A Couple Days Off

The question came up a couple of days ago after a death in our family about why so many employers are as rigid about bereavement leave as they are. My wife works for an organization that allows time off in the event of the death of a family member, including parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, children, and step- and in-law versions of all of the above; however, many (perhaps most) employers will only recognize the original versions of these people (not in-laws or step-relatives), and some limit this benefit to “immediate family” – e.g. parents, children, or spouses. Why on Earth would anyone be such a hard case as to deny someone who has just lost a grandparent – or a step-parent – time off of work?

It’s tempting to assume that this sort of policy is the result of managers who are either too lazy to work out a more enlightened method or too mean-spirited to try to work with their people instead of treating employees as the enemy. Some people would point out that given a liberal bereavement leave policy, there are workers who would experience a loss every Monday before work – or at least claim to have done so, in order to gain more paid time off.

As usual, this issue is a bit more complicated than it initially appears to be. What is really at the heart of the matter is the question of whether employees are inherently lazy (and will avoid work if they can), or whether employees may also be ambitious and self-motivated. In management science, these two concepts are called Theory X and Theory Y, and were first suggested by Douglas McGregor at MIT in 1960. Theory Y is often considered to be the practical application of the Humanistic School of Psychology developed by our old friend Abraham Maslow (see my prior ramblings about the Hierarchy of Needs).

It’s worth noting that McGregor himself did not claim that either Theory X or Theory Y were in any way “correct” descriptions of humanity in general; indeed, he believed that both of them were merely generalizations applicable to SOME employees, and hoped that managers would investigate both sets of beliefs as a means of developing new and better management strategies. The fact is that some people will take advantage of any system and abuse any benefits offered to them, while others will attempt to work within the system and take only those benefits to which they are legitimately entitled. It is the manager’s job to keep the Theory X people in line, just as much as it is to make sure the Theory Y people take the leave to which they are entitled (not refuse it “for the good of the company”).

Ultimately, policy can not replace the work of the management team, no matter how liberal or employee-friendly that policy happens to be. One large company I worked for had no set leave policy of any kind – sick leave, bereavement leave, and family leave were all purely at the discretion of the management team at the local level. Only vacation time was computed according to a set formula, and even then, scheduling was at the manager’s discretion. It takes an extremely capable manager to handle that kind of responsibility without creating bad feelings, conflicts or lawsuits, but I can tell you for a certainty that no one in my work group or my division was ever denied a few days off to be with their family in a time of loss…