Part-time and Job-Share Careers Among Pharmacy Faculty
Part-time and Job-Share Careers Among Pharmacy Faculty
Job-sharing positions and part-time faculty appointments allow departments to maintain excellent faculty members and avoid recruitment costs, including the significant time cost, and allow faculty members the opportunity to maintain their clinical and academic roles. At the department chair level, it is important to maintain transparency in this process and to develop an equitable system of decision-making when deciding if a part-time position will fit with departmental needs and priorities. Development of a part-time or job-share plan can take significant time to develop, requires monitoring and oversight, and may need modifications over time. The position approval process at our institution required submission of a written justification during the budget approval cycle and considerable time to develop.
Each switch from a full-time to a part-time position was evaluated on a case-by-case basis with specific scheduling and assignments made individually based upon faculty expertise and previous workload assignments. Both switches involved 3 faculty members with a desire to maintain their campus day, the academic components of their positions, and their clinical practice. In one case, a 0.2 FTE was recruited and hired to fill 1 full day of clinical responsibilities at the clinical site. This allowed our faculty member to spend 3 days at the clinical site and 1 day on campus, while the adjunct faculty member covered all of the clinical responsibilities, including precepting students and residents for 1 day per week. This was an ideal situation in that it allowed us to retain a valued, productive employee, while still meeting our contractual obligations to the clinical site and meeting precepting requirements for students and residents. This arrangement also did not cause undue burden on other faculty members assigned to the site as clinical coverage was maintained. The major difficulty in this arrangement was the recruitment of a qualified adjunct faculty member to fill in the required clinical time. Filling this position took almost 1 year, which was much longer than anticipated. Recruitment for an adjunct position can be difficult because of financial and benefit concerns.
The faculty member seeking a 0.8 FTE workload was patient throughout this process; however, the time required to set up such an arrangement could be a roadblock for faculty members needing a more immediate solution. In this case, the clinical site involved agreed to this split-employment/position model; however, obtaining the support of the clinical site could be a potential setback in developing this service model.
Two faculty members who expressed a desire to have a reduced schedule were paired by their vice chair as a possible match for a job-share situation. One faculty member transitioned to the other faculty member's practice site to simplify the division of work. Each faculty member would spend 2 days per week in clinical practice and precepting activities and 1 day per week on campus. Developing this position took several approval steps prior to implementation. Planning early in the budget cycle was critical as a 0.2 FTE position was requested to transition each faculty member from 1.0 FTE to 0.6 FTE. Position justification was required throughout the budgeting process to delineate the value and advantages of adding additional faculty members to the college budget. Ultimately, the additional 0.2 FTE position was approved, allowing each faculty member to switch to a 0.6 FTE position.
Maintaining a campus day for each faculty member allowed them to pursue individual campus activities, continue academic pursuits, and maintain relationships and connections with other faculty members. In our model, the majority of nontenure track faculty members were present on campus on Fridays, therefore it was important to include this in reduced scheduled models. Initial considerations with this arrangement included the training time required for 1 faculty member to acclimate to a new clinical site and the timing required to recruit and hire a replacement for the vacated 1.0 FTE position. In this case, recruitment was planned so that these transitions could occur with the start of a new contract year on July 1.
Workload adjustment is dependent upon the individual faculty member. This is an area that takes flexibility and open communication between the faculty member and the chair or vice chair. Open communication will ensure the faculty member's smooth transition into a part-time role and allow for modifications in workload to be made over time. Early on in both of the recent faculty member switches to part-time positions, a discussion was held regarding expectations of the faculty member and expectations for the department. Flexibility and strong communication was identified as a key factor in the success of a part-time appointment in an academic setting as both the college and the clinical site need to be aware of schedules and potential conflicts. The faculty members understood that there might be potential scheduling conflicts, especially with a designated teaching schedule, that may not be able to be resolved in all cases. All part-time and job-share faculty members agreed to work with departmental needs and their scheduled days off so there would not be a disruption in clinical service or in fulfilling other campus responsibilities. This flexibility on both sides is what made our models successful. Other faculty members have not had to pick up additional teaching or workshop assignments to cover teaching needs, and in all cases, our part-time and job-share faculty members have maintained their academic commitments with only minor adjustments in workload ( Table 1 ).
Because many faculty members in our department spend a majority of their time off campus, it may not be as obvious from a workload standpoint that several faculty members have part-time and job-share arrangements. Department morale has not been affected; however, other faculty members have requested part-time appointments. This has required careful discussion with individuals regarding their goals and rationale for a part-time appointment. One concern has always been the potential for an impact on the promotion of individual faculty members. In our case, the faculty members have maintained their productivity and even expanded their scholarly productivity, making both of these models successful. As we continue these models, decisions will need to be made regarding requirements for promotion and how a part-time appointment would change the time or other factors in the promotion process.
