The School Review © 1930 The University of Chicago Press

Tardiness is examined as a manifestation of withdrawal, using data from a sample of 173

employees of a printing company located in the midwest. Three sources of tardiness data were
used: supervisory ratings, personnel records, and employee self-reports. The results suggest that
it may be legitimate to include tardiness within the withdrawal rubric, that tardiness and
absenteeism tend to be exhibited by employees simultaneously rather than alternatively, and that
tardiness is related to some demographic/background variables, but not to attitudinal variables.
Only moderate correspondence is detected among different tardiness measures.

Tardiness from scheduled start times is a common source of frustration for both operating room
(OR) personnel and patients. Factors that influence tardiness were quantified in a companion
paper and have been used to develop interventions that have the potential for reducing tardiness.

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/108/6/1902.short

RESULTS: Moving cases to different ORs when a room was running late produced a 50%–70%
reduction in the tardiness for those cases that were moved. However, overall tardiness in each
suite was reduced by only 6%–9%, because few cases were moved. Scheduling a gap between
surgeons if the day was expected to end early reduced tardiness by more than 50% for those
cases that were preceded by gaps. However, overall tardiness in each suite was reduced by only
4%–8%, because few gaps could be scheduled. In contrast, correcting for the combination of
lateness in first cases of the day and service-specific case duration bias reduced overall tardiness
in each suite by 30%–35%.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions which involve small numbers of cases have little potential to
reduce overall tardiness. Generating a modified or auxiliary OR schedule that compensates for
known causes of tardiness can significantly reduce patient and “to follow” surgeon waiting
times. Modifying the OR schedule to create revised start times for patients and “to follow”
surgeons involves interventions that are simple to perform. The official schedule is not changed
and case sequencing is not altered. Results do not depend on changing surgeon, anesthesia
provider, or nursing behavior.

Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Drago, R. and Wooden, M. (1992) The Determinants of Labor Absence: Economic Factors and
Workgroup Norms Across Countries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 764-776.

Ads By Google

New Business Opportunity

Run Your Own Energy Saving Business Complete Start-Up Pack from $14k
www.Enigin.net/BusinessOpportunity
Unauthorized or unscheduled absenteeism is a problem for every organization or business. It
creates cost and productivity problems, puts an unfair burden on the majority of employees who
show up for work, ultimately hinders customer satisfaction, and drains the country's economy.
Experience shows that better attendance is synonymous with better quality, lower costs, and
greater productivity (Hazzard, 1990). This paper reviews the literature related to absenteeism and
suggests how managers can improve their absenteeism rate and, as a result, improve
productivity.

At least 50% of all employee absenteeism is not caused by bona fide illness or other acceptable
reasons. Experts estimate that absenteeism in the U.S. results in the loss of over 400 million
workdays per year - an average of approximately 5.1 days per employee (Gwaltney, 1994). In the
U.S., one million employees a day will not attend their regularly scheduled work at an estimated
annual cost of $40 billion per year (Dalton and Enz, 1987).

Steers and Rhodes (1984) report that for every 0.5% increase in national absence rates in the
U.S., the gross domestic product drops $10 billion. Based on the size of today's GDP compared
with the early 1980s, that figure is surely substantially larger today. Leigh (1986) estimated that
hours lost in absenteeism is over 40% larger than the number of hours lost in unemployment.
Markowich (1993) cited a survey of 5,000 companies conducted by Commerce Clearing House,
Inc., Chicago that found that unscheduled absences cost small businesses an average of $62,636
a year in lost productivity, sick time, and replacement costs.

Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Generally, there are two types of absenteeism: approved and unapproved. Each organization
must determine (within the law and appropriate regulations) what falls into each category, how
much time will be allowed for each area of approved leave, and how to deal with unapproved
absences.

Often, organizations allow time for vacation, holidays, bereavement, and medical and worker's
compensation leave. They also allow time for military obligations, jury duty, some personal
obligations, and sick leave. Sick leave was originally designed as a short-term salary
continuation plan (an insurance policy for legitimate illness) (Markowich, 1993). The amount of
time allotted to each type of leave varies from organization to organization. No law requires
employers to provide sick leave. It is a benefit provided by the employer to seek and retain
employees with particular skills. Individual companies must determine the acceptable number of
approved leave days in each area.

Unapproved leave is time not covered by company policy, and taken without management's prior
approval. How management deals with such absences varies from organization to organization.
Ads By Google

New Business Opportunity

Run Your Own Energy Saving Business Complete Start-Up Pack from $14k
www.Enigin.net/BusinessOpportunity

Unauthorized or unscheduled absenteeism is a problem for every organization or business. It

creates cost and productivity problems, puts an unfair burden on the majority of employees who
show up for work, ultimately hinders customer satisfaction, and drains the country's economy.
Experience shows that better attendance is synonymous with better quality, lower costs, and
greater productivity (Hazzard, 1990). This paper reviews the literature related to absenteeism and
suggests how managers can improve their absenteeism rate and, as a result, improve
productivity.

