While CEOs and senior executives are entering a period of high turnover and job insecurity, the general labor market remains peculiarly tight, with many employers complaining that it is so hard to find the right people that they are frequently settling for second best. When management is prepared to consider using part-time workers – not just as a stop-gap, but as a regular employment method – they can open up to both themselves and their new employees a flexible, powerful answer to their human resource needs.
There is really no fundamental reason why part-time staff should be more difficult to manage, conceptually, than traditional full-time employees. If managers learn to think more flexibly about shifts, hours, staffing, and even techniques such as flexi-time or telecommuting, they will find that developing or adapting tracking and supervisory tools to control production and manage workers is pretty straightforward.
Moreover, they will open to themselves access to skilled, experienced, and reliable workers that are presently under-employed or unhappily not even seeking jobs, such as moms who have left the labor market due to the demands of raising young children (this is an especially valuable and under-used segment of the potential labor pool), other adults looking after aging or disabled family members, or retirees. Many firms have done quite well using, even specializing, in hiring from these groups on a part-time basis.
What employers do want to consider with part-time work forces is the need to maintain levels of training, advancement, and inter-connectivity among these employees. As the numbers of shifts and workers both increase, so will managerial attention and time to training. When part-timers are used alongside full-timers, they cannot be allowed to occupy – or perceive that they are occupying – a secondary place in the organization. They must be afforded individual training opportunities on a par with their full-time counterparts, and they should have the same standardized all-staff training requirements and opportunities as all employees.
Moreover, they should be promoted based on contribution, and not seniority as determined by raw hours. And, they should be made a full part of organizational social and community activities; managers should be careful to make them feel a continuously vital part of the overall workforce. Paying this additional attention to the part-time workforce is much like paying attention to current customers: it is much less burdensome than finding new customers (or full-time employees in a saturated market), and pays handsome dividends for all concerned.
A lot of managers in companies around the world are beginning to pay serious attention to this. Are you?
—
Today’s tip: Take a moment to stop over at the excellent site, Management-Issues, to read this woeful tale of modern management miscommunication, entitled, “Let them eat cake” – see the post for why.
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: CEO, executive, turnover, labor, employer, management, part-time, worker, employment, manage, full-time, shift, flexi-time, telecommuting, production, employer, training, organization, contribution, seniority, workforce, Management-Issues
Sphere: Related Content


















4 Comments
The fear behind the failure to implement such a plan is one of my pet peeves about organizations. Yes, there will be difficulties in implementation, and it won’t be 100% perfect (as if their current system were), but the flexibility and efficiency it gives makes it worthwhile in many cases.
Hello Cam,
That’s right, isn’t it? The fear about taking the plunge stops a lot of people, despite the obvious benefits. It seems to be quite a different thing to do, even though it really isn’t – just a few implementation issues to work through, and the need to avoid setting false standards, as you point out.
Thanks, Cam, for the additional takes on this!
I fully support your main idea here. Well said. I know many professional women who have quit work to be home with their children, but would welcome part-time, professional-level work, an option not widely available.
There is one point within your post, however, to which I want to add a nuance. Regarding your comment, “Employees should be promoted based on contribution”. I believe they should not be rewarded based on contribution, but they should be promoted based on POTENTIAL contribution. They are two different things.
Michelle,
Thank you so much for your insigtful observation and your elaboration of them in your wonderful post on the topic.
You caught me using “contribution” in a loose sense. My intent was to use it to refer to what a person is actually doing (or preparing or is capable/itching to do) for the firm, as opposed to how long a person has been with the firm, since the latter consideration is used by many outfits as a first hurdle for making promotion decisions. As such, it tilts the playing field against part-timers, who can’t hope to compete on simple, raw time put in.
I could have been clearer about that, but I’m glad it prompted your great post, and I hope everyone will use the trackback link to click over and read it.
Thanks again for your visit and your observations!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] “Employees should be promoted based on contribution.” “Jim Stroup, Managing Leadership Blog” Not many would argue with that statement, but I am going to take a shot at it. [...]
Post a Comment