The world's shortest employee handbook

We've talked before about HR professionals' and lawyers' propensity to overwrite when it comes to employee policies. (See, for example, "A two-word corporate blogging policy.") We make a lot of money writing personnel manuals for clients. But a question we often ask is: "Do you really need one?" While it's understandable and appropriate for an employer to make sure that its employees know what the rules are, a comprehensive employee handbook with Hammurabiesque (admittedly, not a word you see often) edicts on employee conduct can cause more harm than good.

The most common downside to having a personnel handbook is the risk of unintentionally giving up management rights and creating inadvertent employee contracts (as opposed to "advertent" ones?). Caselaw abounds where companies have written handbooks setting out rules for employees to follow only to have a court conclude that the employer is also contractually obligated to follow the handbook. And many courts have held that the lawyerly disclaimer buried in the introduction ("Management reserves the right to blah blah blah ...") doesn't get the company off the hook.

Another problem with handbooks — this one cited less often — is the creation of an impersonal, rigid structure that encourages employees to "game the system." Employees are smart when it comes to getting what they want. If a policy creates a loophole that allows more time off if you call it "personal time" instead of "sick time," you will see a rise in personal-time usage. This is not my being cynical; this is my recognizing that employees, like all humans, are (often) rational actors.

Finally, a thick manual of dos and don'ts sends a message that you don't trust your employees, or that you consider them wayward children. (By the way, why do people think you pluralize the noun "do" with an apostrophe? You don't. Apostrophes make things possessive, not plural.) Some policies are important to spell out, like how vacation accrues. And some policies are legally mandated, like sexual-harassment policies (in many states). But too many policies are the result of HR and legal types hyperlegislating conduct in the workplace. For example, dress codes or bereavement policies that go on for more than a sentence or two. You're better off without this paternalistic nonsense.

For an example of policies run amok, check out the manual of Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University. The thing's so long that the table of contents is a set of hyperlinks. Do not read this while driving or operating heavy machinery. Here is the bereavement policy:

Staff members shall, upon request, be granted up to three (3) days annually of bereavement leave for the death of a parent, spouse, child, brother or sister, grand parents [sic], grand parents-in-law, grandchild, son or daughter-in-law, mother-in law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, step children, children-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first and second cousins. Other relationships are excluded unless there is a guardian relationship. Such leave is non-accumulative, and the total amount of bereavement leave will not exceed three days within any fiscal year. If additional days of absences are necessary, employees may request sick or annual leave, after providing an explanation of extenuating circumstances.

What about second cousins once removed? This is what an employee who just lost a loved one should be reading? This is the kind of stuff that gives HR and lawyers a bad name. (By the way, "grand parents" means mothers and fathers who are swell. I think they meant "grandparents.")

Now before my law partners lock me away, I should say that there are situations or workplaces that call for a comprehensive manual. And if a client really feels the need for a handbook, we'll prepare one that protects the client and conveys its wishes without all the silly stuff.

But for the strategic employer who views its workers as its most important asset and wants to promote an atmosphere of professionalism and trust, let me propose the world's shortest employee handbook:

"Respect others."

(Now, wait. Before you accuse me of breaking out the zither and the "Kumbayas," hear me out. As I've said many times before, our roles as HR professionals, employment lawyers, and managers all boil down to the notion of showing employees respect. It says here that disgruntled employees are just gruntled employees who have been dissed. (Convenient, huh?) Employees you don't treat with respect are the ones most likely to sue you (see the discussion on firing employees with "retained dignity"). And I'm not making these pronouncements based on a Pollyannaish view of the world. Instead, I'm making these observations based on 13 years of defending employers from lawsuits. End of self-defense bit.)

Think about it: what policies in your typical handbook can't be distilled into the two words "respect others"?

• Policies about harassment and discrimination and office romance are all about respecting coworkers.
• Policies about trade secrets and computer usage and even attendance are all about respecting the company.
• Policies about dealing with customers or answering the phone or about handling complaints are about respecting the customers.
• Even policies about drugs and alcohol are all about respecting yourself.

Employees who follow this Rule Number One (and Only) will be valuable members of your team. Employees who fail to respect others should no longer be, unless you feel they deserve another chance.

Two words. Think of how much paper you'll save.

I know I'm going to take some heat for this, especially from my own office ("Quit telling people not to hire us, you idiot!"). But I'd love to get a discussion going. Bring it on.

Comments

[Marty]

Respect others. While these two words certainly convey a nice sentiment and just as certainly won’t be construed as an employment contract, it’s hard to see how they supply meaningful direction to employees or managers. I include managers because while employers often see their manuals and policies as direction to the line-level people getting the work done, in practice the direction these documents provide their managers is often priceless.