At least 50% of all employee absenteeism is not caused by bona fide illness or other acceptable
reasons. Experts estimate that absenteeism in the U.S. results in the loss of over 400 million
workdays per year - an average of approximately 5.1 days per employee (Gwaltney, 1994). In the
U.S., one million employees a day will not attend their regularly scheduled work at an estimated
annual cost of $40 billion per year (Dalton and Enz, 1987).

Steers and Rhodes (1984) report that for every 0.5% increase in national absence rates in the
U.S., the gross domestic product drops $10 billion. Based on the size of today's GDP compared
with the early 1980s, that figure is surely substantially larger today. Leigh (1986) estimated that
hours lost in absenteeism is over 40% larger than the number of hours lost in unemployment.
Markowich (1993) cited a survey of 5,000 companies conducted by Commerce Clearing House,
Inc., Chicago that found that unscheduled absences cost small businesses an average of $62,636
a year in lost productivity, sick time, and replacement costs.

Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Generally, there are two types of absenteeism: approved and unapproved. Each organization
must determine (within the law and appropriate regulations) what falls into each category, how
much time will be allowed for each area of approved leave, and how to deal with unapproved
absences.

Often, organizations allow time for vacation, holidays, bereavement, and medical and worker's
compensation leave. They also allow time for military obligations, jury duty, some personal
obligations, and sick leave. Sick leave was originally designed as a short-term salary
continuation plan (an insurance policy for legitimate illness) (Markowich, 1993). The amount of
time allotted to each type of leave varies from organization to organization. No law requires
employers to provide sick leave. It is a benefit provided by the employer to seek and retain
employees with particular skills. Individual companies must determine the acceptable number of
approved leave days in each area.

Unapproved leave is time not covered by company policy, and taken without management's prior
approval. How management deals with such absences varies from organization to organization.

Organizations have little difficulty managing leave such as vacation and holidays since
management often establishes when this time may be taken. Leaves that have not been scheduled
by the organization's management (bereavement, medical, worker's compensation leave, jury
duty, military leave, personal leave, employee illness, child/parent care and tardiness) are more
of a problem. Obviously some of these absences are infrequent and cause minor disruptions.
However, some can create substantial disruptions since critical work may not get done. The
extent of those disruptions depend on the employer's ability to quickly "cover" for the absent
employee by ensuring that any critical work is performed by another employee. This paper
addresses disruptive absences.

Acceptable attendance is being present and on time for work every scheduled day. It means
being dependable (Bielous, 1993). Managers and employees have different views about how
much absenteeism is normal or appropriate for someone in the subordinate's occupation. In fact,
the subordinate estimate (of acceptable absences) is close to twice that of the managerial estimate
(John's, 1994).

Research is consistent (Bielous, 1993; Stinson, 1991; Bunning, 1988; and Wallin and Johnson,
1976) in finding that most organizations do not keep accurate accounts of employee absences
and in emphasizing the need to do so. This means that disruptive absence frequently will be
tolerated by managers until it reaches a painfully obvious level, at which point a crackdown will
occur (Johns, 1994).

Controlling Disruptive Absenteeism

One of the first questions asked by management concerning absenteeism is whether to use a
punitive or reward system. The research tends to have opposing data. Studies in the 1970s and
1980s often indicated that reward systems may be more effective than punishment (Bunning,
1988; and Wallin and Johnson, 1976). For example, a large manufacturing firm showed an
increase in attendance by offering nonmonetary privileges to employees with good attendance. In
another case, a monthly drawing of $10 (for perfect attenders) resulted in a savings of more than
$3,000 of sick leave for a firm's 68 employees. However, Markowich (1993) reported that cash
incentives for perfect attendance did not motivate employees who abuse sick time. Rewarding
good attenders with cash bonuses generally has been ineffective. Sick-time abusers value time
away from work more than money, so they are not motivated to modify their behavior
(Markowich, 1993).

Sola Barnes-Hind (an Arizona manufacturer of contact lenses) implemented a policy in 1988
which was primarily reward-based. Under this policy the company showed a decrease of
$160,000 in paid time-off from the previous year (Bunning, 1988). In 1985, Professor Carl
Johnson of Central Michigan University made the following points: A few employees will have
perfect attendance, and a few will have poor attendance regardless of the situation. Reward
systems tend to affect employees in the middle. Reward systems will have little affect on poor
attenders, and some sort of controls will always be necessary. An organization can usually see a
25% to 50% reduction in absenteeism by implementing a reward system. Additionally, it may be
more effective to base a control system on occurrences rather than total time missed (Bunning,
1988).

Most employees have good attendance records, with only about 3% of a company's employees
exploiting the system by taking more than their allowed sick time or more days than they need
(Markowich, 1993). However, company policy may inadvertently reinforce a "use it or lose it"
attitude with policies in which employees lose their sick time if it is not used by the end of the
year. This may encourage employees to view sick time as a benefit to which they are entitled.

