I came up with this idea during one of the last HR innovation workshops I run… what if, instead of proposing classic full-time positions to employees, organizations started proposing also two “part-time jobs”, or, if you prefer, two half positions to some of its staff? I proposed that idea to a working group during that workshop and they included it in their HR innovation action plan; maybe it was not this bad.
To give some concrete examples about what this idea would mean in Human Resource jobs, a person could be in charge of internal talent identification half of the week, and the rest of it design talent development programmes within the company’s Corporate University, which is not the case it big groups nowadays. An employee could manage workforce planning in the mornings and work as a campus manager in the afternoons, and an HRBP could spend half of its time as internal HR consultant; all of them would suppose original job combinations creating synergies among these activities. You may have noticed I did not mention C&B in my examples because these people often work 150% and maths would work with the rest of jobs!
Taking it further, what if only one of the two “part-time jobs” was in HR and not the other? An employee could work for example as HR Business Partner in the IT division part of its time and as IT project manager too. Also, a same person could work in business strategy and in workforce planning too. Even a common theme could connect both jobs: for example, concerning the subject of change management, an employee could work both as team leader managing change, for example in operations or in finance, and also work part-time as training officer in charge of change management trainings.
I see several benefits to this “double part-time approach” that could suppose a competitive advantage to companies proposing it. First of all, it would be highly appealing to fresh graduates willing to discover several positions and businesses in the organization they join, something they ask more and more often to their employers. Second, this could also contribute to reinforce staff engagement, as it strengthens employability, skill development, transversal competencies, and job/assignments diversity, some of the aspects often mentioned in engagement surveys. In both benefits mentioned, this could be a powerful weapon in the war for talent all organizations face. Third, this approach would allow organizations to establish new value-creating synergies among jobs and businesses (such as the ones mentioned earlier) and also reinforce cooperation between the departments involved: going back to the IT example I mentioned before, probably an employee would be more partnership-oriented with his HR colleagues if that HR team was his own team 50% of the time, right? Finally, this idea would also reinforce team spirit in organizations, because 50% of the success of your job would depend on a colleague of yours!
Several conditions would nevertheless be necessary for this approach to work. First, it should of course concern jobs requiring similar skills, otherwise, the benefits just mentioned would not be possible. The easiest way of launching such and initiative would be, at least at the beginning, that two employees switch 50% of their job with each other, therefore becoming some kind of “part-time buddies”. A second condition would therefore be that these “buddies” establish a very clear and formalized working functioning including dedicated information sharing and briefing moments to avoid any possible operational risks in their sharing of responsibilities. The managers of both buddies would of course need to be aware of this functioning process, or even have to approve it before it is actually implemented. More generally, companies should probably need to accompany the employees in this new way of working through training, an advisor or an informal community of exchange gathering all staff concerned. A third condition would be that a very clear communication towards internal and external partners is established for them to understand the benefits of this innovation so that they also see it as value-creating for them. The working dynamics between the employees involved and their partners would also change, and “buddies” should therefore also make sure they onboard all stakeholders in this new working and collaboration style. Finally, jobs involved should have a certain degree of link or connection in terms of contents or business area, otherwise people concerned would probably feel too “lost in translation” on day-to-day activities and the synergies mentioned would not actually happen.
This approach would of course have an impact on some organizational aspects that companies should anticipate and manage, such as team management and dynamics, appraisal and remuneration, or legal and social relations among others. However, if the people and the jobs are well chosen and accompanied, and if all stakeholders are also well informed, this idea has a lot of potential to me taking into account the benefits presented. Launching such an initiative would of course involve some risk taking, but hey, innovation is about taking some risks before your competitors, when you consider it is worth it!
A good way to test such an innovation would be via a POC (proof of concept) with some “part-time buddies” the organization would identify and train. You could even do some communication about it within the firm and propose that staff interested in taking part in the POC are in charge of finding their “buddy” and propose some kind of roadmap presenting the way in which they would work and the synergies and benefits expected. An internal committee could then rate the proposals and approve the ones that make the most sense concerning the strategy of the organization.
In a world in which companies trust almost blindly on digital as their main source or reinvention, what if such an “old school” innovation could be an unexpected source of competitive advantage and contribute to shape the future of work?