Web-Only: Job Sharing: A Study of the Use of This Job Alternative in Libraries

The following is supplemental information for the May 1998 issue of the AALL Spectrum.

JOB SHARING: A STUDY OF THE USE OF THIS JOB ALTERNATIVE IN LIBRARIES

A Master's Research Paper submitted to the Kent State University School of Library Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Library Science

by

Virginia Sharp March
May, 1997
Master's Research Paper by
Virginia Sharp March
B.S., University of Wyoming, 1990
M.L.S, Kent State University, 1997

Approved by

Adviser Date

Table of Contents

       List of Tables.......................................................p. iv
   I.  Introduction.........................................................p. 1
  II.  Literature Review....................................................p. 1
 III.  Research Objectives..................................................p. 12
  IV.  Methodology..........................................................p. 14
   V.  Results and Discussion...............................................p. 15
  VI.  Summary and Conclusions..............................................p. 29
 VII.  Bibliography.........................................................p. 32
       Cover Letter.........................................................Appendix A
       Survey...............................................................Appendix B

List of Tables

Table A. Position of person completing the survey...........................p. 17
Table B. Number of employees at library.....................................p. 17
Table C. Number of job shared positions at library..........................p. 17	
Table D. Initiator of job share.............................................p. 18
Table E. Job share participants employed at library prior to job share......p. 20
Table F. Gender of job share participants...................................p. 20
Table G. Reasons for job share..............................................p. 21
Table H. Job share policy...................................................p. 21
Table I. Presence of current job share policy by Type of library............p. 22
Table J. Status of job share position by Type of library....................p. 23
Table K. Type of schedule used..............................................p. 24
Table L. Type of pay by Status of position..................................p. 24
Table M. Type of benefits by Type of library................................p. 25
Table N. Position of person completing survey 
         by Advantages of job sharing.......................................p. 26
Table O. Position of person completing job survey 
         by Disadvantages of job sharing....................................p. 27
Table P. Would the survey participant be open to another job share?.........p. 27
Table Q. Success of job share by Type of library............................p. 28
Table R. Success of job share by Position of person completing survey.......p. 28
Table S. Would a library allow another job share by Type of Library.........p. 28
Table T. Position of person completing survey 
by Would the library allow another job share................................p. 28  

There are many people in the library profession who do not desire to work full time. They have other responsibilities or interests to which they would like to devote more time. A part time position is not desirable because it does not entail the same type of responsibilities, benefits and status as a full time position. An alternative to both of these situations is job sharing. Job sharing is when the responsibilities and benefits of a full time position are shared by two employees. The benefits of the full time position are pro-rated and distributed to the two employees depending on how much time the job was shared (eg. 50%-50%, 40%-60%).

The intent of this research is to study how libraries have dealt with job sharing. By surveying employees who have participated in job shares and employers of job share participants, this researcher has created a report of the various aspects of job sharing within libraries. These aspects include what type of libraries have used job sharing, the advantages and disadvantages of job sharing from both the administrative and participating employee point of view, and how benefits and salary are distributed. Other aspects which have been explored are who initiated the job share, what type of positions are job shared (i.e. professional, para-professional, clerical), and whether or not libraries have policies which addresses job sharing.

II. Literature Review

The literature of job sharing within libraries centers around several themes: the need for job sharing, issues involved with job sharing, advantages and disadvantages, and case studies of job sharers. The literature is usually favorable of job sharing. In order to create an accurate picture of job sharing, both negative and positive aspects must be addressed.

Most of the articles cited in this section were written from literature reviews (eg. Plant 1985, Goddard 1991). Other articles were personal experience (Morris 1990, Wallis 1990) and case studies (Stennett 1993). One article was written based on information received from an informal study (MacWaters et al. 1991). MacWaters' study was designed to collect thoughts and trends in the area of job sharing. The information collected would also be used to determine whether job sharing could be offered as a job alternative at Colorado State University Libraries. The conclusion was that job sharing was a useful alternative for some libraries' needs; it suggested that interested people should learn more about job sharing for a better understanding of job sharing. Lyon (1995) conducted another study by speaking informally with job sharers concerning the resistance that they received from library administration. She found that there was more resistance when job sharing was considered for higher librarian positions than lower ones.

There are several reasons why job sharing is desired. Employees tend to have more needs for job sharing than employers. Family commitments are a major reason. Whether it be to stay home more with children or care for elderly parents, employees are realizing that a forty-hour week is not allowing them to fulfill family commitments. Some employees with health problems are not able to commit to a forty-hour work week. Plant (1985), Morris (1990), and Goddard (1991) stated that job sharing was a good opportunity for females to maintain career paths while taking time to raise young families. Besides raising families, Goddard (1991) and MacWaters et al. (1991) found that job sharing also created extra time for employees to care for elderly parents.

` Besides family commitments, other reasons stated in these articles were employees who wanted to ease into retirement or employees desiring to pursue other interests. Employees could ease into retirement while training their replacements through a job share situation. This assists the employer by allowing the current employee to train the replacement without an interruption in workflow. Job share participants are also able to pursue other interests (eg. education, business, hobbies) which would not normally be feasible while working full time. Goddard (1991) and MacWaters et al. (1991) also agreed that job sharing helped accommodate employees who could not physically work full time.