Since 1986, national surveys have collected data from companies of all sizes and industries. The
data was then analyzed and the best controls for unscheduled absences were discussed. Two
approaches scored the highest for achieving best results: a no-fault program and PTO (Paid Time
Off) (Markowich

Ads By Google

New Business Opportunity

Run Your Own Energy Saving Business Complete Start-Up Pack from $14k
www.Enigin.net/BusinessOpportunity

Unauthorized or unscheduled absenteeism is a problem for every organization or business. It

creates cost and productivity problems, puts an unfair burden on the majority of employees who
show up for work, ultimately hinders customer satisfaction, and drains the country's economy.
Experience shows that better attendance is synonymous with better quality, lower costs, and
greater productivity (Hazzard, 1990). This paper reviews the literature related to absenteeism and
suggests how managers can improve their absenteeism rate and, as a result, improve
productivity.

At least 50% of all employee absenteeism is not caused by bona fide illness or other acceptable
reasons. Experts estimate that absenteeism in the U.S. results in the loss of over 400 million
workdays per year - an average of approximately 5.1 days per employee (Gwaltney, 1994). In the
U.S., one million employees a day will not attend their regularly scheduled work at an estimated
annual cost of $40 billion per year (Dalton and Enz, 1987).

Steers and Rhodes (1984) report that for every 0.5% increase in national absence rates in the
U.S., the gross domestic product drops $10 billion. Based on the size of today's GDP compared
with the early 1980s, that figure is surely substantially larger today. Leigh (1986) estimated that
hours lost in absenteeism is over 40% larger than the number of hours lost in unemployment.
Markowich (1993) cited a survey of 5,000 companies conducted by Commerce Clearing House,
Inc., Chicago that found that unscheduled absences cost small businesses an average of $62,636
a year in lost productivity, sick time, and replacement costs.
Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Generally, there are two types of absenteeism: approved and unapproved. Each organization
must determine (within the law and appropriate regulations) what falls into each category, how
much time will be allowed for each area of approved leave, and how to deal with unapproved
absences.

Often, organizations allow time for vacation, holidays, bereavement, and medical and worker's
compensation leave. They also allow time for military obligations, jury duty, some personal
obligations, and sick leave. Sick leave was originally designed as a short-term salary
continuation plan (an insurance policy for legitimate illness) (Markowich, 1993). The amount of
time allotted to each type of leave varies from organization to organization. No law requires
employers to provide sick leave. It is a benefit provided by the employer to seek and retain
employees with particular skills. Individual companies must determine the acceptable number of
approved leave days in each area.

Unapproved leave is time not covered by company policy, and taken without management's prior
approval. How management deals with such absences varies from organization to organization.

Organizations have little difficulty managing leave such as vacation and holidays since
management often establishes when this time may be taken. Leaves that have not been scheduled
by the organization's management (bereavement, medical, worker's compensation leave, jury
duty, military leave, personal leave, employee illness, child/parent care and tardiness) are more
of a problem. Obviously some of these absences are infrequent and cause minor disruptions.
However, some can create substantial disruptions since critical work may not get done. The
extent of those disruptions depend on the employer's ability to quickly "cover" for the absent
employee by ensuring that any critical work is performed by another employee. This paper
addresses disruptive absences.

Acceptable attendance is being present and on time for work every scheduled day. It means
being dependable (Bielous, 1993). Managers and employees have different views about how
much absenteeism is normal or appropriate for someone in the subordinate's occupation. In fact,
the subordinate estimate (of acceptable absences) is close to twice that of the managerial estimate
(John's, 1994).

Research is consistent (Bielous, 1993; Stinson, 1991; Bunning, 1988; and Wallin and Johnson,
1976) in finding that most organizations do not keep accurate accounts of employee absences
and in emphasizing the need to do so. This means that disruptive absence frequently will be
tolerated by managers until it reaches a painfully obvious level, at which point a crackdown will
occur (Johns, 1994).
Controlling Disruptive Absenteeism

One of the first questions asked by management concerning absenteeism is whether to use a
punitive or reward system. The research tends to have opposing data. Studies in the 1970s and
1980s often indicated that reward systems may be more effective than punishment (Bunning,
1988; and Wallin and Johnson, 1976). For example, a large manufacturing firm showed an
increase in attendance by offering nonmonetary privileges to employees with good attendance. In
another case, a monthly drawing of $10 (for perfect attenders) resulted in a savings of more than
$3,000 of sick leave for a firm's 68 employees. However, Markowich (1993) reported that cash
incentives for perfect attendance did not motivate employees who abuse sick time. Rewarding
good attenders with cash bonuses generally has been ineffective. Sick-time abusers value time
away from work more than money, so they are not motivated to modify their behavior
(Markowich, 1993).

Sola Barnes-Hind (an Arizona manufacturer of contact lenses) implemented a policy in 1988
which was primarily reward-based. Under this policy the company showed a decrease of
$160,000 in paid time-off from the previous year (Bunning, 1988). In 1985, Professor Carl
Johnson of Central Michigan University made the following points: A few employees will have
perfect attendance, and a few will have poor attendance regardless of the situation. Reward
systems tend to affect employees in the middle. Reward systems will have little affect on poor
attenders, and some sort of controls will always be necessary. An organization can usually see a
25% to 50% reduction in absenteeism by implementing a reward system. Additionally, it may be
more effective to base a control system on occurrences rather than total time missed (Bunning,
1988).

