Absence management: What causes employee absence?
Section 3 of the Personnel Today Management Resources one stop guide to absence management, covering: gathering and analysing absence data, attitudes to absence and factors contributing to absence. Other sections.
|
Employee absence is often a complex phenomenon that may reflect a diverse mix of causes and contributory factors - organisational, personal and even social.
In practice, it may often be difficult to isolate any single or predominant cause that can easily be addressed to reduce absence levels. At the same time, if we apply inappropriate solutions, we may risk simply exacerbating the problem. For instance, if there is already a major problem with management style or staff morale, then the introduction of punitive approaches to absence management, while perhaps producing short-term improvements, are likely to worsen the problems in the longer term.
For this reason, it is often not desirable to simply import absence management solutions or approaches from other organisations, even where they appear to have been successful. Instead, any initiatives should be based, as far as possible, on a genuine understanding of the nature and dynamics of absence within your own organisation.
Gathering data
To investigate these issues, it may be necessary to gather a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, including, for example:
The stated causes of absence as provided by employees and recorded by their managers
Detailed analysis of the available absence statistics - for example, broken down by nature of absence, short/long-term absences and absence patterns, as well as by demographic factors, such as grade, job type, department, location and so on
Where possible, qualitative data drawn from interviews or group discussions with employees, with the aim of gaining greater understanding of the factors underlying the statistical data.
Stated causes of absence
As part of the standard absence procedures, employees should be required to state the cause of their absence in a form that can be categorised to inform statistical analysis. Where appropriate, this will also be endorsed by a medical certificate.
Clearly, this data is an important starting point in investigating the causes of absence in the organisation. It is possible to assess, for instance, whether there appears to be recurrent causes that may be partly attributable to organisational factors - for example, a high incidence of stress-related absence or indications of illnesses that might be linked to environmental or work factors. This may be particularly helpful if such factors appear to be disproportionately prevalent in particular parts of the organisation, perhaps indicating problems associated with a specific type of work or location.
It is important to note that these formal declarations of the causes of absence will not, in themselves, provide a full picture.
First, not all employees will respond honestly - in particular, an employee who has taken time off without good reason is unlikely to admit it. Perhaps even more importantly, though, even where employees provide honest information, their stated reasons may not be fully accurate or complete. If an employee suffers from low morale or job satisfaction, then a relatively minor ailment may appear sufficient to justify time off work. The reported cause may therefore be accurate, in that the employee was suffering from the stated ailment, but may not provide any insight into the underlying reasons for non-attendance.
Similarly, employees who are suffering from stress or excessive workloads may feel that it is more acceptable to report a minor medical condition than to admit they are having difficulty coping with work pressures. Indeed, it may be that employees themselves are unaware of the underpinning factors that may be influencing their readiness to attend work. An employee may be aware of a recurrent medical condition, but fail to recognise that this is linked to some underlying psychological or other factor.
Overall, the stated reasons for absence provide an important starting point in understanding the nature and dynamics of absence in the organisation, but need to be treated with a degree of caution. From this starting point though, further insights can be gained by looking at the statistical patterns of absence across the organisation.
Detailed analysis of absence statistics
The next step is to look in detail at the organisation's absence statistics. Key sources of data are likely to include:
The balance between short and long-term absence across the organisation as a whole and within specific work areas and locations. Both types of absence can be potentially problematic to the organisation, but their causes and potential treatment may be very different. High levels of short-term, uncertificated sickness may be indicative of cultural or attitudinal problems with the organisation. Conversely, high levels of longer-term certificated sickness are more likely to reflect genuine medical problems, which in turn may be indicative of environmental or other health issues. It is possible that both can be addressed, but the required interventions will differ substantially.
Patterns of absence across the organisation as a whole and within specific work areas or job types. It may be helpful to identify any recurrent patterns or trends in absence - for example, any increases in absence levels on a periodic or seasonal basis, or any increases that can be correlated to particular work patterns or activities. It may be possible to link absence levels to peaks of work activity or demand or, conversely, to periods when workload is relatively low. It may also be possible to identify high levels of Monday or Friday absence in particular work areas or locations, which may be indicative of attitudinal problems.
