Absence from work due to sickness is a recurring issue in the HR professionals’ work schedules. Figures have clearly proved that sickness absenteeism is costly and viewed by management as one of the major obstacles to productivity. In this regard, sick leave policy requires continuous review to make sure that it is kept under control. HR specialists also need to take into consideration the social aspect of the issue; such as ensuring a healthy workforce without abusing sickness benefits as well as how to manage effectively when employees report sick. So while business metrics are often developed to measure days of sick leave, managers may fail to realize that unusually low absence levels might not be the ideal situation either. Low levels of absenteeism may be the symptom of a more hazardous plague at the place of work called “presenteeism”.

“Presenteeism” – the opposite of absenteeism − has existed in some form or other for centuries because the employee feared loss of income and employment, and more so now since employment turned into a capitalized activity. However, the term itself − coined by Cary Cooper, a psychologist who specialises in organisational management at Manchester University, in the 1990s − is relatively new. In contrast with absenteeism, presenteeism is when employees are present at the place of work despite feeling unwell and unable to operate effectively, according to Mr Cooper. Employers may mistakenly think that the fact that staff are at their desk or machine, even if not feeling all that well, the wheels of productivity will turn as seamlessly as usual. However, the consequences of presenteeism on the business are serious and sometimes go beyond those of absenteeism.

In “Mental Health at Work: Developing the Business Case”, the British Sainsbury Centre argued that presenteeism costs 1.5 times as much as time lost on absenteeism. Furthermore, today rates of presenteeism exceed sickness absence rate. According to the European Foundation Report “Absence at work 2010”, sickness absence in EU represents an average of 4.6 per cent of working days. Moreover, this research also showed that the number of workers involved in presenteeism generally is between 50 to 70 per cent. These figures are a warning for organisations, especially during the economic downturn in terms of the company’s output, hidden long-term costs and decrease in work efficiency.

Traditionally, the sense of loyalty of both employers and colleagues and commitment to the clients were among the main reasons for staff turning up for work despite ill health.

In addition, “The Employee Outlook- Winter 2010-2011”, published by Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development showed that the 27 per cent of employees experience job insecurity while 42 per cent are concerned about their future. Therefore it is reasonable to think that employees tend to prefer going to work when they are ill because they fear they will be marked for redundancy when this situation eventually catches up with their company. From an HR perspective, the view is that presenteeism is on the increase due to precarious work and heightened job insecurity due to the current economic climate.

Managers and leaders have, historically, focused more on managing absenteeism rather than tackling both absenteeism and presenteeism concurrently, believing that the second issue was not a problem. In fact, some workplaces follow a policy that indirectly boost presenteeism by offering cash and/or time rewards to those who take few or no sick leave during the year. Managers tend to think that such policies discourage abuse of sick leave and promote a culture of non-sickness absence behaviour. Such measures often find the support of the workers, who think that they have acquired a new benefit, but in actual fact both the employer and the employee are the losers. The employer would be risking accidents and mistakes that may not be reversible, while the employee would be risking his or her health with possible chronic health conditions and could be a threat to health and safety.

So employers need to be aware that statistics alone will not give them the full picture. Instead, they need to realize that a degree of sick leave is inevitable. While policies are needed to manage this, they should ensure that these policies and procedure are not designed to give nice statistics at the risk of poor quality work and possible accidents. A more social approach can be tackled by the promotion of good health through well-being programmes such as healthy eating, cessation clinics and fitness campaigns. Cary Cooper also suggested that employers and managers need to engage with employees, work hard to build morale, and be sensitive to the needs of their workers. Line managers play an important role in this respect, and they are the ones that should explain that work and sickness do not mix and instruct their people to “go home, get well and come back” if they are to function well, be productive and ensure safety. The more consideration is given, the more committed and assured the workforce will be.

Ms Soriano is a Spanish journalist at the Foundation for Human Resources Development