Nichol M. Hall Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Absence is a phenomenon that is present in organizations that are large and small, public or private, urban or rural. It is an issue of concern for many managers because it is often costly for the organization as well as for individuals. Absence is affected by many factors as well as a myriad of attitudes. Some people believe that absence may be good for an organization while others do not. Absence has been studied for decades by numerous researchers, in a variety of ways. There have been varied findings regarding the effects of absence on the organization and the individual. One reason for the varied findings is that researchers have defined and measured absence differently (Dalton & Mesch, 1991). Some have measured it by total number of days absent, number of occasions, involuntary versus voluntary, and avoidable versus unavoidable. Voluntary absences are often shorter in duration and are considered within the employees control (Conlon & Stone, 1992). According to Breaugh (1981), causes of voluntary absenteeism are more likely to be consistent over time than are causes of other absenteeism. An example of voluntary absenteeism may be when an employee has an appointment for a car tune up and, rather than changing the appointment, chooses to miss work to keep the appointment. Involuntary absences are out of the empoloyee�s control such as a child�s sudden illness or one�s own illness. Additional measures have included adjacency measures (or absence building); absences surrounding scheduled days off. This has also been referred to as �blue Monday�s�; when an individual has a pattern of taking Mondays off in addition to the weekend (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). This is more characteristic of voluntary absences (Conlon & Stone, 1992). Lastly, intertemporal lag is defined as the ratio of average absence length to average length of attendance (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). According to Breaugh (1981) and Bycio (1992), absence frequency (number of occasions) is more reflective of voluntary absenteeism than is the total number of days an employee was absent. Difference in measurement has resulted in difference in results.
There are many factors that contribute to absence. Most researchers agree that employee attendance is influenced by the employee�s motivation to attend as well as ability to attend (Rhodes & Steers, 1990, 1978; Hammer, Landau & Stern, 1981; Dalton & Mesch, 1991). Rhodes and Steers (1978) identify two factors of an employee�s motivation to attend: affective responses to the job situation and internal or external pressures to attend. Pressures to attend may include economic, social or personal reasons. For example, the employee may have a strong work ethic and therefore the pressure to attend is high, even though he or she may not be feeling well enough to be at work. According to Rhodes and Steers (1978), the job situation variable is characterized by the following: job scope, job level, role stress, work group size, leadership style, co-worker relations and opportunities for advancement. For example, Rhodes and Steers (1978) found a positive linear relationship between work group size and absenteeism; the larger the work group, the greater the likelihood of absence. Steel and Shane (1990) found that group cohesiveness explained 11% of the variance in absenteeism. Hammer, Landau and Stern (1981) argue that, �When employee�s find accomplishment, pride and internal gratification in work, there is increased motivation to attend.� They continue to argue that the higher the job level and the more involved an employee is with his or her job, the more likely they are to attend. Lack of motivation often results in increased avoidable absences. According to Hammer, Landau and Stern (1981), the more psychologically and financially committed an employee is, the less likely they are to be voluntarily absent. Rhodes and Steers (1990) have also cited organizational policies and practices as well as employee attitudes as having an influence on the employee�s motivation to attend. Unfortunately, reasons for absence are not well understood because influencing factors are so varied.
The consequences of absence can be categorized as negative or positive (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). Organizations tend to be more focused on negative organizational consequences of absence rather than positive. Some negative organizational consequences include productivity loss, increased costs due to overtime and staffing replacement. There may also be negative individual consequences of absence such as loss of pay, discipline, and altered job perceptions. For example, some companies may have a policy where if you have less than two years of service, you are not paid for your first two days of absence. Other organizations may have guidelines regarding pay treatment and disability, where your length of paid absence is determined by how many years of service you have. Organizational consequences also cause individual consequences for the remaining employees who are forced to compensate for absent individuals. This compensation is often accomplished by forcing the remaining employees to work overtime. The cost of absence varies with organization type and with individuals. Costs include increased overtime, staffing and replacement costs as well as decreased productivity. If absence is paid, salaries and benefits are also costs to the organization.
Many organizations do not realize that they may have established an absence culture based on their absence policy. According to Dalton and Mesch (1991), certain absence policies have the effect of either encouraging or discouraging absenteeism. Some organizational policies not only tolerate but truly reward employee absenteeism. Dalton and Mesch (1991), found that 60% of total absenteeism appeared to be avoidable and the policy variable explained more variance in avoidable absences. According to Rhodes and Steers (1990), an absence culture is defined as �the set of shared understandings about absence legitimacy...and the established custom of practice of employee absence behavior and its control." An absence culture is marked by both the employee�s beliefs about the absence norms and the levels of trust employees have in management. If there is high cultural salience, employees have similar beliefs about the absence norms. If the shared belief is that fairly regular, interval absence is acceptable then there may be high salience, but absence rates may still be high. There are four types of absence cultures: Dependent, Moral, Fragmented and Conflictual. Dependent absence cultures are ones that are low in salience and high in trust. These cultures often result in deviant absence. Moral absence cultures are high in trust and salience and often result in constructive absence. Fragmented cultures are low in trust and salience and result in calculative absences. Lastly, conflictual cultures are high in salience and low in trust and are characterized by defiant absence. Cultural salience is influenced by the organization�s absence control system, technology, and social ecology (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). Organizational culture contributes to the explanation of both absenteeism and performance (Arsenault & Dolan, 1983).
