3 ms·

"We tried something that didn't fit our culture, and it didn't work." Taking less vacation time is not necessarily a bad thing. For myself, not having to meet

by chton 12y ago

"We tried something that didn't fit our culture, and it didn't work." Taking less vacation time is not necessarily a bad thing. For myself, not having to meet a minimum quota means I enjoy the vacations I do take more, since I take them when I need and want instead of mandatory ones. It means, as long as I'm feeling good, I can keep the momentum up. The bigger problems is that employees didn't respect others' vacation time. Or their own, for that matter. That is a cultural problem, and a change in vacation policy won't help (much). If you want the people in your company to be happier with their time off, work on respecting it. "The guilt of taking time off takes over, and you "just check in" or promise to be available if anything comes up." That is, to me, a sign of an unhealthy culture. Fix that before trying yet another vacation experiment.

unreal37 12y ago
It sounds like having an open vacation policy is what leads to not respecting those days off in others. Also, what the leaders do, the staff generally do. It sounds like a healthy place to work to me. I'd love to work there.
organsnyder 12y ago
What you're proposing is unlikely to work in many environments. Even in the best of environments, where trust and respect course through every coworker interaction, people will still be looking to their coworkers (especially their superiors) to get a feel for how much vacation time is acceptable. In fact, companies with exceptionally strong cultures may be worse, as people really won't want to be a burden on their coworkers by taking more vacation days than average. This is especially true for anyone with any sort of leadership role—whether it's an official senior position, a mentor, or just someone who is known for being a model employee. Your own behavior serves as a model for others, and no company policy is going to tell people any different. I work for a small nonprofit organization with an extremely dedicated president. She's been very gracious with the freedom she allows her employees (though the official policies could be better), but I'm always wondering if she thinks that I'm actually working hard enough—not because of anything she's said, but because she puts in a ton of hours. I know many of my coworkers feel the same pressure. If you're forced to take vacation time even when you don't need it, then try to find other pursuits—personal projects, reading, volunteering—that are still "work", but of the unpaid variety. Take the time to catch up with friends and family (especially if you have kids). Vacation doesn't just have to be about traveling and/or resting; it can also be an opportunity to catch up on other priorities.
- chton 12y ago
  I definitely agree that people in any form of leadership role serve as an example. They do on many more things than just vacation time. In general, that's one of the ways to influence culture, by being the best example of it. Conversely, if you don't act as an exponent of your own culture, it breeds a "do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere, which is just as negative as not trying to fix your culture. I also agree that people will look at their colleagues to know what is 'acceptable'. I don't now if that is inevitable. If it is, that makes the example roles all the more important to guide that. If your president would take more vacation time and worked the same hours as everybody else, the pressure on you would be lifted. I realize that might be difficult for her to do, but that is the effect it has. My problem with forced vacation time isn't the lack of work, it's that I don't need it. I already pay close enough attention to my work/life balance, so when I do take vacation time it's on my own terms. Being forced to meet a quota just means it feels like I'm wasting days that I could be productive doing the things I'm actually being paid for. Incidentally, since I've become a freelancer my vacation time that I actually want to take has gone up a bit. The situation is far simpler (either I'm working and I get paid, or neither), and not having to go through any official process or multitude of forms, means it's much easier to take the occasional day when I want it.
  - dasboth 12y ago
    "Being forced to meet a quota just means it feels like I'm wasting days that I could be productive doing the things I'm actually being paid for." But surely if you want to get your work/life balance right, you would naturally end up taking ~25 days off a year without feeling like you're forced to? I guess it varies from person to person.
    - chton 12y ago
      It does vary from person to person, and from job to job. For me, it's less than 25 days, on average. Others might need much more. I won't judge anyone for taking more vacation time, and I'll respect it as best I can. I just like having the option of not taking time if I don't want it :)
rmc 12y ago
> That is, to me, a sign of an unhealthy culture. Fix that before trying yet another vacation experiment. And one way to fix it is to give everyone lots of paid time off.
- chton 12y ago
  Is it? People will still feel guilty when taking time off, and it's possible that forcing people to take time off means the vacation time will be even less respected. "I won't bother that person, they'll need the time" vs "they're just making sure they meet the quota".
  - nekopa 12y ago
    But should time off happen only because 'they need the time'? How about having it so people don't get to the point of needing time off?
    - chton 12y ago
      Oh absolutely, I consider any time you take to stop yourself from needing more time off to be 'needed'. The goal is to stop long-term accumulation of stress, not to remedy it when it gets too bad.

