From what I vaguely recall hearing, most places don't like to have employees that work more than half time but less than full time. Maybe fixing whatever misincentives are causing this discontinuity would also help make the contractor / employee difference less of an issue?
All the other people in the office see that employee as "lazy Bob". The guy who isn't around every 2nd Friday. They guy who works slower than everyone else. They guy who always seems to be randomly missing from important meetings, and then doesn't know what's going on.
A 90% time employee is worth far less than 90% to the company.
Source:. Worked at a company where employees could either take a few days off after a bout of overtime, or get paid extra. Those who took days off were seen as lazy, not committed, and wouldn't get promotions or roles of responsibility.
A 90% time employee is worth far less than 90% to the company.
I had a 90% job with a large software vendor. The deal being 20 days additional vacation for 10% less pay.
I can guarantee you that during the time I worked I was a far better and efficient employee. That's based on the simple fact that I ws much better rested, far less stressed and much more creative due to the additional time off, in which I travelled the world.
Based on my anecdotal evidence I stipulate that you're dead wrong.
A higher rate of vacation absence is much less noticeable day to day than a shorter routine schedule in "projecty" occupations where a team effort is pushed to completion. Being on vacation is quite similar to being temporarily assigned to a different project, the temporarily smaller team will cope just fine, they might even win efficiency tho compensate for some of the nominal throughput loss.
But most hours reductions are of the predictable continuously reduced schedule type, which is great for occupations where a defined number of positions has to be filled at all times (pretty much everything that is more reactive than active). But in "projecty" work, that predictability is of little value, the reduced-hours teammember will count fully (or more) to team size in terms of organisational overhead and task dependency delays, but will contribute fractionally less. It's not the lower amount of total hours in that scenario, but the permanent asymmetry.
That's a lot of anecdotal evidence framed as facts.
I for one have been working 80% for two years (Germany) and have never felt more productive and motivated. And not only that, but I've also been able to use my Fridays off to acquire skills I would otherwise not have had the time or motivation to learn.
None of my colleagues ever complained about me seeming lazy or slow, quite the opposite, really.
I think one of the reasons that your experience is so different is that Americans tend to have a very different work culture than other countries. It partly stems from the fact they get almost no holiday and are often encouraged not to take the holiday they're allowed anyway. Whereas in Europe the idea that you wouldn't take holiday you're entitled to is just crazy.
Whereas in Europe the idea that you wouldn't take holiday you're entitled to is just crazy.
And depending on the country it's outright illegal.
In Switzerland, for example, which has one of the more liberal (as in employer friendly) employment laws in Europe an employer can not compensate vacation days with money, except in very exceptional circumstances (i.e end of employment and employee has remaining vacation days).
To add some anecdotal evidence for America: I've always stuck to a hard 10-6 and I have a great career. Any company that doesn't let you trade talent against time is a company that doesn't respect you as a worker or even an adult. Granted, I work in the single American industry that likely respects its workers the most, but I have friends in other industries who believed that working sane hours was impossible until they... Tried it.
Obviously working more means you get more done (assuming you don't burn yourself out), so the cost of working less to your career is nonzero, but this is practically tautological, and the stronger claim made here that it affects your reputation beyond its actual impact on productivity is not as universal in the US as people like to complain.
I've lived and worked in both America and Europe, and while I find the living conditions in Europe generally better - healthcare and social safety nets are awesome - the environment for working in America was just more vibrant and lively.
I much prefer working in America, or at least with Americans - but in terms of lifestyle, Europeans have it much, much better.
Thanks for the input. I also think that there's a significant cultural difference in that regard. I just wanted to share my very good experience, because I didn't like the GPs conclusion that part time cannot work.
> That's a lot of anecdotal evidence framed as facts.
Anecdotal evidence is, by definition, facts that are gathered in an unstructured manner which limits their probative value when it comes to supporting broader generalizations.
So, it's quite appropriate to frame anecdotal evidence as facts, though one is on weaker ground drawing generalized, conclusions from such evidence, which was the actual problem with the grandparent post.
Your feelings aren't facts nor are they universal.
I've worked with some of the best people in the world building billion dollar systems in small teams. People have different work habits and some of the best people I've worked with worked on their own schedule and always produced world class results.
What you're describing seems to be a mediocre environment where the perception matters more than the results. And not only that, but you seem to present your perception as universal within your company.
This seems like maybe you're projecting your own personal feelings onto others. The last place I worked was a consultancy that was super flexible with working arrangements. Some folks were half time, some worked 30 hour weeks, and others worked traditional 40 hour weeks. Nobody expressed any problems with it. Everybody got rewarded for the effort they contributed. The people (like me when I started) who wanted to focus on work could do that and the people (like me when I left) that were focused on other things but still wanted to work could do that. Where's the problem other than inside your own head?
