Effects of presenteeism, a path worth exploring

We talk more about absenteeism. A new research trend has emerged to look into the opposite of it. There are confusing definitions and complicated diagnostics yet the path is worth exploring.

Absenteeism, generally defined as not showing up for work, has a long research history. This is mainly because of its perennial cost to organisations. However, it is only recently that presenteeism has become a subject of interest.

Although there is some definitional confusion, the most recent scholarly conception of presenteeism involves showing up for work when one is ill.

Excitement concerning the subject has been fuelled by claims that working while ill, causes much more aggregate productivity loss than absenteeism and by the idea that managing presenteeism effectively could be a distinct source of competitive advantage.

Diverse

In one approach, presentees are people who are 'at work, but not working', at least not up to their full capacity. In sum, the British and Europeans have been mainly interested in the frequency of the act of presenteeism as a reflection of job insecurity and other occupational characteristics and the Americans, in the productivity consequences of this behaviour as a function of various illnesses while ignoring the causes of showing up ill. Both lines of inquiry are legitimate, yet diverse in their approaches.

In medicine, pharmaceutical and other medical interventions have traditionally been evaluated in terms of two health-focused criteria, medical efficacy and safety.

In recent years, however, the increasing cost of healthcare, combined with the provision by employers of employee health plans, has led to a third criterion of interest, economic impact.

Accordingly, employee health costs to an employer include the direct cost of any health plan, costs due to employee absenteeism and costs due to reduced productivity among presentees not working at full capacity.

Statistics

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online, the term presentee was first used by the American author Mark Twain in his humorous 1892 book, The American Claimant. Later, presenteeism made occasional appearances in business-related periodicals, including Everybody's Business (1931), the National Liquor Review (1943), and Contemporary Unionism (1948).

In all of these early uses and through the 1970s, the term was clearly meant either to be the literal antonym of absenteeism, or to connote excellent attendance.

There are some interesting statistics available in the Swedish scene. Aronsson and colleagues in 2005 included an additional item in the Swedish labour-market survey as follows: "Has it happened over the previous 12 months that you have gone to work despite feeling that you really should have taken sick leave because of your state of health?"

The response format consisted of never, once, two to five times, or over five times, in line with their previous study. In the earlier Aronsson study, 37 per cent of respondents reported attending work while sick more than once.

In the later Aronsson study, 53 percent made the same declaration (38 percent two to five times and 15 percent more than five times). The reason for this increase is not clear but probably attributed to the accelerated change in workplaces.

Interesting research findings are available on the Australian scene.

In 2007, Medibank commissioned Econtech to identify the costs and impacts of presenteeism on the Australian workforce and economy. This landmark report and study revealed that in 2005-6 the cost of presenteeism to the economy was estimated at Australian dollars 25.7 billion, nearly four times the cost of absenteeism.

Productivity

The overall cost of presenteeism to the Australian economy in 2009-10 was Australian $ 34.1 billion. This equates to a decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) of 2.7 percent compared to the'no presenteeism' scenario. Private consumption - household spending on all goods and services - which accounts for 76 percent of total consumption in Australia - decreased by 3.3 percent (Australian Dollar 22.6 billion) due to presenteeism.

The negative impact of labour productivity losses due to presenteeism flows throughout the economy, leading to a general reduction in levels of exports, imports and investments.

Indeed, compared to the 'no presenteeism' scenario, exports are lower by 2.7 percent ($8.2 billion) whilst imports are reduced by 2.1% ($6.0 billion). Investment is lower by 2.6 percent ($5.0 billion). This further illustrates the effects on the Australian trade balance,which decreases due to the fact that the decrease in exports is relatively higher than the decrease in imports.

To my knowledge, there has no proper study done on the effects of presenteeism in Sri Lanka. This opens up an opportunity to explore and assess the true situation here. I have come across employees in a variety of disciplines who complain of the inability to take leave when they want, because of the shortage of people.

This is in the context of some organisations preferring to pay overtime and use a smaller workforce than deploying the actual number needed. The end result is whether the person likes it or not, he or she has to report to work, while the excessive overtime payments act like 'carrots'.

One phenomenon I have clearly seen in some Sri Lankan workplaces is that employees being physically present, but being mentally and emotionally absent.

Their bodies are at work but the heads and hearts are elsewhere. It can be a symptom of a deep rooted cause, revolving around presenteeism.