To be conflicted over this decision

[lemonss]

I manage a small team of about 6 people. All the team are part time and as such their hours are specifically chosen to cover me at all times (not a choice of mine I inherited the team like this).

We had a new starter in January who agreed to work specific hours. A couple of weeks in he asked if he could change hours so that he could finish earlier. In January I was told that this could be done so offered for him to start and finish earlier.

He has now come back to me and asked if he could split his hours over more days and work about 3-4 hours a day.

Now I really like this person. They are a fantastic worker and have fitted in with the team really well. They are good at their job and have a lot of experience.

However I'm worried about whether I should grant this request. Personally I'm a bit put out that they agreed to hours then asked to change them, then when changed have asked to change them again. Will this become a pattern? I also as stated above have very specific hours to make sure I'm covered and this is going to potentially cause some issues with that but nothing major.

On the flip side I understand the reasons that he is asking for a change is to cover school hours and a partner getting a new job.

My manager has said it is my decision and I'm finding it really tough.

AIBU to find it hard to come to a decision? Is it clear cut situation?

I would agree if it is convenient but put it in writing that this was to be the last change. I suspect he will find those hours to be a pain and want to change to do some longer days and have days off so be clear you will not be changing them again ever/for at least X months.

Just be wary of starting a precedent with others. People will always try it and use the 'but X is allowed to do that' line.

Does it meet the business need?
If so, setting a precedent doesn't mean you have to do the same for others but it could put pressure on you so consider it. Equally good people are hard to get. Have you asked why he keeps changing his mind?

Surely if the pandemic has taught us anything about working it’s that this kind of thing doesn’t actually matter?

If it doesn’t cause an insurmountable business issue let him change. If he wants to change in 3 weeks time again... does it matter?

If they're good, and it meets the business need, do it but put it in writing they can't request another change of hours for the next 12 months.

@AppleKatie this is why I'm torn. However it will be inconvenient and the chances of them being as productive in 3 hours compared to 7 are slim

Three things really - what’s your flexible working policy say about two different requests within a short amount of time? Also does it meet business needs and what would happen if others asked for similar? If you’re worried about how productive he’d be you could say it’s a temporary change and will be reviewed in a certain number of weeks and if it’s not working he’ll need to go back to normal hours. I’d state that your worry is being less productive so he knows what you’ll be reviewing

What does the flexible working policy say? I think most say only one request every 13 months.

12 months even.

You could always give him a trial?

So he started in January, and in that time his partner has started a new job with different hours. How fixed are her new hours? Will they change again? To ask twice in under 6 weeks would really concern me. As others have suggested if you're happy to agree this time I'd stress that it's the last time.

I would agree if it is convenient but put it in writing that this was to be the last change

You are legally allowed to ask for a flexible working arrangement once every 12 months.

[quote lemonss]@AppleKatie this is why I'm torn. However it will be inconvenient and the chances of them being as productive in 3 hours compared to 7 are slim [/quote]
Why not?

Humans can only concentrate effectively for about 20 minutes a time anyway, so what difference does it make if someone completes their workload in two sessions of 3 hours or one session of 7?

One could argue he would be more effective working shorter sessions without the fatigue tail off from a longer working day.

It's still very early days and you're already saying he is a "fantastic worker". This is still the honeymoon period!
I would be wary of possibly being accused of favouritism though of course if everyone else is 100% happy with their working hours perhaps not.

But what about all the rest of your team? What about their wishes and preferences?

What is the importance of the cover? Does it mean by him changing hours youbwont ever be able to have a Wednesday afternoon as leave (for example) without someone else changing their hours? If that was the case then I'd probably say no - or at least ask him to see if someone else will swap the hours so the time is still covered. You don't want to make it too difficult for yourself going forward.

Depending on the job, I wouldn't be overly concerned with how productive the person will be in 3 hours. You'd rather have someone who's 100% focussed for 3 hours than 50% focussed for 7 hours. If they're a good worker and do the job well, you accommodating their request would go a long way in goodwill- you're likely to have a happy, loyal colleague who feels appreciated/valued as you're taking their needs into consideration etc.

If you're unsure,try the new hours on a trial basis. If you're concerned that this will mean more changes will be requested by the same person, make it clear that if you do authorise the new hours it's only because you value them and every job has an initial adjustment period etc but more changes are unlikely to be considered favourably.

As you say, you inherited the team and hours. Maybe a change might be beneficial in ways you've not thought of.

Tricky...

I don't think I'd have the balls to ask for two big changes to working hours so close together, not after agreeing to specific hours.

If it's doable your end without much trouble then I'd be tempted to acquiesce but with a written point about no more changes to hours for x amount of time.

I disagree about being productive in 7 hours but less in 3... I find a majority of people work harder for shorter bursts of time than one long slog

@LittleOwl153 if I accommodate it would mean, unless I am given budget to recruit, that I could never take holidays on Thursdays and Fridays or do anything away from the office (my role travels a fair bit). Although obviously not ideal I appreciate that I am the manager and therefore would have to make some sacrifices.

@Dalooah I like the idea of a trial basis I think I've been hung up on this for so many days now that I didn't even think of that!

I find the idea of better for 3 hours interesting. The job itself is based on projects with tight deadlines. As such it would mean that I could never assign him a project anymore as it just wouldn't be achievable in the times he would work. He would have to become a more back office role doing the day to day bits of the job

This has red flags for me.

He was employed six weeks ago on one set of hours, you have changed them once and now are being asked to change them again.

Go back to the start - what is the business need - when do you actually need (not want) him to work? What hours were in the job advert/contract? What hours is he now asking to work? Where there is a mismatch how would you cover the other hours? Would you be prepared to ask other team members if they could change their hours so you still have cover? If this means you would be without cover then this is a no go.

Unless you have a policy that differs from the legislation he is only entitled to make one request a year and needs to have worked for 28 weeks before making a request.

It’s not reasonable to apply for a job that wants you to work 8 hours Monday to Wednesday and then immediately say you can only work Thursday to Saturday.

If you are able to accommodate the changes then a bar on requests for 12 months is reasonable. I would also consider a three month trial period first as I would not be surprised if he wants to change again.

It sounds like you have pretty solid reasons to say no. I wouldn’t say no on principle or say he won’t be productive. Just look at the real reasons you think it won’t work.

if I accommodate it would mean, unless I am given budget to recruit, that I could never take holidays on Thursdays and Fridays or do anything away from the office (my role travels a fair bit). Although obviously not ideal I appreciate that I am the manager and therefore would have to make some sacrifices.

Personally I think this is enough of a reason to deny the request

Overlapped with pp and your response.

Absolutely ridiculous to agree to something where you or one of the team could never take leave on a Thursday or Friday.

I would say no, it’s not convenient for the business and even as a manager, you shouldn’t sacrifice your ability to take days off just to accommodate other people. You presumably recruited him to work a specific pattern, it’s not unreasonable to ask him to abide by that.

I mean this kindly but being a manager means having to develop a bit of an attitude of putting the business, and the need of the whole team, above the wishes of one person.

After your update about the potential consequences, I think you'd be mad to allow this request! He could never be given a project!

(Let alone your holiday situation!)

You need to say no. Hes only been with the business 6 weeks and has requested to change hours twice??
You have a legitimate business reason to turn the request down, the employees need to balance out the needs of the business and his request doesnt fit that criteria.

With your update I think you should say no. He can't do his assigned work effectively and you can't ever have a week holiday, or go to a wedding/funeral etc.

You could maybe offer temporary flexibility for say 1 or 2 months to acknowledge the current difficulty in getting childcare etc, but that runs the risk he won't want to change back.