Morris (1990) spoke of how job sharing at Hertfordshire Library Service (England) was a good way to retain valuable workers while bringing new employees with other skills into the library. Another employee at Hertfordshire, Wallis (1990) stated that job sharing opened avenues for promotion opportunities. This occurs when two full time, existing employees agree to job share one position. A position is then open for another employee to be promoted into or a new employee to be hired. Job sharing also allowed employees to reduce their weekly hours either temporarily (for a year or two) or permanently.

A literature review conducted by Plant (1985) found that job sharing could also be beneficial for the employer. A benefit to the employer is that job sharing helps libraries which may be forced to cut the budget. Rather than lay off employees, the library can create job share position in order to retain qualified employees. Job share also helps with the unemployment rate by allowing the distribution of available employment as widely as possible (p. 364).

According to McKee and Scott (1982) and Shanks (1984), job sharing can also be a way to strengthen affirmative action in a library. It can help draw minorities into positions which they would not normally consider due to other commitments. By maintaining older employees, bringing women into the workplace, and retaining women and minorities, libraries are able to maintain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) standards (McKee and Scott 1982). Since there is not a distinction between part time and full time employees according to the EEOC, libraries can achieve these standards through the use of job sharing (Shanks 1984).

Though it is usually the employees who initiate job sharing, sometimes employers find a need to create a job shared position. One reason that employers create job share positions is due to the lack of qualified full time employees. There are times when people are not willing to work full time in a position. The employer may find it simpler to fill the position with two qualified people instead of one. Job sharing may also be appealing when there are too many qualified applicants. It allows the employer to hire two equally qualified applicants and reduce the number of unemployed. Job sharing is also an alternative to lay-offs. Rather than release qualified personnel, keeping two at half the time benefits the employer and the employees (MacWaters et al. 1991, Morris 1990, Shanks 1984).

As reported, employees and employers pursue job sharing to fulfill their own individual needs. Since employers do pursue job sharing when it is convenient to the institution, it raises an issue of whether employers are open to job sharing when it is an employee's idea. Of the articles cited, there was one survey (MacWaters et al.), two personal experiences (Morris and Wallis), and the others were literature reviews. The reports of the articles support one another, but the majority of the information is second hand. This survey has created a list of reasons why job sharing was implemented.

When designing a job share position, there are many details which must be worked out. These issues range from finding compatible partners to dividing responsibilities and more. A library should create a job share policy and address all of the issues prior to allowing a position to be job shared. MacWaters et al. (1991) outline what issues should be addressed in such a policy: eligibility (which jobs, current staff or new), application process (should job sharers apply together or separate), ground rules (who sets the schedule, how communication is to be maintained), personnel issues (how are salary and benefits divided), dissolution and reversibility (what should be done to end the job share), training and costs (will there be additional costs and who will pay for them).

Stennett (1993) spoke with job sharers and found a variety of schedules used: split days, alternating days, Monday-Wednesday/Wednesday-Friday (2 1/2 days each), and alternating weeks. Librarians related to Stennett that having a time where the job sharers overlapped kept communication clear and cut down on the number of phone calls. Keeping a daily log helped with communication, too. Also discussed was division of the work load. Division usually consisted of strict division of tasks, division but shared, or integration. Strict division means to stick to one's own task and do not do the others. Division but shared means to divide the tasks but switch at regular intervals. If integration is used, whichever librarian is present does whatever needs to be done. The type of division would depend on the nature of the position and librarians and involved.

Lyon (1995) spoke with librarians who had job shared or attempted to set up a job share but were turned down. One issue discussed was what type of positions could be job shared. Employers were reluctant to allow supervisory positions to be job shared. Employers had stated that positions with a high level of responsibility could not be shared due to the difficulty of finding two employees with the same level of expertise. Libraries must also decide how many positions be can job shared. In some departments, there may be problems with too many job shared positions (Goddard 1991).

The manner in which benefits are distributed is what separates job sharing from part time work according to Notowitz (1982). The existing benefits for the position are divided between the two participants. Employers are reluctant to pay full health coverage for job sharers. Notowitz gathered her information through her own experience as a job sharer and from discussing the issue with other job share participants. She also spoke of a Wisconsin state program, Project Join, which created professional job shared positions. It found that the higher cost involved in job sharing is worth the greater productivity that job share participants create due to less absenteeism and fewer turnovers.

Goddard (1991) wrote an article from an extensive literature review and discussed at length the issues of division of hours, when promotion occurs, and the division of salary and benefits. By evaluating the needs of the library and of the employees, a work schedule could be set so all needs are met. The type of schedules include split day, split week, alternating weeks, or no fixed schedule. A common policy concerning when one job share participant leaves is to give the existing job sharer the chance to take the position full time or find a compatible replacement partner. If the position is not filled within a reasonable time, the library may find it necessary to fill the position full time and place the job sharer in another position. Being in a larger institution allows for greater flexibility in placement of employees. Being in a job share position means that participants do not receive part time pay. The salary should be pro rated from the salary of the position and by how much each participant works.

Another issue is finding compatible partners. Sometimes, a job share team applies for the position together. Other times, one person proposes to job share then must search for a compatible partner. Once a compatible partner is found, they must divide the hours and responsibilities. These hours can be divided based on the needs of the library, the needs of the of the individuals involved, or both. This can benefit the library because there can be better coverage at peak times. The employees must also decide what is the best way for communication. Over-lap time allows the employees to see one another and discuss issues. Keeping a daily log, forwarding messages to one another, and telephoning each other keeps the communication thorough.

