'There’s a balance that has to be made - you treat people like children or you're treat them like adults,' says academic highlighting benefits of employers being flexible
Recently, an employee who was fed up with the medical form required by his employer every time he was off sick, decided to describe his symptoms in “unnecessary and graphic detail.”
The employee then shared this story and his belief that his employer was “always paranoid about people faking sick leave” on Reddit Oct. 17, where the post went viral.
While the employer in question was in Finland, it’s an indicator of the risk of heavy-handed sick leave policies for Canadian employers as well and how employees might react to them, according to Ian Gellatly, professor of business at the Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta in Edmonton.
“We're a culture where we trust our employees, and to have all this documentation is basically saying is, ‘I don't believe you,’” says Gellatly. “What that employee did in the Reddit story is very much an anger response - I understand companies want accountability and they're tracking things, but you have to be careful because sometimes, getting compliance might actually demotivate people.”
Gellatly points to a fundamental disconnect where organizations may still require doctor’s notes or sick leave forms. However, the nature of work - especially in knowledge-based and hybrid environments - has shifted. Productivity is no longer measured solely by hours at a desk, but by outcomes and deliverables.
Mistrust breeds anger, disengagement
Policies designed to ensure compliance can backfire, breeding resentment and disengagement, and Gellatly believes that when employees feel mistrusted or surveilled, the emotional response can be anger or withdrawal - outcomes that undermine both morale and productivity.
As Canadian workplaces continue to evolve, the strategy over handling sick leave and employee information related to it brings a question of balance for HR leaders - the challenge is how to ensure organizational accountability without eroding trust or crossing privacy boundaries with employees.
Gellatly believes that traditional approaches to sick leave are increasingly out of step with today’s work realities.
“As we move more to hybrid work arrangements and digital workplaces, the whole idea of taking time off and getting a note from the doctor just feels very antiquated - and it's based on the model of you get paid for showing up and for time passed,” he says. “But if it’s project-based or remote work and someone feels sick in the morning, sleeps in and takes some Advil, then they’re fine by noon and can work into the evening and get everything done.”
Gellatly’s research into sick leave patterns in large organizations reveals that many absences are not strictly due to personal illness, such as parents with sick children.
“If you have a paid sick leave program and someone can’t phone in and say their kids are sick because the employee isn’t sick, they don't get paid - under the rules of the program they would have to call it sick, so often these rules encourage people to lie.”
Misalignment between workplace policy intent, employee behaviour
Gellatly believes that this dynamic not only skews absence data but also creates ethical dilemmas for employees. When rigid policies force people into dishonesty to access sick benefits, there’s a breakdown in trust and a misalignment between policy intent and actual workplace behaviour, he says.
As privacy concerns grow, especially around medical and personal information, HR leaders must tread carefully. While there are legal restrictions around which information employers are entitled to, companies have to tread a fine line even if they’re asking for information within those restrictions.
The boundaries between legitimate need-to-know and invasive overreach aren’t always clear, but the risks of crossing those lines - whether through excessive documentation, intrusive questioning, or broad data collection - are significant. Employees may feel exposed, vulnerable, or even violated, with lasting impacts on their relationship with the organization.
Flexible strategy for sick leave
So what’s the best strategic route? Gellatly advocates for more flexible, trust-based approaches.
“It might almost be better for companies to just give everybody flexible days for use for any reason and you don't have to play this game about following up with medical forms or notes that people can easily game and fabricate,” he says. “And it won't force employees to lie if someone wants to take a mental health day because they’ve been really stressed out - they can actually take one of those days without fear of losing money.”
Flexible sick leave policies recognize the complexity of employees’ lives and the reality that not all absences are about illness, and by focusing on outcomes rather than hours and trusting employees to manage their own time, organizations can foster a culture of honesty and mutual respect, according to Gellatly.
Of course, not every workplace or workforce is the same. He notes two fundamental approaches to HR – a control orientation versus a commitment to the goals of building high-performance work teams, with engagement levels and the type of work guiding which approach may work better.
“In my research, even during heavy flu seasons, there were some units where absenteeism just wasn't a problem for sick time, because people were totally engaged in the work and they felt if they took time off, they’d be letting someone down,” Gellatly says. “Where engagement and commitment are high, less control may be needed, but in more transactional environments, some accountability mechanisms may be appropriate - the key is to calibrate policy to culture and context.”
Shifting from surveillance to support
Ultimately, the tone of trust or strict compliance is set at the top.
“Easing off a little bit on the heavy compliance can help, because once people start to feel controlled and regulated, it changes the mindset and people start to think of it as just a job,” says Gellatly. “And I get HR is very much about this - rules and procedures and legal compliance - but too much of that can have unintended consequences.”
Gellatly suggests that by shifting focus from surveillance to support, organizations can unlock higher engagement and better results – and consider that trust isn’t just a value, but a strategy. By designing policies that respect privacy, recognize complexity, and prioritize outcomes, organizations can build the kind of cultures where both people and performance thrive, he says.
“There’s a balance that has to be made - you treat people like children or you're treat them like adults, and exhibiting some trust is a way of showing support and recognizing that people have complex lives and competing priorities,” he says. “By lightening up on the on the heavy-handed compliance, employees might respond in kind and see that as very supportive and trusting, and they'll give a damn about the work.”
