Pandemic Policies Don’t Have to Be Fatal

It happened last year. We had just briefed our new client on the range of policy issues worthy of consideration in a Pandemic Plan.

The taskforce leader leaned back in her chair, looked up at the ceiling, paused, then said with a sly smile, “So if the pandemic doesn’t kill us, chances are our policies will.” A very clever turn of a phrase, but, we assured her, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Pandemic policy realities

All pandemic planning taskforces know the policies loom large, but many seem unsure about how to tackle them. It’s helpful to know several things:

• You can’t do it on your own. Resolving gnarly policy issues is impossible without the input of the CEO and the executive committee. The sooner you get their priorities and points-of-view, the faster you’ll be able to get started.
• The answers to these policy questions obviously have to be “legal.” (See the article in this GUIDE by attorney Joseph McMenamin, M.D., J.D.). Still that, as they say, is necessary but not sufficient. More often than not, changes or contingencies hinge on your company’s strategic imperatives, culture and values, state of employee relations, and financial limits.
• Context is everything. The solutions do not reside outside of your firm. Copying others – competitors or best-of-breed companies – simply won’t work because your decisions have to be based on your company-specific factors, i.e., your values and balance sheet are not likely to be the same as even your most direct competitor.
• Adding to the challenge are layers of intrinsic complexities and sensitivities like ethics, internal equity, implied social commitments, community standing, and brand protection.
• Some policy issues can’t or won’t be resolved until the actual circumstances of the pandemic play out. That shouldn’t preclude robust scenario planning now, e.g., if this level of illness, mortality, absence, or company cash-flows occurs, then these are the most likely policy alternatives. Put in multiple choice options to facilitate real-time decisions. If you don’t contemplate such alternatives now, your organization is likely to make bad, if not catastrophic, decisions in the crisis.

Specific policies to consider

There are a whole set of “public health” policies to resolve – require seasonal flu shots, dispense antiviral medication, isolate people at home, etc.? But my sense is most planners are keenly aware of those, so we’ll focus on the so-called “HR” policies.

Here’s a sampling of the kinds of HR questions virtually all organizations need to address:

• Do you have to pay people who don’t report to work for various reasons – like no transit bus service or random civil unrest? No.
• Can an employee refuse screening (e.g., having temperature taken at work each day)? No. Indeed, you can fire them if they refuse.
• Can you send someone home who has the essential symptoms? Yes.
• Do you have to pay them? No (although they are entitled to whatever leave benefits the company provides).
• What happens if they run out of medical leave? The same as now – they run out.
• Is the company obligated to extend the medical leave because of the nature of the crisis? No.
• Do you have to pay people who were quarantined en masse and aren’t ill? No – if they’re not working.
• Can you ask people who are home sick to attend to some work matters. Yes.
• Can select managers or “critical” talent get incentive pay during the crisis even though others in the same department are not? Yes.
• Can the firm pay incentives to those who have to report to work (vs. those who can work at home)? Yes.

I’ve run through a few of these issues to illustrate the solutions are not technically ambiguous, that is, it is not particularly hard to determine the legal answers to these policy questions. The point is, having those legal answers is not a planning solution or outcome. You, for example, might want to be more generous. But the answers to every policy question need to be “pressure-tested.” Is it in the strategic interest of the company? Can we afford it? Can we still retain the talent we need?

Process tips

Now that we’ve demystified this a little, here are some tips:

• People working on this should include representatives from the operating side, finance, legal, various HR pay, benefits, and administration specialists, someone with strong employee relations instincts, and an exceptional communicator.
• Identify the policies that may need attention. You can come at this in two different ways: simply and quickly pick the pertinent policies or subject areas or think up all the various kinds of circumstances the company might encounter. I recommend a combination – identify the policy or topical areas and then generate all the things that might occur. (In a recent workshop, we generated 14 pages of what-if-scenarios related to HR policies.)
• Capture the input of leadership. Either get their input early in the process or wait and present a draft of your suggestions. I strongly recommend the former. But you need to prepare. For each of your main policies and topical issues, identify a range of possible responses with some ballpark costs associated with them. Then meet with the executives. It can be a workshop of sort. Take them through the issues one by one and see what they say. Keep it real. Direct their attention as necessary to strategic priorities and cost realities against the implications for employee relations, talent retention, and perhaps community reactions.
• In drafting the recommendations, there should be “need” and/or “intent” and a mini-business case for every policy change that you propose. If, for example, you believe medical leave should be extended, then specify the “trigger(s),” define your assumptions, and put a price tag on it. Similarly, albeit more subjectively, raise the employee relations/morale/commitment issues associated with each recommendation.
• Have the specialists first report to the taskforce with outlines of their recommendations. With your comments and feedback, they then can flesh out all of the provisions in detail.
• Insist on as much specificity as possible. Where something might go two or three different directions, play all of them out as much as you can. (The pandemic plan of one of the 10 most prominent companies in the world says the firm will “consider extending medical leave.” That is not useful. It is virtually meaningless.)
• Communicating an employee-centric version is crucial. Explain the purpose, specify the essential points, and emphasize the rationale/fairness.
• Keep the leadership team apprised of developments – especially new or unanticipated issues – as the work unfolds. Seek their interim feedback as appropriate. There should be no surprises for them when you report back.

Conclusion

Know that you have to sort it out for your own organization – copying won’t work. Start and end with leadership. Be as detailed as possible. It’s infinitely easier to do serious thinking now than when your EVP is out sick, a third of your staff is missing, and IT hasn’t fixed your computer for three days.