Because so much of discrimination law is based on real and perceived slights and unfairness, an employer should always try to reinforce to management just how important fair and even-handed treatment is. In an employment environment such as Massachusetts, where the employer is strictly liable for the discriminatory acts of its managers and supervisors (yes, even if the employer had no knowledge of the offending conduct and took prompt, appropriate remedial action upon its discovery), the employer should always seek to invest more, rather than less time, effort, and energy in inculcating managers about appropriate behavior.

The directive “respect others” trivializes the good that properly conceived, well-written manuals and policies have on the culture of a workplace. Managers and employees look to these documents as guideposts for where the employer will allow them to tread. These documents also play a significant role in preventing the kind of behavior that every employer should abhor. Instead of replacing the manual and policies with “respect others,” why not make this the employer’s philosophy? Sure respecting others is key to gruntlitude (hey, you used "Hammurabiesque" and "advertent" in the same post), but let’s not lose sight of the larger picture--people, even managers, need guidance and examples. Employers should supply them.

[Jay Shepherd]

Marty's comment makes some excellent points, especially the part where "Respect others" should be the employer's credo. That's probably the single most important message throughout the entire blog. But that doesn't mean that it's unreasonable to expect your employees to understand what is meant by those two words. If your employees don't get that concept, they probably shouldn't be your employees. Having a workplace that follows this philosophy takes more, not less, time, energy, and effort than the alternative. That's the whole point. A two-word employee handbook is not for lazy managers; it's exactly the opposite.

Thanks for the great comment, and thanks for reading.

Best regards,

Jay

[Alexander Kjerulf]

Great, great post.

It reminded me of Nordstrom's personnel handbook which is one sheet of paper, that says

"Welcome to Nordstrom, here are the Nordstrom Rules:

Rule #1: In all situations, use your good judgment.

There will be no additional rules."

That's all you really need, isnt't it?

[James Mason]

Jay and others:

Y'know, there's an old saying. . .some gets it and some don't. One of the august writers (supra) clearly don't.

The writer says "employers should always try to reinforce to management how important fair and even-handed treatment is." No. Not at all. Not a bit of it. If "management" (whomever s/he is at the time) doesn't KNOW how important fair and/or even-handed treatment is (are), then you've hired the wrong management, and you need to cut them like a fourth-stringer during playoffs. The idea that you have some loose cannon of a manager running around who doesn't know in his/her "gut" how to be fair and even-handed makes me a little queasy, quite apart from that delicious, but quite unnecessary double-fried eggplant parmesan hoagie I had for lunch. . .that made me queasy from the get, but that's another story for another day, or at least for later.

But, to get back to the point at hand, I'm afraid that the writer is exactly the kind of person who most needs this blog. He writes "The directive 'respect others' trivializes the good that properly conceived, well-written manuals and policies have on the culture of a workplace. No. It doesn't. First of all, culture derives from the meaning that the members of an organisation ascribe to the various features OF the organisation. Things don't HAVE a meaning until organisational members make it so. A manual, memo, list, or token has only the meaning that the members "say" it has, regardless of its indexical meaning; the paradox, of course, is that the lexical meaning is always carried in the Members' heads; teasing it out is tricky at best; usually impossible, under the best circumstances.

Second, if these documents DID have a role in reducing, minimizing, or preventing the kind of problems that cause problems of the type that make poor L/E attorneys RICH L/E attorneys, I'd like the the writer to explain to me how there seems to be an inverse correlation between the amount of paper devoted to Policy and Procedure Manuals in Large Complex Organisations and the amount of litigation to which they seem to be exposed.

Even poor Nordstrom, which, admittedly, got its warm and fuzzy butt in a jam, has had comparatively less trouble, even adjusting for size, sales, employee count, and all them there other factors, than any other major retailer, particularly in comparison to, oh, say, well, something-something-mart, for example.

I think the point has been stated best, and most clearly above as well. . .if your employees, and, for Marty's sake, let's extend it to managers, since I guess it wasn't clear, although I can't imagine it, that Managers too are employees. . .. .

Let's do it this way. . .if anybody who works for the company, at all. . .anybody at ALL, doesn't understand the concept of "respect others" in every applicable way, shape, form, and substantive manner, then they shouldn't work for the company.

If it makes anybody feel better, I suppose one could put that policy UNDERNEATH the first policy, like this:

CORPORATE EMPLOYEE POLICIES:

1. RESPECT OTHERS.

2. IF YOU DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU DO NOT, OR CANNOT, RESPECT OTHERS, YOU WILL NO LONGER WORK FOR THE COMPANY, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

3. WELCOME ABOARD. THAT IS ALL.

I'm sure someone will find fault with the language, but you get my point.

Jay's point, I think, and mine too, is that we spend too much time navel-gazing, and not enough time managing work. We don't even manage people. . .we've become managers of litigation-defense, and that sucks.

Warm Regards,

James.

p.s. One of my favourite jokes involves the word disgruntled, a pig, and a certain surgical procedure. . .I think you can guess the punch line. . .but every time I think of this blog, it makes me laugh.