Presenteeism in the Workplace - Essay Example

Introduction

The research aims to investigate the key origins of presenteeism or employees going to work when ill as well as to help leaders aware of the existence of the increasing phenomenon; its triggers and what ought to be done to enhance the health and productivity of employees.

An important finding of the research is that presenteeism originates from both stress along with ill health and from increased motivation, for instance increased satisfaction of the job along with an intense sense of commitment to the company (Bender et. al. 2008; Callen et. al. 2013; Cooper et. al. 2015; Gosselin et. al. 2013; Johns 2010). In turn, this may inspire workers to move into the extra mile and cause them to work more strongly even while sick. The seriousness of the company regulations utilized to control or to reduce the absence of staff, for instance as tough trigger points for corrective action, restricted paid sick leave, and job insecurity as well as few days of absence given without a medical certificate. Presenteeism is linked both with positive and negative influences the welfare and productivity of an employee, with contradictory origins along with outcomes for people and companies. The condition is linked to reduced performance; health issues exacerbation as well as influencing wellbeing with an increased loss in productivity than absenteeism (Cocker et. al. 2012; Hilton et. al. 2008; Johns, 2011; Schultz, Chen, & Edington 2009; Shi et. al. 2013 ).

The current research offer insights regarding the controversial presenteeism act and uncover both negative and positive underlying mechanisms. The research indicates that presenteeism is related with work characteristics along with individual features and is not only dictated by medical states. Functioning at work while sick may compound the impacts of the original sickness and lead to adverse job attitudes along with work withdrawal. On the other hand, the potential adverse outcomes of being absent may provoke an employee to come to work while sick or return to the job when not entirely recovered. Companies may desire to review carefully policies regarding attendance for characteristics that may reduce absence at the expense of high presenteeism.

The study analyzed information from interviews of 100 management employees through a survey method for workers. The researcher created an analytical framework for the identification of the main substantial origins of presenteeism, with personal along with work features relating separately to presenteeism depending on whether they followed a motivational/attitudinal or health impairment road.

The study established that demands of jobs, for instance understaffing, workload, time pressure and overtime as well as finding cover difficulties along with individual financial issues were the main reasons why employees may not take a day off. Family and work disputes along with being exposed to harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace were established to positively link to presenteeism. The reason is that such adverse experiences may exacerbate stress and endanger health, which requires workers to select between working and not working.

Data analysis

The main reason behind the study was to establish the underlying presenteism causes to enable leaders of organizations deal with such spheres. If employees continue, working while sick, their levels of production will both be affected adversely and they will contaminate their illnesses and influence the entire level of production of the organization. Participants were offered with a list of 19 reasons why they ought to go to work sick and asked to check all that was applicable. A majority of participants aged between 21 to 70 years with a mean age of 45.5 years. Interview respondents reported having worked from one to about 50 years with a mean of seventeen years. A majority of them (about 80 percent) worked full time. The mean hours of work during the last two weeks encompassed 65 hours (scope, 0 to 126 hours).

About 40 percent of the employees were not sick enough to use sick time leave because they thought that the management would view them as slackers if they stayed home. An extra 20 percent did not desire to utilize their given sick periods because they were afraid to lose their job. On the other hand, about 10 percent cited that they did not possess any sick time left to utilize and thus were afraid of being disciplined if they did not go to work. About 40 percent of the employees went to work since they required financial resources or had to meet specific financial duties. Thus, managers ought to be encouraged to adopt flexible strategies to sickness absence to avoid causing more presenteeism. Regarding the reasons to show up to work while sick, about 30 percent reported that they had to go to work because it was their duty to do so. About 10 percent of them went to work while sick because they did not want to burden their colleagues with their roles while about four percent held management positions and had other colleagues report to them. Other employees cited work associated reasons, for instance about 20 percent went to work while sick because they did not want their work to pile up while about 10 percent went to work while sick because they wanted to beat impending deadlines. Others, about 10 percent went to work while sick because they had planned meetings with clients. Consequently, organizations have to ensure they have performance measure are in place to pick up any substantial shift in employee performance and such measures ought to be controlled alongside sickness absence. Besides, organizations should make it easy to converse about health in the workplace as most workers with health issues do not get support as they are unable to disclose their health issues to their manager. Moreover, managers lack training on the way to react the information is disclosed to them. Furthermore, workers may not understand the way to deal with their health issues or the way to support their colleagues with sickness issues. Organizations ought to increase awareness along with training both for employees and for managers to understand better regarding health issues at the workplace. During financially difficult periods, employees ought to be trained to manage their individual finances.

