The team had two months to complete the prestudy, for which the ambition was to find out how University employees have understood this year and a half of the Covid-19 pandemic.  The prestudy deals with lessons learnt in University operations, but also explores expectations regarding how the workplace of the future might be designed. Although that question is far too big for the report, the prestudy identifies a few points of departure for further analysis.

The methods used for the study included taking a knowledge inventory (studying “key reports”), reading studies and projects carried out within Uppsala University (such as student and employee surveys), participating in online discussions (scanning the internet to identify tendencies), arranging workshops for managers and department heads, focus group discussions with various groupings and perspectives within the disciplinary domains, as well as arranging focus groups with union organisations, senior safety delegates, the library, various users of premises and, not least importantly, students.

“One limitation that is important to mention is that we have not carried out an employee survey. We have gathered opinions through focus groups in various permutations, but further studies will be required if we want to know how University employees have understood the pandemic at a more detailed level,” says the investigator, Torsten Blomkvist, who performed the prestudy with Deputy Academy Secretary Malin Lindström.

“Another limitation involves issues related to the quality of education and research, which was impossible for the investigators to prioritise.   These areas are primarily something for core operations to manage and integrate in departmental quality improvement initiatives.”
 

So, what does this report show?

“What we have seen is a strong trend towards working from home right now, no doubt. People see the pandemic as a tipping point towards a new way of working - with all that that entails. The question of more WFH was brought up in all of the groups we talked to and is an area that requires particular preparation before the autumn and is also a key issue for the future. The employees think it will be a welcome relief to come back and see their colleagues, but can also see the advantages of a new way of working". 

"But the prestudy also shows strong consensus among managers about the importance of a clear and direct return to the workplace. Consequently, it will also be particularly important to manage any expectations of continuing to work from home after the pandemic.”

 

Do managers and department heads think it was difficult to lead at a distance?

“Yes, that has been expressed in the talks. Managers might feel that they have lost the close contact with operations, have had a hard time monitoring the work, etc. The department heads are keen to get the academic conversation started again and to create a working departmental setting for their students. One clear tendency is that the students want to be back on campus.”

Torsten Blomkvist notes that there are reports that address certain difficulties associated with WFH, both for managers and employees. For example, WFT creates strong relationships with only the few colleagues with whom employees regularly interact. And if productivity is favourable at first, there are no guarantees that will hold up over the long term.
 

How should the workplace of the future be defined – are there any good suggestions?

“A lot of potential hybrid solutions have been discussed. Several studies show that things have worked well to  great extent, considering the circumstances. According to many, the Zoom communication tool has worked well as an efficient substitute for face-to-face meetings.

Learn from what really has worked well – but don’t make the emergency solutions permanent,” advises Blomkvist.

Experiences of hybrid meetings, where some attend in person and others are linked in digitally, have not been particularly good.  The person leading the meeting has to have substantial educational skill to make everyone feel included in the meeting.
 

One positive aspect is that business travel declined drastically during the pandemic, when meetings, conferences and other events were digital. In addition to giving more people the opportunity to attend, carbon emissions were reduced – a win for the environment. 

And could we also save on the cost of premises if  more people are working from home, which could make fewer premises necessary? People do not believe that, according to the discussions in the report, but the role of the economic aspect in this discussion cannot be dismissed, according to Blomkvist.
 

And what will be the external expectations for the University as a workplace – that we are highly skilled at dealing with hybrid solutions? 

“If the trend of increased WFH persists, there could be those kinds of expectations.   Still, Uppsala University is a characteristic, campus-based university with all the advantages that entails, and it is important not to lose that. We’ll probably have to tough it out a little,” says Blomkvist.

 

Can only some occupational categories be required to return to to the workplace, or does it have to be the same for everybody? Could this be seen as a matter of fairness?

The prestudy states that when the organisation demands it, people have to come to work.

“This is stressed as an important principle. The WFH issue has been so focused on the individual, the individual’s circumstances and needs. The point of departure should be the organisation's needs and then you can discuss the matter further on that basis,” says Blomkvist.

“How the workplace of the future should be organised is a huge question, and not one we were directed to answer in this study. We have only scratched the surface.”


Part of the prestudy deals with uniformity and clarity of management and communication. Some decisions regarding restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic have been perceived as a little fuzzy and have sometimes been implemented in different ways in the organisation.

The question is, how should this be accomplished in a highly decentralised organisation like a university? When are decisions at the central level necessary, and when should local decisions be left up to the disciplinary domains, faculties or departments? You can see that clearer directives may be needed here.

The issue is being discussed and various perspectives have been brought to light. Regardless of where decisions are made, clarity is the most important thing, and what applies has to be clearly communicated.

The prestudy presents several tendencies and identifies a number of priority areas to be further dealt with within the organisation. The document also suggests a number of actions , which should be studied further.