Millennials: sickness presenteeism and its correlates: a cross-sectional online survey

Habermann²,

Kertoubi

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Presenteeism—going to work while ill—is a widespread phenomenon worldwide. Previous research has concentrated mainly on its negative effects. This study investigates the positive consequences of presenteeism derived from a comprehensive content model of presenteeism that was developed on the basis of negative effects. In a quantitative online-survey employees (N = 181) rated the degree of experienced or potential positive effects depending on whether they had worked while ill (75%) or not (25%) during the previous year. Results revealed that all postulated positive effects described in the content model were relevant. Most positive effects were rated significantly higher by participants who had shown presenteeism in comparison to those who had not. The positive effects significantly predicted presenteeism propensity (adjusted R2 = 0.20) for participants having shown presenteeism. In addition, an overall rating of positive effects was significantly related to presenteeism, however, to a lesser degree. Overall, the results demonstrate the applicability of the content model to positive effects of presenteeism. They point to the need for further investigation of them and their consideration for the management of presenteeism.

Section: Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working While Ill Is Not Always Bad—Positive Effects of Presenteeism

Habermann²,

Kertoubi

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…“Do you have the option to adjust your workload when you feel unwell or unbalanced?”). Further, they rated their health on four items with the following instruction: “Please rate your health based on the following statements between the two endpoints mentioned:” ( Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ; α = 0.80). An example item is “My current state of health is…” followed by the endpoints “very bad” and “very good.” All control variables were rated on five-point scales.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We calculated the sickness presenteeism prevalence as the percentage of participants having shown presenteeism (at least 1 day) during the 12 month before the survey. The number of health events (sick days) was determined as the sum of the presenteeism and absenteeism days ( Gerich, 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ). We computed presenteeism propensity as presenteeism days divided by the number of sick days ( Biron et al, 2006 ; Gerich, 2014 , 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sickness presenteeism explained by balancing perceived positive and negative effects

Habermann²,

Nachreiner

2022

Self Cite

Within the ever-growing body of research on sickness presenteeism, studies of perceived consequences are scarce and equally rare are joint considerations of beneficial and harmful effects. This study examined how experienced and expected consequences of the behavior are related to presenteeism. Positive and negative effects were considered simultaneously and comprehensively. This approach allowed us to capture the trade-off process of individuals in deciding to work or call in sick when ill. In a cross-sectional online survey, 591 working adults in Germany rated a thoroughly developed pool of specific experienced or potential consequences of working while sick and gave an overall judgment of effects. The results show that perceptions of effects are consistent with behavior. Individuals who exhibit presenteeism do so primarily because of work-related effects such as the completion of one’s work tasks and the meeting of deadlines. Few specific effects stand out and can largely explain attendance behavior and the overall assessment of effects. The findings are consistent with the assumptions of the health belief model and the expectancy value theory of work motivation and they relate to the health-performance framework. They demonstrated that benefits and costs of the behavior are simultaneously weighed in the decision to engage in presenteeism or not.

“…On this basis, we calculated the sickness presenteeism prevalence as the percentage of participants having shown presenteeism during the 12 month before the survey. Further, sick days were determined as the sum of presenteeism and absenteeism days ( Gerich, 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ). Sickness presenteeism propensity, which reflects an individual’s probability of opting for sickness presence rather than sickness absence in the case of illness ( Gerich, 2016 ), was computed as presenteeism frequency divided by the number of sick days ( Biron et al, 2006 ; Gerich, 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, sick days were determined as the sum of presenteeism and absenteeism days ( Gerich, 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ). Sickness presenteeism propensity, which reflects an individual’s probability of opting for sickness presence rather than sickness absence in the case of illness ( Gerich, 2016 ), was computed as presenteeism frequency divided by the number of sick days ( Biron et al, 2006 ; Gerich, 2016 ; Lohaus and Röser, 2019 ). Thus, it offers information with regard to the decision-making process of the individual.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Decision-Making Process Between Presenteeism and Absenteeism

Habermann²

2021

Self Cite

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.