Being Different, Being Absent? A Dynamic Perspective on Demographic Dissimilarity and Absenteeism in Blue-Collar Teams

Abstract

This study offers a new theoretical and empirical perspective on the dynamic effect of demographic dissimilarity on absenteeism behavior by team members over time. Integrating social identity theory with the theory of anchoring events (i.e., key social interactions), we propose that individual absenteeism behavior depends on the relational dissimilarity to the team age and gender. Using a sample of 2,711 individual newcomers in 820 blue-collar teams tracked over seven years, we show that gender and age dissimilarity effects are not constant over time; rather, dissimilar individuals increase their absences more strongly over the years. Particularly, women and older employees in predominantly male and younger teams show a steeper increase in absenteeism over time and, accordingly, higher absolute absenteeism at later stages of team membership than do their less dissimilar counterparts. We discuss the implications for relational demography and diversity theory as well as for diversity management.

Organizational Benefits of Onboarding Contingent Workers: an Anchoring Model Approach

“…These findings correspond with the three stages of the anchoring model wherein the employees (1) judge the exchange event (i.e., perceived effectiveness and training climate, as mentioned) and the exchange relationship (i.e., organizational justice), (2) use this judgment, rather than moment-to-moment monitoring of exchanges, to guide future social exchange behaviors (i.e., engagement, performance, and intent to return predicted by initial perceived onboarding effectiveness), and (3) consistently view the relationship in this way over time (i.e., low psychological contract breach). Given that the second stage (Bagger & Li, 2014;Reinwald & Kunze, 2020), including over-time effects (Pathki et al, 2020), has received some empirical backing, the novel contribution of our results to the anchoring model includes support for the evaluation and durability stages, one and three.…”

“…Finally, the new relationship state persists because the anchoring event, as an autobiographical memory, defines the relationship such that people attend to information that confirms their existing perceptions and disregard disconfirmatory information (Greenwald, 1980). Of the limited research that substantially applies the anchoring model, most studies find support for stage 2 of the anchoring model wherein a salient event sets the tone for future social exchange behaviors (e.g., family-supportive supervision predicts greater leader-member exchange, Bagger & Li, 2014; discrimination positively predicts absenteeism, Reinwald & Kunze, 2020). One study by Pathki et al (2020) demonstrated the lasting emotional consequences of an anchoring event (i.e., leadermember exchange), but the evaluation stage (stage 1) and durability/resistance to change stage (stage 3) require greater attention as does connection of all three stages as a reaction to an anchoring event.…”

“…Broadly, and as will be detailed further, the anchoring model suggests that key social exchanges (i.e., anchoring events) lead to a lasting change in how the relational partners perceive and behave within the relationship, such that social exchange relationships may develop quickly, rather than exclusively in long-term and open-ended contexts. A positive anchoring event might include supervisor's family-supportive actions (Bagger & Li, 2014) whereas a negative anchoring event might include discriminatory or differential treatment (Meister et al, 2020;Reinwald & Kunze, 2020) or interpersonal conflict (Leenders et al, 2016). Such anchoring events impact social exchange relationships across three theoretical stages: attitudinal reactions to the anchoring event and relationship (stage 1), behavioral social exchange responses to the event (stage 2), and durability or resistance of the new relational state to future perceptions that contradict the anchoring event (stage 3).…”

“…Second, we offer an empirical test of the anchoring model, which is commonly discussed in conceptual papers (e.g., Cropanzano et al, 2017;Morgeson et al, 2015) and mentioned in empirical papers (e.g., Epitropaki et al, 2020;Park et al, 2015) but remains largely "empirically untested" (James & Jennings, 2014, p. 2). Several studies do test one of the three proposed stages of the model (Bagger & Li, 2014;De Jong et al, 2017;James & Jennings, 2014;Pathki et al, 2020;Reinwald & Kunze, 2020;Trefalt, 2013), but the durability of the attitudes and behaviors quickly set in motion by anchoring events is a key and underexamined part of the model. We provide an empirical test of all three proposed stages of the anchoring model.…”

Countering the effects of occupational stigma on emotional exhaustion and absences with idiosyncratic deals.

“…We used two control variables that we expected to be associated with emotional exhaustion and absences: gender and age. Many studies have provided evidence of linear and curvilinear relationships between these two variables and absences (Ng & Feldman, 2008; Reinwald & Kunze, 2020), as well as emotional exhaustion (Purvanova & Muros, 2010). We also included three work demands that are likely to affect levels of emotional exhaustion and absences in the cleaning industry: the total number of hours worked per month, repetitive work (one item: “I always repeat the same tasks”), and pace of work (one item: “I have to work too fast at the client’s office”), both measured with a Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).…”