I turn to a subject this morning that I blogged previously on last year - that of the hidden expense in both activity and subsequent costs where organisations are using part-time as a major part of work-life balance initiatives.
This is not to say part-time is not important but I do wonder as to how much of the overall effect is taken into account by organisations and HR functions (as it impacts on them)?
i.e. when does 2 times 0.5 not equal 1?......
Let's take an organisation of say 3000 people who are on full time contracts.
Now let's say that over time the original 3000 people full-time has since been replaced by 33% working part-time (and for simplicity let's say that all the part-time posts are equal to a half of full-time). Let's also make the assumption (based on our database) that each people manager is responsible for 8 people.
In our original model of 3000 full-time staff, 375 line managers with people responsibility are needed.
In our mix of FT/PT model there are now 2400 FT and 1200 PT to equal the same number of organisation hours worked, i.e. there are now 600 more people to manage. This compensating load requires either (a) an additional 75 line managers to keep people management ratio of 8:1, or (b) each line manager's workload increases by close to 2 to ten (9.6) people - so what's in it for the line manager?.
For example, what is often forgotten is that in this FT/PT model the payroll costs (if outsourced) will have increased by 20% (ditto for benefits administration).
Each part-time person still requires an induction/onboarding programme, quarterly/annual appraisals, mandatory training (particularly in professions). These have all just increased in both time and costs to the existing budget. And not forgetting case management of various sorts.
More problematic for line managers, everyday matters such as staff meetings and briefings now require some more thought due to the different time zones operated by various staff members (and from experience this is more difficult than people imagine). This is even more acute where you have 24/7 shift patterns.
Large organisations have to put in considerable time to allocate schedules/rosters due to the increasing complexity of the work patterns and availability. The subject of overtime and its application also emerges. Organisations can get this wrong quite badly. Workforce planning takes on an even bigger role.
In the immediate work environment this does have some impact on the cohesion of the workgroup (in the all FT model). Culturally, communication and values are the ones that can suffer purely because of the fragmentation that occurs through the different work-times.
In certain work environments, increased risk is also prevalent where work hand-offs ensue and where part-time roles increase the volume of handovers. An everyday example is in the NHS but there are plenty of others. Are risk elements therefore factored in?
There also work equity issues as stories of more reliance placed on the full-timers are not uncommon and can lead to some fractured employee engagement (I've encountered this at close quarters). Many line managers will admit to this 'off-the-record' so to speak. Turnover may ensue with the wrong people leaving - undoing the very intent that work-life is supposed to alleviate. Don't underestimate the trickiness of this whole situation.
For HR, there is increased workload due to the numbers. It makes no difference if you're part-time or full-time. This is why FTE as a benchmark can be very misleading. Thus HR can have 20% plus increase in workload without even a hint of change in the FTE ratios. Mmmmm...
Organisations require increasingly sophisticated analytics/forensics to understand the modern complexities of resourcing, particularly where work-life balance initiatives have taken root.
I do often wonder that in the race to provide all kinds of potential 'retention plays' the impact of these have ever really been modelled? And whether the effects have ever truly been taken into account at the front-line and in HR operations?
Our experience suggests not. As much as work-life balance needs to be advocated it also needs to include robust cost-benefit analyses. The example I've shown here is purely on part-time roles. There are others.
I'm afraid ignorance is not bliss. It can be very costly. The increase in costs can in more tough times end up costing jobs themselves. It is a very fine resourcing line that needs to be handled skillfully and smartly, since there are advocates out there who sit in lah-lah land of utopian ideals and whose agendas are very self-serving...........
But next time you look at your FTE statistic ask yourself - what does this actually represent?
Breaking down this limited metric can provide some very useful insight into the resourcing dynamics (when compared to say the optimal resourcing FT model).
Our 2006 HC Reporting Standards included a productivity statement (along with PeopleFlow and Operating statements) which was designed to do this.
A brief note on a fascinating and complex area of workforce operations.................
