Yesterday I spoke with the head of a project portfolio. He was on vacation.
He spent most of the meeting explaining why doing a little work during time off is normal. Checking what is happening, joining discussions, staying informed. That way, you do not have to catch up on everything when you return. And, he said, it does not tire him out.
I was at that meeting too. So this text is about me as well.
The logic makes sense: a little attention now saves time later. But this calculation can easily account for our own convenience while overlooking the consequences for the team and the company.
“I'm not tired.” But have I recovered?
We often judge working during vacation by how tiring it feels. If answering is easy, everything must be fine.
Yet the absence of noticeable fatigue does not tell us how much recovery we have gained.
A meta-analysis by Ryan Grant and colleagues, published in January 2025, combined 32 studies. Vacation was associated with a substantial improvement in well-being. A separate analysis of eight studies found an association between psychological detachment from work and physical activity and more favorable vacation outcomes.
Psychological detachment means, at least for a while, no longer dealing with work matters in your mind.
A message takes a minute. How much attention the problem it tells you about will take is another question.
So the familiar “It's easy for me to reply” has a useful follow-up: how differently would I feel if these issues were resolved without my involvement?
Rest is encouraged. Availability is rewarded
Imagine two equally strong employees. Their results, responsibility and experience are comparable. One stays silent during vacation. The other replies within ten minutes.
Whom are you more likely to consider for promotion?
In a paper by Eva Buechel and Elisa Solinas, published in May 2025, 16 studies examined the detachment paradox. Managers recognized its benefits for well-being and performance, yet also rated the promotion prospects of employees perceived as detaching less favorably. Inferences about dedication to work played a substantial role.
We can sincerely support rest while considering the person who always replies more promising.
This also concerns us as managers. What do we notice and reward: results, autonomy, the quality of decisions? Where, alongside them, does the willingness to respond at any time fit?
Even a manager's voluntary availability can be seen by the team as a model they are expected to follow. It is worth checking: can an employee really feel comfortable choosing a different way to spend their time off?
A single point of failure
A manager's indispensability can become an operational risk. If important decisions stop without one person, the organization depends on that person's availability.
Emergencies do not follow the calendar. Sometimes a manager's involvement really is necessary. But regular requests during vacation deserve a separate review.
You can effortlessly resolve issues that the team does not yet know how to handle without you.
For this review, I suggest a simple checklist: the “Three Ps”. The name comes from the three Russian terms for knowledge transfer, authority and habit:
Was the information available?
Knowledge transfer. Necessary information stayed with the manager: the history of agreements, the reasons behind a decision, important contacts.
Was there authority to decide?
Authority. The team has the information, but the right to decide stayed with the absent person.
What made the team wait for approval?
Habit. The team knows enough and is entitled to act, yet continues to wait for approval.
This is a practical diagnostic framework I am proposing. It does not cover every possible cause, but it helps us start with specific dependencies.
When knowledge is missing, improve information transfer. When authority is missing, define the boundaries of independent decisions. When seeking approval is a habit, find out why formal permission to act is not enough.
Staying connected helps resolve current issues. At the same time, it can leave these dependencies unnoticed.
A vacation-length stress test
Before the next vacation, agree on three things: who makes decisions, what authority they have, and which events require contacting the person on leave.
After returning, review the requests by cause:
| Reason | What to check |
|---|---|
| Emergency | Whether intervention was necessary and the escalation procedure worked |
| Knowledge transfer | What information was missing |
| Authority | Which decision the person could not make independently |
| Habit | Why the decision was still brought to the manager |
Separately, note what stalled without anyone reaching out: silence in the chat does not, by itself, mean independent work.
Before vacation
- Who makes decisions?
- Within what boundaries?
- When should they contact me?
After returning
- What requests came in?
- What stalled in silence?
- What should change before the next vacation?
This gives us material for changing how we manage. The next vacation lets us see whether dependency has decreased, decision quality has held up, and recovery has become easier.
For myself, I see a specific next step: review the handover using the “Three Ps” before vacation and schedule the debrief in advance.
Yesterday's conversation began with a personal argument: doing a little work is convenient, and there is no fatigue. It led me to a question about how work is organized.
Staying informed is useful. So is knowing what keeps moving without your involvement.
Limits of the conclusions: the studies cited concern employee well-being and managerial evaluations, rather than company results or the optimal vacation arrangements for senior executives. Associations with recovery do not prove that every work contact is harmful; the conclusion about organizational dependency and the “Three Ps” checklist are my own.