Throw a sickie – A worsening conundrum

There certainly are many important issues on the HR Professionals’ agenda requiring a great deal of attention, efforts and resources to be properly addressed; amongst these the phenomenon of fictitious sickness is regrettably destined to stay high at the top. “Throw a sickie” is an expression used to indicate that an employee will not go to work on a given day on account of being unwell; indeed this expression is used when the person is not actually ill, but rather feigns illness.

 

 

 

The vast majority of employers know from experience that this undesirable employee “practice” does produce detrimental effects both from the financial and organizational point of view. Notwithstanding, for different reasons, organizations have habitually found it rather difficult tackling and stemming the problem, and latest research shows that the magnitude of the phenomenon is indeed growing, rather than declining.

 

The findings of an investigation conducted by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI, 2010), revealed that by reason of the “throw a sickie” phenomenon in 2009 went wasted in the UK 27 million working days, which accounted for an estimated total loss of £17 billion. A similar research (PwC, 2011) showed that this cost reached in 2010 a staggering £32 billion. The investigation, which was administered to the employees of 2,000 companies worldwide, revealed that UK’s workers have an average 10 days “unscheduled absence” from work every year, nearly the double figure of their American counterpart, who recorded an average rate of 5.5 days a year. The UK data, albeit similar to that recorded in Western Europe countries where the average absence rate reached 9.7 days a year, appears to be even more alarming whether compared with the Asia-Pacific score, where a 4.5 average rate was recorded.

 

 

 

Absenteeism is a conundrum British, but clearly not only British, businesses need to devote particular attention to and do whatever they can to solve. Illness represents the most recurring cause for employee absenteeism but more often than not defining the boundaries between sickness and sickie proves to be a very tricky feat to perform. Investigating and identifying the real causes behind absenteeism assume hence a greater importance and represent necessary activities for putting employers in a position to effectively and properly tackle the issue.

 

 

 

As suggested by Phelps (2011), dissatisfaction with one’s job can actually cause an individual feeling unwell and hamper his/her capability and willingness to return to work as early as possible when actually ill. A relatively recent survey carried out by the Department for Work and Pension (DWP), the “General practitioners' attitudes towards patients' health and work” report, revealed that 61 percent of GPs “somewhat or completely” agreed that the fit note had helped them discussing with patients their return to work (the notes issued by GPs provide employers information about the tasks and activities these can perform returning to work in order to favour and speed their return up). The study also revealed that 70 percent of the surveyed GPs consider fit notes effective to plan a phased return to work of their patients, whereas nearly the entire panel, that is to say 99 percent, agreed on the beneficial effects of work for individual health.

 

The positive impact on individual health and well-being of having a job is also confirmed by the findings of a recent investigation conducted by Comres on behalf of the insurance company Legal and General, which revealed that Britain’s family doctors, albeit with a different frequency, regularly see the individuals who have been dismissed by their employer.

Commenting on the PwC investigation findings Phelps contended that it is hence untrue that “the US culture of long hours and short holidays” necessarily implies higher absenteeism rates. It may be rather argued that it is possibly by virtue of their higher level of engagement and commitment that US employees are better able to counterbalance and cope with stress and pressure in the workplace.

 

 

 

It can be indeed identified a number of reasons why American and Asian workers are in general more incline to go the extra mile; amongst these flexible labour laws play indeed a remarkable role. Individuals are in fact well aware that commitment is, first of all, important as a means to secure their job stability. Yet, American organizations are typically more active and more generous than British firms when planning resources to improve their workforce well-being.

 

 

The Comres study revealed that British businesses actually struggle to effectively and properly manage illness and absence due to illness in the workplace. Buckley (2011) maintains that many organizations lack the specialist knowledge and do not deploy the required resources to rehabilitate employees returning to work after absence due to illness-related reasons, whereas these should put in place what it takes to provide a bespoke support to make employee return to work from illness smoother and easier.

 

 

 

Absenteeism can be in many respects regarded as the antonym of engagement. Phelps contends to this respect that good absence policies, capable to deter unscheduled absences, whereas protecting employees absent by reason of genuine illness, can effectually help. Although this view is absolutely supportable in that specific sickness policies enable employers to make clear, since the very beginning, the importance these attach to the phenomenon, things may prove not to be as straightforward as expected in practice.

 

 

 

Organizations habitually have good and potentially effective policies on paper; the real problem is that these policies are not consistently implemented in practice. In this instance, it is not indeed a matter of an undesirable “knowing - doing gap”, in most cases the gap is in fact intentional. Employers find it difficult dealing with this conundrum fearing that taking appropriate action may make a negative impact on employee relations and produce disastrous effects on staff motivation, engagement and morale. This approach is typically more spread across public sector organizations, which possibly helps to explain why the employers of this sector traditionally record the highest absence levels.

