Flexibility or fragility? Ambivalences of temporary agency work in German Early Childhood Education and Care

Conditions, arrangements, and functions of temporary agency work in ECEC

Before addressing the complexities of agency work, it is important to outline the fundamental conditions, contractual agreements, and operational principles that define the daily experiences of temporary agency employment in ECEC. Based on interviews with agency workers, executives, and centre managers, this section explains how agency work is organised in Germany, the incentives and challenges involved, and its role in the broader ECEC system. Most educators are formally employed by the agency itself, often under permanent contracts that guarantee a basic salary even during assignment gaps. Placement at childcare centres varies from short-term substitutions of a few days to assignments lasting several months. Final placement decisions are typically made by the agency, although individual preferences, such as age groups or regional location, are sometimes considered.

I have a permanent contract with the agency. Even if there is no assignment for a week, I still get my base salary. That gives me a feeling of security. (Agency worker, Interview 02)

To enhance their attractiveness in a competitive labour market, agencies offer a range of financial incentives, including overtime pay, travel reimbursements, housing allowances, or even company cars. Such benefits compensate for the uncertainties of frequent mobility. At the institutional level, managers confirm that agencies often respond to acute shortages caused by illness, parental leave, or long-term vacancies. Requests are usually made under crisis conditions when teams are already stretched thin. Agency employment thus functions as a stopgap to maintain legally mandated staff–child ratios and prevent closures. Assignments are also characterised by a functional division of labour. Agency staff focus primarily on direct pedagogical work with children, while permanent staff carry administrative duties, communication with parents, and long-term planning.

I'm there for the children. I don’t attend meetings or do paperwork. That’s all for the permanent. team (Agency worker, Interview 03)

This division, while pragmatic given the temporary nature of agency work, also shapes perceptions of responsibility and value within teams. In general, the findings highlight a fundamental paradox: Agency employment enables practitioners to remain in the profession by offering relief, flexibility, and recognition. However, it also introduces new forms of insecurity, interchangeability, and fragmentation, as will be shown in more detail below. Thus, the motivations to join an agency are inseparable from the accompanying challenges. From a broader perspective, these dynamics illustrate the systemic weaknesses of standard employment models in ECEC. Push factors, such as administrative overload, rigid scheduling, and insufficient pay, represent structural deficits that drive practitioners away from permanent positions. The pull factors—flexibility, financial incentives, and relief—are precisely the elements missing from conventional contracts.

Comparing agency employment and permanent positions

Interviews with agency workers reveal that they structure their experiences through continuous comparisons between agency employment and permanent positions. These comparisons illuminate individual preferences and structural differences in how work is organised, valued, and experienced in German ECEC. Four dimensions stand out in particular: workload distribution, financial and contractual conditions, professional identity, and team belonging. A recurring theme in the interviews was the perceived imbalance of tasks. Agency workers consistently reported relief from administrative and organisational duties, which allowed them to focus on direct pedagogical practice. This contrasted with their experiences in permanent positions, where documentation, parent meetings, and staff coordination consumed large portions of their time. The interviews also revealed significant differences in financial and contractual terms. Many agency workers reported higher hourly wages and additional benefits. This contrasts sharply with the standardised pay scales of permanent employment under collective agreements. One worker said,

I earn more now and don’t have to do all the extra work. In my old job, there was no chance to reach this level of pay. (Agency worker, Interview 06)

At the same time, agency contracts were often less secure. Short-term assignments and fluctuating schedules created uncertainty. Permanent positions, on the other hand, offered greater stability, predictable income, and clearer career paths. For some workers, agency employment was thus a trade-off of sorts: higher pay and autonomy in exchange for long-term security. Another important dimension was professional identity. Agency workers said they felt more aligned with their pedagogical vocation in their temporary roles because they could focus on teaching rather than administrative duties.