Absence levels or patterns within specific departments, functions or locations. The various national absence surveys indicate that absence levels vary considerably both between different industry sectors and between different job types and levels. As a result, it would not be surprising to find some significant variation in absence levels across the organisation. Some of these variations will be predictable - for example, absence will commonly be lower among managers than non-managers, reflecting perceived differences in job satisfaction, rewards, personal commitment to the role and so on. However, you may also find that some variations are less easily explicable. For instance, you may identify specific departments or locations where absence is significantly higher than the norm, even though the roles in question are broadly similar to those in other areas. This may suggest that absence is being influenced by specific local factors - for example, management style or the working environment. While it would not be appropriate to jump to immediate conclusions about the potential causes, such apparent anomalies would justify further investigation. Equally, of course, you may identify areas where absence levels are significantly lower than the organisational average. Again, these are worth investigating as they may help to highlight instances of good practice in the local management of absence, which may be transferable across the organisation.
As with reported absence causes, none of this data is likely to be conclusive on its own. High levels of absence in a particular area may simply be coincidental, rather than necessarily indicative of an underlying problem. Nevertheless, analysis of these kinds of patterns should at least help you to identify areas or issues that merit further investigation, and perhaps provide you with some hypotheses, which can be explored and tested through further discussion with managers and employees.
Qualitative data from interviews or group sessions
Most commonly, organisations rely solely on statistical data to inform their absence management. In practice, though, the gathering of qualitative data will generally provide substantial further insights into the nature and dynamics of absence in the organisation.
Such data gathering does not need to be highly formal or sophisticated, although more formal arrangements may well be appropriate in larger organisations. In the first instance, it may be useful simply for the HR function (or equivalent) to hold informal discussions with managers and team leaders in any areas where there appear to be particularly high levels of absence. The discussion might:
run briefly through recent instances of absence in the relevant area, exploring the reported reasons for the absence, any relevant background and any subsequent actions taken by the manager (for example, following the individual's return to work). The focus of the discussion should not, at this stage, be on individual cases, except for the purposes of illustration, but rather to explore any apparent common themes or trends, which may merit further examination
explore the manager's perceptions of factors contributing to absence in their area. Local or front-line managers may often have insights into factors that may not be evident to those in the centre or at more senior levels - for example, problems relating to workload, job satisfaction, working environment, travel issues and so on. It is important not to be unduly influenced by what may be highly subjective or anecdotal views. But such perceptions may highlight issues that are worthy of further investigation
discuss, in general terms, the manager's own attitudes to absence, and their experience of handling absence issues. This may help to highlight any apparent shortcomings in the manager's own handling of absence - for example, an over-tolerant or over-strict attitude to absence, a reluctance to tackle apparently problematic absence, or a lack of understanding of the relevant absence policies and procedures.
Discussions with managers are a useful starting point, but almost inevitably provide a partial picture. Alongside such discussions, it may also be useful to hold some group discussions, with a cross-section of staff in areas with apparently high absence levels. This will provide a further perspective on the issues identified through discussions with managers, helping to either validate or challenge the views that have been expressed.
Again, the group discussions do not need to be highly formal, and should be conducted in an open, semi-structured way to encourage honest responses.
It may be helpful to neutralise some of the potential sensitivities surrounding absence issues by asking the group to focus on perceptions of absence across the organisation as a whole, rather than concentrating on their own work area. This will help to reduce the inevitable tendency of employees to try to justify their own absence records, and enable the discussion to focus objectively on perceived causes.