Retaliation was frequent in some reactions. Other employees thought that there was no one to replace them. Such employees cited reactions, for instance no one can do my job, could not locate an employee for replacement, while others reported being self-employed. The final set of reactions reported that the corporate culture required them to continue working, about one percent while other employees had to work for about 55 hours each week in order to gain a promotion, at about one percent. Thus, organizations have to be aware of cultural trends towards presenteeism and be ready to address them.

Because stress can be a debilitating aspect and result in lost productivity, the study asked respondents to report the main causes for their stress. Overwork along with work-life balance accounted for about 20 percent and 30 percent respectively. A majority of organizations attempt to compel their employees to produce more with limited resources. About 20 percent of the employees acknowledged family issues; about 20 percent experienced work-associated issues whereas about 20 percent experienced credit or debit issues. Health issues accounted for about 10 percent of the reactions. Such figures are particularly interesting given that only about 10 percent of the employees cited that they experienced stress problems.

Some extra questions were asked to measure the balance between work and life issue. About 30 percent of the participants reported having turned down promotions if they encompassed substantial increment for hours worked.

On the other hand, only about 10 percent reported that they would work for fewer hours than they presently work. About 40 percent of the respondents reported having never utilized the entire of their vacation period when asked regarding their utilization of vacation time. About 20 percent of the employees utilize their vacation rarely, while about 20 percent utilized all of their vacation time sometimes. Only about 20 percent of the employees often utilize their vacation time.

Researches have demonstrated that exercising may be a better reliever of stress. Thus, the respondents were asked the amount of times they participate in exercise each week. About 30 percent reported that they never exercise, another 30 percent reported exercising once every week while about 30 percent reported having exercised three times every week while about 10 percent documented exercising five or more times each week.

Because a majority of studies regarding presenteeism is associated to employees not working at peak levels of production, the study wanted to investigate other kinds of presenteeism. One of the area of interest comprised workers working on their individual engagements during working hours. About 40 percent reported having never performed individual engagements while working when asked how often they conduct individual engagements during working hours. On the other hand, about 60 percent of the employees were engaged in personal roles when working. Of the 60 percent, about 20 percent mostly are engaged in personal roles, about 30 percent engage in personal roles sometimes while about 20 percent rarely are engaged in personal roles while working.

The study wanted to estimate the amount of time each participant used on personal roles. The mean amount of time reported used on personal roles comprised about two hours, with an SD of about 1 hour. The maximum amount of time reported was four hours whereas the minimum was zero.

The study wanted to estimate the kind of personal roles the employees conducted during working hours. About 30 percent reported planning appointment with a doctor when working. Other spheres encompassed credit or debit issues at about 20 percent, repairs or purchase of vehicles at about 20 percent, care of children at about 10 percent, conference with a teach at about 10 percent along with repair or purchase of a home at about five percent. Almost one percent cited care of their aging parent, personal associations, or foreclosure as the reason for utilizing working hours for personal roles.

Around 70 percent of the participants reported having had musculoskeletal pain at the workplace (a pain score of more than zero demonstrates this). On a pain scale of zero (lack of pain) to 10 (a strong pain), the average score comprised 2.47. Also, about 20 percent of the participants reported a higher score than five. The depression frequency was about 20 percent (a total score of 10 or more signified this on the employee health questionnaire). About 2 percent of employees reported missing over 14 hours of the job in the earlier 14 days due to health issues. An increased number of participants, about 60 percent, reported a presenteeism grade of at least one, which is equal to about 10 percent impairment. Consequently, managers ought to be trained to recognize early signs of common mental health issues in the workplace to assist them in intervening early and to offer supportive conversations to workers who are facing problems. organizations should also provide evidence-based interventions to deal with health along with wellbeing in the workplace. Such interventions may encompass specialist services such as occupational health and counselling.

Participants reported a mean quality of work score of about 8 when asked to rate the quality of work they had offered over the initial two weeks on a scale of 0 (reduced) to 10 (admirable). About 3 percent of the participants, a task under their function had failed in the initial two weeks, whereas 6 percent had made at least a single work related error in the earlier two weeks. About 90 percent reported that they mostly reported their own work related errors. However, when participants were asked ‘what proportion of the time do you feel your colleagues reported errors accurately?’ the average response was about 70 percent.

To establish the way depression and musculoskeletal pain influences presenteeism, the researcher converted both depression and pain into variables that were categorical. The scores of pain varied from zero to 10 while scores for depression varied from zero to 26. The scores were divided into four groups based on a quartile division in which the information is divided into four categories with almost 25 percent in each category. For pain, the quartile divisions were zero, one or two, three or four, as well as five and over. The quartile divisions for pain were zero or one, two or three, 4 to 7 as well as eight and over. Then, the labels 1, 2, 3 along with 4 were employed to reflect the four categories in each situation. Following age control, years worked, hours worked daily, shift in work, and highest amount reached as well as type of employment, the study established that both depression and pain were each substantially linked with presenteeism. There was lack of proof for an interaction between depression and pain.

