Svenja: Dear Sarah, you wrote a paper on the topic “Led under top sharing tandems”. So you didn't examine the tandems, but the teams of job sharers. Why did you decide to do that?
Sarah: Basically, I found the topic of “New Work” very exciting. And that's how I came across the topic of “job sharing” by chance and found it totally interesting. When I wrote to you about it, you suggested that I take a closer look at the teams of top sharers, because there hadn't been any work on that yet. So there was still a big gap in research to be filled. I also think it is becoming increasingly important and relevant for employees to see whether it works at all with a tandem as a superior.
Svenja: Okay, very exciting. Let's take a look at your study then. What were the most important findings for you?
Sarah: Basically, you can say that no two top-sharing arrangements are the same. That means, on the one hand, there are very big differences, just looking at the history of how the tandems came about. For example, some are only organized in a tandem for a certain period of time and others are long-term. There are employees who were employed directly by a tandem. Still other employees were already in the company and only then was the tandem formed. This means that these are factors that varied greatly across the four interviews conducted, for example, the Pensa. One tandem had 100 percent and 90 percent, so a total of 190 percent, and others had 60 percent and 60 percent, which is also crucial for employees. Another example is the degree of autonomy, the way in which employees can organize their work independently. On the other hand, the factors for job satisfaction, for example, are quite similar to those for a single manager. These include, for example, good communication or the support of superiors. For me, this actually means that compared to a good individual leadership, not so much changes with top sharing. It is more important that employees get along with the character, personality traits and leadership style of the employees. It is less relevant whether there is one or two superiors.
Svenja: Ok, the criteria for job satisfaction did not differ from those in teams led by individuals. And how satisfied were the employees you surveyed from tandems? Were there things that employees of tandems experienced as very positive?
Sarah: Yes, one example was of an employee who experienced a wide range of constellations at a company. His line manager started a temporary tandem with his team colleague, who thus became the boss. After a while, she left the position and the team colleague continued alone.
Svenja: So a junior-senior successor tandem...
Sarah: Yes, exactly. The interviewee was very satisfied with the model of his superiors. The learning effect for the former teammate was quite significant, since he had hardly any leadership experience until then. He said that his teammate would not have been able to lead so well if he had not gained experience in top sharing.
Svenja: That's a good example. Were there also things that were viewed critically?
Sarah: On the whole, I have seen that employees are very satisfied with the model. But of course there are individual points where the interview partners noted that some aspects could still be improved or that they still had requests for changes. Probably the most important and at the same time most critical aspect is accessibility. The interviews showed that the coordination times of the tandem are perceived as reduced accessibility. This in turn leads to dissatisfaction, especially among employees who do not work so autonomously and therefore still require a lot of coordination time.
Svenja: So the time spent in a tandem partnership competes with the time you spend with your superiors?
Sarah: Yes, exactly. However, in my view, the expectations of tandems are also rather higher. So I think that if you have a superior, it's normal for them to be in meetings or absent or whatever. During the interviews, I got the impression that, in a tandem, as a superior, you always have the feeling that someone has to be present. If, for example, both of you are in a meeting, then a relatively large lack of understanding is apparent.
Svenja: Yes, that's an interesting point that I come across again and again in our work. The environment, often including the tandem's superiors, sees two heads and not one role. Based on gut feeling, you would think that twice as much capacity should be possible. Of course, that's not true if the total working hours are roughly aligned with full-time work. That's why tandems often suffer from a particularly high workload. And especially with pioneer tandems, there is usually the self-imposed pressure to meet these performance expectations so that in the end it is not said “experiment failed”. The high workload often drives great job sharers into the job split and all the nice “sharing effects” fizzle out. Nevertheless, professional tandems should actually pay attention to efficiency and availability and, for example, not always go to every appointment in pairs or disappear into a permanent sparring bubble. It is actually difficult to do that, so finding the right balance is crucial. What was it like for the tandem that worked almost full-time? How was it perceived?
Sarah: There it was completely different again. There were two men who worked together 190 percent and accessibility was not a problem at all. And the employee noticed a significant improvement compared to the single figure in front of the tandem. Before, the problem was that the 100 percent of his job was much too big and extensive. And the supervisor was actually only concerned with managing the employees and had no time for the content. Now, with the 190 percent, it is possible for the superiors to stay on top of things and not lose their grip on reality. And that was very much appreciated by the employees. Neither of them was an experienced manager, so they decided to gain the experience together in order to be able to exchange ideas and thus share the responsibility.
Svenja: So it has a dual effect. It brings you closer to the day-to-day operations and, by starting out as a team of two, you are safely saddled up in the leadership role.
I have two final questions. What would you say to employees who have just been informed that they will have a tandem as their superior?
Sarah: Just be open. You could see it a bit in my interviews too, some were a bit cautious at the beginning and also had prejudices against the model because they didn't really know what to expect. But in the end, everyone said that it hadn't really changed much. I think it can also be an opportunity because you have the support of two people. And the expertise of the two supervisors is also greater than if you only had one person.
Svenja: And from the other perspective, what would you advise a tandem starting out with regard to their team?
Sarah: Communication is very important: on the one hand, communication with the top sharing partner must work. If the two of you are looking in different directions and have different visions and ideas, it won't work from the outset. But on the other hand, communication between the tandem and the team members is also essential. I think it's more important to start by identifying the expectations and ideas and also, to some extent, the fears of the employees and to take these seriously. And what certainly helps is to do some kind of workshop at the beginning. Maybe with a lot of support from the outside, from experts who have experience with the whole topic and then just think step by step: What do we want? What do we need? How do we build our tandem? How do we communicate together? That you really take time to plan the tandem at all times and don't just plunge headlong into something.
Svenja: Those are very specific tips that you have. Thank you very much for the interview and your study!
And here you can download Sarah's study (German only): Masterarbeit_Topsharing_Mulle_Sarah
Comentários