Experience of Russian Companies in Transition to Remote Work in the Pandemic Situation
Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Leading Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow Russia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Assoc. Prof., Senior Researcher, Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, International Laboratory for Applied Network Analysis, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow Russia.
This article presents the results of a study of the experience gained from Russian organizations and enterprises’ emergency transition to remote work in the spring of 2020. The main objective of the study is to analyze the team management strategies used in the lockdown conditions in the spring of 2020: circumstances determining the effectiveness of joint work, organizational and communicative particularities, and properties of corporative culture. The transfer of employees to remote work entailed a decrease in the effectiveness of collective work with an increase in worktime. Stresses caused by concerns of people about the stability of their work proved to be justified and widespread. These concerns were partly alleviated thanks by employers’ efforts to retain workers. The authorities promptly adopted Law No. 407 on remote work. This also eased the fears of employees. Companies that managed to create workable IT systems and auxiliary services were able to quickly mobilize employees to accomplish production tasks. But teaming competencies such as problems of motivation, involvement, trust, mutual understanding and some others could not be promptly resolved. Accordingly, the crisis was surmounted successfully enough in those organizations that had these skills in the repertoire of their corporate culture. The lockdown experience shows that remote work can be a regular element of workplace relations. This requires algorithms of efficient work out of the office and the use of managerial decisions motivating employees for cooperation, trust, involvement, creativity, the ability to learn and adapt to change.
Castells M. (2011) A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication. Los Angeles (CA). Vol. 5: 773–787.
Edmondson A.C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Jossey-Bass, 2012.
Giddens A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hall S. (2001) Encoding/Decoding. In: Media and Cultural Studies. Key Works Revised Edition. Ed. by M.G. Durham, D.M. Kellner. London: Blackwell Publishers: 163–173.
SchÜtz A. (2004) The world glowing with meaning. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.) SchÜtz A. (2008) Some structures of the life-world. Voprosy sotsial’noy teorii [Questions of social theory]. Vol. II. Iss. 1 (2): 72–87. (In Russ.)
Seligmen A. (2002) The problem of trust. Trans. from Eng. I.I. Myurberg, L.V. Soboleva. Moscow: Ideyapress. (In Russ.)
Shirokikh E.A. (2016) Causes of communication failures in Internet discourse. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya Istoriya i filologiya [Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Series History and philology]. Vol. 26. Iss. 3: 86–92. (In Russ.)
Sociology of a pandemic. Project CrownFOM. (2021) Ed. by A. Oslon. Moscow: InFOM. (In Russ.)
Toshchenko Zh. (2016b) Zones of vulnerability in the space of opportunities. In: Yadov’s Readings: Perspectives of Sociology. Collection of scientific reports of the conference December 14–16, 2015. Ed. by S. Bozhkov et al. St. Petersburg: EIDOS: 182–191. (In Russ.)
Тoshchenko Zh. (2016a) Life world and its meanings. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 6–17. (In Russ.)