A surefire way to make some
bosses see red is by applying for leave. For some strange reason, most
organizations are averse to granting leave to employees though the charter of commitments
spells out a provision for the same. An employee has often to resort to
nefarious excuses to avail of his rightfully earned leave which more often than
not is sanctioned grudgingly by the employer or the boss. This only serves to
sour an agreement which is designed to be mutually beneficial. Leave was a
concept arrived at after a very rational scrutiny of what encourages the
optimum performance of an employee. It originated as a periodic getaway from
the daily grind so that the employee comes back with a fresh and rejuvenated
approach to his work. To facilitate his
efficient functioning, slots were also provided for an occasional ‘casual’ take
off and for sickness or an accident. In spite of this thoughtfully planned schedule, why does taking leave become
a bone of contention? The key word is ‘planning’. Every employee owes it to his
organization to communicate well in advance his intention to avail of his
‘privilege’ or ‘earned’ leave. Most people like to use this for a holiday with
a family or for a quiet, restful sojourn at home. Once the head of the
department knows when his staff plans to ‘take off’ he can tailor his requirements
at work accordingly and delegate duties so that the smooth functioning of the organization
is not disrupted. The boss must use his discretion and ensure that the same
person does not always get the best bargain. If there is a tie of requirements
of equal urgency, perhaps a viable split can be suggested. The intention should
be to accommodate everyone’s preference as fairly as possible, without
detrimental consequences to the organization. This is possible only by
coordinating the requirements of the various departments and drawing up a
practical schedule. Some organizations offer the incentive of encashing leave,
thereby defeating the purpose of the whole exercise. There are many employees
who consistently encash leave and forfeit a chance to ‘get away’. The
organization may welcome this ‘dedication’ but in the long run it will only
harm the employee. He should be persuaded to take leave at least once in two
years. He will then be a better asset. As for those ‘casual’ days off, employees must
assume the responsibility of taking advantage of the privilege when genuinely
in need rather than just claiming the right to stay away. A sudden illness or
any other unforeseen contingency may account for an un notified absence, but
these are extreme cases which can be appreciated. By and large, there is a tendency to stay back
for trivial reasons. A little more
commitment is called for. A phone call
to the boss shows consideration and a sense of responsibility, as do instructions
to the secretary or a junior regarding pending matters to be tackled. It is a
good gesture to let the office know where one can be contacted just-in-case. It is indeed in bad taste to send oneself
telegrams stating “Mother ill – come soon.” It is best to be truthful and take
leave only when you have to or need to. As for the employer – let him grant
leave gracefully. When the situation is non-threatening and employees are not
made to feel that the organization is out to do them out of their dues, they
themselves may be less demanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment