What seems like a relatively benign situation is taking hold like a cancer and spreading around the globe in organizations. It’s called presenteeism, where employees at work produce less due to health-related issues. Originally coined by Jack Hemp in 2004 in his article published in the Harvard Business Review (Hemp, 2004), presenteeism has recently gained the attention of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Agency of Safety and Health at Work because of its rising costs to organizations.
According to a study conducted by Chisholm, et al. (2016), this global phenomenon has increased more than 50%, surpassing absenteeism in costs for organizations. According to a study that examined four pharmaceutical companies in Japan, presenteeism was by far more costly than absenteeism or medical/pharmaceutical costs. The study showed that while absenteeism cost employers $520 per person per year (11%), presenteeism cost 64% more at $3,055 per person per year (Nagata, et al., 2018). In addition, presenteeism cost more than medical/pharmaceutical expenses at $1,165 (25%). Another study from a survey conducted by the human resources association, CIPD, found that 86% of their respondents in their 2018 survey reported they had observed presenteeism in their organization over the past year, and over 25% stated that presenteeism had increased over the same period (“Health and Wellbeing”, 2018)
The driving health problem at work that is causing presenteeism is mental health, including depression and anxiety, followed by allergies, arthritis, obesity, and back problems (Loeppke, Taitel, Haufle, Parry, Kessler, & Jinnett, 2009). The study in Japan confirmed the same results finding two of the highest total cost burdens from chronic illnesses were related to mental (behavior) health conditions and musculoskeletal disorders (Nagata et al., 2018). In addition, the WHO has found that in this last decade, from 2005 to 2015, depression has increased more than 18% and they have predicted that more than 300 million individuals have been living with depression (“World Health Organization,” 2017). In fact, Australia has passed a policy, called the “R U OK” campaign, requesting employers to check in on the wellbeing of their employees (“Support Leadership,” 2016).
Both Financial and Ethical Reasons Should Drive More Organizations to Address Presenteeism
With the rise of presenteeism, and the cost impacting corporations, why aren’t more organizational leaders addressing this issue? One reason could be that presenteeism is hard to evaluate and manage by Human Resources, where absenteeism is a tangible amount of days that unhealthy employees miss work, which provides a measured and observed metric.
If employers could manage presenteeism, organizations could gain a competitive advantage in the workplace. In fact, a joint study by the Benfield Group and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine have found that only 14% of organizations are addressing this rising issue (Willingham, 2008). Furthermore, the financial drain on organizations from presenteeism could lead to more chronic health conditions, and result in declining productivity, absenteeism, and even long-term disability, driving health-related costs even higher (Loeppke et al., 2009). While the literature differs on the exact cost of presenteeism, even a minimum of two months a year of lost days is a significant cost to organizations.
But costs are not the only reasons organizations should strive to manage presenteeism. Ethical reasons are just as important. If employees are happy, they produce 31% more, are 30% more creative, and even achieve 37% more in sales than their peers (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005).
Authentic Leadership Could be the Leadership Style to Impact Presenteeism
Maybe a simple change in perspective could help reduce presenteeism — both from the organization’s view and the leaders’ attitudes. Recent studies have alluded to how authentic leadership’s behavioral traits of positive support and justice could impact employees in a positive way, improving employees’ commitment, wellbeing, job performance, and job satisfaction, while reducing turnover by creating a caring and fair atmosphere (e.g., Clapp-Smith, et al., 2009; Datta, 2015; Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015; Wong & Cummings, 2009). In addition, studies have also looked at how authentic leadership could positively impact employees who are dealing with negative issues in the workplace, like stress, burnout, hostility, low levels of confidence, negative attitudes, and low mental health (Datta, 2015; Hashim et al., 2017; Laschinger et al., 2015; Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015; Read & Laschinger, 2015; Feng-I, 2016; Yadav & Dixit, 2017). Most of these outcomes – high stress, high anxiety, reduced levels of confidence and low mental health can be causes for employee presenteeism. (For more information on authentic leadership, read my related blog.)
Is it Positive Support or Fairness that Moves the Needle and Improves Presenteeism?
