“Job sharing is a niche phenomenon. It is rarely practiced,” the DPA reported in spring 2017. Various newspapers followed suit, nationally, digitally, locally. This kind of could be discouraging for someone who has just a few months earlier founded a company called the jobsharing hub. But we weren't – quite the opposite. After all, we set out to take job sharing out of its niche and we know only too well that in order to do so, criticism of the model must be taken seriously – fantasies of a brave new world of work are of little help to anyone in the here and now. Even worse: when job sharing goes wrong, all the sceptics feel vindicated.
Only: the conclusion of the author, “in view of the many alternatives to reducing working hours”, we do not share at all. Rather, that of Professor Jutta Rump, Director of the Institute for Employment and Employability at the Ludwigshafen University of Applied Sciences, who says: “Many talk about it, but no one does it. We have a gap between talking and acting. (...) And: the whole thing is not cost-neutral.” We see it similarly, that's why we exist. So off to Cologne, to the Zukunft Personal, where Ms. Rump gave a highly worthwhile lecture on the topic of time conflict as part of her commitment to the New Quality of Work initiative, and then arranged a discussion. The topic: is job sharing really the right choice in a niche?
On time-related conflicts and suitable working models
Yannic: I particularly liked one part of your presentation on the topic of time flexibility: you didn't describe the challenges in theory, but illustrated them with a personal, tangible example – your team is working on an important project and one of your employees wants to reduce her working hours to learn how to ride.
Jutta: That's right, thank you. Our guiding principle is not to advise anything that we haven't tried ourselves.
Yannic: And it's not the eternal example of young parents who want to reduce their hours.
Jutta: Yes, that's also an issue that is rarely addressed openly. We have learned from the life-phase-oriented personnel policy that the time-target conflict is assessed differently in family cases. This is understandable, but unfair. We should actually be able to freely assess the need of employees to be flexible in terms of time. But it's difficult. Because we have a mental block. This must be openly addressed if models for flexibility are to be strategically planned and implemented. This can be clearly seen in the current IG-Metall demand for a 28-hour week: it points out very different needs. But the proposal also states that compensation payments will be made in cases where the family context so requires.
Yannic: Yes, we repeatedly find that these needs are much more widespread than assumed, both with customers and in our community. Which, ironically, is not only a problem from an employer's point of view, but also a way out. Because the well-known need for flexibility on the part of young parents – usually mothers – is something that I can hardly solve only in this peer group. In your opinion, what are practical models for reconciling the conflicting demands of employees and employers?
Jutta: At the moment, we are conducting pilot projects on life-phase-oriented personnel policy and on time policy. One focus is the long-term account. And the topic of making the location more flexible is also a long-running issue. In addition, time can also be made more flexible using the model of trust-based working hours – although this conflicts with long-term accounts because they require time tracking. My personal experience is that we have always been able to solve all needs within the team. In my view, this is an important management task: knowing the individual situations of the team members and delegating the decision to the team about who is currently jumping into the breach and who currently needs more time. This then becomes a negotiation within the group. The team has to correctly assess the shared time and responsibilities so that everyone can work on them with confidence.
Yannic: That is also an important factor when implementing and scaling job sharing. Overall, I see a lot of overlap with our topic. We don't consider job sharing to be a panacea either. And we make it clear to our corporate customers: if you don't need the model, or it doesn't fit your goals, then we'll say so. On the other hand, aspects such as self-management and independently exercised leadership responsibility have already convinced many decision-makers of job sharing, especially those in large organizations. Because there is often still a long way to go before there is comprehensive team dynamics as you have just described. Job sharing can act as a bridge here. And, by the way, it can also make positions that require a high level of effort and responsibility more flexible in terms of hours...
Jutta: Yes, that's right. At the same time, it's only fair to say that job sharing cannot be designed to be cost-neutral. If productivity, performance or quality are increased, the additional costs can be offset.