Most employees have good attendance records, with only about 3% of a company's employees
exploiting the system by taking more than their allowed sick time or more days than they need
(Markowich, 1993). However, company policy may inadvertently reinforce a "use it or lose it"
attitude with policies in which employees lose their sick time if it is not used by the end of the
year. This may encourage employees to view sick time as a benefit to which they are entitled.

Since 1986, national surveys have collected data from companies of all sizes and industries. The
data was then analyzed and the best controls for unscheduled absences were discussed. Two
approaches scored the highest for achieving best results: a no-fault program and PTO (Paid Time
Off) (Markowich, 1993).

A "no-fault" absentee program approach disregards the reason why an employee is absent. The
employer sets a limit of unscheduled absences and holds the employee accountable. Once the
employee uses the allotted number of days allowed, a system of progressive disciplinary actions
is activated ending in discharge. This type of system is designed to punish abusers, not reward
good attenders.

Allen-Bradley Co., based in Fullerton, California, implemented such a plan in October 1988
using a point system. All absences and tardiness other than jury duty, bereavement time, workers
compensation leave, military obligations, vacations, holidays, and 40 hours of sick time were
subject to points, according to the type of absence. Absenteeism dropped 83.5% over the first 25
months, saving the company $59,545 (Stinson, 1991).

Paid Time Off (PTO) is a redesign of traditional time-off benefits. Rather than granting time off
separately for vacation, personal and sick time, PTO lumps time off into two categories - PTO
and Catastrophic (CAT). Catastrophic is used for major illness that keeps the employee away
from work for an extended period. PTO programs have a hidden incentive for employees not to
use unnecessary sick days. Since all allotted days are available for vacation, fewer unscheduled
days for illness translates more vacation days. Another hidden benefit of PTO accrues to the
organization. Since it can be assumed that all allowed days will be taken - an assumption that is
not routinely made in the case of sick days - managers can plan staffing needs knowing in
advance how many days each employee will be off.

Why Employees Are Absent

Steers and Rhodes (1984) suggested that an employee's attendance is a function of two factors:
(1) the employee's motivation to attend, and (2) the employee's ability to attend. Theorists are
consistent that employees may be motivated to attend by increased autonomy, responsibility, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Dalton and Mesch, 1990).

Organizational and environmental factors associated with absenteeism include: poor employee
morale, personnel conflicts, unsatisfactory compensation and benefit programs, unrealistic job
expectations, inadequate training, unsafe or stressful workplace conditions. There are also a
number of personality characteristics that can be associated with absenteeism, including, among
others, reliability, freedom from disruptive alcohol use, and dependability (Borofsky and Smith,
1993). Employees often cite, child or parent care and the need to take care of certain personal
business during normal working hours as reasons for their absence.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) found that employees, working under a flexible scheduling system,
attributed a decline in absenteeism to the elimination of the reason for the absenteeism. They
were now able to attend to their personal business. Alignment of employee needs and
organizational work through a flexible work schedule should result in increased employee
commitment to the organization.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) suggested that flexible scheduling may increase extrinsic motivation
simply because basic working conditions are improved, i.e., the employee may be able to avoid
rush hour, and the employee's relationship with a supervisor may improve if tardiness is
minimized. They also argued that the employee's motivation may increase as the employee
enjoys more autonomy and responsibility with regard to work hours.

A six-year field experiment on flexible scheduling was conducted with a large Western public
utility (Dalton and Mesch, 1990). Monthly measures were taken on both a control group and the
experimental group for three years prior to the intervention of a flexible scheduling program,
during the program, and for two years after the program was discontinued. The intervention of
flexible scheduling (experimental group) led to a reduction in the absence rate; with the removal
of the intervention, absenteeism returned to its base-line rate. The control group showed no
reduction in absenteeism during the same period.

An Action Plan

Ads By Google

New Business Opportunity

Run Your Own Energy Saving Business Complete Start-Up Pack from $14k
www.Enigin.net/BusinessOpportunity

Unauthorized or unscheduled absenteeism is a problem for every organization or business. It

creates cost and productivity problems, puts an unfair burden on the majority of employees who
show up for work, ultimately hinders customer satisfaction, and drains the country's economy.
Experience shows that better attendance is synonymous with better quality, lower costs, and
greater productivity (Hazzard, 1990). This paper reviews the literature related to absenteeism and
suggests how managers can improve their absenteeism rate and, as a result, improve
productivity.

At least 50% of all employee absenteeism is not caused by bona fide illness or other acceptable
reasons. Experts estimate that absenteeism in the U.S. results in the loss of over 400 million
workdays per year - an average of approximately 5.1 days per employee (Gwaltney, 1994). In the
U.S., one million employees a day will not attend their regularly scheduled work at an estimated
annual cost of $40 billion per year (Dalton and Enz, 1987).

Steers and Rhodes (1984) report that for every 0.5% increase in national absence rates in the
U.S., the gross domestic product drops $10 billion. Based on the size of today's GDP compared
with the early 1980s, that figure is surely substantially larger today. Leigh (1986) estimated that
hours lost in absenteeism is over 40% larger than the number of hours lost in unemployment.
Markowich (1993) cited a survey of 5,000 companies conducted by Commerce Clearing House,
Inc., Chicago that found that unscheduled absences cost small businesses an average of $62,636
a year in lost productivity, sick time, and replacement costs.

Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Generally, there are two types of absenteeism: approved and unapproved. Each organization
must determine (within the law and appropriate regulations) what falls into each category, how
much time will be allowed for each area of approved leave, and how to deal with unapproved
absences.
Often, organizations allow time for vacation, holidays, bereavement, and medical and worker's
compensation leave. They also allow time for military obligations, jury duty, some personal
obligations, and sick leave. Sick leave was originally designed as a short-term salary
continuation plan (an insurance policy for legitimate illness) (Markowich, 1993). The amount of
time allotted to each type of leave varies from organization to organization. No law requires
employers to provide sick leave. It is a benefit provided by the employer to seek and retain
employees with particular skills. Individual companies must determine the acceptable number of
approved leave days in each area.

Unapproved leave is time not covered by company policy, and taken without management's prior
approval. How management deals with such absences varies from organization to organization.

Organizations have little difficulty managing leave such as vacation and holidays since
management often establishes when this time may be taken. Leaves that have not been scheduled
by the organization's management (bereavement, medical, worker's compensation leave, jury
duty, military leave, personal leave, employee illness, child/parent care and tardiness) are more
of a problem. Obviously some of these absences are infrequent and cause minor disruptions.
However, some can create substantial disruptions since critical work may not get done. The
extent of those disruptions depend on the employer's ability to quickly "cover" for the absent
employee by ensuring that any critical work is performed by another employee. This paper
addresses disruptive absences.

Acceptable attendance is being present and on time for work every scheduled day. It means
being dependable (Bielous, 1993). Managers and employees have different views about how
much absenteeism is normal or appropriate for someone in the subordinate's occupation. In fact,
the subordinate estimate (of acceptable absences) is close to twice that of the managerial estimate
(John's, 1994).

Research is consistent (Bielous, 1993; Stinson, 1991; Bunning, 1988; and Wallin and Johnson,
1976) in finding that most organizations do not keep accurate accounts of employee absences
and in emphasizing the need to do so. This means that disruptive absence frequently will be
tolerated by managers until it reaches a painfully obvious level, at which point a crackdown will
occur (Johns, 1994).

Controlling Disruptive Absenteeism

One of the first questions asked by management concerning absenteeism is whether to use a
punitive or reward system. The research tends to have opposing data. Studies in the 1970s and
1980s often indicated that reward systems may be more effective than punishment (Bunning,
1988; and Wallin and Johnson, 1976). For example, a large manufacturing firm showed an
increase in attendance by offering nonmonetary privileges to employees with good attendance. In
another case, a monthly drawing of $10 (for perfect attenders) resulted in a savings of more than
$3,000 of sick leave for a firm's 68 employees. However, Markowich (1993) reported that cash
incentives for perfect attendance did not motivate employees who abuse sick time. Rewarding
good attenders with cash bonuses generally has been ineffective. Sick-time abusers value time
away from work more than money, so they are not motivated to modify their behavior
(Markowich, 1993).

Sola Barnes-Hind (an Arizona manufacturer of contact lenses) implemented a policy in 1988
which was primarily reward-based. Under this policy the company showed a decrease of
$160,000 in paid time-off from the previous year (Bunning, 1988). In 1985, Professor Carl
Johnson of Central Michigan University made the following points: A few employees will have
perfect attendance, and a few will have poor attendance regardless of the situation. Reward
systems tend to affect employees in the middle. Reward systems will have little affect on poor
attenders, and some sort of controls will always be necessary. An organization can usually see a
25% to 50% reduction in absenteeism by implementing a reward system. Additionally, it may be
more effective to base a control system on occurrences rather than total time missed (Bunning,
1988).

Most employees have good attendance records, with only about 3% of a company's employees
exploiting the system by taking more than their allowed sick time or more days than they need
(Markowich, 1993). However, company policy may inadvertently reinforce a "use it or lose it"
attitude with policies in which employees lose their sick time if it is not used by the end of the
year. This may encourage employees to view sick time as a benefit to which they are entitled.

Since 1986, national surveys have collected data from companies of all sizes and industries. The
data was then analyzed and the best controls for unscheduled absences were discussed. Two
approaches scored the highest for achieving best results: a no-fault program and PTO (Paid Time
Off) (Markowich, 1993).

A "no-fault" absentee program approach disregards the reason why an employee is absent. The
employer sets a limit of unscheduled absences and holds the employee accountable. Once the
employee uses the allotted number of days allowed, a system of progressive disciplinary actions
is activated ending in discharge. This type of system is designed to punish abusers, not reward
good attenders.

Allen-Bradley Co., based in Fullerton, California, implemented such a plan in October 1988
using a point system. All absences and tardiness other than jury duty, bereavement time, workers
compensation leave, military obligations, vacations, holidays, and 40 hours of sick time were
subject to points, according to the type of absence. Absenteeism dropped 83.5% over the first 25
months, saving the company $59,545 (Stinson, 1991).

