"Fractional" work, and fractional executives, always struck me as TikTok-level rebranding veneer slapped on the old concept of part-time work.
Sure, there's some subtlety where some variant might lean more towards company monogamy vs polygamy. But who has time to explain a wholly new work rebranding concept in an elevator pitch when merely saying "part-time" cuts to the chase and offers you more time to pitch yourself?
This is the kind of leadership thinking we expect from you. Excellent, as always. I think there is a barrier to success in the USA because universal healthcare is broken and health insurance is expensive. It seems likely that the cost of providing healthcare coverage to an employee stays the same whether the employee selects 100%, 75% or 50% for their job commitment. Is that a burden on big corporations that they probably can't carry? Would lots of employees take 50% jobs in order to get 100% healthcare? Do you think that many people who choose 50%, might make that choice because they have healthcare issues that make it hard to work 100% and therefore the "50%" employees put disproportionate stress on the insurance provider?
Hi Rishad, thanks, this is a great concept that you have shared with a lot of thought put into this. There seem to be several reasons why CEOs should consider this:
1) This option gives employees who have been with a company for a while to pursue passion projects or even other kinds of skill enhancing pursuits without leaving the company. This will limit loss of key employees who today are being forced to make a choice of 100% or 0%
2) Women are often juggling responsibilities with kids and often drop out of their careers to take care of the increased demands on their time brought about while raising kids, however, they do have time remaining to work and frankly gives them the ability to keep and improve their professional skills by not dropping out of the workforce entirely
3) Gen-Z'ers have varied interests and passions and can often (due to inheritance or simpler lifestyle needs e.g. not owning a car) afford to work part time and use the rest of their time to pursue passions like art, travel, photography etc. The current model of 100% or 0% makes it impossible to have the stability of a job while pursuing their passions
Having said all of this, I think this will work best in companies that have a system in place for clear objectives and deliverables expected of each employee (e.g. mutually agreed upon OKRs) as it will benefit both the employee and employer to know exactly what is expected. Failing to do this can cause frustrations for both and a sense that the employee is not putting in their best work, is distracted etc. on the part of the employer or cause burnout for the employee who feels they are being paid 50% to do 100% of the work.
To me this seems like labeling an old idea of “part timers” with a new twist. I see it can raise the bar for retention, flexibility and address life’s changes, which is a good thing. However, this best fits with the younger generation needs, wants than the middle to retirement age folks. It’s a starting point to address our growing aging workforce, and balance life and work which is a theme today. I see some benefits. Thanks for sharing your ideas. I always appreciate them.
"Fractional" work, and fractional executives, always struck me as TikTok-level rebranding veneer slapped on the old concept of part-time work.
Sure, there's some subtlety where some variant might lean more towards company monogamy vs polygamy. But who has time to explain a wholly new work rebranding concept in an elevator pitch when merely saying "part-time" cuts to the chase and offers you more time to pitch yourself?
This is the kind of leadership thinking we expect from you. Excellent, as always. I think there is a barrier to success in the USA because universal healthcare is broken and health insurance is expensive. It seems likely that the cost of providing healthcare coverage to an employee stays the same whether the employee selects 100%, 75% or 50% for their job commitment. Is that a burden on big corporations that they probably can't carry? Would lots of employees take 50% jobs in order to get 100% healthcare? Do you think that many people who choose 50%, might make that choice because they have healthcare issues that make it hard to work 100% and therefore the "50%" employees put disproportionate stress on the insurance provider?
Hi Rishad, thanks, this is a great concept that you have shared with a lot of thought put into this. There seem to be several reasons why CEOs should consider this:
1) This option gives employees who have been with a company for a while to pursue passion projects or even other kinds of skill enhancing pursuits without leaving the company. This will limit loss of key employees who today are being forced to make a choice of 100% or 0%
2) Women are often juggling responsibilities with kids and often drop out of their careers to take care of the increased demands on their time brought about while raising kids, however, they do have time remaining to work and frankly gives them the ability to keep and improve their professional skills by not dropping out of the workforce entirely
3) Gen-Z'ers have varied interests and passions and can often (due to inheritance or simpler lifestyle needs e.g. not owning a car) afford to work part time and use the rest of their time to pursue passions like art, travel, photography etc. The current model of 100% or 0% makes it impossible to have the stability of a job while pursuing their passions
Having said all of this, I think this will work best in companies that have a system in place for clear objectives and deliverables expected of each employee (e.g. mutually agreed upon OKRs) as it will benefit both the employee and employer to know exactly what is expected. Failing to do this can cause frustrations for both and a sense that the employee is not putting in their best work, is distracted etc. on the part of the employer or cause burnout for the employee who feels they are being paid 50% to do 100% of the work.
To me this seems like labeling an old idea of “part timers” with a new twist. I see it can raise the bar for retention, flexibility and address life’s changes, which is a good thing. However, this best fits with the younger generation needs, wants than the middle to retirement age folks. It’s a starting point to address our growing aging workforce, and balance life and work which is a theme today. I see some benefits. Thanks for sharing your ideas. I always appreciate them.