About the benefits and costs of job sharing
Yannic: Are you often asked about this cost factor?
Jutta: I have been dealing with this topic for a long time. At conferences, job sharing is often presented in such a simplistic way that it is obvious to me that many people have never actually tried job sharing in a company over a longer period of time. Otherwise they would present the overlap times at the beginning and the effort involved in handovers more clearly. It requires a culture of commitment and consistency, which is not a given. The communication and cooperation mode of a truly high-performing tandem must be perfect! The two must also appear as one unified whole to those around them. In addition, the organization must be developed in such a way that it also embraces this. As if you could simply put two people in one position, with part-time contracts, and then let them get on with it. And then they are more productive as if by magic!
Yannic: That's right, we also don't like this “it all sorts itself out bottom up” attitude. We also see the issues you mention in varying degrees with corporate customers. And we also say quite clearly: if it's going to be successful in the long term, we have to tackle them!
Jutta: And apart from the fact that the whole thing must also be approached strategically – the access of individual employees to a model like job sharing must not be decided on the basis of “gut feeling”. In addition, costs play a role. In my estimation, one important full-time position usually means 1.2 positions in job sharing. And if this duo works perfectly, you then have an increase in production, performance and motivation. And this can, where applicable, compensate for the additional costs – and possibly even exceed them by a considerable margin.
Yannic: We are on the same page here, too. This is precisely what we advise our customers on, in very tangible terms. To come back to the cost-benefit calculation: we have already mentioned self-management, productivity, positive effects on the team and, ideally, on the organizational structure and culture. We also clearly see employer branding and new recruiting channels. Nevertheless, wanting to keep individual employees is often an important decision criterion. So far, so good – but often we miss a view of entrepreneurial added value beyond this individual case. What other factors must or can be included in the overall calculation?
Jutta: We did a large-scale calculation for the life-phase-oriented personnel policy. And if it is to be a truly quantitatively based decision for or against the introduction of such a model, then you always end up with opportunity cost calculations. What if we don't? If the person leaves – how long do we search in this area of the labor market? How long does the training take; when is the person worth his or her salary in figures? What additional costs will I incur in this area due to sick leave?
Yannic: In the second round, we often expand such a balance sheet with our customers to include a loss statement: what if we had had a tandem, what about intangible assets – i.e. loyalty, motivation, etc. – and to what extent can I actually estimate an increase in performance on the spot from the outset? It is often important to estimate this as precisely as possible. For many customers, if only because they demonstrate internally that they are not avoiding critical questions about measurability.
Jutta: Economic effects could also be identified in a practical project on life-phase-oriented personnel policy. However, initially it often remains a retrospective view, because it is based on figures, data and facts from the past and present. In other words, the basis for the investment calculation is usually not based on future values. As soon as I look to the future, it becomes exploratory from a research perspective, and thus qualitative.
The implications of job sharing for employers and employees
Yannic: Together, this provides a solid basis for the employer to make a decision. And then you can negotiate with the interested parties.
Jutta: It must not be a one-way street! The employer approaches the other side when he takes the step towards job sharing – so the employees must do the same. The framework conditions must be suitable and accepted by both sides. The social skills of the future tandem must be established, and each person must have great organizational talent and self-management skills so that self-management really works. And you really have to loyally support each other's decisions and developments - right up to the point where the tandem is dissolved. These are key requirements for employees, and being suitable for them and working on them in a committed manner should be established in collaboration with the HR development department. A kind of constitution for job sharers.
Yannic: I like how seriously you take it – that was also my thought about the DPA article. Great! I hope a tandem is formed with you. Because then it would probably be a very efficient one!
Jutta: Thanks! So far, we have always been able to create different individual solutions. But I can definitely see myself doing it. Although: maybe I already have employees in a project who see themselves as a tandem, and I haven't noticed it yet... Because my employees really do work in a highly self-directed and agile way. I'll have to check that (laughs).
Comments