I feel more like an educator again. In my permanent job, I was drowning in paperwork. Now, I can really practice my profession. (Agency worker, Interview 05)

However, this sense of professional authenticity was accompanied by a loss of recognition. Agency staff were often excluded from team meetings, long-term planning, and parent communication, which weakened their sense of belonging and professional standing. In contrast, permanent employees enjoyed greater recognition as central figures within their centres, even at the cost of heavier workloads. Belonging to a team emerged as a key differentiator. Agency workers often described themselves as outsiders—welcomed briefly, but never fully integrated. Permanent staff, by contrast, were deeply embedded in team dynamics, long-term planning, and relationships with children and parents. This integration provided stability and professional continuity but also tied them more tightly to institutional hierarchies and conflicts. The juxtaposition of agency and permanent employment illustrates a fundamental trade-off: agency work offers flexibility, financial incentives, and relief but lacks security, recognition, and belonging. Permanent employment ensures stability, institutional integration, and recognition, though often at the cost of administrative burdens, rigid structures, and modest financial rewards. Theoretically, this comparison exemplifies the tension between individualisation and institutionalisation in professional life. Agency work reflects individualised strategies for autonomy and self-preservation, whereas permanent positions embody institutionalised career paths that privilege stability and collective responsibility.

In my permanent job, I spent half the day at the computer. Now, as agency staff, I can finally focus on the children again. (Agency worker, Interview 03)

This comparison underscores that neither model fully meets the needs of practitioners or institutions. Agency work addresses deficits in permanent positions, such as rigidity, administrative overload, and low pay, but introduces new challenges of insecurity, interchangeability, and fragmentation. Permanent positions offer continuity and professional recognition, but they can lead to alienation through inflexibility and overwork. Therefore, the findings suggest that sustainable reform in ECEC cannot rely on either model alone. It requires a hybrid approach combining the benefits of both: the flexibility, relief, and recognition of agency work and the stability, belonging, and professional integration of permanent employment. Agency work functions as a stabilising mechanism during acute staff shortages but also amplifies systemic weaknesses. It prevents closures and ensures compliance with staff–child ratios, yet exposes the inadequacy of permanent employment systems to meet practitioners’ needs for flexibility, recognition, and manageable workloads. Agency executives acknowledged this dual role: while presenting their services as indispensable for stabilising institutions, they also admitted that their business thrives on deficits within the permanent employment model.

We step in where the system fails. Without us, many centres would have to close groups. But, honestly, if permanent jobs were more attractive, we wouldn't be needed as much. (Agency executive, Interview 01)

Navigating tensions: Agency work and professional identity in ECEC

Using our triangulated research design, we reconstructed not only explicit assessments of agency work but also the implicit orientations guiding practitioners, managers, and institutional stakeholders. Combining qualitative content analysis of interviews with reconstructive methods applied to group discussions captured both lived experiences and the collective logics underlying them. Two core tensions emerged. First is the tension between agency work and permanent employment: agency staff are perceived as indispensable for maintaining operations yet also as sources of irritation within permanent teams due to differences in pay, responsibility, and integration. The second tension lies within agency work itself. While agency employment offers flexibility, reduced administrative burdens, and autonomy, it also loosens professional structures, collegial belonging, and long-term identification with pedagogical teams. These ambivalences, reconstructed through our methodological approach, form the analytical backdrop for the following discussion of the learning potential agency work holds for permanent employment systems.

Flexibility versus insecurity

One of the most significant findings of our study is the ambivalence surrounding flexibility and insecurity in temporary agency work. Although agency workers consistently emphasise the advantages of having more control over their schedules and vacation planning, these benefits are often offset by the structural insecurity of short-term contracts, unpredictable assignments, and limited career prospects. The following section explores this ambivalence, integrating the perspectives of agency workers, centre managers, and agency executives. Many interviewees described the ability to arrange working hours and vacation more freely than in permanent positions as the main reason for choosing agency work. Those with family responsibilities, additional care obligations, or a strong need for work-life balance emphasised that agency contracts gave them a degree of autonomy that permanent employment could not offer.

I can decide when I want to take time off. If I need to be at home for my child or for a relative, I can coordinate that with the agency. In my old job at the centre, that was hardly ever possible. (Agency worker, Interview 07)

Younger practitioners also valued this flexibility, as they rejected the expectation of long-term institutional loyalty. For these individuals, agency work enables a more personalised career trajectory, including the opportunity to gain diverse experiences in various pedagogical settings.

