In our consulting work, we are often asked the question: “Do job sharers always have to be paid the same?” And anyone who is familiar with the jungle of groupings, salary bands and job grades in many corporations knows that when two people suddenly work together in one position, equal pay is sometimes not so easy!
Kim Anh Hoang Thi from the University of Hamburg researched the topic “How can a fair compensation & benefit system be designed for job sharers?” in her master's thesis, and we supported and accompanied her master's thesis.
In this blog article, she explains the findings of her interview study.
For many people, the topic of compensation and benefits is rather dry. However, you deliberately chose this topic for your master's thesis with a view to the job sharing model. Why?
From my point of view, the topic of fair pay is relevant for a variety of reasons, because it is also an important factor for the acceptance, dissemination and success of job sharing! And then there is a particularly interesting aspect of job sharing that differs from “non-job sharers”: in my study, it is clear that the fact itself of working in a job sharing model already represents an intangible value for the job sharers. The tandem itself is perceived as a major benefit, which is then linked to material aspects. In the end, the overall package of the compensation and benefits system is crucial for the job sharers' satisfaction.
Interesting! This shows once again that salary isn't everything. What exactly is the “non-material value” that people experience through working in a job-sharing model?
These include development, career and learning opportunities, as well as the emotional relief that comes from a change of perspective, mutual feedback and (professionally) complementary experiences in tandem. And above all, the opportunity to work in a management position despite reduced working hours. These added values are named as the most valuable “service” and have a strong influence on the sense of justice regarding the compensation and benefits package, including the salary.
Let's take a look at the material side. What factors determine how fair or unfair the salary is perceived to be?
Overall, six factors that determine the sense of fairness can be derived from the study results. In particular, the relationship in tandem and the (remuneration) transparency between the two play a major role. But there are other factors as well: the career path taken so far, the amount of the salary difference and the comparison positions. In other words, with whom I actually compare myself, within the tandem, with other colleagues at the same career level or with other people in the company. The last important factor is the transparency of the company with regard to salary and benefits.
So transparency plays an important role in two senses?
That's right, it was mentioned by everyone as a key component. Within the tandem and by the company for the job sharers. Whether in the form of salary bands or a trusted manager remains to be seen.
Are there tandem types in which transparency, i.e. openly discussing salary, works better or worse?
Yes, symbiotic career tandems and sparring partners in senior management are characterized by their close tandem relationship, in which salary transparency prevails. This allows for a direct comparison and an evaluation of the sense of fairness. The situation is different for heteronomous tandems and strategic alliances in senior management, because no direct transparency could be demonstrated for them. They have to rely on salary bands, if these are available in the company. It turns out that there are different comparison positions, which depend on the tandem relationship and transparency within the tandem.
You mentioned the topic of “career path so far” as one factor in assessing the sense of justice. What exactly is meant here?
This refers primarily to the difference between internal and external careers. Employees who have followed an internal career path are familiar with the criteria for salary bands and the clearly defined process, provided these are in place and in force. These are usually accepted and not questioned, as they are based on the various principles of fairness applied by companies. This ensures transparency, traceability, consistency and correctness. If this employee joins forces with an external applicant, this can be problematic. This is because when external applicants are hired, the salary bands are often stretched or neglected in order to bring the person available on board.
This shows that the sense of justice is particularly critical with regard to pay transparency when different career paths have been taken, there is a close tandem relationship and consequently direct pay transparency, and there are no salary bands that apply equally.
Can you give a specific example from your interviews?
A specific example is a job sharer who came to the company from outside in a job sharing model with an internal employee. Salary bands were missing and the “external” job sharer earned significantly more than her tandem partner. At the same time, she had a very close tandem relationship with her tandem partner. She felt a great injustice, especially because of the job share. What was remarkable was that her outrage made her stand up for her tandem partner in joint salary negotiations and even be willing to forgo her own salary increase.
Are such examples very unusual or are there often pay gaps?
Small differences in pay are evident in most of the respondents, regardless of their tandem type and career path, and are accepted because the existing salary bands ensure that pay differences are understandable and transparent. If there is an adjustment process to equalize pay, this also reduces the difference. Few tandems earn the same amount of money.
But there is one design principle for a fair compensation and benefits system that applies to all job sharers: equal pay for equal work!
If there are distinctions based on job-related and personal structures in the respective previous internal careers, the same percentage should be applied in the event of a salary increase. Of course, this may vary for junior-senior tandems, but these were not surveyed in my study.
What does it mean for companies in terms of practical implementation?
For companies, this means that factors that influence the sense of justice in terms of salary, such as career paths, should be taken into account in the matching process. This does not mean that only people with similar salary levels should go into job sharing together. But transparency is the be-all and end-all here. The criteria and bases of assessment of the compensation and benefit system must be clearly communicated and must be understandable and comprehensible. The aim is to design a system that is not perceived as permanently disadvantageous, so that the job sharing model continues to become established in the company and is well received. Before starting the job sharing, the interests and perceived added value should also be discussed independently of the salary. And if the starting points in terms of salary are different, a roadmap should be developed for the next two years.
In academic terms, managers and HR managers must recognize that, in addition to distributive justice (evaluation of the amount of pay), procedural justice (the pay determination process) and interactional justice (the way decision-makers deal with it) also influence the perception of justice. Consequently, measures must be implemented that take into account all dimensions of justice.
And then I would like to remind you again of the intangible value that the job sharers feel by working in tandem. This value weighs positively in the sense of justice. And this effect can be reinforced by the company. For example, by ensuring that the tandem is well accompanied and supported in its work in the job sharing model. Positive communication and placement in the company and in the direct tandem environment is one concrete example, or a well-prepared IT infrastructure such as shared email accounts and tandem-friendly systems with the same authorizations for both job sharers. However, this does not mean that the entire responsibility lies with the employer. Job sharers themselves can and should also be active when it comes to evaluating fairness in terms of compensation and benefits in a tandem. This can mean sitting down at a table and talking about what material and immaterial benefits mean to them and what is important to them individually, but also as a tandem. This is the only way to assess this sensitive topic holistically. And it is the only way to create the basis for a shared understanding with the employer, so that a satisfactory solution can be implemented at all. In other words, it is necessary to discuss what fairness means individually for the job sharers. Dear Kim, thank you for your great master's thesis! You have shown that the topic of compensation and benefits in tandems is by no means dry, but rather that it encompasses many exciting and even emotional topics. It was a real pleasure supporting you with your master's thesis and conducting this interview with you! Thank you very much!
Comments