Note to self: Stop trying to make subtle points with humor in the Pit. The ones that need it never get it.
Curious how this thread has spent so much time on menstrual debates, isn’t it? I guess that’s human nature, but in an attempt to nudge it back to Guin’s original rant (OK, and to try to reduce the TMI level), I’ll toss out a couple of pennies.
We all know that there are as many leadership and management styles out there as there are leaders and managers. I’ve spent the last 20 years in various leadership positions in both the public and private sectors, but have also made something of a study of ledership techniques themselves.
My observations (and that’s all I’m basing this on; skip to next post if you’re not awed by my credentials) are that, like most aspects of leadership, time-off policies can be lumped into two categories, or schools of thought. I should probably find more even-handed terms for them, but I think of them as the Short View and Long View.
Managers who take the Short View look no farther than the most immediate benefit/disadvantage; in this case, the work schedule. They, or someone working for them, has spent considerable time and effort getting the schedule “just right,” and I’ll be the last to deny that it’s a real drag when something happens to throw a wrench in the works. It’s worse when the notice given is short or nil, as is usually the case with illness. Beside the scheduling headaches, these absences adversely affect customer service (longer queues, missed commitments), cost (overtime for the fill-in), and sometimes morale. For a business to compete, all of those have to be minimized, which is of course the manager’s job. If it wasn’t difficult, we’d have high school interns handle it (they work almost as cheaply as I do!). Looking at the Short View only, a manager would be a fool to grant any time off he/she didn’t absolutely have to. “Denied! Resubmit in 30 days for further denials!”
The Long View manager understands those short-term impacts, but also looks ahead to other consequences. I mentioned most of these in my earlier post, but didn’t really draw attention to them. As they’re (still) fairly self-evident, I’ll continue to just list all but two: preventing contagion of other workers & customers, preventing poor customer service, and maintaining workplace safety (illness reduces reaction time). In addition, encouraging slightly ill workers to come in can cause illnesses to go untreated (even if the only “treatment” denied is rest), inviting longer absences. Incidentally, I apply the same rule of thumb to life events like moving, day care crises, etc. I’d rather give you a day off now to get your affairs in order than have you distracted for the next two weeks.
However, it’s been my experience that the most important factor in deciding time-off matters is employee morale (note that this is the only one listed under both views). It’s true that allowing a given employee excessive time off can have a negative impact on the rest of the team. But this must be balanced by the positive effect it can have on the employee in question. If applied consistently and with common sense, a liberal policy spreads this positive effect across the team, more than negating any bad vibes. It’s important to be clear about communicating this. I inform all employees that I am in fact quite willing to grant sick/personal days, and will mostly rely on their judgement of when they need them. In return, I expect that they’ll honor my requests for overtime or extended hours, relying on my judgement for when that’s required. I’ve had very good results with this policy, and have found over time that having my subordinates willing rally when I really need them more than offsets the occasional hiccup in my schedule due to being understaffed.
Finally, I wanted to address the point several Guinastasia critics made about abuse of time off. It happens, and it’s a problem. But I disagree that the solution is to “fix” the problem with a draconian policy for granting sick leave. Invariably, those who abuse time-off policies have poor work ethics. The overwhelming percentage also usually have other performance problems as well. Therefore, the best approach is to performance manage (I had to get in at least one management buzzword) these folks so that they either change their performance or leave the company.
In short (too late!), if you’re one of the poor souls who works for me, I really don’t need to hear how many ccs of fluid have passed out various orfices lately, and it’s not relevant how your cramps or headache compare to a swift kick in the nards. I don’t even care if you can’t make it in because your ex slashed your tires or you need to get Grandpa in a new nursing home because the old one burned down. If I can’t trust you to make adult decisions and take your job as seriously as I do, I’m gonna can your ass and find someone who will.