The study utilized a Poisson regression framework to forecast the mean number errors that correspond to different predictor value in order to establish the way presenteeism was linked to work errors. Presenteeism was discovered to be substantially linked with errors after controlling for the entire variables noted above. Based on the framework, for every unit increase in the score of presenteeism, the number of errors is anticipated to increase by about 20 percent.

Presenteeism was established to be substantially linked with the self-reported quality of work score after controlling for the entire variables noted above. Besides, the quality of work score reduced by a mean of 0.15 points for each unit increase in the score of the presenteeism. Thus, presenteeism was substantially linked with work related errors along with general self-reported quality of work.

Next, the study estimated the expenses of presenteeism of study participants. The sample mean of the score of the presenteeism was about 1.6317 on a scale of 0 to 10. Thus, the eradication of presenteeism would be linked with a decrease of the amount.

The first estimate of the presenteeism expense was founded on reactions to the question evaluating presenteeism. Each unit increase reflected a 10 percent point decrease in productivity, for instance, a 2-unit increment correspond to a 20 percent reduction in productivity. Thus, the average score of the question (1.6317) means a reduction of productivity of almost 16 percent due to presenteeism. For instance, for a mean annual reward of about $90,000, this corresponds to a loss of productivity of about $14,000 per employee.

The second estimate was obtained with reactions to the question that asked “how would you rate the quality of work you were able to offer your organization over the last two weeks?’ responses varied from 0 (reduced) to 10 (admirable). As noted above, for each unit increase in the score of the presenteeism, the self-reported quality of work score decreased by a mean of 0.15 points. The study multiplied 0.15 by the average presenteeism score (1.6317) to establish the predicted enhancements in quality of work if presenteeism were eradicated. The study established that quality of work was forecasted to improve by about 0.245 points, which reflects a 2.93 percent gain.

If the resulting savings in expenses were proportionate to the entire reward, it would correspond to a reduction in cost of about $3,000 per employee.

The last estimates concerned the association between presenteeism as well as a work sensitive measure of work errors. The first step encompassed estimation of the expenses that result from the adverse occurrence. Next, the study computed the expected shift in the incidence of the event if presenteeism was eradicated. A straightforward measure of the forecasted decrease was first calculated with the Poisson regression framework. For each unit increase in the score of the presenteeism, errors increased by about 0.1600; a 1.6317-unit reduction in the score of presenteeism decreased the predicted number of work errors by about 20 percent.

The average number of work errors reported was 0.0764 for the two-week period included in the survey. In turn, this converts to about two work errors per employee each year. Reductions of about 20 percent would mean a respective decrease of 0.459 work errors per employee each year. However, it is vital to consider that the estimates of respondents for how mostly they reported such adverse events might have been understated. The study adjusted the figures with the estimates of the respondents for the percentage of time that they felt their colleagues reported work errors precisely to correct for this. Because the average reactions about colleague reporting were about 70 percent, the study adjusted its estimates upward by a factor of 1.3437. The study anticipates the eradication of presenteeism to reduce work errors by almost 0.618 per employee each year based on the corrected values. Such reductions can then be multiplied by the baseline along with upper boundary estimates of the linked costs to get costs of presenteeism per employee.

Findings

Concerning the overall health of the employees, common medical illnesses along with medical states that affect productivity were analyzed. About 30 percent of the employee reported that their health status in the last one year was better, about 60 percent reported that their health status was good, about 10 percent reported that their health status was Fair whereas about one percent reported that their health status was poor.

Then, the participants were provided with a list of common medical problems and asked to check all medical conditions that applied. About 20 percent reported having migraines, about 10 percent reported experiencing pain, ten percent reported having confronted stress, and ten percent experienced asthma whereas nine percent experienced serious menstrual cramps. Seven percent reported having experienced Arthritis, 5 percent reported having confronted depression, and 2 percent reported having faced obese while less than 1 percent listed diabetes along with heart illness.

When asked if their health status influenced their duties, about 90 percent reported that it did not whereas nine percent reported that their health status affected their work productivity.

When asked about how often they worked while ill and the reason for it, about 10 percent said they did not work when sick, about 30 percent rarely went to work while sick; about 50 percent went to work sometime when sick whereas ten percent mostly went to work while sick. Then, when asked if they were contagious when working, about 20 percent said they knew they were contagious and still worked. About 40 percent said they got their sickness from a colleague. Research demonstrates that a high contamination sauce originates from eating at a person’s desk. About 30 percent of the employees said they ate at their desk while about 50 percent of them reported disinfecting their work site.