I like the variety. Every few months I get to know a new team, a new concept, new children. It keeps me motivated. (Agency worker, Interview 05)

Agency executives confirmed that flexibility is their strongest selling point when recruiting staff. Many applicants, they noted, are motivated less by higher pay than by the promise of individualised scheduling and the option to avoid weekend and evening shifts. Yet the advantages of flexibility are closely tied to structural insecurity. Many workers reported receiving assignments shortly before starting, making long-term planning difficult. This uncertainty affects both personal life and professional development. Contracts are often short term, and opportunities for career advancement within agencies remain limited.

It’s good for me now, but I never know where I’ll be next month. Sometimes I get my schedule only a week in advance. That makes it hard to plan my own life. (Agency worker, Interview 12)

ECEC centre managers confirmed that this pattern of mobility creates instability at the institutional level. While agency staff provide short-term relief, the lack of continuity complicates team development and undermines the stability of child–adult relationships.

They help us to keep the group open, but we can’t rely on them in the long term. Parents notice when faces change all the time. For the children, too, it’s difficult. (Centre manager, Interview 04).

Interestingly, some managers and union representatives portrayed flexibility as a privilege for agency workers that comes at the expense of permanent employees. While agency workers can decline assignments or negotiate schedules, permanent staff are bound by institutional timetables and collective agreements. This asymmetry often creates resentment within teams.

The agency people can say no if they don't like something. My staff can’t. That creates tensions because the permanent team feels like they always have to pick up the slack. (Centre manager, Interview 02)

At the same time, not all agency workers perceived flexibility as a privilege. Some described it as a risk of dependency. In order to maintain good relations with the agency, they felt pressured to accept assignments, even when conditions were not ideal.

In theory I can say no, but in practice I don’t. If I refuse too often, I’m afraid they won’t call me again. (Agency worker, Interview 09)

This reveals the fragile balance between autonomy and dependency. While agency workers enjoy more freedom than permanently employed colleagues, this freedom is conditional and embedded in structural precarity. The tension between flexibility and insecurity is a core feature of individualised employment models. According to Beck (1986) as well as Voß and Pongratz (1998), the ‘labour entrepreneur’ is marked by autonomy, mobility, and self-determination but must also bear risks once absorbed by organisations or the welfare state. In ECEC, agency workers embrace flexibility to cope with structural strains, yet this strategy simultaneously exposes them to new forms of insecurity. The findings further reveal tension with established quality standards. While flexibility may meet practitioners’ needs, frequent staff turnover undermines process quality—particularly continuity in child–adult relationships and stability of team collaboration. Thus, the promise of flexibility collides with the systemic requirement for reliability and stability that underpins professionalisation in ECEC.

Relief coupled with a loss of belonging

A second major ambivalence emerging from the empirical material is the simultaneous experience of relief and loss of belonging in temporary agency work. On the one hand, agency staff emphasised the relief of being exempt from administrative and organisational tasks. However, this exemption often leads to exclusion from pedagogical planning, team processes, and relationships with parents and children, producing a sense of detachment and marginalisation. Many agency workers described the reduced administrative workload as one of the most attractive aspects of agency employment. Documentation requirements, parent meetings, staff planning, and internal reporting were repeatedly identified as stress factors in permanent positions. By contrast, agency work was perceived as enabling a return to the ‘core’ of the profession—direct pedagogical interaction with children.

Finally, I can really do what I became an educator for. I am with the children, I play, I observe, I support them. And when my shift is over, I go home. I don’t have to sit in the office at night writing protocols. (Agency worker, Interview 03)

Another interviewee put it this way:

The best thing is: I don’t have to do all the extra stuff anymore. No endless staff meetings, no parent evenings. That gives me the energy to focus on the children. (Agency worker, Interview 10)

This sense of relief was articulated not only as a personal benefit but also as a means of professional preservation. Several workers described agency employment as a way to avoid burnout and sustain motivation for their work as educators. However, relief from administrative duties often brings a sense of disconnection. Agency workers reported frequent exclusion from team meetings, pedagogical planning sessions, and long-term decision-making. While some welcomed this exclusion as reduced responsibility, many experienced it as a barrier to professional integration.

