Job-sharing programs
Job-sharing is a flexible work arrangement in which a single full-time position is split between two part-time employees, and each part-time employee retains the rights and privileges of the full-time position. Employees receive the same benefits as a full-time employee, proportional to their hours worked. Such arrangements are generally initiated at the request of employees (Roche WK, Fynes B, Morrissey T. Working time and employment: A review of international evidence. International Labour Review. 1996;135(2):129-57.
Link to original source (journal subscription may be required for access)Roche 1996).
Expected Beneficial Outcomes (Rated)
-
Improved employee retention
-
Improved work-life balance
Evidence of Effectiveness
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether job-sharing increases retention or work-life balance. Available evidence suggests that job-sharing programs may increase productivity and reduce turnover and absenteeism (Roche WK, Fynes B, Morrissey T. Working time and employment: A review of international evidence. International Labour Review. 1996;135(2):129-57.
Link to original source (journal subscription may be required for access)Roche 1996). Job sharing may support work-life balance for women and older employees (Watton 2016, Griffin 2014, Roche WK, Fynes B, Morrissey T. Working time and employment: A review of international evidence. International Labour Review. 1996;135(2):129-57.
Link to original source (journal subscription may be required for access)Roche 1996), and is a suggested strategy to allow older workers to transition from full-time to part-time employment without retiring (Urban-Eyster 2008). However, additional evidence is needed to determine effects.
Impact on Disparities
No impact on disparities likely
Implementation Examples
According to the 2016 National Study of Employers, 19% of organizations nationwide allowed some employees to share jobs, while only 2% of employers allowed most or all employees to job share (SHRM-Matos 2017). Job-sharing is an option for many federal employees (US OPM-Job sharing).
Implementation Resources
1MFWF-Job sharing - 1 Million for Work Flexibility (1MFWF). Job sharing.
Citations - Evidence
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
Roche 1996* - Roche WK, Fynes B, Morrissey T. Working time and employment: A review of international evidence. International Labour Review. 1996;135(2):129-57.
Urban-Eyster 2008 - Eyster L, Johnson RW, Toder E. Current strategies to employ and retain older workers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2008.
Griffin 2014 - Griffin B, Vest K, Pohl S, Mazan J, Winkler S. Part-time and job-share careers among pharmacy practice faculty members. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2014;78(3),1-6
Watton 2016 - Watton E, Stables S. The benefits of job sharing: a practice-based case study. In Flynn PM, Haynes K, Kilgour MA, eds., Overcoming challenges to gender equality in the workplace: leadership and innovation. Greenleaf Publishing; 2016:66-77.
Citations - Implementation Examples
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
US OPM-Job sharing - United States Office of Personnel Management (US OPM). Hiring information: part-time & job sharing.
SHRM-Matos 2017 - Matos K, Galinsky E, Bond JT. National Study of Employers. 2017.
Date Last Updated
- Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
- Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
- Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
- Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
- Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
- Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results.