Useful prompts for the discussions may include:
asking participants to 'brainstorm' what they believe to be the most common causes of absence in the organisation. This will help you to identify the group's own priorities, without external prompting, and provide a sense of how their perceptions may compare with those of managers. It will then be possible to probe into the priority areas in more detail, along with any further suggestions that you may wish to add
presenting absence statistics for different parts of the organisation (including the participants' own work areas) and asking them to comment on significant differences. This can often be a useful means of challenging initial perceptions or opinions. For example, if participants believe that absence is closely linked to stress or workload, it may be useful to review relative absence levels in areas with apparently similar types of work. This may help to reinforce participants' views, or may raise further questions which can be explored
encouraging participants to discuss positive means of reducing absence levels, rather than simply focusing on identifying causes. This is likely to be particularly useful if the group becomes overly focused on blaming the organisation or its managers for the problem. Such views may or may not be justified and should certainly be given due weight, but can easily descend into unconstructive criticism. If the group is asked to identify possible solutions or responses, this will move the discussion forward, while also possibly providing greater insights into the perceived problems.
As with the manager sessions, you should not simply accept the groups' views at face value. Even if participants are encouraged to be honest, it is likely that they also will have a partial view of the nature and causes of absence in the organisation.
Just as managers may seek to justify their own handling of absence issues by focusing on the responsibilities of employees, so employees too may be more inclined to blame the organisations and its managers for high absence rather than acknowledging any attitudinal problems among the workforce - although, employees will often have strong views about others who are perceived as malingering.
Nevertheless, by combining management and employee perspectives on absence, you can begin to develop a three-dimensional picture of absence issues in the organisation.
You may need to exercise some judgement in arbitrating between the different perspectives, but it is not uncommon to find that the disparate views are mutually reinforcing.
For example, if managers perceive employees as uncommitted to work, while employees perceive managers as unsupportive or uninterested in their needs, it is likely that you have uncovered a genuine cultural problem that is affecting attendance, and for which both parties share some responsibility.
In most cases, this kind of relatively informal but systematic data gathering will be sufficient to provide some real qualitative insights into the nature and causes of absence in the organisation.
The aim should not be to produce a definitive account of the issue, but simply to provide you with sufficient meaningful data to inform your absence planning.
As issues begin to emerge from the discussions, you may wish to probe further into particular topics or parts of the organisation - for example, by talking in more detail to specific managers or employees. However, you should avoid over-analysis. The key priority issues are likely to emerge relatively quickly and there is often a surprising degree of unanimity between managers and employees about these, even if they are expressed or regarded differently. You can then move on to identifying potential responses.
In some cases, particularly in larger organisations, you may also wish to gather more precise data over time to underpin these initial judgements. It may, for example, be appropriate to conduct some form of written survey on absence issues among all or a sample of the workforce, either as a standalone exercise or as part of a regular employee opinion survey. This can help ensure that the views expressed in discussion are genuinely representative of the workforce as a whole.
This kind of formal data gathering is often best used as a means of tracking and evaluating absence management in the longer term. For example, it may be useful to incorporate a number of questions on absence in any periodic staff surveys. This will then help you to track any changes in attitudes to, or perceptions of, absence, while also providing a tool for evaluating the impact of any absence management initiatives on the workforce as a whole.
Attitudes to absence
We have discussed the potential mechanisms for gathering data about the nature and causes of absence in the organisation. We should at this point take a step back to consider the potential issues that might emerge, and their possible implications for absence management in the organisation.
There has been considerable academic research into the nature and causes of employee absence, generally with the aim of identifying some form of integrated model of absence that can be used to underpin effective absence management. Some attempts have been made to reduce the causes of absence to a single factor, such as linking absence levels to job satisfaction or to the respective economic consequence of attendance or non-attendance.
However, although both of these perspectives carry some validity - satisfied employees are generally more likely to attend work, just as employees are less likely to be absent if they face attendant financial penalties - they do not appear sufficient to explain the wide variations in attitudes to absence.
Increasingly, therefore, researchers have accepted that it is not possible to reduce the dynamics of absence to any single factor. In practice, it is likely that absence levels in any given organisation reflect a disparate mix of causes - individual, organisation and social. Evidence suggests that numerous variables can have a potential impact - positive or negative - on absence levels. Examples of such variables are discussed below.
