Search

Background Presenteeism has received increasing attention in occupational health research but the evidence for its association with perceived leadership is scant. Aims To assess the association of perceived leadership and presenteeism among industrial workers. Methods Survey responses from employees on perceived leadership were linked to the personnel register of a food industry company. The Presenteeism Scale method was used to determine the presenteeism percentage. Perceived leadership was measured as a composite variable of six individual items on motivating and participating leadership. Generalized linear models were used to determine the association of perceived leadership with presenteeism. Results There were 847 participants. The majority of office workers of both genders reported better perceived leadership than factory workers. We found that perceived poor leadership was associated with a higher likelihood of presenteeism (rate ratio (RR) 1.64, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.51-1.78). However, there was variation amongst and within occupational groups and genders, with a higher risk of presenteeism amongst male factory workers (RR 2.28, 95% CI 2.02-2.52) than female office workers. Conclusions Leadership was found to be significantly associated with presenteeism, with a greater risk of presenteeism in those reporting poor perceived leadership. The association between levels of perceived leadership and presenteeism was stronger in men than women. Organizations should focus on motivating leadership practices to reduce the risk of presenteeism, especially among men.

This study assesses potential presenteeism costs and the association of these with a company's business figures.We conducted the questionnaire surveys in alternate years between 2003 and 2007 and linked them to sickness absence register data. Perceived work ability levels were assessed and converted into presenteeism days using the Presenteeism Scale tool. Sickness absence and presenteeism days were converted into monetary figures using median monthly salary information.The share of presenteeism costs was constant at about 1% of annual turnover and about 3.7% of personnel costs. The lowest annual presenteeism cost per employee was EUR 986 and the highest was EUR 1302. The lowest number of presenteeism days per employee in a year was 8.7 days and the highest number was 10.4 days. Estimated losses to a company due to sickness absences and presenteeism ranged from EUR 4.6 million to EUR 5.6 million annually. The potential presenteeism costs to the company and to Finnish society were vast.Presenteeism is a costly problem but more research is needed to reveal the connections between presenteeism and a company's turnover, personnel costs and profit.

Background Work Ability Score (WAS) is a common instrument for assessing work ability but its validity in assessing presenteeism and productivity loss is unknown. Aims To validate a WAS-based measure, the Presenteeism Scale (PS), and to evaluate its accuracy as a presenteeism instrument among forestry employees. Methods This validation study was based on questions of perceived WAS assessed using the Work Ability-Personal Radar (WA-PR) instrument and on questions of perceived productivity loss and presenteeism assessed using a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Pearson's correlation test was used to ascertain the associations between variables. The association of productivity loss with presenteeism was evaluated using a logistic regression model. The predictive ability of presenteeism was tested using the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results There were 339 respondents in the cross-sectional survey, 257 in the WA-PR and 107 respondents participating in both surveys. The prevalence of presenteeism was 48%. Presenteeism was significantly (P < 0.05) higher among those reporting productivity losses. Presenteeism is extremely accurate in predicting perceived productivity loss but less accurate in predicting PS-based productivity loss. The odds ratio (OR) of self-estimated productivity loss was 77 times higher (OR 77.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 25.36-236.12) among those with presenteeism. Correspondingly, OR of productivity loss based on the PS was three times higher (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.16-8.04). Conclusions The PS may be a valid tool for predicting productivity loss and may be as good as other instruments. However, further research is needed to improve its accuracy.

This paper presents an approach to assessing presenteeism (on-the-job productivity loss) that is related to perceived work ability. The aim of this explorative research was to find out if perceived work ability could be a robust indicator, interchangeable with presenteeism, in Finnish food industry organizations. The developed approach was based on existing presenteeism research as well as on register and survey data. The approach demonstrates that one step downward on the 10-point perceived work ability scale theoretically reduces employees' on-the-job productivity by ˜5 percentage points. At the company level, on-the-job productivity loss was 3.7% (mdn 0), while sickness absence was 5.0% (mdn 2.2). The probability of productivity loss among factory workers was fourfold compared to women in office work. The developed approach makes it possible to assess perceived productivity loss at the level of an individual and an organization. Perceived work ability may, in fact, be a robust indicator for assessing perceived productivity loss.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among three different occupational groups; Finnish university staff members, Finnish catering & food service company, and Brazilian teachers. The aim of the study was to explore how the employees perceive if they would have a chance to collaborate with the social robots, especially when they are working while ill. The results showed that a social robot will be accepted better as a team member than as a face-to-face colleague. The respondents were looking forward that a robot will improve productivity and assist them. We recommend designers, researchers and manufactures to take a social robot’s role in working life into account as a new potential focus area.