A key measure of employee engagement and focus of much HR attention is employee absenteeism – people taking unwarranted time off work. Of course, not being at work 'when you should be' technically means you are in breach of your employment contract, and can be taken very seriously. One local council regards this offence so seriously that it is considered to be fraud. People suspected or accused of serial offences are investigated by the counter-fraud team and face possible criminal charges if the allegations are found to be true.
This seems heavy-handed, but with absenteeism estimated to cost the UK economy £750m a year in lost productivity, the council justifies this as necessary to safeguard their ratepayers' money.
However, these tactics miss the bigger picture and so breed an ever bigger problem. According to a 2008 government report, employee presenteeism – people being at work when they shouldn't – costs the UK economy £966m a year. So absenteeism costs us nearly three quarters of a billion pounds, but presenteeism costs us nearly a billion!
These figures are highlighted by Professors Cary Cooper and Sue Cartwright from Lancaster University in the July edition of Professional Manager, in an article entitled, "Counting Cost of Presenteeism." They see it as a health issue and, quite validly, argue that while "enlightened employers already take workplace health issues seriously" there is a wider need for others to follow suit. They quote estimates that more flexible working arrangements produce a return of $3.50 for every £1 spent: i.e. a 350% return!
Such figures seem to suggest that it should be a no-brainer, yet they say that "few managers are aware of the impact their behaviour can have on the people they manage." Implying that it is all management's fault, they blame such factors as insensitive, bullying or abrasive management styles, all exacerbated in a time of increased economic pressure.
Now nobody can fault this logic, but there are three things that stand out for me in all this.
Firstly, the unconscious dichotomy between workers and managers seems to assume that managers themselves are not subject to these patterns. The very pressures that Cooper and Cartwright see as contributing to the problem are the pressures that managers face all the time, and even more so during an economic downturn. Managers need the same thinking time that they are seeking for the employees, as well as the right environment to try new ideas.
Secondly, that absenteeism and presenteeism are not necessarily opposites. The case is made that short term presenteeism causes longer absences because of its detrimental affect on health, but some absenteeism may be 'justified' on the basis of past presenteeism. Either way, eliminate the latter and you may significantly reduce the former.
Lastly, but perhaps most significantly is their statement, "The time one spends at work has become a proxy measure for work effort and commitment." Here is the key to the whole problem, because we, as a society, are still shackled by the belief that we work for a fixed number of hours rather than our inputs and outputs. Breaking this mindset is surely attacking the dual problems of absenteeism and presenteeism at their roots. The question then is no longer one of whether to go to work or not, but "Have I done what I need to do?"