"Flexible time off"

[throwittoblythe]

I'm really enjoying this discussion. If anyone is interested, check out "Under New Management" by David Burkus. There's a whole chapter on this topic. He also talks about all the new things companies are trying like: pay people to quit, getting rid of open offices, and having parties for people when they quit.

Back to the topic at hand...the challenge with these programs is the implementation. It works in an idealistic sense. If you have a trust-based culture that is based on collaboration and not competition, it should work. If not, people get resentful and/or start to abuse the program. It's not about how many hours you work, its about what you feel works for you for balance. It's an effort to create a uniform, individually based policy (which is an oxymoron)

I'm in favor of these programs. I take the approach that someone previously said: if I've got my stuff up to date and no one else needs help with anything, then I'm heading out for the day. However, I do recognize these only work with the right kind of culture in place.

 

[19clone91]

Our office is small, but we dont do PTO or any type of time management. People take the time off they need to get their work done, whenever that is. The rest of the office helps out to make that happen. I know it wouldn't work for big corporate settings, but it honestly works better than any PTO or FTO system in small-office settings. As long as you hire responsible people, nobody abuses the system. I might take 4 weeks off one year and then only 2 the next year, all depends on my work load and what types of vacations / trips I want to take.

 

[stormchaser2014]

So what's the difference between PTO and FTO?

PTO is Power Take Off and FTO is Field Training Officer.

 

[Tre4ISU]

This seems good and I hope everyone goes to this in short order.

I have a theory on work hours: If your ****'s done, GTFO. Now, obviously at places like a bank or somewhere with office hours for customers there has to be someone covering people walking in, but it seems ridiculous that people can't work their ass off for four and a half days and take Friday afternoon off.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Our office is small, but we dont do PTO or any type of time management. People take the time off they need to get their work done, whenever that is. The rest of the office helps out to make that happen. I know it wouldn't work for big corporate settings, but it honestly works better than any PTO or FTO system in small-office settings. As long as you hire responsible people, nobody abuses the system. I might take 4 weeks off one year and then only 2 the next year, all depends on my work load and what types of vacations / trips I want to take.

I would think a loose vacation policy would be a great test for incoming employees. I bet you would get a really good indication of how good that employee is within 6 months at the most.

 

[agrabes]

I look at it more like this: I have project X to do. Project Y is on the horizon but isn't able to be started until next Wednesday. I finish project X today at noon. If I want, since I have my project completed and no outstanding task, I can take off at noon today and take off Monday and Tuesday. Not irrelevant, rewarding to people who get their stuff done.

For me personally, going to that type of system would be horrible. I have dozens of projects which I am responsible for, lined up from now until 2020 and beyond. Even if one project may reach a lull where I don't have any immediate tasks I can do without work being done by others, there are always other things that need doing. It seems like if there is an employee who has the capability of regularly completing work and having days where they have nothing to do, they need to take on more work or their department is overstaffed.

If my work ever went to that type of system, I'd probably get to take 2-3 days off per year. I can't think of a time when there has not been a task I could be doing. I definitely prefer them to define the amount of time that they are OK with us taking off, because work will always be there.

 

[cloneu]

I also work at Principal, previously I was at a larger company that transitioned senior management to FTO and I was expecting the whole company to be there soon enough. I would expect a lot of large companies will be making this move.

Personally I don't think this will make much of an impact on me. I have a very flexible manager and my job work is flexible 80% of the time. Will I take more time off then I am accruing right now? Most likely. Will Principal still get the same productivity out of me? Yes. (more time golfing and less time on CF and ESPN at my work desk) The problems will come from people that have DB managers that don't want to adapt to a changing workplace.

As a newer employee at Principal I have minimal banked PTO and constantly use it up. People that have been here longer have a ton of PTO. This type of switch is geared towards millennials and how younger people want to work. Less structure and more freedom. Which involves not sitting at a desk for 40+ hours a week when there isn't a need to be. And that flexibility goes beyond working 40 hours Monday-Thursday so you don't have to come in on Friday.

A 58 year old may not like it, the same way they won't like neighborhood setups that are coming to Principal and most larger companies. And to a degree I don't blame them as they have accrued PTO over the years with the thought it was something that would always be there and would have a monetary value to them someday.

