There's a joke that's been going around the Formula 1 paddock since the start of the season: Britain has never had such well-kept gardens!
It’s a reference to Formula 1’s 'gardening leave' – the informal name for that period after an employee ends his time working at a team but before he is contractually free to join someone else.
After all, if someone has signed for a rival competitor, it is not in a team’s interest to let them move immediately – because they can take some valuable current knowledge with them.
Instead, staff are often forced to see out the remainder of their contracts – either by working on special projects unrelated to the F1 team or at home.
In this period of limbo, their knowledge of current developments is limited, so when they arrive at their new team there is not as much they can add.
Over the years, teams have significantly increased this period of gardening leaving imposed in the event of resignation, sometimes reaching more than 12 months.
For example, Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur signed his new technical director Loic Serra back in the late spring of 2023, but he will be joining only this October.
The gardening leave system was accepted because it protects those who fear losing staff.
However, there has been some pushback over it in recent months as some question whether the whole system needs changing.
Since the end of 2022, eight of the 10 Formula 1 teams have hired a new team principal, and it is common practice for a new name at the helm to want to make changes to the team's organisational chart.
All of this translates into recruitment campaigns that, in the vast majority of cases, aim to draw technicians and managers from other teams.
This is what we have seen since the beginning of 2023, with a series of personnel movements (especially technical) that has led to hundreds of resignation letters.
As one team insider said: "If we put together all those who are on gardening leave, we can form an 11th team!”
Last winter, Vasseur spoke about difficulties encountered by those who want to make their own mark on a team.
“When you realise that you have a gap to fill with hiring, you know that a new employee will have to wait 12 months before joining the team,” he said.
“After that period, they can start coming to the office, and their contribution will only be visible in the following year’s project.
“So from the moment you need a person to the moment you see the results related to their work, two to three years pass.”
This has now become a headache for most teams. However, when an inconvenience becomes common, the will to remedy it grows.
It is not surprising that in recent weeks, paddock sources have pointed to the idea of a proposal being put forward for a gentleman’s agreement to help universally reduce the amount of time staff must serve for gardening leave.
It is understood that central to the debate going on right now are several key elements.
For example, does such a long period of gardening leave still make sense today considering the evolution of working methods?
During the Covid lockdown period, for instance, there was a very strong push to enhance systems that allowed remote working, and Formula 1 (as is in its nature) stands out for its speed and efficiency when it comes to marrying a new technology.
'Remote working' has solved many problems, inadvertently creating a new one. Who is today able to check if a professional during the gardening period does not offer their input while sat at home?
Years ago, the presence on site for a technician was an essential element to be able to guarantee their support to a department. Today, being in contact with collaborators remains a 'plus', but it is no longer an indispensable condition.
Hence the bizarre conflict between the need to impose such long periods of 'gardening leave' and then being unable to supervise it, risking putting those who want to respect the contractual clauses in difficulty compared to those who have fewer problems turning on a computer and working from home.
All of this, paradoxically, also weighs on the budget cap of their former team, given that the agreement provides for remuneration until the expiry of the notice period set.
Beyond this, there are those who see the 'gardening leave' as a brake on the overall development of the world of Formula 1.
The circulation of personnel without too many constraints has always been the main way for the exchange of information, which also helps level F1’s playing field to a certain extent.
Today this process seems to be slowed down considering the tight schedule with which Formula 1 teams operate.
Does it really make sense to continue to insist on holding back staff from joining rivals when a squad then faces frustration in not being able to hire people as quick as it wants? Teams seem to be losing both ways.
With F1’s employment merry-go-round perhaps more active than it has been for years, this is a topic that is not going to go away - and it looks increasingly likely to fall off the agenda of team principals' meetings very soon.