Administrative Considerations
Job-sharing positions and part-time faculty appointments allow departments to maintain excellent faculty members and avoid recruitment costs, including the significant time cost, and allow faculty members the opportunity to maintain their clinical and academic roles. At the department chair level, it is important to maintain transparency in this process and to develop an equitable system of decision-making when deciding if a part-time position will fit with departmental needs and priorities. Development of a part-time or job-share plan can take significant time to develop, requires monitoring and oversight, and may need modifications over time. The position approval process at our institution required submission of a written justification during the budget approval cycle and considerable time to develop.
Each switch from a full-time to a part-time position was evaluated on a case-by-case basis with specific scheduling and assignments made individually based upon faculty expertise and previous workload assignments. Both switches involved 3 faculty members with a desire to maintain their campus day, the academic components of their positions, and their clinical practice. In one case, a 0.2 FTE was recruited and hired to fill 1 full day of clinical responsibilities at the clinical site. This allowed our faculty member to spend 3 days at the clinical site and 1 day on campus, while the adjunct faculty member covered all of the clinical responsibilities, including precepting students and residents for 1 day per week. This was an ideal situation in that it allowed us to retain a valued, productive employee, while still meeting our contractual obligations to the clinical site and meeting precepting requirements for students and residents. This arrangement also did not cause undue burden on other faculty members assigned to the site as clinical coverage was maintained. The major difficulty in this arrangement was the recruitment of a qualified adjunct faculty member to fill in the required clinical time. Filling this position took almost 1 year, which was much longer than anticipated. Recruitment for an adjunct position can be difficult because of financial and benefit concerns.
The faculty member seeking a 0.8 FTE workload was patient throughout this process; however, the time required to set up such an arrangement could be a roadblock for faculty members needing a more immediate solution. In this case, the clinical site involved agreed to this split-employment/position model; however, obtaining the support of the clinical site could be a potential setback in developing this service model.
Two faculty members who expressed a desire to have a reduced schedule were paired by their vice chair as a possible match for a job-share situation. One faculty member transitioned to the other faculty member's practice site to simplify the division of work. Each faculty member would spend 2 days per week in clinical practice and precepting activities and 1 day per week on campus. Developing this position took several approval steps prior to implementation. Planning early in the budget cycle was critical as a 0.2 FTE position was requested to transition each faculty member from 1.0 FTE to 0.6 FTE. Position justification was required throughout the budgeting process to delineate the value and advantages of adding additional faculty members to the college budget. Ultimately, the additional 0.2 FTE position was approved, allowing each faculty member to switch to a 0.6 FTE position.
Maintaining a campus day for each faculty member allowed them to pursue individual campus activities, continue academic pursuits, and maintain relationships and connections with other faculty members. In our model, the majority of nontenure track faculty members were present on campus on Fridays, therefore it was important to include this in reduced scheduled models. Initial considerations with this arrangement included the training time required for 1 faculty member to acclimate to a new clinical site and the timing required to recruit and hire a replacement for the vacated 1.0 FTE position. In this case, recruitment was planned so that these transitions could occur with the start of a new contract year on July 1.
Workload adjustment is dependent upon the individual faculty member. This is an area that takes flexibility and open communication between the faculty member and the chair or vice chair. Open communication will ensure the faculty member's smooth transition into a part-time role and allow for modifications in workload to be made over time. Early on in both of the recent faculty member switches to part-time positions, a discussion was held regarding expectations of the faculty member and expectations for the department. Flexibility and strong communication was identified as a key factor in the success of a part-time appointment in an academic setting as both the college and the clinical site need to be aware of schedules and potential conflicts. The faculty members understood that there might be potential scheduling conflicts, especially with a designated teaching schedule, that may not be able to be resolved in all cases. All part-time and job-share faculty members agreed to work with departmental needs and their scheduled days off so there would not be a disruption in clinical service or in fulfilling other campus responsibilities. This flexibility on both sides is what made our models successful. Other faculty members have not had to pick up additional teaching or workshop assignments to cover teaching needs, and in all cases, our part-time and job-share faculty members have maintained their academic commitments with only minor adjustments in workload ( Table 1 ).
Because many faculty members in our department spend a majority of their time off campus, it may not be as obvious from a workload standpoint that several faculty members have part-time and job-share arrangements. Department morale has not been affected; however, other faculty members have requested part-time appointments. This has required careful discussion with individuals regarding their goals and rationale for a part-time appointment. One concern has always been the potential for an impact on the promotion of individual faculty members. In our case, the faculty members have maintained their productivity and even expanded their scholarly productivity, making both of these models successful. As we continue these models, decisions will need to be made regarding requirements for promotion and how a part-time appointment would change the time or other factors in the promotion process.