In the current sample, about 70 percent of employees reported working with some pain in their muscles, with about 20 percent of them reporting increased pain levels of over than five on an eleven point scale. A substantial proportion of the employees in this study reported depression. The findings demonstrate that depression along with musculoskeletal pain comprise the main causes of presenteeism among employees. The findings support other studies that established depression and pain to be substantial contributors to reduced productivity at the work place. On the other hand, presently, a majority of organizations encourage workers not to utilize sick period and discipline them for absenteeism. For example, certain organizations provide quarterly compensation for unutilized sick period and consider absenteeism rates during yearly evaluation of performance. Such regulations may potentially result in increased presenteeism rates.

The impact of employee health on productivity may turn into a greater concern as an employee ages. An extra cause of concern has to do with potential negative impacts of drugs that employees might be using to manage their symptoms. While the existing study did not evaluate drug use, it is known that specific antidepressants may result in dizziness when an individual shifts position while narcotic analgesics mostly result in impaired judgment and drowsiness. The most important finding from the research is that employee presenteeism was substantially linked with employee-sensitive quality of work indicators. Presenteeism was specifically related with an increase in work errors along with reduced self-reported quality of work.

Among aspects observed as playing a vital role in presenteeism comprise the number of worker at the organization. The hypothesis was, the smaller the company, the more pressure placed upon each employee to come to work since there were not any extra employees to replace them and perform extra roles.

Since workers are afraid to lose their job and reprimand from excessive time off, thus, employees appear more likely to perform individual business while working. For instance, even in the swine flu epidemic height, a majority of employees in American appeared more likely to continue working since they were concerned about losing their job or did not desire to miss a work deadline. Consequently, presenteeism influences healthy workers when they are concentrated on individual problems, for instance their conversations with tutors regarding school performance of their children, establishment of appointments with a doctor for themselves or family members as well as strengthening excellent care for an elderly parent.

It is apparent that keeping employees healthy and dealing with presenteeism ought to be prioritized. The measures of staff employee health and wellbeing reporting may be utilized as part of monitoring of performance. Extra open policies of an institution about the health problem declaration along with any related restrictions can make it easier for employees to obtain required assistance. Interventions that are concentrated on work and that are directed towards early identification along with treatment of depression and pain among employees is potentially called for. Extra approaches to deal with presenteeism can encompass contracting with specialists of disability, who may be useful in assisting workers with chronic sickness or injuries to alter their methods of work. First, such strategies may teach managers regarding assistance of workers plans along with other health resources. They may also establish safe programs of lifting. The findings also demonstrate that employee presenteeism raises costs of health care.

Conclusion

Key findings

Studies have indicated that presenteeism has a substantial effect on an organization regarding expenses. The results of the study offer confirmations that workers show up to work sick, overworked and stressed. Employees did not just show up sick, but were contagious and infected other healthy workers knowingly. Besides, workers listed different health conditions that increase productivity loss to the organization. The study also confirmed certain suspected reasons behind employees working not at their peak level of performance, for instance, they did not desire to utilize sick time, pending deadlines, retaliation and self-employed. Combined with the above impacts, employees were performing different personal roles during working hours. Besides, employees who have supportive work settings, for instance colleagues who are supportive along with an improved association with their seniors do not feel the need to work when sick and they are healthy and more satisfied with their jobs. Optimism is related to presenteeism, as employees with a positive outlook are more willing to work while sick.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study regards the single item measure of presenteeism, which may be criticized for having unknown error variance as well as for not offering information regarding when workers go to work while sick. Secondly, all variables were measured exclusively with self-report tools that might result in biases because of a common technique variance. Finally, the study utilized management employees only as participants, and therefore the issue is to what extent the outcomes are valid for other occupational sets. It is likely that management workers favor working through illness instead of having a colleague replace them. Therefore, the generalizations of the findings in the study to other occupations await extra empirical research.

Recommendations, Practice and Research

However, extra studies are required to understand when presenteeism can be sustainable and positive choice, for instance in situations of gradual recovery from extended illness, to enhance self-confidence during chronic sickness or being an instance of citizenship act.

Presenteeism can have appositive impact for certain individuals by acting as a way of integrating back into the job again. However, this would rely on how much the person along with the company desired it and were ready to be flexible, for instance through modification of job descriptions or providing flex periods.

Overall conclusion

Presenteeism appears more predictable than absenteeism, which makes presenteeism easy to alter through actions of the management. Wellness at the workplace along with health plans may be effective in reducing work-associated sickness along with stress. Besides, while increasing work resources, for instance control of the job as well as support from colleagues, managers and the company may be useful in dealing with presenteeism by their positive effect on health, the findings recommend that job demands controlling reflects a significant defense line against presenteeism. Companies can gain from well-developed roles that restrict the degree of demands to which workers are exposed to daily, for instance, by decreasing time pressure, excessive workload along with overtime work and ensuring they possess the resources they require.