Training opportunities and professional opportunities must also be discussed. The job share employees may have the same opportunities as the full time employees but have to pay a greater amount or participate or attend these events on their own time.

There are many issues of job sharing which should be discussed, both administratively and task-oriented. The information received in the literature was gathered by literature reviews (Goddard; Stennett), through interviews (Lyon; Notowitz), and personal experience (Notowitz). There is no consensus among these articles as to what is the preferred methods of dealing with schedules, salary, benefits, and training in job share situation. The survey results show how these aspects were addressed at the survey participants' libraries.

Once the job share is in place, the participants soon find out what the advantages and disadvantages can be. In MacWaters et al. (1991), both the positive and negative aspects of job sharing are discussed. Job sharing was able to retain experienced workers and attract qualified new people to an organization. Some disadvantages revealed in the survey were that participants did not feel that they were being treated as equally as their full time counterparts in terms of rate of pay increase and reaching seniority. They felt that their progress was slower. The job sharers also felt that their full time counterparts did not take them seriously.

In her literature review, Plant (1985) found that there was an advantage to the employee in being able to retain his/her experience while having more time for other commitments. An advantage for employers was a larger recruitment pool is created though job sharing. Having two employees in one position can mean having two specialists with two creative minds for assisting patrons and problem solving. Absenteeism is reduced because job sharers can cover one another in time of sickness and leave. Part time workers are said to be more productive than full time workers. Having two workers mean that their are more like to catch one another's mistakes. Plant points out that employers viewed a greater administrative cost involved in job sharing as a disadvantage.

In her opinion paper, Hereld (1992) noted that an advantage of job sharing is the flexibility of scheduling to meet both the library and employee needs. Other advantages noted by Hereld are an increase in production, a decrease in absenteeism and a lesser chance of employee burnout. There is an increase of productivity because the people in job share positions may be more motivated to prove the situation a success. Job share participants also came to work fresh and did not become tired from long days like their full-time counter parts. Disadvantages of job sharing included the additional paperwork for administration and that not all positions could be job shared.

At Hertfordshire, job sharing allowed the library to attract and retain excellent staff (Morris 1990). Two employees with two diverse sets of skills and experience is advantageous to the employer. Job sharers can adjust their schedules to cover each other and can even double up and work at the same time if the library needs. There may be an increase in the cost to the employer, but Morris feels that the advantages outweigh the costs.

Wallis (1990) worked at Hertfordshire during the job share. Job sharing at Hertfordshire was found to be a good way to retain highly qualified staff who were unable to continue to work full time. Librarians are able to stay within the profession while taking time to raise families. Job sharing can also help relieve external pressures that may be created if one is working full time. In an isolated position, the sense of professional isolation can be reduced by job sharing.

Bobay (1988) states that there is an apparent increase of job productivity by job sharers but it is hard to prove. Because of the desire to make the job share arrangement work could mean that the participants are highly motivated and their productivity may be higher. Job satisfaction is higher and organizations are able to retain valued employees. Bobay found information regarding these advantages in the results of Project JOIN conducted by the state of Wisconsin in 1976-78. Bobay found the disadvantages of job sharing to be increased costs to the employer due to payroll taxes and personnel paperwork. Lack of continuity can be a disadvantage but there has not been any research conducted in this area.

Not all is perfect with job sharing, there are some disadvantages. There is an increase of costs to the employer in the areas of payroll taxes and administrative work (Bobay 1988). Instead of one personnel file for one position, there will be two set of files for one position. Job sharing may retard professional advancement. A job share partner may not be considered for promotion because the position may not be suitable for job share or a suitable partner may not be available. There are also problems if one partner leaves the job. Finding a suitable partner may not be easy. If there is not good communication, there may be a lack of continuity in job performance. Lack of communication could reduce the quality of service and create delays in the work flow.

The advantages and disadvantages have been widely reported. Since the majority of the current information available is second hand, it is hard to view it as reliable. A formal study will be able to collect the information with confidence.

Employees who desire full time employment may view job sharing as a threat (Gilbert and Gray 1985). Space can also be a problem. Should job sharers be allowed their own work area or should they have to share the same area? (Stennett 1993). Reluctance of employers and unions is also a disadvantage for perspective job sharers (Goddard 1991). The attitudes of co-workers may be an disadvantage. The co-workers may not view job sharers as equals. They may also feel that job sharers are not as committed as they are (Notowitz 1982).

One researcher noted that there are two needs concerning job sharing: for job sharers to record experiences and a greater awareness of job sharing (Stennett 1993). The literature that I have encountered fulfilled both of these needs. The majority of case studies consisted of women who wanted to job share in order to have more time to spend with their families. Articles written by job share participants included those by Gilbert and Gray (1985), Marley (1990), and Respass and Meola (1993). Gilbert and Gray successfully shared a librarians position at Queen Victoria Medical Center in Australia. Marley had to try twice before being allowed to set up a job share for her position as librarian at Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology. Respass and Meola shared a reference librarian position at Georgian Court College (New Jersey). All three of these job shares were set up due to the participants' desire to have more time to raise a family.

