4 ms·

These advice column problems always feel a little bit like a strawman argument designed to make it easy for the reader to dunk on the person asking the question

These advice column problems always feel a little bit like a strawman argument designed to make it easy for the reader to dunk on the person asking the question. The quip about not having leverage over the employee is poor phrasing, at best. That said, the advice delivered is good. Specifically: > But the point is to have an honest conversation with Jean when this stuff comes up — here’s what she wants, here’s what you need, and is there a path forward that works for everyone? If there’s not, that’s okay. Like most of these situations, the solution is to have an honest conversation with the person and lay out clear expectations. Many of these problems arise when people are too timid to address the elephant in the room. In this case, the issue is that the employee has no qualms with leaving the job for a month on short notice without coordinating with the employer. Having employees who come and go as they please (specifically excluding medical and family emergencies out of their control) is not a great situation. I don't mind coordinating leaves of absence with employees in advance, but it requires some two-way communication and planning. If an employee decides to take spontaneous, extended leave (again, excluding emergencies and other situations out of their control) without first coordinating it with us, I would strongly consider transitioning the relationship to a contractor arrangement. Keep in mind that this impacts the entire team's workload. If one team member disappears occasionally, the rest of the team will have to pick up the extra work to cover for her. Ask yourself how you'd feel if one of your coworkers disappeared for months at a time because they felt like it and you were asked to cover part of their workload. Not great for team morale. The other issue with these situations is that it sets a precedent: If one employee disappears for a month because they decided not to work for a few weeks, you're in a tough spot next time someone else wants to do the same thing. If you let this employee come and go as they please but refuse to allow someone else to take voluntary leave, it's not a good look. Don't give people one-off allowances unless you're ready to give the same allowance to anyone else who asks.

ricardobeat 5y ago
I’m thinking, why would you refuse a month of unpaid leave to anyone at all? Surely hiring someone new is way more expensive and takes longer than a month.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  You need to plan for this and it sets a precedent. This company has 4 employees; 25% of the whole workforce suddenly missing for a whole month is probably not easy to handle and definitely not something you want to establish as okay.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    You’re assuming you’ll still have the employee if you refuse. The point is that once you have no leverage over employees (because their livelihood doesn’t depend on the job), you cannot establish what is not or not okay on your own.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      > You’re assuming you’ll still have the employee if you refuse. If the employee quits, you're in this situation once (and you'd be in it anyway). If you allow it and set a precedent, you might end up in this situation far more often and with worse consequences if you decide to change your mind. > The point is that once you have no leverage over employees [...], you cannot establish what is not or not okay on your own. Sure you can. You just need to find people that are okay with what you're okay with (and the same thing in reverse, of course). I don't think leverage works in this case either way. If you have employees that are willing to let you stand in the rain and sabotage your business [0], you need to find new ones anyway. Leverage only let's you avoid the inevitable for a small bit in exchange for burning a bridge. [0] I'm not saying that this is necessary the case in OPs scenario, but it plausibly might be.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  If their work is isolated and can be paused while they're gone, it doesn't matter. Well, other than dropping productivity for that duration. But for most of us, we're operating as part of a team. Our duties don't stop when we're gone. They have to be covered by someone else. If I'm disappearing for a month, the rest of the team will have to pick up the slack and do my job for me. This might be okay if you're working on mythical man-month projects where the work can be redistributed and deadlines pushed back at will, but at most companies it just means everyone else has to work harder to cover. If someone wants to come and go for months at a time, it's better to restructure their employment as a contractor and provide the work in contractor-sized blocks. Full-time employees are expected to make an effort to be available full-time for the team's sake (excluding emergencies and such)
Sebb767 5y ago
> The quip about not having leverage over the employee is poor phrasing, at best. I actually think she handled this quite well. She shortly pointed out that this is not a good way to phrase our think about things, but then she actually discussed the real underlying problem of the employee possibly leaving on short notice.

ricardobeat 5y ago

I’m thinking, why would you refuse a month of unpaid leave to anyone at all? Surely hiring someone new is way more expensive and takes longer than a month.

Sebb767 5y ago
You need to plan for this and it sets a precedent. This company has 4 employees; 25% of the whole workforce suddenly missing for a whole month is probably not easy to handle and definitely not something you want to establish as okay.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  You’re assuming you’ll still have the employee if you refuse. The point is that once you have no leverage over employees (because their livelihood doesn’t depend on the job), you cannot establish what is not or not okay on your own.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > You’re assuming you’ll still have the employee if you refuse. If the employee quits, you're in this situation once (and you'd be in it anyway). If you allow it and set a precedent, you might end up in this situation far more often and with worse consequences if you decide to change your mind. > The point is that once you have no leverage over employees [...], you cannot establish what is not or not okay on your own. Sure you can. You just need to find people that are okay with what you're okay with (and the same thing in reverse, of course). I don't think leverage works in this case either way. If you have employees that are willing to let you stand in the rain and sabotage your business [0], you need to find new ones anyway. Leverage only let's you avoid the inevitable for a small bit in exchange for burning a bridge. [0] I'm not saying that this is necessary the case in OPs scenario, but it plausibly might be.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
If their work is isolated and can be paused while they're gone, it doesn't matter. Well, other than dropping productivity for that duration. But for most of us, we're operating as part of a team. Our duties don't stop when we're gone. They have to be covered by someone else. If I'm disappearing for a month, the rest of the team will have to pick up the slack and do my job for me. This might be okay if you're working on mythical man-month projects where the work can be redistributed and deadlines pushed back at will, but at most companies it just means everyone else has to work harder to cover. If someone wants to come and go for months at a time, it's better to restructure their employment as a contractor and provide the work in contractor-sized blocks. Full-time employees are expected to make an effort to be available full-time for the team's sake (excluding emergencies and such)

Sebb767 5y ago

> The quip about not having leverage over the employee is poor phrasing, at best. I actually think she handled this quite well. She shortly pointed out that this is not a good way to phrase our think about things, but then she actually discussed the real underlying problem of the employee possibly leaving on short notice.