According to Bycio (1992) there is no direct and simple relationship between absence and performance. The findings tend to support a negative relationship; increased absence results in decreased performance, however, there are a lot of non-findings as well (Goodman and Atkin, 1984). The strength of this relationship may be influenced by the supervisor�s perceived legitimacy of the employee�s absence (Bycio, 1992). Arsenault and Dolan (1983) as well as Rhodes and Steers (1978, 1990) discuss job content and context variables. Job content variables include job responsibility, participation, task difficulty and quantitative workload. Job context variables include career ambiguity, work stability, role conflict and role ambiguity (Arsenault & Dolan, 1983). Rhodes and Steers (1990, 1978) suggest that variables largely related to job content have a stronger influence on actual absenteeism than those relating to job context. Arsenault and Dolan agree that when job content stress is higher, (more responsibility, increased participation, etc.) absenteeism is lower, however, higher job content stress has no effect on perceived performance. They also found that when job context stress is high, (high role conflict, role ambiguity, work instability) absence rates are higher and performance also suffers. Therefore, one could conclude that when employees are restricted in their work, are not sure of their role or are experiencing role conflict, they have less desire to come to work and are absent more. Increased absence then results in decreased performance ratings. Both researchers argue that when an employee enjoys where they work and what they are doing, they are more apt to have the desire to come to work. Arsenault and Dolan (1983) suggest that supervisors can enrich the job content rewards to reduce absenteeism. Job satisfaction and performance are often linked; increased job satisfaction leads to increased job performance. However, Rhodes and Steers (1990) found that job satisfaction and absenteeism was positively related for employees with high commitment, but no relationship was found for those with low commitment. They also found that there is a negative relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism for employees without pay but no such relationship exists for employees who are absent with pay.
Since the negative relationship between absence and performance has been supported, it is important to look at the supervisor�s view on absenteeism. Supervisors are aware of and do react to absenteeism. Their absence schema plays an important role in supervisory judgments regarding performance. The extent of an employee�s absence provides the supervisor with information about the �absence proneness� of the employee and the impact of it on performance (Conlon & Stone, 1992). Supervisors use a variety of measurements for performance. Some include supervisor ratings and rankings, self-ratings, non-rating output such as number of units produced. Absence, whether indirectly or directly, affects performance. Timing of absences can often change a supervisor�s view of the employee�s dependability (Conlon & Stone, 1992). Whether the absence is voluntary or involuntary has an impact on the supervisor�s view of the employee�s dependability. If the employee has more perceived voluntary absence, the employee is seen as less reliable and therefore less likely to receive a positive performance evaluation (Conlon & Stone, 1992). Unfortunately, the sex of the employee often affects supervisory judgments regarding absence. For example, female absences may be viewed as more acceptable, especially during child rearing years (Bycio, 1992). An employee�s frequent absence may cloud the supervisors view of the employee�s perceived performance and may result in negative performance evaluations (Bycio, 1992). Some contradictory arguments have been introduced regarding absence and performance. Is it that, initially, frequent absence prompts negative supervisory evaluations and then later negative performance feedback results in more absenteeism (Bycio, 1992)? Research has indicated both; frequent absenteeism is more likely to follow a poor performance rating and that poor performance precedes absence in time.
There is weak evidence that there is a positive relationship between absence and performance. Some findings show improved performance upon return from absence, however, these positive effects of absence are temporary (Bycio, 1992). According to Dalton and Mesch (1991), some level of absenteeism may be beneficial for the organization. For example, if an employee is using absence as a stress relief, they may return a more productive employee (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). It is argued that absenteeism may be a stress relief and that this absence may results in the return of a more committed, high performing employee.
Researchers (Rhodes & Steers, 1990; Bycio, 1992) argue that absenteeism may help employees cope with their jobs when a poor match exists between employee needs and the characteristics of the job. According to Dalton & Mesch (1991), past absence records are a good predictor of future absenteeism and it would behoove organizations to use this information in the selection process. Breaugh (1981) shares this belief and goes on further to say that past absence is a better predictor of future absences over job satisfaction ratings or supervisor ratings. Most importantly, supervisors and organizations can do something about absence if the problem is addressed systematically and constructively. Investigation into the organization's absence policy, culture, and supervisor ratings must be reviewed thoroughly in order to make conclusions about an organization's absence situation. Then the initiatives that need to be taken in order to improve absence in the workplace can occur.
Works Cited
Arsenault, A. & Dolan, S. (1983). The role of personality, occupation and organization in understanding the relationship between job stress, performance and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 227-240.
Breaugh, J.A. (1981). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 555-560.
Bycio, P. (1992). Job performance and absenteeism: a review and meta-analysis. Human Relations, 45, 193-222.
Conlon, E.J., & Stone, T.H. (1992). Absence schema and managerial judgment. Journal of Management, 18, 435-454.
Dalton, D.R., & Mesch, D.J. (1991). On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism: an assessment of absence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 810-817.
Goodman, P.S. & Atkin, R.S. (1984). Absenteeism. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass. Effects of Absenteeism on individuals and organizations, pp 276-321.
Hammer, T.H., Landau, J.C, & Stern, R.N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a voice: the case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 561-573.
Steers, R.M., & Rhodes, S.R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.
Steers, R.M. & Rhodes, S.R. (1990). Managing Employee Absenteeism. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
