The current page is not translated to the selected language.
Studies published in 2003 and early 2004 examine the extent of absence from work in the UK and managerial policies of monitoring and control. They suggest that absence levels remain steady and are rarely seen as a problem, but also that new factors such as stress may be changing absence patterns and that the dominant managerial policy of neglect may need to change.
Several studies of the management of attendance at work have appeared since 1999, when the issue was examined by EIRO (UK9911141F). This feature updates information on the extent of absence from work and policies for its management.
Absence levels in the UK are measured in two main ways. The first comprises periodic surveys by bodies including the Confederation of British Industry and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). These surveys ask managers to estimate absence rates and the associated costs. Key findings from the latest CIPD survey, Employee absence 2003: a survey of management policy and practice, published in July 2003, were that:
Previous surveys going back to the 1980s give broadly similar numbers, but because samples are constructed on different bases trends are difficult to assess with any accuracy. The 'headline' figure from the CIPD research is, however, in line with that reported in the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, which was based on more robust methods. Problems of low response rates and a possible tendency for reports to come from those with the best monitoring systems have led some to conclude that the data from such surveys are 'severely biased' (Labour Market Trends, April 2002).
The second method thus uses questions to individual employees through the General Household Survey and the Labour Force Survey. Estimates from the latter put the average absence rate at only 2%, while figures from the former indicate little in the way of an overall trend since the 1970s. Higher rates in the public sector are confirmed.
There is some evidence that patterns of absence and of underlying health are changing. A recent study by the Health and Safety Executive has noted a growth in self-reported work-related illness, a particular rise in reports of stress, and a rapid growth in sickness absence among those with a work-related illness, which doubled in the period 1995-2002.
The costs of absence are estimated, in the CIPD survey described above, at an average of GBP 567 per employee per year. However, studies over many years show that rigorous measurement remains very rare, so that these estimates are really averages of guesses. A survey in 2003 of predominantly small engineering firms concluded that 'much absence reporting is merely a paper exercise' (IRS Employment Review 794, February 2004). A case study investigation of 13 organisations found that in only two could managers place any financial cost on absence (How employers manage absence, Stephen Bevan et al, DTI Employment Relations Research Series 25, 2004). A 2001 study of seven organisations estimated that absence costs between 2% and 16% of annual salary costs, with only half of this being due to the direct costs of paying absent employees; it concluded that 'even the most 'leading-edge' UK employers ... appear fundamentally ill-equipped to form a view of their sickness absence costs' ('Costing sickness absence in the UK', IES Report 382, 2001).
Reasons cited in the studies for the increased importance of absence costs include:
Hence, for example, in 1998 the Cabinet Office set targets for reducing absence levels across all government bodies and produced an action checklist.
Checklists and advice on good practice typically emphasise:
The limited extent and depth of record keeping is described above. On the line manager role, the abovementioned survey of engineering firms reported that half the personnel managers interviewed felt that line managers did not play an active role in relation to long-term absence. Case studies in seven organisations indicated that the policy of line manager involvement was often 'a case of 'pass the baton' ' (Personnel Review, 2002).
The return-to-work interview developed during the 1980s when self-certification of short absences was introduced, with the result that firms were encouraged to review this process rather than simply rely on a doctor’s note. The danger is that the activity will be merely perfunctory, and some research indicates that, with growing performance pressures, dealing with return-to-work forms is not a priority. The case studies referred to in the previous paragraph found that an interview was used in only four cases, and then not universally.
On maintaining contact, the difficulty is that absentees are by definition not visible and that once they are absent for a time cover is arranged and there is no immediate pressure to maintain contact. Moreover, health problems are inherently personal and difficult. The DTI study quotes a manager in a small firm as saying 'you have to be very careful what you say to people', and argues that personal relationships in such firms make it hard to 'challenge employees'. The Personnel Review article reports a general reluctance to apply formal rules and to query reasons for absence.
A recent review of the effectiveness of absence control policies could find only eight scientifically reliable studies in Britain and the USA in the period since 1970 (Managing attendance at work, Anne Spurgeon, Institute of Occupational Health, University of Birmingham, 2002). The indications were that return-to-work interviews had no clear effect, but that attempts to improve the attendance of those with high absence levels and early contact with absentees appeared to have value.
Despite growing attention to labour costs over many years and the fact that absence is a significant cost, detailed efforts to measure and control attendance remain remarkably rare. The studies reviewed above suggest several reasons. First, accurate measurement is difficult and time-consuming. Second, cost pressures mean, ironically, that managers have less time to deal with monitoring and control than was the case in the past. Third, action can entail inquiry into workers’ personal circumstances, an approach with which many managers seem to feel uncomfortable. Fourth, hard evidence on the effectiveness of control policies is lacking. Finally, a striking fact about the British labour market is the reduced labour force participation of older workers, especially men; potential attendance control issues have thus been removed.
It is also the case, however, that some firms make attendance control a central part of their labour relations policies. Such control was a noted feature of the Japanese-owned firms that began to enter Britain in the 1980s, and it was emulated by some others. Examples of good practice are produced by the Health and Safety Executive among many others ('Best practice in rehabilitating employees following absence due to work related stress', L Thomson et al, HSE Research Report 138, 2003). A policy of neglect is not the only one available. Attendance control appears to work, however, where it is part of a wider set of measures, and simple 'crack-downs' have been found to be counter-productive.
Attendance control may become more important in the future with growing concerns about stress at work and the need to balance work and family demands. The HSE notes that stress is the second largest category in self-reported reasons for illness. In addition, Europe-wide policies of increasing labour market participation may mean that workers with health problems, who are now outside the labour market, enter employment. Among prime-age men, the rate of economic inactivity rose five-fold between the 1970s and 1990s; and over this period the proportion of inactive men reporting a limiting health problem rose from 10% to 40%. The evidence to date indicates that British firms are not well-prepared should attendance control become more salient than it now is. (Paul Edwards, IRRU)