A Systematic Approach to Diagnosing Employee Absenteeism

Pages17-22
Published date01 February 1981
Date01 February 1981
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/eb054966
AuthorSusan Rhodes,Richard Steers
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour
A Systematic Approach to
Diagnosing Employee
Absenteeism
by Susan Rhodes, Syracuse University, NY
and Richard Steers,University of Oregon
In any given year, it has been estimated that over 300
million work days are lost in Britain due to employee
absenteeism [1]. This figure amounts to about 13.5 days
lost per employee. Daily absenteeism among blue-collar
workers in many industries runs as high as 17 per cent of
the work force with rates often much higher on Mondays
and Fridays [2]. These estimates include absenteeism due
to illness, as well as other reasons. High rates of
absenteeism have been cited as contributing to industrial
slumps in some areas of Britain [3]. Productivity losses,
loss of good will, extra labour costs to replace the absent
employee, overtime costs, and sick pay are all costs
associated with absenteeism. Clearly, employee
absenteeism is a major area of concern for personnel
managers.
In any given year, it has been
estimated that over 300 million
work days are lost in Britain
due to employee absenteeism
The problem of employee absenteeism, while widely
recognized by managers, is seldom examined systematical-
ly. Instead, absence problems are considered an analog of
turnover. That is, it is often assumed that the causes of tur-
nover and the causes of absenteeism are similar and that,
as a result, both problems can be treated with similar
techniques. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
Absenteeism as a category of behaviour differs from tur-
nover in at least three respects. First, the negative conse-
quences associated with absenteeism for employees are
typically much less than those associated with turnover.
Second, absenteeism is more likely to be a spontaneous
and relatively easy decision, while the turnover decision is
usually more carefully considered over time. Finally, and
perhaps most important, absenteeism often represents a
substitute form of behaviour for turnover, especially when
alternative forms of employment are not available. Hence,
there appears to be good reason to study the causes of
absenteeism in their own right.
When one examines the work that has been done on
employee absenteeism, two questionable assumptions con-
tinually emerge. First, it is often assumed by both
managers and researchers that job dissatisfaction
represents the primary cause of absenteeism. However,
current research consistently finds only weak support for
this assumption. After an extensive review of available
research, Nigel Nicholson and his associates concluded
that "at best it seems that job satisfaction and absence
from work are tenuously related [4]." Such modest fin-
dings point to the existence of other personal and organiza-
tional factors that also strongly influence an employee's
desire to go to work.
In addition, much of the current work on absenteeism
has an implicit assumption that employees are generally
free to choose whether or not they will come to work on a
particular day. Again, such is often not the case, as when
poor health, family responsibilities, or transportation pro-
blems arise. Hence, a comprehensive appraisal of
employee attendance behaviour must of necessity
recognize the employee's ability to attend as a major deter-
minant.
In the light of these questionable but widely held beliefs,
it seems appropriate to take a systematic look at what we
know and what we don't know about the causes of
employee absenteeism, as well as what managers can do to
reduce such behaviour at work. Towards this end, we car-
ried out an extensive review of 104 research studies on the
topic with the aim of integrating the various findings with
a unified model of attendance [5]. Both voluntary and in-
voluntary absenteeism were considered. Based on this
work, we propose the following model aimed at explaining
more fully employees' attendance behaviour. Following
the presentation of the model, implications for manage-
ment will be considered.
Major Causes of Employee
Absenteeism
Based on available evidence, we have attempted to depict
the major processes leading up to attendance behaviour in
Figure 1. While this figure is admittedly a rather general
portrait of the major causes, it is intended to provide a
useful framework for analysis.
Initially, we need to consider the nature of the most im-
mediate causes of actual attendance. Then we shall be in a
position to consider more generally the factors that lie
behind these primary influences. Finally, based on this in-
formation we can identify several strategies managers can
employ in their attempts to reduce absenteeism among the
work force.
According to the model, actual absenteeism is primarily
influenced by two major factors: attendance motivation
and ability to attend. That is, for an employee to be pre-
sent, he or she must be motivated, or have a reason, to
come to work and, in addition, must be able to come to
work. In the study of absenteeism, it makes little sense to
consider one of these factors without the other. Based on
this assertion, we can now consider the major influences
on each of these two primary causes.
Employee Relations 3,2 1981 | 17

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT