While absenteeism is the fact that employees do not show up for scheduled work, its counterpart is presenteeism, i.e., the phenomenon of employees attending work while ill (Johns 2010). Both phenomena might lead to costs and... [ view full abstract ]
While absenteeism is the fact that employees do not show up for scheduled work, its counterpart is presenteeism, i.e., the phenomenon of employees attending work while ill (Johns 2010). Both phenomena might lead to costs and productivity loss that in turn harm organizational performance (Johns 2010). Assuming there is leeway when being sick, an employee faces the choice of going to work or staying home, indicating that the behaviors are not independent from one another. Yet, prior research too often neglected the interdependent relationship between absenteeism and presenteeism by focusing on one behavior (Baker-McClearn, Greasley, Dale, & Griffith, 2010). Additionally, ambiguous results were found when investigating both behaviors simultaneously (Caverley, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2007; Deery, Walsh, & Zatzick, 2014). Given the interdependent nature of absenteeism and presenteeism, additional knowledge on the interplay between both behaviors and approaches to reduce both behaviors is desirable and necessary.
Furthermore, empirical evidence on differences between private and public sector employees is very limited. While absenteeism and presenteeism prevalence seem to be higher in the public sector than in the private sector (Bökkermann & Laukkannen 2010; Wright and Pandey 2011), reasons for these differences have hardly been tested.
This study tackles the research gap on the interplay of absenteeism and presenteeism as well as determinants of both behaviors for public and private sector employees. Drawing on survey data covering employees in different occupations both in the private and the public sector (n=517), negative binomial regressions are employed to analyze one behavior in times of sickness in dependence of the other behavior, the prevailing presenteeism culture, barriers to take sick-leave, occupation, sector, and socio-demographic variables.
Results show that absenteeism and presenteeism are positively related across both sectors. Hence, even though representing discrete choice options (and hence substitutes) for the decision when being sick, they seem to be highly affecting each other. Some of the relationship can be explained through current health status. The barriers for taking sick-leave are of varying importance for absenteeism and presenteeism: Irreplaceability significantly increases presenteeism, but does not significantly decrease absenteeism. Strong work ethics significantly decrease absenteeism and significantly increase presenteeism. Fear of negative consequences significantly increases both absenteeism and presenteeism. The presenteeism culture only significantly impacts presenteeism (and not absenteeism) behavior. Preliminary analyses indicate that variation in presenteeism and absenteeism is rather related to occupation than to the sector of work. Our research provides important implications for managers how to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism and which differences ought to be considered based on occupation and sector. Finally, valuable further research avenues on the behavior in times of sickness are derived.
