Comment by nottorp
Incidentally, why aren't there more part time positions?
Probably because said leadership would then be unable to keep their employees in meetings since they're supposed to do some actual work once in a while.
Incidentally, why aren't there more part time positions?
Probably because said leadership would then be unable to keep their employees in meetings since they're supposed to do some actual work once in a while.
> Incidentally, why aren't there more part time positions?
It is obviously easier to manage a small group of people who work full-time than a larger group of people who work part-time. So, if there does not exist a strong wish for part-time positions from the employees, few will be created.
Also, a lot of employees are there "for the money". So getting paid much worse for a part-time position is considered to be the worse deal by many employees.
because the overhead of a PT or fractional employee is just about as much as a FT one, and why should I give you 100% attention when you only want to give me 50%?
At the C-suite level, I'm noticing more "fractional" positions, which — as far as I can tell — is a fancier way of saying part time. (This may be the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon at work, though.)