We need to talk about something most HR handbooks get completely wrong.
Three days. That’s the standard bereavement leave most companies offer for the death of an immediate family member. Three days to absorb the loss, handle arrangements, travel if needed, sit with family, and return to your desk ready to produce.
Three days.
My ancestors would not recognize that as grief. They would recognize it as suppression.
In 2020, my father had a stroke. Overnight, the man who had fought his way out of an impossible childhood, who quit drinking cold turkey and became the father he never had, became someone who could no longer speak. Physically present. Unreachable. The conversation we’d been having my entire life went silent in a single night.
No one handed me bereavement leave for that. There’s no policy for it. He was still alive.
It is now 2026. He is still alive. And I am still grieving. Not the same grief I carried in 2020, but grief nonetheless. Meeting it again at a different depth, a different angle. That’s what grief actually does. It doesn’t resolve. It cycles.
My partner at the time had lost his grandfather and could not take time from work. During the first year of COVID, I could not travel home to Belize to be with my father, to sit with my family, to do what our traditions require when someone is suffering. We were both grieving. Separately. In the same house. Without ritual, without community, without the structures that grief actually needs to move through. I left my job during that period. I left my PhD program. Not entirely because of grief. Life is never that clean. But grief was in the room for every decision I made, unnamed and unacknowledged by every institution I was part of. The marriage did not survive it either. Not only because of grief. But grief was there.
I am sharing this not for sympathy. I am sharing it because I was educated, resourced, and connected, and I still fell through every crack. I want leaders to sit with that for a moment before we talk about policy language.
There is a name for what I was living. A psychologist named Pauline Boss spent her career studying it and called it ambiguous loss. Grief with no body to bury, no funeral to mark it, no moment anyone agrees to call the end. The parent who is alive but no longer themselves. The person who is here and not here. It is one of the hardest kinds of grief to carry, precisely because nothing about it gives you permission to feel it. No policy has a line for it. And it is sitting in your workforce right now. The employee whose mother is disappearing into dementia. The one driving to the care facility on their lunch break. The one who has been grieving someone still alive for years, quietly, while hitting every deadline you gave them.
Western psychology also gave us a framework for grief that most people recognize: the five stages. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. What is less known is that Elisabeth KĆ¼bler-Ross developed those stages for people facing their own terminal diagnosis, not for people who had lost someone. She said herself, late in her life, that they were never meant to be a linear checklist. But we adopted them that way, because linearity is comforting. It implies a finish line. And the three-day bereavement policy makes perfect sense if you believe grief has a finish line.
It does not. It is a spiral, not a staircase. You do not complete it. You learn to carry it differently over time. A policy built on the ladder model will always fail the people living the spiral. Most of your employees are living the spiral.
In many Catholic families across Latin America, the death of a loved one initiates a mourning period of nine days, the novena. Not because nine is a magic number, but because grief needs a container, and the container must be long enough to actually hold something. Nine days of prayer, of gathering, of people coming to you rather than you performing normalcy for them. That is not superstition. That is design. Judaism offers shiva. Many West African traditions understand grief as communal and expressed, not private and managed. Belize holds several of these at once. In Maya and Mestizo communities, families observe Los Finados, rooted in Hanal Pixan, the food of the souls, setting out a loved one’s favorite dishes on the family altar for their return. Garifuna families gather for the beluria nine nights after a death, and for the dĆ¼gĆ¼, which calls the ancestors back into the circle of the living. Creole families keep the wake and Nine Nights. In mine, it is the wake, the funeral, and the repast. Different peoples, the same understanding: the relationship continues even when the form changes. These traditions did not survive for centuries because they were decorative. They survived because they work.
The standard U.S. bereavement policy gives three to five days for an immediate family member. Often less for a grandparent. Usually nothing for a close friend, a chosen family member, a mentor. Nothing for someone whose loss is ambiguous, like a parent who had a stroke and is physically present but gone in all the ways that matter. Ninety-one percent of SHRM member organizations now offer paid bereavement leave, which sounds like progress until you learn that most employers still stop the clock at three days.
Here is the part that should get the attention of anyone who signs the budget. You are already paying for grief. You just aren’t seeing it on any line item. The Grief Recovery Institute estimated that hidden grief costs American companies more than seventy-five billion dollars a year in lost productivity, and that figure is two decades old and almost certainly low. It does not show up as an empty chair. It shows up as the person sitting in the chair, present and unreachable, doing a third of what they are capable of because their mind is three hundred miles away at a hospital bed. The research has a cold word for that. Presenteeism. Nine in ten managers say they have seen grief affect an employee’s performance, yet only about one in ten can recognize a performance problem as grief. So it gets handled as a discipline issue instead of a human one. And then comes the quietest cost of all. In a 2013 British survey, more than half of workers said they would consider leaving a job that failed to support them through a death. You don’t lose them the week of the funeral. You lose them four months later, when they remember exactly how they were treated when it mattered most. And the reverse is just as true. More than eight in ten workers say they would be proud to work for an organization that openly commits to supporting people through grief. Three days doesn’t save you money. It defers the bill and adds interest.
My Indian ancestors were indentured in Jamaica and came to Belize after their contracts ended. In India, they had cremated their dead. As my family tells it, indenture did not allow those rites, and by the time they reached Belize the damage was done. Their connection, their culture, their way of life was gone. That was a fire they were never permitted to tend. A fire like that is not something you extinguish right away. You let it burn. You sit with it. You tend it. Because the fire isn’t just heat. It’s relationship, memory, the ongoing conversation between the living and the dead.
The three-day bereavement policy says: put out the fire and get back to work.
A culture-informed organization says something different. It says: we’ll sit with you while it burns.
My father is still alive. I am still tending that fire. Six years in, I have learned that grief doesn’t end. It transforms. And the people inside your organizations are carrying fires you cannot see.
The question isn’t whether your employees are grieving. They are. The question is whether your organization is the kind of place that acknowledges it.
That’s not just a more humane policy. It’s a more honest one.
And the people who feel that honesty don’t just work for you.
They stay.
Leave a Reply