Yes there are the financial benefits that Principal will get from this as well. That is probably the driving reason senior management first considers this type of change, but is far from the only reason. Combine financial savings with being more attractive to the next generation of workers and it is pretty obvious why a growing number of companies are making the switch.

http://time.com/money/4070275/unlimited-vacation-policy/

 

[throwittoblythe]

For me personally, going to that type of system would be horrible. I have dozens of projects which I am responsible for, lined up from now until 2020 and beyond. Even if one project may reach a lull where I don't have any immediate tasks I can do without work being done by others, there are always other things that need doing. It seems like if there is an employee who has the capability of regularly completing work and having days where they have nothing to do, they need to take on more work or their department is overstaffed.

If my work ever went to that type of system, I'd probably get to take 2-3 days off per year. I can't think of a time when there has not been a task I could be doing. I definitely prefer them to define the amount of time that they are OK with us taking off, because work will always be there.

That's why this only works in the right company culture setting. In your case, your employer would have to buy in to the fact that they can't work you like that and expect you to be productive. Eventually, you would just burn out and quit. If your company recognizes that we all need time off to rejuvenate ourselves, they would help you find resources to lighten your workload (or off load) to others so you can take time off.

It's about trust and about a team approach. If you say "I need 2 weeks off at the beginning of December" your team would, ideally, say "ok, we can cover that" and its done. Instead of your boss saying "well, you already used your 2 weeks of PTO this year, so I'm sorry it's not possible."

I've worked for 3 companies now and I've never had anyone ever say "no" to a PTO request. So, if they never say no, what's the point of having a policy in the first place?

 

[throwittoblythe]

Yes there are the financial benefits that Principal will get from this as well. That is probably the driving reason senior management first considers this type of change, but is far from the only reason. Combine financial savings with being more attractive to the next generation of workers and it is pretty obvious why a growing number of companies are making the switch.

It's not just the bottom line $ that they might make by people actually using less time off than is in the policy. There's also the fact that if you no longer feel obligated to be in the office for a minimum of 40 hours, the time you do spend working will be much more productive. It's a paradigm shift that people, particularly those later in their careers, might struggle with.

 

[Gunnerclone]

That's why this only works in the right company culture setting. In your case, your employer would have to buy in to the fact that they can't work you like that and expect you to be productive. Eventually, you would just burn out and quit. If your company recognizes that we all need time off to rejuvenate ourselves, they would help you find resources to lighten your workload (or off load) to others so you can take time off.

It's about trust and about a team approach. If you say "I need 2 weeks off at the beginning of December" your team would, ideally, say "ok, we can cover that" and its done. Instead of your boss saying "well, you already used your 2 weeks of PTO this year, so I'm sorry it's not possible."

I've worked for 3 companies now and I've never had anyone ever say "no" to a PTO request. So, if they never say no, what's the point of having a policy in the first place?

That's where I find this model sinks. I don't want other people to be able to cover everything that I do for two weeks exactly as if it were me doing it. That makes me dispensible.

 

[capitalcityguy]

My wife is transitioning at her workplace into this type of FTO system (from PTO).


As some have mentioned, from the company’s standpoint, this is a good financial move as it takes all the unpaid liability off the books (i.e…the unused PTO that employees bank).

For people who have individuals who report to them, I think their job just got harder. With no bank of PTO basically keeping track of hours taken off/hours available, you now have to start weighing subjective factors to determine if you are OK with the time off your employees are taking.

In the employee communication she got, it basically came out and said, “we want people to generally shoot to take a minimum of three weeks off a year….but some may take five or six…that’s fine.”

Eech. . I know I personally wouldn’t want to be a leader and have to manage to something that squishy. You know that unless your employee is a superstar and can somehow function at a high level taking 6 weeks off a year, they are going to get dinged at raise time as they won’t be producing nearly as much as the person who generally only take 2 or 3 weeks a year. I guess that is fine for all parties involved as they are getting paid for the chosen tradeoff in life/work balance. The problem: people aren’t always the most rational in trying to access who is getting what and why.

 

[isufbcurt]

The problem I see and I ran into this at a previous employer:

I am a efficient worker and got my projects done well and timely. A co-worker wasn't efficient and messed around thus they were always behind and wanting help with their projects (even though their workload was already less than mine).

In an ideal setting I would be free to leave because my work is complete, but in reality you get guilt tripped into helping the person who is behind so you essentially get penalized for being a good worker.

And yes this is first hand experience and one of the big reasons I started working for myself.

 

[Judoka]

It's not just the bottom line $ that they might make by people actually using less time off than is in the policy. There's also the fact that if you no longer feel obligated to be in the office for a minimum of 40 hours, the time you do spend working will be much more productive. It's a paradigm shift that people, particularly those later in their careers, might struggle with.

