The most persistent objection in organizational job share program discussions is the career trajectory concern: that job sharing signals reduced commitment, limits advancement, and should be positioned as an accommodation rather than a career strategy. Liz Stapleton Zerella’s nine years in a Fortune 500 finance division—four roles, one promotion, in an environment where job sharing had never been done—is the definitive rebuttal. For HR and DEI leaders making the internal case for job sharing at the senior level, this is your evidence.
Key Takeaways:
• How Liz and her partner Michelle built the business case that secured approval with almost no organizational resistance and the proposal architecture that worked
• How Liz and Michelle managed a team of 30–35 people across a split week: splitting direct-report one-on-ones between the two halves of the week, rotating every three months so each analyst had face time with both partners annually, and maintaining a strict open-door policy—producing what their VP called “best-in-class people managers” whose analysts specifically valued getting coaching from two different leadership styles
• What the confidence trajectory looked like: from “grateful to have the arrangement” to “promoted”—and what organizational signals enabled that shift
• Liz’s direct challenge to the “women-only” perception: “this should be a career option for anyone. And to your point, it’s not just women.” Plus Melissa’s observation that male peers at Clorox increasingly wanted the same flexibility but faced a stigma that women don’t. And Work Muse’s own cross-gender job share case study of a man and woman who “literally finish each other’s sentences” and both value the time it creates for their children
Resources:
Fast Company article: Is Job Sharing the Solution to Our Flexible Work Problems?
Explore job sharing: workmuse.com
Episode Website: workmuse.com/64
Transcript here
