"30 hours a week can be much worse than 45"

In the current part-time work debate, crucial points are being overlooked according to work psychologist Alexander Haefner in an interview with nv.de. He believes that the design of work hours is much more decisive than the number itself. Haefner is a member of the Economic Psychology Council of the German Association of Psychologists and Psychotherapists and heads the personnel development of the industrial customers division of the Würth Group.

ntv.de: Sabine Minarsky, Personal Chef at Commerzbank, finds that "30 percent of employees in part-time work is simply too much" and wants to lower the ratio. How can this be achieved, and how can companies motivate their employees to work more hours? The fewest employees can be motivated by economists or politicians to criticize part-time work as damage to the economy.

Alexander Haefner: It's all about work design, which is the key. In the current debate, the fact that work is something very positive is being overlooked. We shouldn't speak ill of it in the sense of "the less, the better." From a psychological perspective, 30 weekly hours can be poorly designed and much worse for health and satisfaction than 45 hours well-designed.

What should these 45 hours look like?

Working is not only about earning money; it has important social functions. We can fulfill social needs through it, and it helps many people maintain a good daily structure. Crucial for motivation are good leadership, respect, the feeling of doing something meaningful, making decisions, and being competent in doing so. A good fit with requirements is also very important, neither over- nor under-challenged.

What else motivates? In the current debate, flexible working hours and locations are often mentioned. What role do workload or development and advancement opportunities play?

Job satisfaction is a crucial bonding factor to a company, and it naturally affects respect. Moreover, in the debate, the question is being overlooked of whether the workload actually decreases with fewer hours - if not, employees are just working harder. It's important not to try to do the same amount in fewer hours. Work also has a social function, and it's crucial to take breaks and engage in private conversations. For example, not taking breaks at all might help complete work in the short term, but it harms health in the long term. From a psychological perspective, I would strongly caution against compressing work.

What role does money play today, and when does a wage increase act as an incentive to work more?

The salary level is crucial. For older employees with higher salaries, money plays a lesser role, and meaningfulness becomes increasingly important. Fairness also plays a role: Is my performance fairly rewarded? Interestingly, the salary does not rank among the main reasons for loyalty to a company, but rather the aforementioned work design. However, that doesn't mean the salary is unimportant.

As you say, employees with higher salaries can more easily afford to work fewer hours. How can employers resolve this contradiction?

I would pay close attention to the team climate and leadership quality. Employees should be able to regularly evaluate these in surveys. Similarly, tasks that cause abdominal pain should be addressed. If work goes well for employees, it reflects positively on their personal lives. For example, they may sleep better if they are less stressed in the evening. And effective communication skills learned at work can help resolve private conflicts.

Commerzbank-CEO Minarsky reportedly does not have part-time employees in mind who raise children or care for relatives. In fact, more than a quarter of part-time employees work beyond their scheduled hours, particularly older employees who reduce their working hours without a valid reason. How can this be explained?

Those who don't find meaning in their work look for it elsewhere. Working for the paper basket is a dangerous feeling. It's not just sad for the affected individuals who could be working more, but also for society. In particular, older workers, who are eager for retirement or even retire earlier despite being physically and mentally fit, need to be reversed.

How can more working hours be reconciled with the health of employees? Many feel chronically stressed. And it's a vicious cycle: the fewer specialized workers, the stronger the workload compression. This is particularly extreme in healthcare, where part-time work is particularly common.

In healthcare or perhaps in the police force, it's naturally difficult to reduce work. But we should critically examine whether, for example, bureaucracy can be avoided in these professions. In industry, there is still more room for digitalization and automation. In all professions, it is important to identify unnecessary tasks.

Minarsky wants to encourage employees to increase their hourly allocation when their children are older. Companies have missed this opportunity so far. How can companies convince these employees to work more hours?

Respect is crucial, and it requires personal conversation. Employees should not feel pushed to the sidelines for pauses in childcare. Instead, companies should recognize the competencies learned during these breaks and see how they can be applied in the profession. This also applies to older employees to keep them in the company longer. A significant number can imagine working longer than the statutory retirement age. A 65-year-old has the same brain as a 25-year-old, naturally older employees can still adapt to new software. We need more respect for older workers and people who have spent a lot of time on care work.

Anyone who permanently reduces their working hours significantly reduces their pension claims, especially women. Why is this not motivation enough for more working hours in Germany, and how could this be changed?

Our brain is geared towards short-term effects, we find it difficult to project actions for something far in the future. For example, we like to file our tax returns on the last printer, although we have months for it. It helps to draw positive and negative effects to enhance our motivation. I would recommend companies to advise their employees or point them towards public consultation services. Unfortunately, we cannot expect a significant impact from this.

A often neglected reason for part-time work is (further) education, especially for younger and men. Qualification helps to counteract the skills gap. Should companies not even encourage part-time work in this case?

It's a human need to learn new things and develop further. I would strongly recommend companies to offer their employees the option of reducing their working hours in advance and possibly even financially supporting further education. Of course, this makes sense only if the skills learned can be applied in the job. In that case, it's a win-win situation for all.

Interview with Alexander Haefner by Christina Lohner

According to Alexander Haefner, an economically sound approach to addressing the concerns of Sabine Minarsky, who finds that 30% of employees in part-time work is too much, could involve enhancing the design of working hours rather than focusing solely on reducing the ratio.
In the context of Alexander Haefner's belief that work design is more significant than the number of hours itself, it's important to note that from a psychological perspective, 30 weekly hours can be poorly designed and have negative effects on employee health and satisfaction, potentially even being worse than 45 hours well-designed.
In the labor market debate, some policymakers and economists may overlook the importance of providing meaningful and satisfying work for employees, which can be just as crucial in motivating them to work more hours as offering remuneration or flexible working arrangements.