Articles which discussed case studies were written by Stennett (1993), Burrington (1982), and Lyon (1995). Stennett discussed a job share that worked (the one that Marley participated in) and one that was requested by a husband and wife but was not approved. Lyon's article presented successful and unsuccessful cases. The successful job shares were at academic libraries. One involved a weekend reference librarian position and the other a librarian position. The second case spoke of how the participant had to try twice before having her request approved. Lyon referenced that one job share request was approved, but did not develop because of delays. These delays were due to library administrations' uncertainty of interview and hiring procedures of job sharers. Burrington's article was a report on the Symposium on Job-Sharing in Libraries in 1981. A successful job share was discussed by the participants. The library director of Oldham Borough discussed the negative and positive aspects of job sharing from the employers' view.

Knowing of the successful and unsuccessful cases helps both employers and employees create a realistic picture of job sharing in libraries. Since the majority of case studies were reported from the job share participants' viewpoint, it would be helpful to hear more from the employers' view. The study reported here explored job sharing from both the employer and employee viewpoints.

A 1977 study of sharers said the average job sharer was a white female, married with a bachelor's degree (Bobay p.62). A profile of Canadian job sharers found that the typical job sharer was a white female, college educated, and in the government or social services industries (Bobay 1988). The study performed by MacWaters et al. (1991) found that few libraries were using job sharing, but many study participants were interested in finding out more about job sharing and its use. This study should fulfill that need.

Professional organizations have assisted in creating greater awareness of job sharing. The Library Association of Australia is on record to support job sharing as long as it is fair and does not "down grade either the salaries and conditions presently enjoyed by library employees" (Gilbert and Gray 1985, 54). In 1976, the American Library Association issued a Part Time Employee Resolution. This resolution called for pro-rated pay, fringe benefits and opportunities in advancement. Though it was issued in 1976, it was not until 1984 that the ALA gave pro-rated benefits to its own employees (Braudy and Tuckerman 1986). There is also an international organization, New Ways to Work, which helps job shares and other in alternative work situations.

III. Research Objectives

As evident in the literature review, the view of job sharing is usually from that of the participants of the job share. The literature reviewed centers around the advantages and disadvantages with little acknowledgement as to how the job share situation was achieved. There is a distinct gap in the area of why employers have and have not allowed job share. By surveying both employees who have participated in job shares and employers who decide if job sharing is feasible in their institutions, this researcher has to answered the following questions from the surveys returned in this study:

-Who initiated the job share and why?

-Why was the job sharing implemented?

-Were there any instances that job sharing was discussed but not implemented? If so, why?

-Do the institutions have job share policies?

-What are the advantages of job sharing?

-What are the disadvantages of job sharing?

-How are benefits, training, and professional opportunities distributed to the job share participants?

- What type of libraries have allowed job sharing?

- How many staff are employed at the libraries where job sharing has occurred?

- What type of positions have been job shared (i.e. professional, paraprofessional, clerical)?

- What have been the genders of job share participants?

-How many job shared positions are there currently at the library and how many has the library had in the past?

- Has the job share been successful and would the library allow another job shared position?

These questions have been used to guide the study and survey in collecting more information about the use of job sharing in libraries. Since most of the current literature already addressed is second hand, there is not enough concrete information to form hypothesis. The research questions used in this study have been productive in gathering a wide amount of information.

As discussed in the Literature Review (Part II), quite a bit has been written in the area of benefits of job sharing and how the job sharers divide responsibility. Many of the articles were written based on literature reviews. It is the hopes of this researcher that the findings of this study will be used by prospective job sharers in deciding whether to pursue job share and by employers as to whether job share is feasible in their library. If the decision is to go ahead with job sharing, this research should assist employees and employers in how to structure their job share. Another hope is that this study will lead to more research in the area of job sharing. As past studies and literature have implied, the advantages of job sharing out weigh the disadvantages. The hardest part is getting the agreement by employers to try job sharing.

The goal of this researcher was to survey as many people as possible in order to create an accurate picture of job sharing within libraries A list of advantages and disadvantages have been compiled in order to compare them to those stated in the literature. Another reason for this study has been to find out why job sharing has been implemented. Now that this information has been collected, analyzed and reported, individuals pursuing job share situations can use the information to determine if job sharing is feasible for them. It is also hoped that other researchers will use this research as a spring board in pursuing other studies on job sharing. By performing this study, perhaps both employees and employers of job shared positions will feel compelled to share their experiences with others, so other can learn from them.

IV. Methodology

Both employers who have supervised job sharing and employees who have participated in job sharing were surveyed. Surveys were sent to sixty employees and employers who responded to the following question which was posted on some library list-servs:

I am in the preliminary stages of my MLS research paper. My topic is job sharing within libraries. I am trying to get a sense of what type of libraries are using job sharing or have used it in the past.

The list-servs included: LAMA (Library Administration and Management Association), LIBRARY, LIBPER-L (Library Personnel), LIBSUP-L (Library Support Staff), ALASC, AUTOCAT, LIS-L, LIS-LINK, LAW-LIB (Law Librarians List), ACQNET (Acquisitions Librarians List), LIBADMIN (Issues of Library Administration and Management), CIRCPLUS (Circulation Department Issues), ILL-L (Interlibrary Loan Discussion Group), and COLLDV-L (Collection Development List). The researcher realizes that by only soliciting list-servs eliminated librarians who do not have access the these list-servs. It is also a self-selected sample since librarians are volunteering to answer the survey. This method of creating the sample was chosen due to its inexpensive manner of reaching librarians and the speed at which the communication can occur on list-servs. A copy of this survey is attached in Appendix B. The cover letter for this survey can found in Appendix A.