Personal characteristics of employees
In statistical terms, absence levels can be correlated to a range of personal factors, such as employee age, length of service, gender, education, and so on. For example, new employees tend to have higher absence levels than their longer-serving colleagues, while older staff tend to take more sickness absence than their younger counterparts.
This does not imply any judgement about the causes or legitimacy of the absence in question, or about how attendance should be weighed against other factors. Moreover, in practice, the position will often be complex. For example, while older staff may take more sickness absence, they will also commonly comprise longer serving staff, who are generally more reluctant to take time off.
Consideration of the workforce profile can be important. If, for example, the organisation has a high turnover of staff, such that there are relatively few long-serving employees, we should not be surprised to find that absence levels are also relatively high. This in turn may beg questions about the underlying causes of both phenomena. However, this conclusion does suggest that, to tackle the absence issue effectively, we may need to look at the broader HR issues surrounding staff retention.
Similarly, if the profile of the workforce is relatively elderly, we may have to accept that a higher level of legitimate sickness absence is a likely consequence. In this case, it may be appropriate to consider what positive support can be provided to help prevent or alleviate possible health problems - for example, through the provision of medical screening, health education, and vaccination programmes. In this context, this kind of positive support may have a more significant long-term impact on absence than, for example, adopting a punitive approach.
The key issue here is to consider the profile of the workforce, both across the organisation as a whole and within specific work-groups or locations, and to assess how this might relate to the patterns of absence that are evident. The aim should not be to stereotype employees - an older employee is not necessarily infirm, any more than a younger employee is necessarily feckless. It should be to simply identify factors that, on an aggregate basis, may influence absence levels.
On this basis, we are more likely to identify the kinds of responses that will have a genuine impact. Considerations of the workforce profile may also be illuminating when comparing your absence levels and patterns with those of other comparator organisations. While the comparator organisations may be similar in terms of their activities or operations, they may display substantially different profiles in terms of age, length of service and so on, which may contribute to differences in absence levels.
Role and organisational factors
While there is no doubt that absence levels can be affected by individual characteristics, they are most likely to be influenced by factors relating to employees' roles, work activities or the organisation generally. Key considerations are likely to include:
Workload and stress. There is increasing recognition of the potential impact of workplace stress on absence levels. The term is a broad one, and can encompass numerous causal factors - excessive workload, perceived lack of control over work activities, working conditions, job or career insecurity, workplace relationships, etc. If the available statistical and qualitative data indicates potential problems in this area, it may be appropriate to conduct further investigations into the causes and potential solutions
Organisation and team size. In general, absence levels tend to be higher both in larger organisations and in larger teams or work groups. In part, this is because individuals feel more anonymous in larger groups, and perceive that their own contribution does not have a major impact on organisational or team performance. Conversely, in a small organisation or team, individuals will generally recognise that, if they do not attend work, their absence is likely both to increase the workload on their colleagues and potentially undermine overall performance. If there appears to be particular absence problems in larger work groups - for example, in relatively impersonal operations such as call centres - you may want to consider dividing the group into smaller teams with greater individual control and responsibility, if possible.
Occupational sick pay. While it is clear that occupational sick pay is generally a very positive and important benefit to employees, it should also be noted that, in general, the introduction of occupational sick pay schemes does lead to an increase in the level of absence. Although this is not necessarily a reason to remove or reduce general sick pay entitlement, if there is evidence that provision is being abused, it may well be appropriate to consider revising or tightening the existing arrangement
Organisational or work group culture. High absence levels often reflect existing norms or assumptions in the organisation, which may well have developed over a long period. If absence management has not traditionally been given a high priority in the organisation, or if managers have a tendency to be overly lenient in addressing absence problems, then employees may be accustomed to seeing absence as acceptable or even as an entitlement. Equally, if employees perceive that the standards of enforcement have been inconsistent or unfair (for example, if some managers have been seen to take a harder line than others), this may have produced a culture in which there is no desire or commitment to promote high attendance. Where this kind of culture has been established in the organisation, it may be difficult to change. Moreover, if the organisation has developed a tradition of relative tolerance towards absenteeism, the sudden introduction of a tougher regime may be seen as unfairly victimising the employees affected. If an inappropriate culture has developed in the organisation or in specific areas, then this will need to be addressed quickly, such as through the establishment and application of clear and consistent procedures, changes in working time arrangements, and support and encouragement for behavioural change.
