The health-performance framework of presenteeism: A proof-of-concept study

Abstract

There is emerging research that considers presenteeism as a neutral behavior that has both positive and negative predictors and outcomes for individuals and organizations. This neutral perspective diverges from the traditional negative view of presenteeism and is aligned with the Health-Performance Framework of Presenteeism (HFPF) in which presenteeism is considered to be an adaptive behavior that aims to balance health limitations and performance demands. This proof-of-concept study aims to investigate the existence of different profiles of presentees based on their common health problems (mental and physical) and performance, and differences in attendance and job stressors among these subgroups. Latent profile analysis with 159 clerical employees and managers from the UK private sector supported the HPFP and revealed four profiles: those reporting a good health and high performance were labeled functional presentees (who represented 19% of the sample), those with poor health and low performance were the dysfunctional presentees (14%), those with relatively high performance but poor health were labeled overachieving presentees (22%), and those with average scores on both dimensions were the average Joe/Jane presentees (45%; a new profile based on this sample). There was no profile in the present sample that corresponded to therapeutic presenteeism, characterized by low performance but relatively good health. Although average Joe/Jane presentees were comparable to functional presentees in exposure to most job stressors, they reported poorer pay and benefits, and more health problems than the latter. Average Joe/Jane presentees reported the lowest number of days of presenteeism. No difference was found in absenteeism across profiles, highlighting difficulties in measuring presenteeism using a count-measure, since three profiles presented a similar number of days of presenteeism yet contrasted health-performance configurations. Dysfunctional presentees were systematically more exposed to job stressors compared to functional presentees. The results support the HPFP proposition for different subgroups of presentees who are influenced by their work environment. The study takes a person-centered approach, disentangle presenteeism from the total count of presenteeism days, offering implications for management and intervention practice. Presenteeism can have a bright side and be functional in certain contexts when the appropriate resources are available.

Re-visiting the six-item Stanford presenteeism scale (SPS-6) and its psychometric properties

“…Second, our results suggest that the items for both dimensions typically signify different consequences as a function of presenteeism and future studies may wish to expand to dissect the outcomes into productivity loss (avoiding distractions) and productivity gain or maintenance (completing work). These two dimensions are also in line with more current conceptualizations of presenteeism that argue that rather than conceiving it as one single phenomenon, presenteeism may have both its advantages and disadvantages to work ( Johns, 2010 ; Karanika-Murray and Biron, 2020 ; Biron et al, 2022 ) because of its potentially dual nature. In addition, our initial workings with both dimensions treated separately suggested that while work resources were more likely to be associated with completing work (through engagement), work demands were more likely to be associated with avoiding distractions (through burnout).…”

“…Hence, presenteeism should best be viewed from a dual perspective: it is both the tendency for people to come to work while feeling sick (negative connotation) and the propensity to consider the act of coming to work as an adaptive mechanism to overcome the severe consequences of being sick (positive connotation). Indeed, this perspective has been propagated by a number of authors ( Ruhle et al, 2020 ; Biron et al, 2022 ). Nevertheless, while the notion of a positive side to presenteeism has been upheld in its antecedent form, the same consideration does not seem to have been given to its outcomes.…”

Sick and working: Current challenges and emerging directions for future presenteeism research

“…Partially doing one's work while ill may surpass not doing any work. Indeed, empirical evidence is gradually accumulating that shows the occurrence of positive effects and co‐occurrence of both negative and positive effects (e.g., Biron et al, 2022; Karanika‐Murray & Biron, 2020), suggesting that presenteeism should not be evaluated and labeled as a behavior that is in itself positive or negative (Ruhle et al, 2020).…”

Can trust in management help? Job satisfaction, healthy lifestyle, and turnover intentions

“…For example, employees who trust their supervisors are more likely to engage in healthy lifestyle behaviors (Kelloway et al, 2023). Similarly, a study by Biron et al (2022) demonstrated that supervisor support can significantly influence employees' health behaviors indirectly through trust (Biron et al, 2022).…”

“…Firstly, we extend previous research by examining how trust in management mediates relationships between supervisor support, coworker support and meaningful work in relation to outcome variables. These factors play a crucial role in shaping a positive work environment and fostering wellbeing, productivity, stability and a healthy lifestyle all of which are essential for organizational success (Biron et al, 2022;Charoensukmongkol et al, 2016;Kelloway et al, 2023). Additionally, we investigate the mediating role of trust in management in the relationships between these predictors and outcomes, shown in Figure 1.…”