But a gap still exists in whether authentic leaderships’ behaviors of positive support or fairness are more important in dealing with presenteeism. In a current study by Drakeley (2018), the researcher sought to close this gap by studying whether one or the other of authentic leaders’ traits, that is positive support or justice, was more impactful on employees experiencing presenteeism. The study found that authentic leaders’ positive support trait was statistically more significant to employees with low emotional stability than the leaders’ justice trait on their commitment to the organization. However, leaders’ justice trait of fairness and justice was still statistically significant. The study also found that a statistically significant correlation existed between the three variables, employee’s emotional stability, their commitment to the organization, and their leaders’ positive support. Justice, the other variable, was not significantly correlated to all three.
Ways Leaders Can Provide Positive Support to their Employees
By just changing a leaders’ attitude in certain conditions, leaders can impact employees in very positive ways, especially those experiencing presenteeism. For example:
- Leaders can highlight employees’ strengths while developing their weaknesses to give organizations a competitive advantage in the workplace (Lloyd & Atella, 2000).
- Reframing is another way to provide positive support to employees. This is where the leader looks at the circumstances in different ways. For example, the leader could reframe a negative into a positive to help employees see alternative options and scenarios, such as showing how a failure can be an optimal learning experience (George & Sims, 2007).
- Another option is communicating with employees about how to change their performance without the fear of repercussions (Diepering, 2017). In addition, communicating with the whole team that they should be on the lookout for depression, anxiety, or stress can create a network of support (Diepering, 2017).
- Finally, promoting awareness is helpful, such as informing employees about employee assistance services, and educating employees on how depression and burnout can impact cognitive functions (Diepering, 2017).
References
Chisholm, D., Sweeny, K., Sheehan, P., Rasmussen, B., Smit, F., Cuijpers, P., & Saxena, S. (2016). Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: A global return on investment analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3, 415-424.
CIPD. (2018). From health and wellbeing at work. Retrieved from: https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/health-and-well-being-at-work_tcm18-40863.pdf.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital. The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227-240.
Datta, B. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of authentic leadership. Internal Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1), 62-75.
Diepering, S. (2017, November). 6 Effective leadership strategies to address presenteeism in the workplace, 4seeds. Retrieved from https://www.4seeds.co.za/6-effective-leadership-strategies-address-presenteeism-workplace/
Drakeley, C. (2018). Follower commitment: The impact of authentic leadership’s positivity and justice on presenteeism. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Feng-I, F. (2016). School principals’ authentic leadership and teachers’ psychological capital: Teachers’ perspectives. International Education Studies, 9(10), 245-255.
George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hashim, R. A., Ahmad, B., & Jamaludin, A. (2017). Relationship between leadership styles and effective commitment among employees in National Anti-Drug Agency (NADA). Global Business and Management Research: An Internal Journal, 9(1), 39-51.
Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: At work but out of it. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 49-58.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Borgogni, L., Consiglio, C., & Read, E. (2015). The effects of authentic leadership, six areas of work life, and occupational coping self-efficacy on new graduate nurses’ burnout and mental health: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1080-1089.
Lloyd, P. J., & Atella, M. D. (2000). Positive leadership that inspires: Theoretical and empirical perspectives from positive psychology, existential theory, and hardiness research. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 4(2), 155-165.
Loeppke, R., Taitel, M., Haufle, V., Parry, T., Kessler, R. C., & Jinnett, K. (2009). Health and productivity as a business strategy: A multiemployer study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(4), 411-428.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
Nagata, T. et al. (2018). Total health-related costs due to absenteeism, presenteeism, and medical and pharmaceutical expenses in Japanese employers, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(5), 273-280.
Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 363-377.
Read, E. A., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2015). The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on nurses’ relational social capital, mental health and job satisfaction over the first year of practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(7), 1611-1623.
Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 6-23.
World Health Organization (2017). Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254610/1/WHO-MSD-MER-2017.2-eng.pdf?ua=1
Yadav, N., & Dixit, S. (2017). Authentic leadership and employees’ work-related quality of life: A study of IT organizations in India. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 222-230.
Safety Institute of Australia. (2016). Supportive Leadership. The most important thing for improving mental health at work. Retrieved from: https://www.sia.org.au/news-and-publications/news/most-important-thing-improving-mental-health-workWillingham, J. G. (2008). Managing presenteeism and disability to improve productivity. Benefits and Compensation Digest, 45(12), 10-14.