Medical factors
Clearly, the above organisational factors are, at least in principle, capable of being addressed, and we can make a judgement about whether potential investment in certain areas, such as changing organisation structures or working practice, is likely to be justified by the potential improvements in absence levels. Alongside this, it is important to bear in mind that absence levels are also likely to be affected by a range of factors that may be less easy to influence or change.
The most obvious and important of these is genuine illness. Research indicates that most employee absence - probably around 50-60% - is genuinely attributable to some form of medical condition or ailment. No employer would wish to compel or even encourage employees to attend work if they are unfit to do so, and some care is needed to ensure that employee absence policies do not appear to be unduly coercive in dealing with legitimate medical conditions.
This does not mean it is impossible to reduce absence attributable to medical illness or ailments. Data drawn from surveys such as those conducted by the CBI and CIPD suggests that, within the broad category of medical-related absence, there is a range of categories that may be addressed.
The first is absence related to injuries resulting from accidents either at work or at home. At a very basic level, if the organisation has a relatively poor accident record, there may be scope to reduce absence by improving work practices, housekeeping, the working environment, etc. Of course, it is much more difficult to influence accidents in the domestic or social environment, and most employers would be reluctant to intervene in this area without good reason. However, if an individual is repeatedly absent as a result of, for example, injuries sustained through playing sport, it would not be unreasonable for the employer to point out that this situation is not acceptable (in that the employee's social interests are beginning to have an impact on their ability to carry out their work effectively) with the option of taking more formal action if the situation continues.
A further proportion of medical-related absence may be attributable to other lifestyle factors. These may range from employees with serious drink or drug-related problems through to those who simply fail on attend work on occasions through the after effects of drink or drugs.
In the former case, it will normally be appropriate to treat the issue as a serious medical condition, with appropriate help or support being given where possible to help the employee overcome the problem. In the latter, if the problem is persistent, it is again reasonable for the employer to inform the employee that the situation is not acceptable, with the option of taking formal action if the situation is not remedied.
Finally, even where employees are genuinely suffering from some unavoidable medical condition, there may be scope to reduce the impact. If an employee is repeatedly absent because of a persistent medical problem, it will generally be appropriate to seek medical advice - if possible, through consultation with the employee's own GP - to see if any action can be taken to assist the employee's recovery. Such action might range from changes in the employer's working activities or environment, through to the provision of additional medical support where appropriate. Similarly, in cases of long-term absence, it will often be appropriate to seek medical advice on how best the organisation can facilitate the individual's rapid return to work. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6 .
More generally, employers can take positive steps to help improve the health of their workforce. This might include, for example:
Various forms of health education and advice
Visiting clinics to carry out preventative health checks
Campaigns to help employees give up smoking, improve diet, etc
Vaccination programmes - such as providing flu injections
Providing or supporting access to health clubs or sports facilities.
Such support provides a direct benefit to employees, while also providing with a mechanism for helping to reduce sickness absence over the longer term. This is also one reason why many employers provide or contribute to private medical insurance - this helps to ensure employees can receive treatment, particularly for relatively routine conditions, at an early opportunity, so minimising the potential effect on attendance.
