Because smart working and short weeks won't save your company

Published in issue 321, May/June/July 2025 of Sviluppo&Ordine

We live in curious times: it seems that to be at the cutting edge you just need to jump on the latest organizational fashion like on an electric scooter. One day it's Smart working, the next day it's Smart workingholacracy, then the short week... and so on, as in a fashion show of models (not organizational, but catwalk). It's a shame that organizing a company - really - isn't like choosing the color of the season.Organization is a serious thing.And no, you can't rethink it every Monday morning on the wave of enthusiasm or a viral post on LinkedIn.

Thecontingency theory– stuff from the 60s, therefore as old as the Beatles – had already warned us (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967): there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. It's not enough to put on a different tie (or take it off, if you want to be 'agile') to improve an organisation. It's usefuladapt to the context, the activity, the environment.A principle of common sense so obvious that, naturally, it is ignored every time someone proposes yet another 'definitive' corporate revolution.

Let's take itSmart working,teleworking, agile working, or whatever you prefer to call it this week. Works? Of course, if you do it right. The Stanford University study (Bloomet al., 2015) is enlightening: working from home increased productivity by 13%… for a while. Then, when everyone had the opportunity to do so, many rushed to fill the offices again, as if the company buffets were free again. Evidently, collaborating and feeling part of a team is not something that can be managed only with Zoom and kittens in the background.

Then there is theholacracy. Ah, the beauty ofholacracy: let's abolish hierarchies, long live organizational democracy! It's a shame that the reality is a little less idyllic. Zappos, the famous company that adopted this model with the same ease with which you change wallpaper, has experienced years of confusion, bureaucracy and mass escapes (Bernsteinet al., 2016). Only after a lot of blood, sweat and circular meetings, things started to stabilize. In short: more than a 'happy revolution', you need strong nerves and the patience of a Tibetan monk.

And we want to talk aboutshort week? The Icelandic experiment (Haraldsson and Kellam, 2021) was sold as a universal panacea: fewer hours, same productivity! Yes, but only after a profound reorganization of the work. Translated: it's not enough to close early on Friday to get results.We need to rethink flows, priorities and processes.Otherwise the risk is to transform the short week into a marathon of anxiety compressed into four days instead of five.

The real problem is thatbehind every fashion there is an irresistible temptation: believing that simply changing the label (or adding an English suffix) is enough to magically improve reality. It's a bit like believing that buying the latest model of treadmill automatically makes you fit, without ever getting on it.

Serious research - the boring but indispensable one - tells us another story. March and Olsen (1976), speaking of organizational ambiguity, explained to us that companies are not Swiss mechanisms. They are systems full of contradictions, inconsistent goals, people doing strange things like thinking, making mistakes and (horror!) disagreeing. Thinking of governing them by changing the weekly timetable or abolishing the leaders is like thinking of solving a water problem by installing a Zen fountain.

So what? Then we need to go back toorganizational realism.Not the cynical one, but the practical one, made up of uncomfortable questions: what is our job? What are the constraints? What are our resources? Mintzberg (1979) already taught us this: without an accurate diagnosis, any reform risks being a shortcut to disaster. Child (1972) and Donaldson (2001) also remind us: organizations can adapt, of course, but also shape their environment. But not with motivational slogans or self-help workshops.empowerment. It's usefulvision,strategic capacityand, above all, oneknowledgedepth of its operating context.

In short: the organization is not a social network where it is enough to change the algorithm to improve theengagement. It is patient, serious, sometimes boring work. But those looking for the magic shortcut will end up, sooner or later, stumbling upon a very banal, old truth: organizing well is difficult. And there are no shortcuts.

As Chester Barnard (1938) had already warned us - someone who knew more about organizations than the average influencer - the ability to organize is the highest form of practical intelligence. It's a shame that today it often seems easier to mistake it for the eagerness to ride the fashion of the moment. Because we know: between the hard job of thinking and the comfortable illusion of innovating for fashion, many choose the latter. With results, unfortunately, there for all to see.

Bibliographical references

Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press.

Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the Holacracy Hype. Harvard Business Review.

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology.

Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Wise.

Haraldsson, G. D., & Kellam, J. (2021). Going Public: Iceland’s Journey to a Shorter Working Week. Alda and Autonomy.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School Press.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitetsforlaget.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2015). Contagious Offsite Work and the Lonely Office: The Unintended Consequences of Distributed Work. Academy of Management Discoveries.