Both employees and employers responded. the same survey was sent to all who responded. In order to distinguish between employees and employers, there was a question on the survey which addressed whether the survey participant was an employer or employee.

Since this study is exploratory, the ability to apply the information obtained to the library population in general may be limiting. The survey questions and results have been created to answer the research questions listed on pages 12-13.

Once the surveys were returned, the data was evaluated using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) package on the IBM mainframe at Kent State University (KSU). Survey questions were evaluated as a whole and also by who completed the survey (employee vs. employer) and the type of library where the job share occurred. The frequency distributions were calculated for the questions along with some cross-tabulations. Since this is a self-selected study and not a randomly selected survey, it was not possible to calculated statistics using correlational techniques. The results are reported in Section V. Analysis of Data.

V. Results and Discussion

The results were calculated from 33 usable surveys. The questions and possible answers from the surveys were coded for input into the EDD portion of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical package located on the Kent State University (KSU) IBM mainframe computer. Once the contents of the codebook were processed into usable EDD data, the survey results were individually coded and inputted. Two types of frequency distribution tables were used to describe the data: simple frequency distribution tables and cross tabulation. (The tables with one variable listed indicate the possible answers and how survey participants answered them. The tables with two variables listed are cross tabulation tables using the same frequency distribution process.)

The majority of surveys were completed by employees who were currently participating in a job share or had participated in a job share. Individually, the groups of current job share participants and past job share participants represented 39.4% of the entire survey. 18.2% of the surveys were completed by supervisors of job share participants and one was completed by an administrative aide (represented by the category "other").

The type of library where job shares occurred broke down into four categories: Academic, Public, Law and Special. Some of the special libraries represented were hospital, corporate, industrial, and military. Academic libraries made up 42.4% of the group. Law libraries were 24.2% of the group followed by Special (21.2%) and Public (12.1%).

Of those supervisors submitting surveys, the majority were from academic (9.09%) with public, law and special being represented equally with 3.03%. Public libraries were not represented by employees currently in a job share position. Academic had the highest representation of employees with 21.21%, followed by 15.15% for special, and with 3.03% for law. All libraries were represented by employees previously in a job share. Law libraries had the most with 18.18%. The administrative aide was from a law library. Table A shows these results.

Table A. Position of person completing survey by Type of library

Tables B represents the size of full time and part time staffs at the libraries where the job shares have occurred. The average number of full time staffs was 6.45 with a median of 10.5. 3.04 was the average number of part time staff with a median of 3.5. The job shares occurred in libraries with smaller staffs. Having a smaller staff may make it easier to discuss and implement alternative work schedules.

Table B. Number of employees at library

Each survey participant was also asked how many job share positions were currently at the library and how many had occurred over time. The majority of libraries had reported small number of job share positions at their libraries (1-5). One library had 20 job share positions over time. This report came from a public library. (See Table C.)

Table C. Number of job share positions at library

The majority of the job shares in this study were initiated by employees who were employed by the library at the time the job share was created (68.8%). Libraries initiated 12.5% of the job shares. Libraries and library employees worked together to create 9.4% of the job shares in this study. 6.3% of the job shares were initiated by current library employees and prospective employees. Only one prospective employee initiated a job share in this study. (See Table D.)

Table D. Initiator of job share

Table E represents whether job share participants were employed by the library prior to the job share. In 40.6% of the cases, one participant or both participants were employed by the library. In a small percentage of cases (18.8%), neither participants were employed by the library. Of the job share partners, the majority were both female (87.9%). Only 12.1% of the job share participants had both male and female partners. None of the cases in this study had male only partners. Table F shows this. With the majority of participants being female, this may be an indicator that women desire to spend more time to their personal commitments yet do not want to lose touch with their profession.

In 81.2% of the cases, at least one of the job share participants were employed by the library. This may indicate that it is easier to create a job share when employed by the library. This could be because the employee knows the library and its policies well enough to negotiate a job share. The library may also value the employee enough to do whatever it takes in order to retain the employee.

Table E. Job share participants employed at library prior to Job Share

The job shares in this study were initiated for a variety of reasons. Survey participants were requested to check as many reasons that applied. Of the six reasons supplied on the survey, the reason "No qualified candidate for full time position" was not selected. 73.0% marked family commitments as a reason for the job share. The selection "Other" was marked on 18.0% of the surveys. Some of the other reasons for initiating the job share include the library had merged two part time positions; the initiator desired to work part time; it was financially better for the institution; a prospective employee really desired a position; and a job shared position gave more hours to a part time employee who desired more hours and gave less hours to a full time employee who desired to work less. (See Table G.) The reasons stated here do support the reasons found in the Literature Review (Part II).

Table G. Reasons for job share

Only 21.9% of the libraries had a written job share policy prior to the creation of the job shares (Table H). Currently, 28.1% of the libraries have job share policies, a 6.2% increase. The type of libraries which have the most job share policies in place is academic. Public libraries were split with an equal number having job share policies currently as those who do not. (See Table I.) The lack of job share policies could be due to libraries having other policies which cover a variety of alternative work schedules. Libraries may not have the time to create policies also.

Table H. Job share policy

88.0% of the survey participants did not know of a job share request being denied at the library in the past. A few were uncertain as to whether any job share requests had been denied in the past. Of the two that acknowledged that job share requests had been denied in the past, the reason for both was that the position was not conducive to job sharing.

