This morning I was invited to BBC TV Breakfast programme to talk about the falling rates of sickness absence.. On first impressions this is good news, implying that the work of organisations must have successfully improved the health of their workforce. So is it time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done? Unfortunately not quite!
It can’t be a coincidence that sickness absence rates are falling when job insecurity is very high. I’ve long been expecting the fear of job loss to translate into lower sickness absence statistics. What’s worrying is that this can mean an increase in presenteeism. People working when they shouldn’t be is bad for them and bad for their organisation. Risks include mistakes being made, the knock on effects if illness is spread to colleagues and longer term absence if recovery time has not been sufficient.
There is potentially a greater risk to mental health specifically as this is easier to hide than a physical ailment. And when competition for jobs is high people are even more wary about admitting to feeling stressed or giving any sign they may be struggling to cope, although heavier workloads and external pressures mean this might be perfectly reasonable.
This might seem like quite a negative outlook; I’m sure there are many organisations whose efforts have reduced sickness absence for the right reasons. But to be confident about this, organisations need to really look at how much they really know about the well-being and engagement of their workforce and make sure they’re identifying any issues. Employee satisfaction surveys that serve as a tick box exercise mean nothing when everyone knows that in reality turnover is high, morale is low and many are struggling through for the sake of face time. Absenteeism and presenteeism are only really symptoms of workforce well-being, but effective use of measurement tools can identify root causes – allowing for the celebration of genuine improvements or providing a starting point for taking action.
Posted by Cary Cooper 