Paid Time Off (PTO) is a redesign of traditional time-off benefits. Rather than granting time off
separately for vacation, personal and sick time, PTO lumps time off into two categories - PTO
and Catastrophic (CAT). Catastrophic is used for major illness that keeps the employee away
from work for an extended period. PTO programs have a hidden incentive for employees not to
use unnecessary sick days. Since all allotted days are available for vacation, fewer unscheduled
days for illness translates more vacation days. Another hidden benefit of PTO accrues to the
organization. Since it can be assumed that all allowed days will be taken - an assumption that is
not routinely made in the case of sick days - managers can plan staffing needs knowing in
advance how many days each employee will be off.
Why Employees Are Absent

Steers and Rhodes (1984) suggested that an employee's attendance is a function of two factors:
(1) the employee's motivation to attend, and (2) the employee's ability to attend. Theorists are
consistent that employees may be motivated to attend by increased autonomy, responsibility, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Dalton and Mesch, 1990).

Organizational and environmental factors associated with absenteeism include: poor employee
morale, personnel conflicts, unsatisfactory compensation and benefit programs, unrealistic job
expectations, inadequate training, unsafe or stressful workplace conditions. There are also a
number of personality characteristics that can be associated with absenteeism, including, among
others, reliability, freedom from disruptive alcohol use, and dependability (Borofsky and Smith,
1993). Employees often cite, child or parent care and the need to take care of certain personal
business during normal working hours as reasons for their absence.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) found that employees, working under a flexible scheduling system,
attributed a decline in absenteeism to the elimination of the reason for the absenteeism. They
were now able to attend to their personal business. Alignment of employee needs and
organizational work through a flexible work schedule should result in increased employee
commitment to the organization.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) suggested that flexible scheduling may increase extrinsic motivation
simply because basic working conditions are improved, i.e., the employee may be able to avoid
rush hour, and the employee's relationship with a supervisor may improve if tardiness is
minimized. They also argued that the employee's motivation may increase as the employee
enjoys more autonomy and responsibility with regard to work hours.

A six-year field experiment on flexible scheduling was conducted with a large Western public
utility (Dalton and Mesch, 1990). Monthly measures were taken on both a control group and the
experimental group for three years prior to the intervention of a flexible scheduling program,
during the program, and for two years after the program was discontinued. The intervention of
flexible scheduling (experimental group) led to a reduction in the absence rate; with the removal
of the intervention, absenteeism returned to its base-line rate. The control group showed no
reduction in absenteeism during the same period.

An Action Plan

No matter what the organization's policy is on absenteeism, or how leave time is administered,
the literature is consistent regarding how the policy should be administered. Bielous (1993)
summed up the process for managers in his five-prong action plan for achieving acceptable
employee attendance:

(A) EDUCATE - Know the company attendance policy and explain the policy in full to all
employees. Provide all employees a written copy of the policy. Meet with individual employees
who have chronic attendance problems and record all meetings and their content.
(B) MONITOR - Keep accurate records. Have a notebook to record daily employee attendance
records. Observe which employees are late, leave early, or are absent. Ask employee's why they
were late, absent, or left early. Keep a record of the reasons.

(C) COUNSEL - Privately meet with employees who are having an attendance problem. Tell
them what your expectations are and what you have observed regarding their attendance. Keep
records of all counseling sessions.

(D) FOLLOW-UP - If the behavior occurs again ask for a private meeting and find out why.
After you find out why, confer with your Human Resources department for guidance and
support.

(E) CORRECTIVE ACTION - Follow progressive steps according to company policy, i.e.,
verbal warning, written warning, suspension, and termination. Record each step.

Bielous (1993), Stinson (1991), Dalton and Mesch (1990), Bunning (1988), and Wallin and
Johnson (1976) dealt with the importance of properly communicating the attendance policy to
the employees. All agreed that it was vital to verbally explain the policy to employees and to
give each a written copy of the policy. Each emphasized the importance of consistently
implementing the policy with all employees. Bielous (1991) stressed the importance of managers
as positive role models for subordinates. Stinson (1991) and Bunning (1988) explained the
importance of obtaining employee input when establishing or changing company policy on
absenteeism.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Several recommendations can be drawn from the literature for managing absenteeism.
Controlling absenteeism in the workplace begins with a sound absenteeism policy that is
incorporated into an employee handbook. The policy should define absenteeism and outline
consequences for those who break the rules or whose absences become unacceptably disruptive.

Each employer should identify how many unplanned days of absence are appropriate, taking into
account that, on average, employees are absent 5.1 (Gwaltney, 1994) days per year, and blue
collar workers are absent more than white collar workers (Hazzard, 1990). These findings
suggest that different organizational settings may require different standards.

