Personnel

Is the UN ready to take it on?

Absenteeism and the impact on organizational performance

Maria Dweggah, FICSA and Susan Thompson, CCISUA

The HR Network meeting took place at UNOG, Geneva from 22 – 25 February 2005 in preparation of the upcoming 60th Session of the ICSC that was held in Bangkok from 28 February to 11 March 2005. Participants included HR Directors and HR professionals from the UN organizations as well as staff representatives from CCISUA and FICSA. The agenda items included the review of the pay and benefits system: modernizing and simplifying allowances (spouse benefits and children’s and secondary dependant’s allowances); mobility and hardship allowances, hazard pay and strategic bonuses; contractual arrangements; a progress report from organizations participating in pilot studies on the implementation of broadbanding of salaries and pay for performance; conditions of service of the Professional and higher categories; conditions of service of the General Service and other locally recruited staff; and total compensation comparisons under the Noblemaire Principle.
On the second day of the meeting, Mr John Humphrey, Senior Vice President, Marsh Ltd.,an expert in the field of risk management and corporate health was invited to speak on absenteeism and its impact on organizational performance. The following is a summary of his presentation.
Absence for reasons of sickness and stress is a growing problem that represents the single most high-frequency risk exposure to employers and that is still inadequately addressed. Attention has been concentrated on more obviously catastrophic risks while
absenteeism has, for the most part, been ignored in the public sector. Absenteeism seriously affects those colleagues left behind to carry the increased workload, client and
management relations, and additional requirements for training and recruitment. The financial consequences, as well as the legal consequences, of failing to protect employees adequately, can amount to considerable sums. In most public sector organizations, absenteeism represents 5% of the workforce, sometimes representing up to 10% of the payroll. If organisations could achieve a 25% reduction in absenteeism, the money saved could be used to sharpen up the organization, improve employee benefits and implement more focussed management.
Stress accounts for 50% of employee absence and either takes the form of an overt pronouncement when the staff member admits to feeling stressed – although this is generally perceived as career limiting – or it can take a covert form that leads the staff member to believe that they have another problem. Thus, transforming a mental experience into a physical problem presenting psychosomatic signs of illness, with stress as the source.
Within organisations the demographics of absenteeism are only just starting to be considered. However, the question of how to measure its levels are posed:
First and foremost, it is necessary to have data based on the cost, the reasons, the distribution and the level of absenteeism within the organisation that can be used as a management tool.
Pro-active management is also a prerequisite – the problem can be managed down but mangers often don’t do this. If attendance is not recognised as a key performance indicator within the organisation, it will not be a priority.

What should the manager do? A number of tools are available:

Early contact should be made with the absent employee. Care, interest, concern and help should be demonstrated to decide together on a rehabilitation programme as returning to work is easily and often postponed, rendering the vision of the workplace as hostile. To the contrary, it should appear as a welcoming place to come back to. This area is a sensitive one as it involves the issues of confidentiality, ethics, and staff rights.
The practice of a “return to work” interview (non punitive) in a spirit of helpful enquiry could be introduced to find out if absence is employment related and what the organization can do to help. This requires management sensitivity and training as wrongly handled such actions could be perceived as an invasion of privacy and possible breach of confidentiality.
Effective case management should be treated as a priority. Some cases drift on as no one decides what action to take. Staff members don’t return to work and can even be forgotten. Organisations should establish “trigger points” to set actions into motion, e.g. case management conferences to establish a good rehabilitation plan in the best needs for all.
Preventive health care programmes often lead to lower levels of sickness absence. Where the above points are reactive this is proactive. A good organization that supports and sponsors health programmes clearly demonstrate that health and attendance is valued and employees appreciate this attention.
Use of incentives/disincentives are sometimes used to incite staff to attend. For example, suggested change in sick pay arrangements, incentives for loyalty (holidays, lump sum). Such solutions are seen as valid in the short-term but as staff get used to them are seen as inherently unfair especially as they punish the legitimately ill and do not address the root cause of sickness/absence and absenteeism in the first place.
Procedures and training can be established for both staff and mangers to clarify the procedures to be followed when staff is off sick. Training sends out the right signals and messages to all staff.
Development of resilience – when absence is a direct or indirect result of stress, two options are available, either to try to change the world or to change your perception of the challenge. This can be done through coping skills, relaxation, self-help approaches, and learning to prioritise.
Stress management – if stress is a problem, consideration can be made of ways to help individuals cope, the extent of their control, working relations and the culture of the organization.

The Challenges of Absenteeism in any organism can be summarised through four main situations, when a staff members is:

1. Well and present – the challenge is to keep the staff at work, this necessitates a demonstrable commitment by the administration;
2. Ill and present (the working ill)- should not to be encouraged, it is not in the best interest of anyone;
3. Ill and absent – the staff member should not be abandoned, great scope exists for positive intervention and constructive actions can be undertaken;
4. Well and absent – these staff members present the greatest challenge. This group is easily dismissed as recalcitrant, malingerers, evil and freeloaders. The questions to ask are why are they not happy at work and why do they prefer to be at home? Are the challenges of work difficult to handle? What should the employer do to rectify such situations?

A basic authority to study current practice could be introduced in all organisations to look for areas of weakness. Managers should be trained to deal with the health and well being of employees to avoid the dismissal of problems as solely employee responsibility.
To do better is not only doing more of what we already do well.