Understanding the Decision-Making Process Between Presenteeism and Absenteeism

Abstract

Due to their impact on various stakeholder groups, research on the global phenomena of sickness presenteeism (working despite illness) and sickness absenteeism (absence due to illness) is constantly growing. Most studies focus on identifying factors associated with the attendance behaviors. In contrast, there have been few theoretical approaches to explain the individual decision-making process for or against working while ill. Moreover, their empirical verification is still pending. In the present study, we refer to expectancy theory to theoretically explain how the decision is made. To empirically test the model predictions we applied experimental vignette methodology in an online survey with working adults. The hypotheses were confirmed in that the calculated and predicted decisions significantly matched the intentionally chosen decisions. The results contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the decision-making process and provide starting points for interventions to manage attendance behavior in organizations.

Contributing Factors of Presenteeism among Portuguese and Swiss Nurses: A Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups

“…According to Maaravi et al [ 69 ], national features and culture have a key impact on how nurses respond to health problems and, as a result, presenteeism. In both countries, great importance was given to a job well done and to the shared values of hard work and perseverance; however, there was also a shared perception of the legitimacy of absences across both cultures, and these may all play roles in understanding decisions to work when unwell [ 9 , 10 , 70 ].…”

Sickness presenteeism explained by balancing perceived positive and negative effects

“…To create a comprehensive pool of possible effects of presenteeism, we drew on the systematically derived collection of items that had already been created for a previous study (for details, see Lohaus and Habermann, 2021 ). This pool covered all relevant areas recently identified in a systematic review on presenteeism; i.e., the individual, the work, the organization, and the environment ( Lohaus and Habermann, 2019 ).…”

“…Is has been demonstrated that affected employees base their decision to work despite illness or not on their goals and expectancies of consequences ( Lohaus and Habermann, 2021 ) as postulated by the expectancy value theory of work motivation (VIE) by Vroom (1964 , 1995 , 2005) . The health belief model—HBM—( Rosenstock, 1966 ; Rosenstock et al, 1988 ) is an expectancy-value theory commonly used for the study of health-related behavior (e.g., Janz and Becker, 1984 ; Bakker et al, 1997 ; Fall et al, 2018 ; Wong et al, 2020 ; Zampetakis and Melas, 2021 ), such as preventive and sick role behavior ( Abraham and Sheeran, 2015 ).…”

“…As with many health-related behaviors (such as being vaccinated or not), the decision between working despite illness and calling in sick is dichotomous, as it only refers to whether individuals choose to work or not, not how much they work ( Gerich, 2015 ; Lohaus and Habermann, 2021 ; Rivkin et al, 2022 ; Whysall et al, in press ). In practice, the dichotomous decision often arises for legal reasons.…”

“…In this decision between presenteeism and absenteeism, affected individuals consider the expected consequences with their probability of occurrence and their significance for themselves ( Lohaus and Habermann, 2021 ). These assessments are based on their experience and past behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 ) as well as on expectations and beliefs ( Vroom, 1964 , 1995 ), such as what consequences people expect for attending or not attending work when ill ( Johansen et al, 2014 ; Cooper and Lu, 2016 ; Biron et al, 2021 ).…”