Once management decides on the number of allowed sick days and has a well written attendance
policy, the next and most important step is to inform and educate all employees of the policy.
This should be done early in the employment process and acceptable behavior regarding
absenteeism should be clearly defined. Records showing that the employee knows and
understands the policies should be maintained. Management should have the employee sign a
statement saying they have received a copy of the policies and are responsible for knowing them.
It has been shown that clarifying and communicating attendance policies reduces the rate of
unauthorized absences (Majchrzak, 1987). The attendance policy should be reviewed with all
employees yearly.
Ads By Google

New Business Opportunity

Run Your Own Energy Saving Business Complete Start-Up Pack from $14k
www.Enigin.net/BusinessOpportunity

Unauthorized or unscheduled absenteeism is a problem for every organization or business. It

creates cost and productivity problems, puts an unfair burden on the majority of employees who
show up for work, ultimately hinders customer satisfaction, and drains the country's economy.
Experience shows that better attendance is synonymous with better quality, lower costs, and
greater productivity (Hazzard, 1990). This paper reviews the literature related to absenteeism and
suggests how managers can improve their absenteeism rate and, as a result, improve
productivity.

At least 50% of all employee absenteeism is not caused by bona fide illness or other acceptable
reasons. Experts estimate that absenteeism in the U.S. results in the loss of over 400 million
workdays per year - an average of approximately 5.1 days per employee (Gwaltney, 1994). In the
U.S., one million employees a day will not attend their regularly scheduled work at an estimated
annual cost of $40 billion per year (Dalton and Enz, 1987).

Steers and Rhodes (1984) report that for every 0.5% increase in national absence rates in the
U.S., the gross domestic product drops $10 billion. Based on the size of today's GDP compared
with the early 1980s, that figure is surely substantially larger today. Leigh (1986) estimated that
hours lost in absenteeism is over 40% larger than the number of hours lost in unemployment.
Markowich (1993) cited a survey of 5,000 companies conducted by Commerce Clearing House,
Inc., Chicago that found that unscheduled absences cost small businesses an average of $62,636
a year in lost productivity, sick time, and replacement costs.

Absenteeism is higher in manufacturing environments than in other areas and is a bigger problem
among blue-collar workers than white-collar (Hazzard, 1990). Absenteeism is higher in union
settings than in nonunion settings. Women are absent more than men, possibly because they are
more sensitive to family needs (Dunn and Youngblood, 1986). Single persons are typically
absent more than married persons, a pattern that might reflect greater financial pressures for
married persons to work (Drago and Wooden, 1992).

Generally, there are two types of absenteeism: approved and unapproved. Each organization
must determine (within the law and appropriate regulations) what falls into each category, how
much time will be allowed for each area of approved leave, and how to deal with unapproved
absences.

Often, organizations allow time for vacation, holidays, bereavement, and medical and worker's
compensation leave. They also allow time for military obligations, jury duty, some personal
obligations, and sick leave. Sick leave was originally designed as a short-term salary
continuation plan (an insurance policy for legitimate illness) (Markowich, 1993). The amount of
time allotted to each type of leave varies from organization to organization. No law requires
employers to provide sick leave. It is a benefit provided by the employer to seek and retain
employees with particular skills. Individual companies must determine the acceptable number of
approved leave days in each area.

Unapproved leave is time not covered by company policy, and taken without management's prior
approval. How management deals with such absences varies from organization to organization.

Organizations have little difficulty managing leave such as vacation and holidays since
management often establishes when this time may be taken. Leaves that have not been scheduled
by the organization's management (bereavement, medical, worker's compensation leave, jury
duty, military leave, personal leave, employee illness, child/parent care and tardiness) are more
of a problem. Obviously some of these absences are infrequent and cause minor disruptions.
However, some can create substantial disruptions since critical work may not get done. The
extent of those disruptions depend on the employer's ability to quickly "cover" for the absent
employee by ensuring that any critical work is performed by another employee. This paper
addresses disruptive absences.

Acceptable attendance is being present and on time for work every scheduled day. It means
being dependable (Bielous, 1993). Managers and employees have different views about how
much absenteeism is normal or appropriate for someone in the subordinate's occupation. In fact,
the subordinate estimate (of acceptable absences) is close to twice that of the managerial estimate
(John's, 1994).

Research is consistent (Bielous, 1993; Stinson, 1991; Bunning, 1988; and Wallin and Johnson,
1976) in finding that most organizations do not keep accurate accounts of employee absences
and in emphasizing the need to do so. This means that disruptive absence frequently will be
tolerated by managers until it reaches a painfully obvious level, at which point a crackdown will
occur (Johns, 1994).

Controlling Disruptive Absenteeism

One of the first questions asked by management concerning absenteeism is whether to use a
punitive or reward system. The research tends to have opposing data. Studies in the 1970s and
1980s often indicated that reward systems may be more effective than punishment (Bunning,
1988; and Wallin and Johnson, 1976). For example, a large manufacturing firm showed an
increase in attendance by offering nonmonetary privileges to employees with good attendance. In
another case, a monthly drawing of $10 (for perfect attenders) resulted in a savings of more than
$3,000 of sick leave for a firm's 68 employees. However, Markowich (1993) reported that cash
incentives for perfect attendance did not motivate employees who abuse sick time. Rewarding
good attenders with cash bonuses generally has been ineffective. Sick-time abusers value time
away from work more than money, so they are not motivated to modify their behavior
(Markowich, 1993).

