What If All Jobs Were Potentially Part-time?

What If All Jobs Were Potentially Part-time?

Timothy Taylor 25/11/2020 6
What If All Jobs Were Potentially Part-time?

Some jobs in business and law seem to require exceptionally long hours and being perpetually on-call.

Indeed, one main reason for the remaining wage gap between college-educated it's mostly men who end up in these jobs, while professional women are more likely to end up in careers where the work is full-time or part-time, but not extreme overtime. This pattern raises an obvious question: is it really so impossible to divide up these extreme overtime jobs into more than one job, like two part-time or even two full-time (but only full-time) jobs?  

Zurich Insurance UK gave it a try: specifically, the company shifted to a policy in which all jobs in the firm, right up to the top of the C-suite, were advertised within the firm as potentially part-time. The UK government has something called the Government Equalities Office which contains within it a Behavioural Insights Team. Thus, the results of the study "Changing the default: a field trial with Zurich Insurance to advertise all jobs as part-time" was carried out by Rony Hacohen, Shoshana Davidson, Vivek Roy-Chowdhury, Daniel Bogiatzis Gibbons, Hannah Burd and Tiina Likki - the Behavioural Insights Team (September 2020). Here's a description: 

A comprehensive review of Zurich’s internal HR data on recruitment, progression and promotions revealed differences in outcomes between staff who worked full-time and those who worked part-time. The vast majority of part-time workers were women. Findings showed that, relative to full-time employees, part-time employees were 35% less likely to apply for promotions, received raises that were 1.1% lower, and received lower scores on performance and potential to progress metrics. ...

Our interviews also suggested that there was some stigma around working part-time, related to perceptions of commitment of part-time employees, and employees feared being judged for seeking to reduce their working hours. In addition, managers and employees saw part-time work as a privilege, rather than a right.

To address these concerns, we developed an intervention to normalise part-time work at Zurich, by opening all new positions to part-time work by default. The intervention was live for 12 months. ... The intervention aimed to normalise part-time work across all levels of the organisation. To achieve this, new positions at Zurich were advertised as open to part-time patterns or job-shares by default, unless the hiring manager provided a business case for why that was not possible. The intervention went live in March 2019 on Zurich’s hiring platform.

It was not possible to run the intervention as a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, we conducted a before-after analysis comparing the data from the pre-intervention period (before March 2019) with the intervention period (March 2019 - February 2020).

What happened next? 

  • A significant increase of 16.4% in the overall proportion of female applicants (+6 percentage points from the baseline of 36.4% to 42.4%), as well as the proportion of applicants who did not say they were male (+3 percentage points).
  • A significant increase of 19.3% in the proportion of female applicants to senior roles (+6 percentage points from the baseline of 31.1% to 37.1%).
  • A significant increase of 8% in the number of part-time employees reporting that they feel they ‘belong’ at Zurich (+0.38 percentage points). ...
  • There was a non-significant increase in the proportion of promotions that went to women - from 50.2% in the pre-period to 56.1% in the post-period (+5.9 percentage points).

The researchers are careful to surround this finding with appropriate caveats, but the main thrust is clear enough. Many employers expect their top employees to work extreme overtime for extreme pay. But in doing so, they end up with a large number of high-skill workers doing jobs that are below their capabilities, because those workers--often women--prefer a different work-life balance. There are some obvious benefits to an employer who replaces a worker putting in 150% of a normal work-week with two workers each doing 75% a normal week or three workers each doing 50% of a normal week. The firm can make better use of some high-skilled talent. It would have better "bench strength," so it wouldn't run the risk of one key employee getting sick or leaving the firm. If there was a short-term need for either more or less work, it could be somewhat easier to accommodate. Given the extremely high pay for the 150% workers, the combined pay for a team of part-timers could probably be less. 

One side-effect of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a huge rise in telecommuting, and thus in a different approach to coordinating the efforts of teams and of the workplace as a whole. In such settings, the idea that the leaders of an organization need to be the ones who physically arrive the earliest and depart the latest no longer holds true. Among the professional women I know--those with many years of business and consulting experience, often with high levels of education and MBA degrees--it's fairly common to hear of a wish for employers that would promote into jobs and roles that could be more explicitly shared by workers who don't need to commit to extreme overtime, or even to regular full-time, at least not all the time. Thus, I find myself wondering if the Zurich Insurance experiment, even though it took place before the pandemic hit, may be a harbinger of workplace changes to come. 

Share this article

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

terms and condition.
  • Jim Todd

    Part time jobs are increasing in COVID-19

  • Richard Woods

    I wouldn't survive in a part time role

  • John Smith

    The economy has shifted.

  • Scott I

    Good post

  • Matt Perry

    Thank you for adding value

  • Stuart

    Part time workers cost less...

Share this article

Timothy Taylor

Global Economy Expert

Timothy Taylor is an American economist. He is managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, a quarterly academic journal produced at Macalester College and published by the American Economic Association. Taylor received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Haverford College and a master's degree in economics from Stanford University. At Stanford, he was winner of the award for excellent teaching in a large class (more than 30 students) given by the Associated Students of Stanford University. At Minnesota, he was named a Distinguished Lecturer by the Department of Economics and voted Teacher of the Year by the master's degree students at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Taylor has been a guest speaker for groups of teachers of high school economics, visiting diplomats from eastern Europe, talk-radio shows, and community groups. From 1989 to 1997, Professor Taylor wrote an economics opinion column for the San Jose Mercury-News. He has published multiple lectures on economics through The Teaching Company. With Rudolph Penner and Isabel Sawhill, he is co-author of Updating America's Social Contract (2000), whose first chapter provided an early radical centrist perspective, "An Agenda for the Radical Middle". Taylor is also the author of The Instant Economist: Everything You Need to Know About How the Economy Works, published by the Penguin Group in 2012. The fourth edition of Taylor's Principles of Economics textbook was published by Textbook Media in 2017.


Latest Articles

View all
  • Science
  • Technology
  • Companies
  • Environment
  • Global Economy
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Society
Cookies user prefences
We use cookies to ensure you to get the best experience on our website. If you decline the use of cookies, this website may not function as expected.
Accept all
Decline all
Read more
Tools used to analyze the data to measure the effectiveness of a website and to understand how it works.
Google Analytics