When the important things are discussed, I’m not there. I just get the plan for the day, but I don’t know the background. Sometimes I don’t even know why a child behaves in a certain way—because I wasn’t part of the conversations. (Agency worker, Interview 08)

From the perspective of centre managers, this pattern is partly inevitable due to structural factors. Due to the temporary nature of assignments, leaders often exclude agency staff from long-term planning, fearing inefficiency, or continuity issues. However, managers also acknowledged the negative consequences: excluding agency workers can disrupt communication and create additional burdens for permanent staff. Another consequence of this exclusion is the limited involvement of agency staff in relationships with parents and the long-term development of children. Although agency workers often interact closely with children daily, their temporary status prevents them from developing deeper, sustained relationships. Parents may also view agency staff as interchangeable and not trust them with sensitive matters.

I’m there for the children, but I know I won’t see them grow up in this centre. That hurts sometimes, because relationships are the most important part of this job. (Agency worker, Interview 06)

Another temporary worker puts it this way:

Parents often don’t approach agency staff. They wait for the permanent colleagues, because they know we won’t be here for long. That makes you feel replaceable. (Agency worker, Interview 09)

Centre managers corroborated these difficulties, observing that the continuity of relationships—a pivotal component of process quality—is eroded when staff members frequently change. The relief-belonging ambivalence also manifests in team dynamics. Permanent staff members have been known to perceive agency workers as being exempt from the ‘less desirable’ aspects of the job, which can result in resentment and a perception of unfairness.

They do the fun part—playing with the children. We do the paperwork, the parent meetings, the stress. That creates tension. (Permanent staff, reported by centre manager, interview 02)

From a theoretical standpoint, this ambivalence exemplifies a fundamental contradiction. The alleviation of administrative burdens can be interpreted as a form of professional reorientation: agency workers regain the pedagogical essence of their profession. Conversely, the loss of belonging erodes the very dimensions of professionalisation that depend on reflective practice, collaborative teamwork, and relational continuity. Regarding the relevant quality frameworks, this ambivalence affects both structural and process quality. Structurally, agency workers help maintain staff–child ratios and prevent closures. Yet in terms of process quality, their limited participation in team activities and long-term relationships undermines the continuity and reflective nature of pedagogical work.

Financial incentives and unequal workloads

Another ambivalence characterising temporary agency work in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is the tension between financial incentives and unequal workloads. Agency work is often perceived as more financially attractive, offering higher wages and overtime benefits, sometimes supplemented by perks such as housing allowances or company cars. However, these advantages generate resentment among permanent staff, who bear heavier administrative responsibilities for lower pay. This dynamic strains team cohesion and raises questions about fairness, recognition, and the sustainability of agency employment within ECEC. For many agency workers, leaving permanent positions was strongly influenced by the prospect of higher income. Several interviewees noted that agency contracts enabled them to earn significantly more than in public sector roles, often with fewer responsibilities.

I earn almost 20 percent more than before. And I don’t have to do all the paperwork or parent meetings anymore. Honestly, I don’t see why I should go back. (Agency worker, Interview 06)

Others emphasised the flexibility of overtime arrangements, which enabled them to accumulate hours and then take extended periods of leave. This possibility was framed as both a financial and lifestyle benefit.

If I want to travel, I just work more in advance. The agency pays for the extra hours, and then I can take a whole month off. That was never possible in my old job. (Agency worker, Interview 11)

Agency executives confirmed that financial incentives are central to their recruitment strategy. While not all agencies offer fringe benefits, some provide housing support, company cars, or bonuses to attract and retain staff in a highly competitive labour market. This asymmetry creates tension and undermines the morale of permanent employees, who may feel undervalued despite greater responsibilities. Interestingly, not all agency staff reported lighter workloads. Some were placed in challenging groups or expected to perform multiple tasks simultaneously because they were seen as ‘extra hands’ in times of crisis. This indicates that workload distribution is highly context-dependent: while some agency workers experience relief, others are disproportionately burdened. In both cases, the perception of inequality persists—whether in pay versus responsibility or task allocation versus integration.