If you think that people aren't going to be obligated to spend a minimum of 40 hours still I've got a bridge to sell you. Especially for anyone who works in an industry that bills your hours to a customer, which is a lot of industries.

 

[mdk2isu]

My wife is transitioning at her workplace into this type of FTO system (from PTO).


As some have mentioned, from the company’s standpoint, this is a good financial move as it takes all the unpaid liability off the books (i.e…the unused PTO that employees bank).

For people who have individuals who report to them, I think their job just got harder. With no bank of PTO basically keeping track of hours taken off/hours available, you now have to start weighing subjective factors to determine if you are OK with the time off your employees are taking.

In the employee communication she got, it basically came out and said, “we want people to generally shoot to take a minimum of three weeks off a year….but some may take five or six…that’s fine.”

Eech. . I know I personally wouldn’t want to be a leader and have to manage to something that squishy. You know that unless your employee is a superstar and can somehow function at a high level taking 6 weeks off a year, they are going to get dinged at raise time as they won’t be producing nearly as much as the person who generally only take 2 or 3 weeks a year. I guess that is fine for all parties involved as they are getting paid for the chosen tradeoff in life/work balance. The problem: people aren’t always the most rationale in trying to access who is getting what and why.

Slightly different scenarios, but at WF, people who have been employees for 10+ years get 28 days of PTO a year, or just short of 6 weeks. From personal experience, I can tell you that I produce just as much if not more than the majority of my co-workers who have been here less than 10 years. I wouldn't classify myself as a "superstar" by any mean, just someone who is able to execute my job at a high level efficiently.

 

[mdk2isu]

The problem I see and I ran into this at a previous employer:

I am a efficient worker and got my projects done well and timely. A co-worker wasn't efficient and messed around thus they were always behind and wanting help with their projects (even though their workload was already less than mine).

In an ideal setting I would be free to leave because my work is complete, but in reality you get guilt tripped into helping the person who is behind so you essentially get penalized for being a good worker.

And yes this is first hand experience and one of the big reasons I started working for myself.

Doesn't this happen regardless of which time off system is in place?

 

[Rabbuk]

The problem I see and I ran into this at a previous employer:

I am a efficient worker and got my projects done well and timely. A co-worker wasn't efficient and messed around thus they were always behind and wanting help with their projects (even though their workload was already less than mine).

In an ideal setting I would be free to leave because my work is complete, but in reality you get guilt tripped into helping the person who is behind so you essentially get penalized for being a good worker.

And yes this is first hand experience and one of the big reasons I started working for myself.

Group projects just always suck, from elementary school to adulthood.

 

[isufbcurt]

Doesn't this happen regardless of which time off system is in place?

Yes but it seems like it would be easier to exploit in this situation. With normal PTO if you know you want to take days off you can schedule them ahead of time. With this it seems less formal.

 

[capitalcityguy]

The problem I see and I ran into this at a previous employer:

I am a efficient worker and got my projects done well and timely. A co-worker wasn't efficient and messed around thus they were always behind and wanting help with their projects (even though their workload was already less than mine).

In an ideal setting I would be free to leave because my work is complete, but in reality you get guilt tripped into helping the person who is behind so you essentially get penalized for being a good worker.

And yes this is first hand experience and one of the big reasons I started working for myself.

That is a failure in leadership, not the system. Also, I assume you were compensated at a better rate as well and received bigger raises.

 

[throwittoblythe]

That's where I find this model sinks. I don't want other people to be able to cover everything that I do for two weeks exactly as if it were me doing it. That makes me dispensible.

This may sound harsh, but all of us are dispensable. Apple didn't shut down when Jobs died. Berkshire-Hathaway will be fine when Buffet dies. I would think those two guys are indispensable, but they're not. The question I ask is "would I be missed if I were gone?" Sure, someone could do my job, but can they do it in a way that works well within the team? I've quit 2 companies. Both of them are doing just fine without me, but if you asked the teams I was part of, they would welcome me back with open arms. It's not only about what you do, but how you do it.

Also, recognize that when you take extended time off, it's an opportunity for growth for your team. If you do everything all the time and then take some time off, they have to step up. It's great for your rest and their development. Then, you can do the same for them down the line.

 

[isufbcurt]

Group projects just always suck, from elementary school to adulthood.

What I was describing wasn't a group project. It was each person assigned their own clients but if you got your stuff done early you better help the slacker or you end up being the bad employee.