The majority of job shared positions were professional (50.0%). Professional is defined as those positions which require a master's degree or more. Para-professional positions represented the next largest group with 28.1%; para-professional are positions which require a bachelor's degree. 21.9% of the positions were a combination of professional, para-professional and clerical. Table J shows the distribution of the types of positions by the types of libraries. Law libraries had the greatest majority of professional positions (25.0%). Academic had the largest number of para-professional positions (18.75%) and also represented the greatest number of combination positions (6.25%).

The lack of part-time professional positions in the library world creates the need for alternative work options. This is apparent in the number of professional job share positions. It is usually easier to divide a para-professional position into two part-time positions than it is to divided a professional position. Dividing a professional position in two positions created problems down the road for libraries. If one job share participant leaves, sometimes that person is not replaced and the library loses money plus a position.

Table J. Status of job shared position by Type of library

The answers to the question, "What is the title of the position which is job shared?", were too varied to group. The titles of positions included Library Specialist, Librarian, Senior Acquisitions Clerk, Research Librarian, Library Manager, Literature Scientist, Law Librarian, Catalog Librarian, Reference Librarian, Library Assistant, Library Associate, Serials Supervisor, Interlibrary Loan Technician, and Circulation Technician. From the positions listed, it is apparent that job shares have occurred in the various sections of a library (eg. Technical Services, Reference Services, Circulations, etc.). A future survey should ask about the area in which the job share occurred, such as reference, technical services, circulation, etc..

The types of schedules used by job share participants are varied. As shown in Table K, 34.4% used split weeks with 2 1/2 days each. Work schedules that overlapped represented 15.6% of the group; alternating weeks also were 15.6% of the group. Some of the other types of schedules discussed were a combination schedule (split schedule but both partners may work together at times); schedules adjusted to cover heaviest days of the weeks or teaching schedules; and schedules adjusted at different times of the academic year. From these results, it is apparent that any type of schedule can be used to accommodate the needs of the library and the job share participants.

Table K. Type of schedule used

Table L shows that the majority of job share participants were paid by salary, 59.4%. One position was paid salary or hourly, depending on whether the job share partner worked more than 20 hours per week or not. The majority of professional positions were paid salary. Para-professional positions were fairly equal between hourly (15.63%) and salary (12.50%). Paying salary is an advantage to the library. It can then work the employees longer hours without having to deal with overtime pay.

Table L. Type of pay by Status of position

The majority of participants (41.9%) received benefits pro-rated on the number of hours worked. In 22.6% of the cases, part-time type benefits were received. An equal number of the participants received full benefits as those who do not receive any benefits (12.9%). The cases under the "Other" category included one case where an employee, due to a grandfather clause, received the same benefits as he/she was receiving prior to the job share. In another case, one job share partner who worked three days per week received benefits while the partner who worked two days a week did not. In a third case, full benefits were given to job share participants, but sick time and vacation time were based on the number of hours worked. (See Table M.)

Table M. Type of benefits by Type of library

The majority of job share participants (90.9%) receive the same training opportunities as full-time employees. 84.8% of job share participants receive the same professional opportunities as full time employees. A few survey participants noted that the same professional opportunities were given but pro-rated based on the number of hours worked.

93.9% of survey participants noted advantages of job sharing. All three positions (supervisor, employee currently in a job share, and employee previously in a job share) marked that the greatest advantage to job sharing was the increase in job satisfaction. Of the 33.0% that marked the "Other" category, the advantages included greater knowledge about the job; having a colleague to share ideas; low employee turnover; greater employer security knowing that more than one person has full knowledge of the job; being able to be home more; greater flexibility in scheduling; ability to work two people together for a greater number of hours at less cost; and retention of valuable employees. (See Table N.)

Table N. Position of person completing survey by Advantages of job sharing

Table O represents the disadvantages encountered in job sharing. Only 48.5% of the survey participants reported disadvantages. Most selected communication as the main problem. The "Other" disadvantages included loss of benefits; less chance of advancement while job sharing; scheduling difficulties; more administrative paper work; and lack of continuity of tasks. No survey participants selected "Extra costs" as a disadvantage. Employees previously in a job shared position marked five categories for disadvantages. It is possible that these employees were not satisfied with their positions. They may also feel freer to report any disadvantages now that they are no longer employed by the library.

Table O. Position of person completing survey by Disadvantages of job sharing

96.9% of survey participants would be open to another job share (Table P). 96.8% felt that the job share had been successful at the library; this is represented in Tables Q and R. When the question as to whether the library would be open to another job share, 18.2% declined to answer. Many noted that it would be dependent upon the people involved and which position. Of those who did answer, 96.3% felt that the library would be open to job share again. Table S shows the breakdown based upon the type of library; while Table T shows the breakdown based upon the position of the person completing the survey.

Table P. Would the survey participant be open to another job share

One question from the survey is not reflected in this analysis of data. It is question number two, "How long have you been employed, or how long were you employed, at the library where job share occurred?". This was not the information that I was desiring. I was more interested in how long the job share has occurred.

VI. Summary and Conclusions

Some findings from this study duplicated what has been reported in the Literature Review (Part II). Family commitments were stated in the literature as the main reason for job sharing; this study results reflect the same. Opportunity to pursue other interests, the second highest response in this study, was also discussed in the literature.

