Discussion points and feedback:
Is it appropriate to send a ‘blanket’ email to the team?
It is probably appropriate to make such a request if there is a business need and the request has come from senior management. In the scenario, Pam’s style of communication was perhaps a bit rigid and she appeared to be unaware that one member of her team had a contract which stipulates that he can work from home two days a week and already had a pre-approved holiday.
Pam should have been aware of her team’s requirements with regard to availability for work and should have considered the Communication principle of the Actuaries’ Code (Code) that states that “Members must communicate appropriately” and the Communication principle amplification where “Members must take reasonable steps to ensure that any communication for which they are responsible or in which they have a significant involvement is accurate, not misleading, and contains an appropriate level of information”. Pam could perhaps have tailored the email to individuals where pre-existing holidays were already honoured and any contractual agreements. She could also have been clearer in her communication in explaining what she meant by extenuating circumstances as this appeared to have caused some confusion with the team.
The Compliance principle states that “Members must comply with all relevant legal, regulatory and professional requirements” and this could also come into play here with regard to the contract that Ross has in place as Pam appears to be unaware of some of the contractual agreements that her team members have. It also suggests she might not be aware of HR policies that are relevant for her to know as a manager.
Was Pam acting professionally in her interaction with Saf?
The Integrity principle states that “Members must act honestly and with integrity” and “Members must show respect for others in the way they conduct themselves”. Whilst Pam likely believes she was respectful in the way she spoke to Saf, it could reasonably be argued that Pam was not being very respectful with regard to her flippant views in relation to religious festivals. Saf was having to justify the importance of the religious festival to him, and Pam was not showing consideration to his particular needs. Pam should have considered the guidance to the Code where it states that “The IFoA promotes diversity, equity and inclusion, and the development of a profession that incorporates people from a range of backgrounds. Members are encouraged to behave in a way that recognises and respects diversity and different cultures.”
The Impartiality principle states that “Members must ensure that their professional judgement is not compromised, and cannot reasonably be seen to be compromised, by bias, conflict of interest, or the undue influence of others of the Code” and this could come into play here, where Pam is perhaps quite biased with her held beliefs and could be seen to be superimposing her lack of religious views on Saf such that she’s unable to appreciate or understand where he’s coming from.
The Communication principle where “Members must communicate appropriately” is also a consideration with regard to Pam’s behaviour. Whilst she's generally courteous, she doesn't seem to be considering what she's saying and the impact that it has on Saf.
What can we infer about Pam’s awareness of the team’s requirements?
As the team manager, you would expect Pam to have an understanding of her team and their needs, particularly with regards to availability for work. Julie is a parent and has childcare needs and regularly asks for the half-term week off. So, it should not have come as a surprise to Pam that Julie would be requesting that week off. Ross has a contract whereby he’s entitled to work from home two days a week and has already had a pre-approved holiday as well – Pam did not appear to be aware of that and could potentially be in breach of contract by issuing a mandate that Ross has to come into the office all five days of the week. In the scenario, we don’t know why Ross works from home two days a week – it may be that he has a medical need, or perhaps carer needs, and Pam should be sensitive to that, as well as the legal implications of the contract in place.
Did team members act respectfully in this scenario?
Looking at the Speaking up principle, “Members should speak up if they believe, or have reasonable cause to believe, that a course of action is unethical or is unlawful”. the team spoke up quickly – there was discussion within the team and Saf went to Pam to discuss the situation. In terms of speaking up, they've done the right thing. Perhaps Julie could have pre-booked her holiday beforehand and Saf could have spoken to Pam a lot earlier about his wish to observe the Eid festival. However, there might be a reason why he didn't feel able to do that - there could be an issue with company culture So, it's quite understandable if they didn't feel they could speak to Pam earlier.
Was Pam’s approach to responding to the requests the fairest action?
It’s not appropriate for Pam to treat everybody exactly the same and refuse all holiday requests even though she may feel that is the fairest option. This option might be the easiest for Pam but it’s not necessarily the fairest in terms of being inclusive toward the members of the team.
The Impartiality principle amplification “Members must take reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of any relevant interests that might create a conflict” comes into play here. Pam could argue that she's treated all three different members of staff with the same equal treatment, however she is not taking equity into account by not considering the individual circumstances of the individual members of the team.
What could Pam have done differently?
In the first instance, Pam should have considered the Communication principle where “Members must take reasonable steps to ensure that any communication for which they are responsible or in which they have a significant involvement is accurate, not misleading, and contains an appropriate level of information” and perhaps spoken up to management to highlight the resource requirements before sending the email.
She could have had a two-way conversation with the team to discuss the situation and empower them, perhaps, to come up with some solutions and give some ideas. Pam could also have considered speaking to the members of staff on an individual basis.
Pam could have considered other resources from elsewhere in the organisation and perhaps asked Saf to help out with the planning of the work. She could also perhaps look to contract out the work and negotiate the deadline.
Of course, it might be that Pam didn’t feel empowered herself to challenge senior management, and therefore, passing on the responsibilities to the team.
In the role of manager, Pam needs to be able to talk to senior management about how they can find an optimal solution that balances the business needs, that the work can be adequately resourced and done to a high standard, but also respects individuals' needs as well. Pam needs to be aware that the Code is applicable, not only to the technical actuarial work that she does, but also to the managerial duties that she carries out.
