I learned the hard way that saying no to vacation looks efficient in a spreadsheet and corrosive in real life. The first time I rejected a leave request, I thought I was protecting a fragile timeline. We had a high stakes delivery, a thin runway, and a client who used the phrase mission critical with the solemnity of a judge. I told myself that approving a week off would jeopardize the deal. I denied the leave, we shipped the release, the client renewed, and the team went quiet. The silence was not relief. It was a sign that something in the relationship had cracked.
Two months later the same engineer who had carried the heaviest load missed a simple integration blocker that he would normally spot in his sleep. The problem was not competence. It was fatigue. He had been sleeping four hours a night for weeks because he believed the team could not afford for him to step back. The error cost us more time and money than his entire holiday would have. More importantly, it introduced a new belief into the culture. In his mind, rest was negotiable and output was not. That belief spread without a memo. People started planning around me rather than with me.
Founders love the story that real teams push through and rest later. In Malaysia, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia, I have heard a dozen versions of the same promise. We will rest after the launch. We will rest after the raise. We will rest after expansion. Then the calendar turns and rest moves again. Cultures differ in how directly people challenge a manager, but the conclusion is usually the same. When leave is denied often enough, people stop asking. They cope. They hoard tasks. They take sick days instead of planned days. They lower their own ambition so they can survive the schedule you built for them. None of this shows up in dashboards until it suddenly does, and when it appears leaders call it unexpected.
Here is the part that is uncomfortable and true. When you reject leave, you are not saving a week. You are trading a predictable recovery window for an unpredictable failure window. A planned holiday is scoped, covered, and bounded. An unplanned burnout spiral has no calendar invite and no end date. The first is operationally boring. The second is a cultural earthquake. You feel it in code quality, in client conversations that turn guarded, and in the way people start copying extra teammates on emails to protect themselves.
The common mistake is to imagine resilience as an individual trait. Grit matters, but grit is not a system. Mature teams build resilience into the way work moves. That system needs release valves that people can rely on without political permission. Vacation is not a perk in that design. It is a structural component that keeps pressure from finding messy exits through sick leave, disengagement, or attrition. Leaders often treat attrition as a hiring challenge. Most of the time it is a calendar challenge in disguise.
I missed this for years and then I saw it in a small design choice. We were accelerating a pilot in Riyadh while onboarding senior hires in Kuala Lumpur. Time zones collided. My calendar was a mix of midnight calls and dawn check ins. Our lead designer moved three days of annual leave twice. She never complained. Instead she grew cautious. The change did not show up in pixels. It showed up in the absence of bold options during reviews. She had shifted from creator to survivor. You do not read about this shift in weekly updates. You notice it only when you remember who she was before the grind.
Approving leave does not mean inviting chaos. It means accepting a real constraint and forcing the organization to become more robust. The moment you say yes, you test whether your processes are real. Can someone else run the deployment with the same checklist and the same quality bar. Can a client hear from a second voice without feeling downgraded. Can product decisions advance when the person with the most context is on a beach. If the answer is no, then the problem is not vacation. The problem is concentration risk that has been mistakenly marketed as dedication.
What finally changed my mind was not a leadership quote. It was a finance line item. We modeled the cost of a preventable outage that came out of a tired review cycle. We included penalty clauses, customer support hours, a make good sprint, and the morale dip that followed. The number was ugly. Then we compared it to the cost of coverage for the same period if the engineer had taken her planned leave. The coverage looked expensive when viewed alone. It looked cheap next to the outage. Once you run this math honestly, the conversation moves from whether to approve leave to how to operationalize it without drama.
High performance teams treat rest as part of the work itself. They do not romanticize grind. They normalize planning. In Southeast Asia and the Gulf, public holidays and family obligations create distinct rhythms, so the best founders plan for clusters of absence rather than isolated days. You do not lose speed if you raise the level of your handovers, strengthen ownership maps, and reduce reliance on last minute heroics. The right clients will adapt. Clients who punish you for human scheduling will punish you later for another human limit. You do not retain those clients. You survive them until you replace them.
Many leaders worry that a generous leave culture will be abused. Abuse is possible. That is a boundary problem, not an argument against recovery. Set the rules in advance. Publish blackout windows at the start of the quarter, not the week before. Make coverage a shared responsibility that the requestor helps to design. Measure delivery by outcomes rather than by the length of online presence. Correct drift quickly and privately. Model the behavior yourself by taking your own leave and by refusing to be reachable for non critical decisions while you are away. That last part matters. If you are always available, every decision becomes urgent by default.
The instinct to protect timelines is understandable. Protect them by building redundancy, not by removing rest. Protect clients by ensuring more than one person can speak with authority. Protect quality by giving your team time to defragment their thinking. The first full cycle of planned leave with clean coverage will feel like a rite of passage. You will notice a lower temperature in your chat channels, shorter meetings, and clearer questions from new hires. People learn the system because it exists, not because a heroic colleague is improvising it every week.
There is also a trust dividend that is hard to measure and impossible to fake. When someone requests leave and hears a fast yes followed by two practical questions about coverage, they learn your actual values. When they return and find that no one has undone their decisions in their absence, they learn how ownership works here. When a mistake occurs and the conversation begins with process, not blame, they grow bolder and smarter. That is the point of leadership. Not fear. Not performative loyalty. Not quiet quitting in slow motion.
If you are a manager inside a company that traditionally blocks time off near quarter end, you probably feel stuck between policy and reality. There are still moves you can make without permission. Start a visible handover ritual that is boring by design. It can be a single document that lists active tickets, known risks, and a contact tree. It can be a five minute recording before departure. It can be a final review of the coverage plan in standup. The goal is simple. Prepare the room before you walk out. Once people see that their work survives their absence, they plan earlier and with more care.
If you lead a small team where every person is a linchpin, make yourself less central first. Book a short break. Force the system to run without you. Debrief what failed. Fix the checklist, not the person. Repeat the cycle. The first attempt will be messy. The second will be better. By the third you will feel the difference. You will move faster because the team is safer. Investors notice this stability even when you do not present it as a slide. An organization that can operate without its founder for a week is an organization that can weather real volatility.
I began with a mistake because that is where many of us begin. Today, when a client asks why I approved leave during a crunch, I give a simple answer. I did not approve a holiday. I approved continuity. The team that rests well performs better and stays longer. The team that stays longer compounds context. A company with compounding context becomes easier to manage, more attractive to clients, and more valuable to investors. That is the outcome we actually want.
So the case is not philosophical. It is operational. It is financial. It is cultural. Approving vacation is not generosity. It is design. It is the deliberate act of building a system where people can be human without the whole machine grinding to a halt. Say yes, plan well, and insist on solid coverage. You will recover the time you thought you would lose, and you will gain the one resource that cannot be replaced once it slips. You will gain trust.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
