PréDis: Multi-criteria analysis of the impacts of the presence or distancing nature of work meetings

Abstract

The “PréDis” project aimed to develop a multi-criteria analysis of working conditions in so-called “in-person” or “remote” meetings. A survey was designed for approximately 600 evaluators from the engineering (CEI) and research (CSS) evaluation committees, supplemented by individual interviews. We sought to clarify and weigh criteria relating to meeting arrangements and situate them in relation to other Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Responsibility issues such as work quality and efficiency, conviviality, and organizational constraints.
Two main lessons were learned. First, face-to-face meetings are preferred in terms of work quality: face-to-face meetings are considered more fluid, more efficient, richer, and more suited to sensitive issues. On the other hand, when considering personal constraints, the “remote” mode is clearly the preferred option: for most respondents, travel and associated costs, personal organization, and carbon footprint are among the main factors. Being present is synonymous with constraints, which are even greater the further away one lives.
Therefore, there is tension over the reasons for preferring one or the other method: professional issues of meaning at work, collective dynamics, and meeting others lead to a preference for in-person meetings, while personal issues of work-life balance lead to a preference for remote meetings. Each participant then positions themselves in a choice of method, which is sometimes a dilemma. Many participants report that it is difficult to impose “their” method on others. This presents a new responsibility for the organizer. Since none of these modalities is fully satisfactory, it would be up to the employer to provide a framework, and for the organizers to adjust their choices where possible.