A surprise to this researcher was the lack of job share policies in the libraries. Not having a job share policy can create problems for both the employer and employees even for libraries that have job shared positions. It would seem that lack of a job share policy may also discourage the formation and use of job shares. A future study could pursue why libraries do not have formal policies, or if job sharing is addressed in other policies.

It is best for both the employees and the employer to discuss all of these issues before starting the job share. After discussing the issues, policies should be formally written to refer to when questions arise in the future. The policy should address issues concerning what will happen when positions are vacated or if one partner desires to apply for a promotion. Often the partner left in the original position is allowed to either go full time or find another partner. A sufficient amount of time should be established so both the needs of the library and employees are met.

The variety of schedules used shows that job sharing can be versatile and be adapted to both the needs of the employees and employer. This flexibility in scheduling was listed as an advantage by some of the survey participants. Yet, one survey participant listed difficulty in scheduling as a disadvantage of job sharing. As with any job, there are many factors involved which may influence the success of the job.

The number of cases which were paid by salary was an unexpected surprise. After breaking down the type of pay by the status of position, this result made sense. The majority of salary paid positions were professional positions. This is encouraging to librarians who are seeking professional work but do not desire full time employment.

Knowing that the majority of job share participants received some sort of benefits is a good sign for both the employer and employee considering job sharing. The employer wins because having benefits leads to employee job satisfaction and also attracts quality employees. The presence of training opportunities and professional opportunities encourages the retention of good employees. The library also benefits in terms of knowledgeable employees. Employees win because they know that their knowledge and loyalty are valued and rewarded. A disappointment is that there were some who do not receive benefits. This could create some hostility towards the library by the job share participants. It could also discourage future job share participants from seeking job shared positions.

The cases in this survey report a greater number of advantages to job sharing than disadvantages. Increase in employee job satisfaction should be an incentive for a library to use job sharing. Employers are always looking for ways to increase job satisfaction. Communication problems were the main disadvantage. Finding compatible job share partners and having job share policies in place could help alleviate some communication problems.

Knowing that the majority of survey participants felt the job share was successful and that they would agree to another job share provides positive support to employees and employers who are considering job sharing. Even though there are disadvantages, it is apparent that for many the extra time involved is worth the effort to both the employer and employee.

This study has answered some questions concerning job sharing. It also leads to many more questions. Some questions include "In what areas does job sharing occur within libraries (eg. technical services, circulation, reference, etc.)?", "How long did the job share last?", and "Why did the job share end?". From what is presented here, people will be able to make a more informed decision regarding the use of job sharing for them.

VII. Bibliography

Bobay, Julie. 1988. Job-sharing: a survey of the literature and a plan for academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration 9, no. 2: 59-69.

Braudy, Judith, and Susan Tuckerman. 1986. The part-time academic librarian: current status, future directions. Library Journal 111, no. 6 (April): 38-41.

Burrington, G.A. 1982. Report on the symposium on job-sharing in libraries. State Librarian 30, no. 3 (November): 41-42.

Gilbert, Cecily and Kathleen Gray. 1985. Job sharing in a hospital library. Australian Special Libraries News 18, no.2 (June): 51, 53-55.

Goddard, Catriona. 1991. Job-sharing in British libraries: implications for the manager. Journal of librarianship and information science. 23 (December): 191-201.

Hereld, Gaby. 1992. Job sharing -- a reality for the 90s? New Jersey Libraries 25 (Summer): 24-25.

Lyon, Jo. 1995. A job shared is a job halved? Library Manager no. 9 (July/August): 6, 8-9.

McKee, Anna Marie, and Laura Scott, ed. 1982. Job sharing: a speech by Patricia Lee and panel discussion. Journal of Library Administration 3, no. 2 (Summer): 77-87.

Morris, Beryl. 1990. Surviving the skills shortage: exploring the options. Information and Library Manager 9, no. 2: 11-22.

Notowitz, Carol. 1982. Job sharing in the 80s. School Library Journal 28, no. 6 (February): 33- 35.

Plant, Sheila. 1985. Job sharing provides a useful alternative. Canadian Library Journal 42 (December): 363-367.

Respass, Marie T., and Mary B. Meola. 1993. Job sharing: a successful flexible work arrangement in an academic library. New Jersey Libraries 26 (Fall): 12-14.

Stennett, Ruth. 1993. Job sharing in librarianship. Library Management 14, no. 6: 13-20.

Wallis, Margaret. 1990. Surviving the skills shortage: an employer's view. Information and Library Manager 9, no. 2: 8-10.

RE: Job Sharing: A study of the use of this job alternative in libraries.

January 6, 1997

Dear Librarian:

There are many professional librarians who do not desire a typical full time schedule. In order to remain within the realms of librarianship, these librarians are pursuing alternative work schedules. One type of alternative work situations is job sharing. This is defined was when one full time position is shared by two employees with the full time benefits pro-rated between the two employees.

As a graduate student in the Kent State University School of Library and Information Science, I am conducting a survey in order to collect information regarding the attitudes towards job sharing, the policies of job sharing and the advantages and disadvantages of job sharing. The purpose of this study is to collect information and present it in such a manner so people pursuing job share situations can determine if it is feasible for them. I also hope this study will initiate other research on job sharing.

The enclosed survey is brief. Confidentiality and anonymity are guaranteed, and there is no risk or penalty involved in participating or withdrawing from this study (please see reverse side for details).

