UK 
United States
As people professionals, we spend a lot of time creating policies that are designed to support staff through some of life’s most difficult moments.
We write guidance, build frameworks, train managers, and strive to create consistency across our organisations. But when it comes to compassionate leave, many are still operating with policies that were built around a very traditional view of family, bereavement, and loss. Policies that often assume the most significant relationships in someone’s life will neatly fit into categories such as spouse, parent, child, sibling, or grandparent.
However, the reality of modern life is far more complex, and far more human, than that.
Families today are beautifully different
Some people are incredibly close to their immediate family. Others may have been raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, foster carers, stepparents, or guardians. Some people have friends who are more like siblings than anyone they share DNA with. Others may experience profound loss through the death of a former partner, a neighbour they cared for, a mentor, a godparent, a colleague, or someone else who played a significant role in shaping their life. For some, the person who showed up for them most consistently may not appear anywhere on a formal family tree.
This is why compassionate leave policies matter so much. Relationships cannot always be measured by bloodline, marriage certificate or legal connection. They are measured by love, care, presence, responsibility, history, and emotional significance.
Yet too often, when someone requests compassionate leave, the first questions asked are:
‘Who was it?’
‘What does the policy say?’
‘Were they an immediate family member?’
‘How close were they?’
‘How far do they have to travel?’
‘Does this qualify?’
I understand why these questions are asked. Organisations need consistency. Managers need guidance. HR teams need to support fair decision-making. Policies exist for good reason, and without them we risk confusion, inconsistency, and unintended unfairness. But there is a real danger when guidance turns into judgement.
Avoiding judgement
We cannot truly know the importance of one relationship in another person’s life. It is important not to create a hierarchy of loss, where one bereavement is seen as more valid, more painful or more deserving of compassion than another. Grief does not work that way.
When it comes to compassionate leave, many are still operating with policies that were built around a very traditional view of family, bereavement, and loss
Someone may be devastated by the loss of a friend who supported them through their darkest moments, whereas another may need time to attend the funeral of a neighbour they cared for every week. One staff member may be deeply affected by the death of an estranged parent, not because the relationship was close, but because the grief is complicated, whilst another may lose a former partner and feel that loss profoundly because of shared history, children, or unresolved emotion.
Loss is not always straightforward. Grief is not always tidy. And it rarely fits neatly into policy wording.
When an employee requests compassionate leave, it is far better to come from a position of trust. Of course, this does not mean organisations should have no structure. Compassionate leave policies still need clear parameters. But judgement should be left to the side.