From a theoretical perspective, this ambivalence underscores the conflict between market logic and professional standards. Market mechanisms reward agency workers with higher wages driven by scarcity and competition, whereas permanent employment structures are bound by collective agreements and standardised pay scales. This discrepancy undermines equal treatment and threatens the solidarity upon which professionalisation in ECEC depends. The imbalance also affects structural and process quality. Structurally, agency staff help maintain staff–child ratios and prevent closures; yet process quality suffers when permanent staff shoulder disproportionate administrative and relational tasks while agency colleagues remain peripheral. The unequal distribution of responsibilities fosters intra -team conflict and limits opportunities for collective reflection and sustained pedagogical development. The ambivalence of financial incentives versus unequal workload highlights the delicate balance of fairness and recognition in ECEC employment relations. For agency workers, financial benefits and lighter duties provide short-term relief and satisfaction, whereas for permanent staff, these same advantages generate resentment, heavier burdens, and a sense of devaluation. Managers are caught between these positions: they rely on agency staff to stabilise operations but must also manage the resulting team tensions. Thus, agency work operates simultaneously as a temporary remedy and a source of new inequalities.

Experienced autonomy, structural dependency

A final ambivalence regarding temporary agency work in early childhood education and care concerns the tension between autonomy and dependency. Agency workers often describe their employment as empowering, feeling liberated from rigid hierarchies and able to avoid conflicts with supervisors. They also value the freedom to choose or reject assignments. However, this autonomy is structurally limited, as agency staff depend on placement decisions, contractual frameworks, and the financial strategies of their agencies. This paradox underscores the balance between individual freedom and structural precarity in flexible employment models. Many agency workers emphasised the personal and professional autonomy they experienced after leaving permanent positions. They appreciated negotiating their own schedules, working with preferred age groups, and avoiding institutional politics.

If I don’t like a centre, I can just say I don’t want to go back. That gives me a freedom I never had before. (Agency worker, Interview 11)

This autonomy was often presented as a means of preserving professional motivation. By distancing themselves from administrative duties and institutional hierarchies, workers felt they could reconnect with the pedagogical essence of their roles. However, the autonomy of agency staff is conditional. They ultimately depend on their employer for assignments and have limited ability to reject placements due to the risk of losing income or being overlooked for future opportunities.

In theory I can say no, but in practice I don’t dare. If I refuse too often, I’m afraid they won’t call me again. (Agency worker, Interview 09)

This dependency was also observed by centre managers, who noted that agency staff often lacked real influence over their professional trajectory.

They say they are free, but in the end the agency decides. It’s not real autonomy—it’s a different kind of dependency. (Centre manager, interview 03)

An additional dimension of this ambivalence pertains to the isolation that can accompany autonomy. Agency workers reported a dichotomy, indicating that while they derived satisfaction from the autonomy afforded by operating outside the constraints of traditional institutional hierarchies, they concurrently expressed a yearning for the stability and camaraderie that are hallmarks of permanent teams.

I can avoid the conflicts, yes. But I also miss being part of a real team. Sometimes I feel like I don’t belong anywhere. (Agency worker, Interview 10)

A similar observation was made by ECEC managers. Agency staff members frequently exhibit a lower level of engagement in collective processes. This phenomenon preserves their independence while concomitantly reducing opportunities for integration and professional growth. Agency executives articulated this ambivalence in divergent ways. The company’s leaders underscored their function of harmonising employee preferences with client demands, thereby depicting themselves as arbiters rather than overseers.

We try to match our staff with the right centres. Of course, sometimes we have to persuade them to take an assignment, but we always keep their wishes in mind. (Agency executive, Interview 01)

Nevertheless, even agency representatives acknowledged that structural dependency is an inherent part of their business model: without a steady flow of placements, workers cannot sustain their income.

From a theoretical standpoint, this ambivalence reflects the labour-entrepreneur paradox described by Voß and Pongratz (1998). Agency workers embody self-directed flexibility while internalising the risks of precarious labour markets. Their autonomy is both real and constrained: they may experience day-to-day freedom, yet remain structurally dependent on agency decisions and fluctuating demand. This ambivalence also affects process quality. Autonomy can strengthen motivation and focus on core pedagogical work, whereas dependency and frequent reassignment undermine continuity, reflection, and stable child–adult relationships. Autonomy thus conflicts with systemic demands for reliability and long-term engagement. For managers and permanent staff, this ‘freedom’ often appears as a subtler form of subordination. Agency work is therefore less a straightforward path to empowerment than a set of trade-offs between individual freedom and structural dependency. Addressing this dilemma requires expanding autonomy within permanent contracts—through flexible scheduling, participatory decision making, and recognition of individual preferences—without shifting risk onto practitioners.