by chton 12y ago

unreal37 12y ago

It sounds like having an open vacation policy is what leads to not respecting those days off in others. Also, what the leaders do, the staff generally do. It sounds like a healthy place to work to me. I'd love to work there.

organsnyder 12y ago

What you're proposing is unlikely to work in many environments. Even in the best of environments, where trust and respect course through every coworker interaction, people will still be looking to their coworkers (especially their superiors) to get a feel for how much vacation time is acceptable. In fact, companies with exceptionally strong cultures may be worse, as people really won't want to be a burden on their coworkers by taking more vacation days than average. This is especially true for anyone with any sort of leadership role—whether it's an official senior position, a mentor, or just someone who is known for being a model employee. Your own behavior serves as a model for others, and no company policy is going to tell people any different. I work for a small nonprofit organization with an extremely dedicated president. She's been very gracious with the freedom she allows her employees (though the official policies could be better), but I'm always wondering if she thinks that I'm actually working hard enough—not because of anything she's said, but because she puts in a ton of hours. I know many of my coworkers feel the same pressure. If you're forced to take vacation time even when you don't need it, then try to find other pursuits—personal projects, reading, volunteering—that are still "work", but of the unpaid variety. Take the time to catch up with friends and family (especially if you have kids). Vacation doesn't just have to be about traveling and/or resting; it can also be an opportunity to catch up on other priorities.

chton 12y ago
I definitely agree that people in any form of leadership role serve as an example. They do on many more things than just vacation time. In general, that's one of the ways to influence culture, by being the best example of it. Conversely, if you don't act as an exponent of your own culture, it breeds a "do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere, which is just as negative as not trying to fix your culture. I also agree that people will look at their colleagues to know what is 'acceptable'. I don't now if that is inevitable. If it is, that makes the example roles all the more important to guide that. If your president would take more vacation time and worked the same hours as everybody else, the pressure on you would be lifted. I realize that might be difficult for her to do, but that is the effect it has. My problem with forced vacation time isn't the lack of work, it's that I don't need it. I already pay close enough attention to my work/life balance, so when I do take vacation time it's on my own terms. Being forced to meet a quota just means it feels like I'm wasting days that I could be productive doing the things I'm actually being paid for. Incidentally, since I've become a freelancer my vacation time that I actually want to take has gone up a bit. The situation is far simpler (either I'm working and I get paid, or neither), and not having to go through any official process or multitude of forms, means it's much easier to take the occasional day when I want it.
- dasboth 12y ago
  "Being forced to meet a quota just means it feels like I'm wasting days that I could be productive doing the things I'm actually being paid for." But surely if you want to get your work/life balance right, you would naturally end up taking ~25 days off a year without feeling like you're forced to? I guess it varies from person to person.
  - chton 12y ago
    It does vary from person to person, and from job to job. For me, it's less than 25 days, on average. Others might need much more. I won't judge anyone for taking more vacation time, and I'll respect it as best I can. I just like having the option of not taking time if I don't want it :)

rmc 12y ago

> That is, to me, a sign of an unhealthy culture. Fix that before trying yet another vacation experiment. And one way to fix it is to give everyone lots of paid time off.

chton 12y ago
Is it? People will still feel guilty when taking time off, and it's possible that forcing people to take time off means the vacation time will be even less respected. "I won't bother that person, they'll need the time" vs "they're just making sure they meet the quota".
- nekopa 12y ago
  But should time off happen only because 'they need the time'? How about having it so people don't get to the point of needing time off?
  - chton 12y ago
    Oh absolutely, I consider any time you take to stop yourself from needing more time off to be 'needed'. The goal is to stop long-term accumulation of stress, not to remedy it when it gets too bad.