Presenteeism

Presenteeism or working while sick can cause productivity loss, poor health, exhaustion and workplace epidemics. While the contrasting subject of absenteeism has historically received extensive attention in the management sciences, presenteeism has only recently been studied. In Singapore, the term may also refer to the practice where employees stay in the office even after their work is done to wait until their bosses leave. Presenteeism or working while sick can cause productivity loss, poor health, exhaustion and workplace epidemics. While the contrasting subject of absenteeism has historically received extensive attention in the management sciences, presenteeism has only recently been studied. In Singapore, the term may also refer to the practice where employees stay in the office even after their work is done to wait until their bosses leave. Certain occupations such as welfare and teaching are more prone to presenteeism. Doctors may attend work while sick due to feelings of being irreplaceable. Jobs with large workloads are associated with presenteeism. People whose self-esteem is based on performance, as well as workaholics, typically have high levels of presenteeism. Presenteeism may have many motives. An employee may come to work because they simply need the money and cannot afford to take time off due to illness. Additionally, one could go to work due to a love and devotion to the job. In this case, presenteeism could be considered an act of organizational citizenship and inspire admiration from colleagues. Other reasons include feeling that their career prospects may be damaged if they take time off, and an expectation of presence driven from management. Scholars have provided various other descriptions of the concept. For instance, Simpson claimed that presenteeism is 'the tendency to stay at work beyond the time needed for effective performance on the job.' Aronsson, Gustafsson, and Dallner wrote that it means attending work even when one feels unhealthy. In a recent review of the literature, Johns highlighted the lack of agreement between the many definitions. The author claimed that many of the definitions lack utility and that the term is most often defined as going to work while ill. He further noted that definitions of presenteeism, which are centered on attending work while sick, have received more evidence of construct validity. In other words, when defined as coming to work while sick, presenteeism seems to relate more to logical outcome variables and correlates. Simply viewing presenteeism as a negative act that leads to productivity loss and decreased health may be restricting potential analysis of the construct. In some cases, scholars relate presenteeism to absenteeism, which is the tendency not to show up for scheduled work. Furthermore, Johns described the notion that some believe that factors that reduce absenteeism will increase presenteeism. He stated, however, that this is plausible but not always the case because he pointed out that Aronsson et al. found high rates of presenteeism in industries where absenteeism was also high. Additionally, research that examines absenteeism is at times used to draw conclusions about presenteeism. For example, Virtanen, Kivimaki, Elovainio, Vahtera, and Ferrie found that employees exhibited much higher rates of absenteeism once they became permanent workers. The authors thought that this increase could have been due to decreases in the preexisting levels of presenteeism. However, they did not directly measure presenteeism. Commenting on such research behavior, Johns said in his review of the literature that researchers should not infer presenteeism from absenteeism data. Instead, the author noted that both constructs should be measured at the same time. Temporary and permanent employment are often considered when examining the antecedents of presenteeism. More specifically, researchers have studied these positions with the thought that lack of job security will cause those who do not have permanent positions to come to work more often even if they are sick. This hypothesis, however, has not received complete support. Aronsson et al. discovered that permanent employees were more prone to presenteeism than those in more seasonal positions. In contrast, Aronsson and Gustafson found no effect of job type.Furthermore, Heponiemi et al. found that fixed-term employees as opposed to permanent employees were less likely to report working while ill, and the work of Bockerman and Laukkanen supported this finding. Based on these inconclusive results, Johns noted that researchers had to reconsider the job insecurity hypothesis. Individuals working in certain occupations may be more prone to presenteeism. In a study in Sweden, Aronsson et al. found that those offering welfare and teaching services demonstrated higher rates of presenteeism. The authors pointed out that these employees often worked with those in more vulnerable populations such as the elderly. Outside of education and healthcare, most of the occupations had lower rates of presenteeism; however, the results did suggest that higher risks jobs, which had more physical workload and stress, saw increased levels of presenteeism. Certain work environments may stimulate presenteeism. To explore this topic, Dew, Keefe, and Small qualitatively examined a private hospital, a large public hospital, and a small factory. In the private hospital, there was little pressure from management to exhibit presenteeism; however, a sense of family seemed to exist between the staff, and a strong loyalty to coworkers pushed employees to come to work while unhealthy. The public hospital had a distant management, but presenteeism was fostered by 'loyalty to professional image, colleagues, and the institution as a whole.' Finally, in the factory, there was strong pressure from management for employees to exhibit presenteeism. Furthermore, workers often had few other employment options, which often resulted in increased presenteeism.