 

 

 

The findings of the PwC investigation also revealed the existence of remarkable differences according to the different sectors of industry. With 7.6 days a year, for instance, technology sector employers recorded the lowest absence rate, followed by banking and finance with an average 7.8 days a year. In contrast, retail and leisure with an average 11.5 days a year and public sector employers with the average score of 12.2 recorded the highest absence rates.

 

 

 

The difficulties encountered by organizations in effectively and properly dealing with this conundrum can be partly comprehended; nonetheless, to avert encouraging this employee undesirable behaviour, it is necessary for employers to take firm, immediate action. Whether the only employer reaction to this conduct would just be to turn the blind eye, individuals may think that their employer is somewhat of supporting or, if anything, not condemning this behaviour. Whether this should be the message received by individuals, the consequences would be catastrophic. Feigning illness would no longer be seen by individuals as a “don’t” but rather as a “do”, people who are not used to throw a sickie might feel inspired and decide to jump on the “throw a sickie bandwagon”, too. Unscheduled absence would thus seriously risk completely spinning out of the employer control.

The circumstance that good policies are in place on paper and that these are not consistently implemented in practice can just produce a magnified negative impact. Employees are encouraged to assume that their employer does not really attach any importance to unscheduled absences and fictitious sickness: policies are a nice to have, but nobody actually cares. It cannot be indeed considered appropriate not having any absence policy in place either; albeit in this instance employees would, if anything, find it difficult understanding “beyond reasonable doubt” how their employer regards the issue and intends to deal with it. In both cases, the major risks employers run is that with the passing of time the throw a sickie practice may become part of an organization culture, making it much harder, whether not impossible, to revert the trend at any given time in the future.

Recent studies regrettably show that the throw a sickie worsening trend is already underway; employers are strongly advised to carefully think over the way they currently deal and would rather prefer to deal with the phenomenon. What matters the most is that, irrespective of their final decision, the approach these decide to adopt is fruit of their precise choice and not of inertia. The problem is there already, it is hence time for employers to learn how to effectually tackle and overcome it.

Longo, R., (2011), Throw a sickie – A worsening conundrum; HR Professionals, [online].

 

 

What absence policies need to contain

Absenteeism definitely represents one of the most difficult and at the same time costly problems employers are constantly prompted to tackle. The knock-on effect it habitually produces more often than not makes a considerable impact on employee engagement and motivation, and thus on organizational performance and productivity.

The number of employers which accurately monitor the phenomenon is indeed exceedingly small. In many cases, this is due to the circumstance that these find it difficult dealing with individuals who have an unacceptable level of attendance and assume that taking appropriate action may exacerbate employee relations and make a negative impact on individual engagement. Public companies, for instance, habitually introduce effective practices to properly manage the problem on paper, but are unlikely to properly and consistently implement these in practice.

In order for employers to effectually deal with the issue these should, first and foremost, ensure that their HR function has formulated a clear absence policy. This has to be intended as a tremendously important prerequisite in that it enables organizations to be clear about how they intend to manage attendance. Copy of the policy should be also handed to new employees at the moment of their recruitment. Just to demonstrate the significance attached by the employer to this aspect, in the new hire orientation programme should be ideally also added a specific session aiming at providing individuals further explanations and clarifications of the procedure. Yet, employment law specialists should ensure that the company absence policy is clearly mentioned in the contract of employment as an integral part of the employment terms and conditions so that employees know from the outset that they have to comply with this.

The introduction of a formal written absence policy and procedure, clearly stating and describing how employees should behave during absence, how these must communicate their absence to the employer and how to eventually certify it enables employers to give open evidence of how seriously they take absenteeism. Whether employees realize that their employer pays particular attention to their attendance records, it is very likely that these adapt their behaviour accordingly. Some companies, for example, to emphasise the tremendous importance they give to attendance, use to periodically publish anonymous statistics of the overall absence levels recorded by the different units, offices or departments. This information is often offered together with a clear description of the effects which unacceptable levels of absence produce upon the employees who are regularly present.

 

 

 

Absence policies should be invariably formulated in clear, simple and very comprehensible terms, avoiding jargon and clearly stating employee rights and obligations during illness absence. Also in those cases in which this does not represent a legal requirement, employers should provide their employees all the details regarding the way these must behave in case of incapacity for work due to illness or injury, including any provision for sick pay. The lack of appropriate policies as well as the effective implementation of ineffective absence policies can indeed lead to an increased number of casual short-term episodes of absence.

In general, there are remarkable differences between the way absence policies and practices are managed by public and private sectors employers. Public sector employers typically introduce detailed and thorough practices, regard absence rates as a key performance indicator, put in place trigger systems enabling them to identify unacceptable levels of absence, train their line managers to properly manage absence, offer their employees access to occupational health services and provide individuals time-off for private emergencies. Notwithstanding, due to ineffective execution, all of these measures more often than not fail to meet employer expectations and in some cases also show to be counterproductive. Public sector organizations are in fact habitually less likely to discipline or dismiss employees and to restrict sick pay for absence-related reasons than private sector employers.

