, while working from home, it is possible to feel a lack of structure, to struggle getting the working day going and following the established working shift, to take time for meals and personal activities, resulting in a radical change in the work-life balance [27]. This imbalance can increase the working strain and deteriorate the perceived well-being [29].

A shared opinion is the fact that SW jeopardizes the dimension of teamwork worsening the relationships among colleagues. Indeed, especially in the long run, the exchange of information via technology fails to compensate for the feeling of social isolation and the lack of face-to-face interactions [30–33], increasing risks of psychological backlashes [34], reducing performances and decreasing job satisfaction and commitment [35–38].

SW could introduce another negative phenomenon: the increase of working hard, i.e. spending more time and energies on the job, and the reduction of working smart, that is focusing on the results benefitting from a higher organisational freedom [39]. In fact, Golden et and colleagues [31] report that SW makes workers more satisfied with their jobs when the amount of it is not very high; whereas, when it goes above a certain threshold, the level of satisfaction does not increase. It is also recognize that a massive use of technology has an impact on workers, causing higher levels of anxiety and or depression [40] up to the onset of psychological and physical effects related to the so-called technostress syndrome [41]. Regarding the workers’ physical health, some studies pointed out that WfH extends the working time that is done on the computer and consequently significantly increases the sedentary time, causing several negative effects on physical and mental health [42, 43] and this has been especially true during the pandemic, with a diminish in the levels of physical activity [44, 45]. Moreover, the usage of non-ergonomic equipment with an unsuitable work station may increase musculoskeletal issues [27, 46–48].

Nevertheless, the role of flexibility on innovation regarding work processes is now recognized not only in the light of promoting work-life balance, but also to foster the productivity, the sustainability and the cost effectiveness within the organizations 30). According to the McEwan’s definition of SW [49], a regulation and identification of the different configurations of SW could be done, so that this new working model can be re-proposed even outside the emergency context.

This study analyzes the characteristics of the workers both against and favorable towards SW. Employees aged older than 45 years and those with a lower educational level had a lower propensity for SW. The generational gap is confirmed by the literature [32], and could find an explanation if considering the approach of the elderly generations to technological tools, which remains mainly related to their specific and known task [50]. Besides, these workers rely more on the sharing of expertise, which is less smooth with SW [51]. Who lived far from the workplace was more interested in SW for it helps to spare on mobility costs, to conciliate working and private life making the management of ones’ own work easier and therefore improving the quality oftheir lives.

5Limitations

We must acknowledge some limitations to this study. First of all, the response rate was not very high, and this could have had an impact on the completeness of the results. Secondly, our data have been collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the choice of SW has been not voluntary but compulsory. Therefore, respondents’ attitude towards SW could have been influenced both by the new imposed working measures and the worries related to the unique emergency phase. Finally, the concept of agile work is broader than that carried out during the pandemic: SW is not merely working from home but also using other places to carry out one’s own professional activity with a higher working-hour flexibility.

6Conclusion

One cannot assume that, in the absence of the stimulus and control offered by the work environment, all workers are equally adequate to perform SW. Thus, the employers should be aware that some more vulnerable workers could be in need of additional structural and technological support [52]. Companies that want starting implementing SW should therefore consider not only the needed technologies but also the training to “enable” workers. This requires a cultural shift that cannot happen quickly: it may be necessary to train personal skills, such as those related to planning, and to provide guidance so that workers can learn how to better organize and manage a work environment that may be more uncertain and variable than the one they were used to in the office [53, 54]. Defining good practices and suggesting a routine on SW could be a need in the short-term; this strategy can help managing time, better focus on work and prevent stress-risk and psychological effects on bank workers and on employees of other sectors.

Ethical approval

Not required.

Informed consent

All participants gave their consent to participate in the survey. The study was carried out following the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Data availability

The data underlying this article are contained in the article.