A bridge too far?

It was our staff who suggested, partly in jest perhaps, that our firm should introduce a take-as-much-holiday-as-you-like scheme. The suggestion came when Richard Branson was receiving publicity for introducing such an approach with his own private staff in September 2014.

The assumption was that
it wasn't an idea we'd even consider, but we did and are now almost half way through the trial period for the scheme. Some careful thought was required but we believe we've developed a model which can work for the business and for the staff while, of course, complying with employment law.

The underlying principle of the scheme is a desire to become legal employer of choice in our region and, as part of that, to give our staff greater flexibility in terms of work/life balance and to be more outcome focused.

Flexible approach

People are encouraged to take the time off that they feel they need, subject to having respect (one of our core values) for the workloads and holiday plans of others working in their team and the requirements of our clients.

In addition to holiday, this also gives greater flexibility in the case of bereavement because there is no longer a set allocation for compassionate leave. With bereavement as with holiday, different individuals have different needs in order to be happy, focused, and productive in their working life.

Everyone is, of course, required to take at least the statutory minimum amount of annual leave. At the other end of the scale the internal guidelines make it clear that if anyone feels they are consistently year-on-year able to manage their work while taking vastly more holiday than previously, then actually the full-time nature of their role might be called into question.

What we are seeking to achieve is flexibility, particularly for those who have 'once in a lifetime' type opportunities, such as a honeymoon in Australia.

Working smarter

Sceptical onlookers have questioned whether, in
fact, people will feel they
should actually take less holiday each year because they are being judged on this. If they
do, I will be disappointed; the culture we are seeking to promote is one of trust, innovation, and productivity - working smarter rather than spending more time in the office. Also, everyone is of course required to take at least the statutory minimum.

What we may well see, however, is people no longer extending their Christmas break in order to 'use up' holiday days which they 'don't want to lose', safe in the knowledge that
they can take more time the following year instead if that suits them better.

We also expect to get requests for slightly longer breaks in special circumstances, or perhaps for a few more days in a year when someone does something like moving house which, although requiring them to be away from the office, is usually stressful rather than relaxing.

Externally, we've had a lot of positive feedback, in particular from recruiters, and others outside the legal profession.

Internally it has been an interesting mix: wholehearted enthusiasm for the ethos of progress in some quarters tempered by an abundance
of questions about the practicalities in others. In every organisation there are some people who welcome and are excited by change and others who find adjustments harder, even if they are potentially positive. Similarly there are some who always look at the
big picture while others focus on the detail.

What has become clear is
that introducing a trial period to give everyone a chance to 'try before they buy' was the right way to go.

The consultation period
runs until the end of October, at which point we will canvass staff opinion, which we anticipate will still be mixed, and assess the feedback. The task then will
be to adopt whichever policy, on balance, suits the majority opinion and is most in keeping with our 'employer of choice' agenda. SJ

Edward O'Rourke is CEO of Ashton KCJ | @AshtonKCJ

Copyright & permissions