Other external and social factors
There are also a number of other external factors that can also influence the levels of absence in the organisation. These include:
Family, carer and other domestic commitments. Research indicates that domestic commitments are one of the most common causes of short-term absence, alongside minor medical complaints, such as colds or flu. There will be occasions when all employees face problems in areas such as childcare, responsibilities for elderly or dependent relatives, or other kinds of domestic crisis. In practice, even the most committed employee will feel that, on occasion, it is necessary to give priority to domestic responsibilities. In principle, it may be possible to take the time off as annual leave. In many organisations, however, it is seen as less acceptable to take annual leave without notice than to call in sick. Equally, it is often less acceptable to arrive at work late (for example, because of a childcare or similar problem in the morning) than to take a day off sick. As a result, when faced with a domestic problem, the simplest option for many employees is to pretend to be ill. Clearly, there are a range of steps that can be taken to alleviate this problem. Increasingly, organisations are allowing employees greater flexibility in their working hours or patterns to enable them to deal more easily with domestic responsibilities. Some organisations have also introduced various forms of domestic leave, with employees being allowed to take a specified amount of time off at short notice (in some cases, with a requirement to make up the time elsewhere). This may enable an employee to come in late rather than feeling obliged to take the whole day off.
Travel difficulties. This is an obvious issue, but should not be ignored. If the organisation, or some parts of the organisation, are located in areas that are difficult to reach - with poor public transport links or with highly congested traffic during peak hours - then it is likely this -will have at least some effect on attendance levels. Absence levels generally tend to be higher when employees have long or difficult journeys to work, when the weather is poor, or when employees are working at times when travel options are limited, such as weekend or night shifts. In part, this is a straightforward practical issue - if an employee's car breaks down and there is no other easy travel option, it may again feel more acceptable to call in sick than to acknowledge the real problem. Alongside this, there are motivational factors. If an employee is feeling mildly unwell, they are less likely to be motivated to attend work if this also involves a long or difficult journey. If the data suggests that absence levels are particularly high in less accessible locations or among those working 'unsocial' work patterns, then it may be worth considering options to improve accessibility. Options - other than the extreme of moving locations - might include the provision of additional transport, support for car pooling, or greater availability of flexible or remote working.
Economic and market conditions. Research indicates that absence levels tend to increase during times of economic growth, presumably because employees feel more secure in their jobs. While there is little that employers can do directly to influence the economic cycle, they should be aware of its potential impact. If the economy tightens and absence levels fall, this does not imply that absence management procedures should be weakened or disregarded. Equally, employers should not use the opportunity of a weak economy to impose unduly punitive approaches to absence management - this is likely simply to store up resentment for the future.
Absence levels can be affected by a diverse range of factors, some of which are more easily controlled than others. In practice, it is likely that the primary causes of absence in a given organisation will be a mix of some or all of the above, with different factors predominant in different parts of the organisation. In some cases, it may be that some relative simple changes - in working patterns, flexibility, travel arrangements and so on - can have a significant effect.
More commonly, it is likely that a range of approaches, perhaps mixing elements of enforcement and support, will be required both to ensure that absence levels improve in the short term and that these improvements can be sustained and built upon in the future.
It is also likely that the required balance of initiatives will vary across the organisation. At the same time, it is also essential that this basket of interventions is underpinned by fair and consistent principles applicable to all employees. In the next section , we will consider how employers can begin to develop a customised but coherent absence management strategy.
A major supermarket chain had identified a growing problem with absence, resulting in disruption to work patterns, reductions in the quality of customer service, and increasing pressure on colleagues required to provide cover. As well as introducing more rigorous absence management policies, the company also worked with trade unions to develop positive initiatives aimed at helping staff attend work. This involved consulting extensively with staff to identify potential barriers to attendance, including domestic and personal factors, and introducing new working and other practices to address the issues identified. This included developing new shift arrangements, the provision of 'emergency' leave to address carer or other domestic responsibilities, and encouraging 'shift swaps' to suit changing domestic needs. Alongside this, the company provided practical
training to all its managers in identifying and addressing absence issues
or problems within their own teams. |
Section two: Do we have a problem? Section three: What causes employee absence? Section four: Developing an absence policy Section five: Establishing absence procedures Section six: Handling 'problem' absence Section seven: Developing positive initiatives Section eight: Legal implications
|