Diversity of employees’ preferences towards creative versus routine work, and individual versus teamwork in remote work conditions
Authors:
- Uniwersytet ŁódzkiUŁUniwersytet Łódzki
- Patrycja Mizera-PęczekPMPatrycja Mizera-Pęczek
- 30 April 2024
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Szkoła Główna Handlowa GV in e-mentor
- Vol. 103 (1) , 16-24
Abstract
The change in preferred work models that occurred during the pandemic and post-pandemic period has meant that both creative and reproductive work now takes place in stationary, hybrid, and fully remote conditions. Employees, both those performing creative and reproductive work, in teams or individually, increasingly have to function efficiently in virtual reality, and thus in conditions of physical loneliness. Therefore, this article aims to identify how performing work remotely contributed to changing the preferences of creative and non-creative employees towards performing professional duties of a creative versus routine nature, individually or in teams. The research was carried out using the CAWI survey method among 1,000 respondents in Poland, examining their opinions on the preferences for performing work of various types in remote conditions. The study showed that each of the four types of work examined is a challenge for employees who work remotely, with the majority of respondents declaring that each type of work (creative individual, creative team, routine individual, and routine team) is more difficult for them than in the pre-pandemic reality. Moreover, it was found that the more creative the nature of the work performed, the more negatively employees assessed the preferences for performing creative and routine work, both in teams and individually. Managing creative and reproductive work is one of the most important challenges for modern managers. Currently, many scientific discussions concern what work can be automated or entrusted to artificial intelligence, and what should remain in human hands. This article may be of interest to managers as well as psychologists and creativity educators, whose task will be to prepare work teams to perform creative tasks (work of a creative nature) in remote conditions. The original value of the presented work is such a broad approach to research issues, considering both preferences for creativity and reproduction of work in conditions of individual remote work and remote teamwork. The article takes into account aspects that are important from the perspective of human resources management, management of creative teams, and employee creativity management with the increasing use of hybrid and fully remote work models in organisations.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dirty creativity: An inductive study of how creative workers champion new designs that are stigmatizedOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2023
- Do-It-Yourself or Do-It-Together: How digital technologies affect creating alone or with others?Technovation, 2022
- Surviving remotely: How job control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well‐beingHuman Resource Management, 2022
- An examination of remote e-working and flow experience: The role of technostress and lonelinessComputers in Human Behavior, 2022
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the creative industries: A literature review and future research agendaJournal of Business Research, 2021
- Having a Creative Day: A Daily Diary Study of the Interplay Between Daily Activating Moods and Physical Work Environment on Daily CreativityThe Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020
- Disappearing routine jobs: Who, how, and why?Journal of Monetary Economics, 2017
- Creative work careers: pathways and portfolios for the creative economyJournal of Education and Work, 2015
- Embedded creative workers and creative work in educationJournal of Education and Work, 2015
- Becoming employable students and ‘ideal’ creative workers: exclusion and inequality in higher education work placementsBritish Journal of Sociology of Education, 2013