Your voluntary cooperation and prompt response are greatly appreciated. Please return the survey by February 1, 1997; a stamped, self-addressed return envelope is included for your convenience. Please feel free to copy this survey and distribute it to others at your library who have supervised job sharing or have been a job share partner. Additional surveys can be obtained from me by sending a request via e-mail: vmarch@columbus.oh.us.

Thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,

Virginia March

Graduate Student/Principal Researcher

Job Sharing: A study of the use of this job alternative in libraries.

is a study being conducted in partial fulfillment of my Master's degree in Library and Information Science (MLS). As the principal researcher, I will be the only person with access to the returned surveys. Your confidentiality is assured as neither your name nor that of your institution will be requested on the survey. Return envelopes have been coded in the event that follow-up reminders become necessary; however, upon receipt of each questionnaire, the return envelope will be discarded. At the completion of the survey, the mailing list will be destroyed.

There are no apparent risks from participation in this study since your opinions are being requested anonymously, and the subject matter is not a sensitive or proprietary nature. As indicated previously, your participation is essential to the successful completion of this study, but it is entirely voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not to participate.

This study has been approved by Kent State University. If you have any questions regarding the survey, the study itself, or the results of the study, please contact me, Virginia March, at (614) 876-5015, or my research advisor, Dr. Tschera Harkness Connell, at KSU's Columbus Program Office, (614) 292-7746. If you any questions regarding KSU's rules for research, please contact Dr. M. Thomas Jones, Vice Provost and Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, (330) 672-2851.

Job Sharing: A study of the use of this job alternative in libraries.

Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. If a question does not apply, please leave it blank. Any additional comments can be added at the end of the survey or forwarded directly to me:

Kent State University - Columbus Program

School of Library and Information Science

c/o Virginia March, Mailbox 107

124 Mount Hall, 1050 Carmack Rd

Columbus, OH 43210

e-mail: VMARCH@freenet.columbus.oh.us

1. Position of person completing survey:

_____ Supervisor

_____ Employee currently in a job share position

_____ Employee previously in a job share position

_____ Other, please state

2. What is the type of your library?

_____ Academic _____ Public _____ Special

_____ Corporate _____ Private _____ Other, please state

3. What is the size of the staff of your library?

_____ Full-Time Employees _____ Part-Time Employees

4. Has your institution ever considered job sharing?

_____ Yes _____ No

5. Has your institution tried job sharing in the past?

_____ Yes _____ No

6a. Has your institution ever been approached by an employee or perspective employee about job sharing?

_____ Yes _____ No

6b. If no, would your institution be open to the possibility of job sharing?

_____ Yes _____ No

7. Are there any reasons that job sharing has not been used at your institution?

_____ Never discussed

_____ Potential job sharer lost interest

_____ Supervisor discouraged idea

_____ Institution discouraged idea

_____ Institution tried job share in past and it did not work

_____ Lack of compatible job sharers

_____ Lack of qualified job sharers

_____ Other, please state

8. Is there a written policy concerning job sharing at your institution?

_____ Yes _____ No

9. How many job share positions are at the library?

__________

10. Were the job share participants employed at the institution prior to creating the job share positions?

_____ Yes _____ No

11. What is the title of position which is job shared?

12. What is the status of position which is job shared? (please check one)

_____ Professional (Master's Degree or above required)

_____ Para-Professional (Undergraduate Degree or above required)

_____ Clerical (High School diploma or above required)

13. Who is the person which initiated the job share?

_____ Employer _____ Employee

_____ Other, please state

14. What are the genders of job share participants?

_____ Male and Female _____Both Male _____Both Female

15. What is the reason(s) for the job share? (check as many that apply)

_____ Maternity _____ Ease into retirement

_____ Family Commitments _____ Health Reasons

_____ Opportunity to pursue other interests _____ No qualified candidates for full time position

_____ Other, please state

16. Was there a written policy concerning job sharing prior to having a position job shared?

_____ Yes _____ No

17. How are the benefits of the job share position distributed?

_____ pro-rated between the job sharers

_____ job share employees given part-time benefits

_____ no benefits available

18. Do job sharers receive the same training opportunities at full timers?

____ Yes _____ No

19. Do job sharers receive the same professional opportunities as full timers?

____ Yes _____ No

20. How are job sharer participants paid?

_____ hourly _____ salary _____ Other

21. What are the disadvantages encountered with job sharing? (Check as many that apply):

_____ communication _____ extra costs

_____ incompatible job share partners _____ inconsistencies with service

_____ job not being performed effectively

_____ Other, please state

22. What are the advantages of job sharing? (Check as many that apply):

_____ decrease in absenteeism _____ increase employee job satisfaction

_____ increase in productivity

_____ Other, please state

23. What are the overall attitudes of the fellow employees towards the job share arrangement?

_____ supportive _____ do not understand concept of job sharing

_____ treat job share partners as part-time _____feel threatened

_____ feel that job share participants are not as committed as full time employees

24. What is the overall attitude of the institution towards the job share arrangement?

_____ supportive _____ do not understand concept of job sharing

_____ treat job share partners as part time

_____ feel that job share participants are not as committed as full time employees

25. Overall, has job sharing at your library been successful?

_____ Yes _____No

26. Would your institution be open to another job share situation based on past or current results?

_____ Yes _____ No