To effectually reduce absenteeism rates the simple introduction of policies does not clearly suffice, a consistent execution is clearly also necessary. In order for employers to attain this objective these should provide the required support to the employees genuinely ill, whereas taking firm action against the minority of people who try to take advantage of their occupational sick pay schemes. Public sector organizations find it habitually hard attaining an appropriate balance between these two activities.

Once attendance policies are devised, in order for these to produce the expected results it is necessary that these are clearly communicated to the entire workforce. This will in turn enable employees to know not only what it is expected from them, but also what support the organization may make available to them in case of illness (for instance, counselling or occupational health services).

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI, 2009) recommends employers to tailor their policies to the needs of their workforce. Absence policies should be hence formulated taking heed of the individual needs and circumstances, but should also aim at fostering employee commitment to the organizational values and the type of behaviour the employer is expected individuals to exhibit.

To give evidence of their genuine concern about employee wants, some organizations use to bargain their absence policies with trade unions, which are typically as concerned as employers about employee unacceptable sickness absence levels. The full involvement of line managers and employee representatives in the implementation of absence policies is clearly of paramount importance, too.

Regulations, employee needs and employer expectations are constantly, and it may be argued increasingly, subject to change. To ensure that the provisions included into a policy continue to be legally sound and still fit the changing circumstances, a policy review should be regularly performed. Careful, regular reviews enable employers to substantially improve their policy also on the basis of the lessons learned over time.

When performing a policy review employers should, amongst the other things, try and provide answers to the following questions:

•  Does the existing policy actually favour good attendance at work?

•  Have the costs of the policy been fully evaluated against its benefits?

•  Do clear “come back work” procedures exist according to the different degrees of illness? For instance, an employee might be unfit to perform some activities, but might be fit to perform some others;

•  Have been some specific area identified as particularly problematic and action taken accordingly?

Absence policies are different from organization to organization and highly likely to vary according to the different circumstances and needs; nonetheless, some common, valuable features can be definitely identified. The main aim of an effective absence policy is to clearly state employee rights and obligations during illness, a good absence policy should hence:

• Provide details of the contractual sick pay terms and conditions, and clearly explain their relationship with statutory sick pay;
• Explain in which cases, and eventually to whom, employees need to notify their absence;
• Define after how many days of absence due to illness individuals need to fill a self-certificate form and to whom and when it has to be eventually handed, faxed or emailed;
• Clearly explain in which cases employees cannot self-certify absence and require a fit note (UK) or a certificate from their GP;
• Clarify that under some circumstances some adjustments may be made to assist the employees in their return to work;
• Mention that the organization reserves the right to require employees to attend an examination by a company doctor and, with the worker’s consent, to request a report from their GP;
• Include provisions for return-to-work interviews;
• Provide guidance on how to behave whether absence is due to specific severe circumstances, like adverse weather conditions and pandemics;
• Clearly state that the employees who fail to comply with the rules provided for by the absence policy may be subject to disciplinary action.

 
 

 When formulating and implementing an absence policy, some fundamental principles of best practice need to be duly considered, too. In general, employers should invariably:

• Establish a context of mutual trust and confidence with staff and a safe and healthy environment where employees can feel at ease talking with their managers about absence causes and get their support and advice;
• Clearly communicate that employees are not expected to attend work whether unfit, no matter how much inconvenience their absence is causing or likely to cause. This tenet, which may allow to prevent serious problems and legal responsibilities to the employer, may also strongly contribute to establish a climate of mutual trust;
• Consult the employee doctor or a company-appointed MD in those cases in which health conditions may affect an employee ability to do his/her job;
• Implement draconian health and safety measures to both prevent sickness and injury to occur in the workplace and create a healthy and save work environment;
• Introduce flexible working policies;
• Offer employees occupational health services and keep communications with absent employees (send cards and flowers where appropriate) to improve the effectiveness of retention policies and favour individual smoother return to work after a mid- to long-term absence period. 

 

Absence policies can indeed help to manage absenteeism, but these can contribute to prevent the frequency of the phenomenon just in part. To fully attain the objective, employers should, first and foremost, introduce sound and effective people management practices favouring and enhancing individual engagement and motivation.

Employers should also duly consider that in the cases of genuine illness, their support during employee recovery plays a particularly significant role and can represents an important step forward to build a climate of mutual trust and confidence with employees.

Research shows that the early intervention of line managers and the establishment of a two-way communication channel with employees effectively help employers to reduce absence rates and identify the underlying causes behind these.

The main aim of absence policies is to ensure that individuals can raise issues which may trouble them at an early stage so that these can be addressed before escalating and spinning out of control.

 

Effective absence management is also very much about aiming at creating a work environment focused on staff well-being and preventing employees to wake up in the morning and thinking “I don’t feel like going to work today” or put it in another way “I’m going to throw a sickie today.”

Longo, R., (2010), What absence policies need to contain; HR Professionals, [online].