“For six years we shared a job at the Fleet Bank: Vice President, Global Markets Foreign Exchange. One desk, one chair, one computer, one telephone, and one voice-mail account. We had – still have – one resume. To our clients and colleagues, we were effectively one person, though one person with the strengths and ideas of two.”

So begins the written story of Cynthia and Shelley, two women who see themselves as a “package.” Until last year, they successfully job shared an executive position at Fleet Bank until the Bank of America merger that dissolved their department. So inspired by their previous experience they are now a team, seeking a new employer, but dedicated to job sharing together. They end their written story with the line “we can’t imagine any other way to live.” Here is the rest of their story.

Shelley and Cynthia share the story of many women. Fifty plus hour workweeks, enjoying work, receiving promotions and raises, and excited about their professional development until they were shaken by the unpredictable challenges of their personal lives. For Cindy, it was the day her childcare fell through the same day as a major budget meeting. After a scramble, she left her young children, 1 and 3, with a person she hardly knew. For Shelley it was the day she had to choose between being late to pick up her son or to bring a tired child on a grocery store trip.

Each woman took advantage of Fleet’s flexible work policies and each stopped – for different reasons. One due to a promotion, the for the other, her boss simply did not like her arrangement. They knew there had to be a better way to maintain and promote their professional identities while still achieving their personal goals. They decided to pursue a job share position together.

What they did:

• Marketed themselves as one person.
• Packaged themselves in “one resume, with a cover letter combining their skills.”
• Included performance reviews and internal ratings with their marketing package.
• Strategized on marketing their package, strategized on how to interview, who would “sell” which skill sets.
• Moved on from rejection quickly.

They interviewed with 15 executives before they found a reluctant champion (he recognized supporting Shelley and Cynthia would help him meet his diversity goals). “The offer was just the type of thing we were looking for: a move to corporate, a step up the ladder, and double the salary, plus a bonus opportunity - all of which meant that we could each work half the time we used to and yet continue to increase our learning capacity.”

Defending the Proposition:

• Addressed concerns head-on and systematically.
• Talked through mechanical conversations – who will perform what projects and when.
• Discussed intra-job-sharing communication.
• Confirmed they were professionals who knew how to handle challenges, “any problems, we said, would be ours never his or the business’s. In the end our confidence won him over.”

Once they started the job, defending their proposition continued:

The first week the boss had Shelley running around town buying and engraving a frame for her boss’s boss. After a cool down period, she asked why she was asked to perform such a task. He told her it was a test to see how responsive she would be. Neither was tested like that again. The women found the challenges came not from clients but internally - a lack of management support and colleagues' suspicions. Ranging from a boss who wanted to split them into 2 part-time employees to colleagues attempting to pit Cindy and Shelley against each other. They addressed their colleagues with a direct and honest meeting confronting the incident. While the meeting was not comfortable, the sabotage curtailed.

The mechanics:

• “Sharing one set of responsibilities meant we passed projects back and forth, constantly and seamlessly. Neither of us “owned” any particular client or task: the person who was in the office took care of any needs as they came up.”
• Each worked 20 hours, 2 1/2 days a week.
• They split the salary 50/50.
• Each had full benefits. (Some employers offer benefits for 20+ hours a week.)
• Each spent time in the office on Tuesday morning in a conference room to overlap and strategize, take conference calls and plan. Neither was in on Thursday afternoons.
• Together, they refused more hours (with an increase in pay) because they wanted to manage their time realistically – to fewer than 25 hours a week. They had joint goals and reviews (if an individual issue arose, it was agreed that the manager would address the matter privately. Luckily for these two, the issue never came up).
• In the beginning, they would both go the first meeting to acquaint themselves with key players and personalities. This was less necessary later in their experience.
• Regular data dumps, including 15-20 voicemails a day on separate, individual voicemail boxes kept them up to data on projects, conversations and office nuances.
• They played to each other’s strengths, allocating important tasks such as analysis and presentations to the stronger player.

Lessons Learned:

• Check your ego at the door. “For instance, we had to accept that we both should have a chance to contribute when we attended meetings...neither of us should dominate.”
• Agree to never disagree in public, which supported their united front.
• Over-communicate. Write down as much as possible, even details that seem mundane, like body language, or personal details of a colleague's life.
• Flexibility. Though they agreed to only work 2 1/2 days a week, they consistently checked voicemail. They knew they would be more closely scrutinized so their follow through on important obligations and meetings was essential.
• Learn to live with risk. They knew they were not the office norm and were always up for reconsideration if it did not seem to work.

And finally the most important piece of advice:

Find the right job share partner! “If the fit is not perfect, it is not going to work.” Cynthia and Shelley took a Myers-Briggs test and found while opposite in most areas, they were similar in the way that was most relevant to their success “judging”.

“We’re both self-starting, systematic, and scheduled. We think that’s why our arrangement worked so well for us. If one of us were systematic and the other more laissez-faire, it’s easy to imagine that we’d have driven each other crazy. On top of that, we’re both very ambitious, with similar goals. We’re direct, and we both prefer to get issues onto the table rather than let them fester. And we’re persistent – we wouldn’t have gotten the job if we weren’t.”