Job sharing, where two or more employees split a full-time position, is a growing trend in workplaces seeking to offer work-life balance and attract talent. But does it translate to higher productivity? The answer, like many things in management, is nuanced.
Proponents hail job sharing’s potential to bring fresh perspectives and innovative approaches to tasks. By leveraging the combined knowledge and experience of two individuals, job sharing can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of a project and potentially faster completion times.
This is particularly true for tasks that are well-defined, repetitive, or data-driven, such as data entry or quality control. In these scenarios, job sharing can introduce healthy competition and a sense of accountability, potentially boosting individual output.
“Maintaining consistency across shared tasks can be difficult. Differing work styles, communication preferences, and interpretations of objectives can lead to disjointed outcomes and inefficiencies.”
Amit Sharma, former CHRO, Volvo Group
However, challenges arise when job sharing necessitates coordinating the efforts of multiple individuals. Maintaining consistency across shared tasks can be difficult. Differing work styles, communication preferences, and interpretations of objectives can lead to disjointed outcomes and inefficiencies. As Amit Sharma, former CHRO, Volvo Group, points out, ‘coherence and consistency’ become paramount concerns.
Imagine two people writing a report together. Their contrasting approaches and understanding of the task can lead to a final product riddled with inconsistencies. Similarly, for tasks requiring a single point of contact or strategic thinking, job sharing may not be ideal.
Ravi Kumar, CPO, Page Industries, emphasises the importance of individual capabilities and compatibility. “Assuming both individuals will perform at the same level is an oversimplification,” he says.
“Assuming both individuals will perform at the same level is an oversimplification. Unlike AI-powered machines where productivity might multiply with each additional unit, human job sharing hinges on the experience, skillset, and working styles of each person.”
Ravi Kumar, CPO, Page Industries
Unlike AI-powered machines where productivity might multiply with each additional unit, human job sharing hinges on the experience, skillset, and working styles of each person. Ideally, job-sharing partners should possess complementary skillsets and be adept at collaborating and ironing out differences to achieve a unified goal. Clear role definition and open communication are crucial to ensure everyone is on the same page.
Job sharing’s success ultimately rests on the specific role and the people involved. For highly structured, process-driven tasks with clear guidelines, job sharing can streamline operations. Imagine an assembly line where two individuals work on separate car components. The standardised nature of the task makes job sharing efficient. Conversely, office-based roles requiring subjective decision-making, such as finance, might see diminishing returns from job sharing. The potential for differing interpretations and approaches can hinder productivity.
In conclusion, job sharing presents a double-edged sword for workplace productivity. While it offers potential benefits for specific tasks and work styles, careful consideration of communication, role definition, individual capabilities, and compatibility is crucial to ensure its success. Organisations should approach job sharing with a measured approach, evaluating the specific role, the personalities involved, and the potential impact on communication and workflow before implementation. When implemented thoughtfully, job sharing can be a valuable tool for promoting work-life balance, attracting talent, and potentially boosting productivity in certain contexts.