Sola Barnes-Hind (an Arizona manufacturer of contact lenses) implemented a policy in 1988
which was primarily reward-based. Under this policy the company showed a decrease of
$160,000 in paid time-off from the previous year (Bunning, 1988). In 1985, Professor Carl
Johnson of Central Michigan University made the following points: A few employees will have
perfect attendance, and a few will have poor attendance regardless of the situation. Reward
systems tend to affect employees in the middle. Reward systems will have little affect on poor
attenders, and some sort of controls will always be necessary. An organization can usually see a
25% to 50% reduction in absenteeism by implementing a reward system. Additionally, it may be
more effective to base a control system on occurrences rather than total time missed (Bunning,
1988).

Most employees have good attendance records, with only about 3% of a company's employees
exploiting the system by taking more than their allowed sick time or more days than they need
(Markowich, 1993). However, company policy may inadvertently reinforce a "use it or lose it"
attitude with policies in which employees lose their sick time if it is not used by the end of the
year. This may encourage employees to view sick time as a benefit to which they are entitled.

Since 1986, national surveys have collected data from companies of all sizes and industries. The
data was then analyzed and the best controls for unscheduled absences were discussed. Two
approaches scored the highest for achieving best results: a no-fault program and PTO (Paid Time
Off) (Markowich, 1993).

A "no-fault" absentee program approach disregards the reason why an employee is absent. The
employer sets a limit of unscheduled absences and holds the employee accountable. Once the
employee uses the allotted number of days allowed, a system of progressive disciplinary actions
is activated ending in discharge. This type of system is designed to punish abusers, not reward
good attenders.

Allen-Bradley Co., based in Fullerton, California, implemented such a plan in October 1988
using a point system. All absences and tardiness other than jury duty, bereavement time, workers
compensation leave, military obligations, vacations, holidays, and 40 hours of sick time were
subject to points, according to the type of absence. Absenteeism dropped 83.5% over the first 25
months, saving the company $59,545 (Stinson, 1991).

Paid Time Off (PTO) is a redesign of traditional time-off benefits. Rather than granting time off
separately for vacation, personal and sick time, PTO lumps time off into two categories - PTO
and Catastrophic (CAT). Catastrophic is used for major illness that keeps the employee away
from work for an extended period. PTO programs have a hidden incentive for employees not to
use unnecessary sick days. Since all allotted days are available for vacation, fewer unscheduled
days for illness translates more vacation days. Another hidden benefit of PTO accrues to the
organization. Since it can be assumed that all allowed days will be taken - an assumption that is
not routinely made in the case of sick days - managers can plan staffing needs knowing in
advance how many days each employee will be off.

Why Employees Are Absent

Steers and Rhodes (1984) suggested that an employee's attendance is a function of two factors:
(1) the employee's motivation to attend, and (2) the employee's ability to attend. Theorists are
consistent that employees may be motivated to attend by increased autonomy, responsibility, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Dalton and Mesch, 1990).
Organizational and environmental factors associated with absenteeism include: poor employee
morale, personnel conflicts, unsatisfactory compensation and benefit programs, unrealistic job
expectations, inadequate training, unsafe or stressful workplace conditions. There are also a
number of personality characteristics that can be associated with absenteeism, including, among
others, reliability, freedom from disruptive alcohol use, and dependability (Borofsky and Smith,
1993). Employees often cite, child or parent care and the need to take care of certain personal
business during normal working hours as reasons for their absence.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) found that employees, working under a flexible scheduling system,
attributed a decline in absenteeism to the elimination of the reason for the absenteeism. They
were now able to attend to their personal business. Alignment of employee needs and
organizational work through a flexible work schedule should result in increased employee
commitment to the organization.

Dalton and Mesch (1990) suggested that flexible scheduling may increase extrinsic motivation
simply because basic working conditions are improved, i.e., the employee may be able to avoid
rush hour, and the employee's relationship with a supervisor may improve if tardiness is
minimized. They also argued that the employee's motivation may increase as the employee
enjoys more autonomy and responsibility with regard to work hours.

A six-year field experiment on flexible scheduling was conducted with a large Western public
utility (Dalton and Mesch, 1990). Monthly measures were taken on both a control group and the
experimental group for three years prior to the intervention of a flexible scheduling program,
during the program, and for two years after the program was discontinued. The intervention of
flexible scheduling (experimental group) led to a reduction in the absence rate; with the removal
of the intervention, absenteeism returned to its base-line rate. The control group showed no
reduction in absenteeism during the same period.

An Action Plan

No matter what the organization's policy is on absenteeism, or how leave time is administered,
the literature is consistent regarding how the policy should be administered. Bielous (1993)
summed up the process for managers in his five-prong action plan for achieving acceptable
employee attendance:

(A) EDUCATE - Know the company attendance policy and explain the policy in full to all
employees. Provide all employees a written copy of the policy. Meet with individual employees
who have chronic attendance problems and record all meetings and their content.

(B) MONITOR - Keep accurate records. Have a notebook to record daily employee attendance
records. Observe which employees are late, leave early, or are absent. Ask employee's why they
were late, absent, or left early. Keep a record of the reasons.

(C) COUNSEL - Privately meet with employees who are having an attendance problem. Tell
them what your expectations are and what you have observed regarding their attendance. Keep
records of all counseling sessions.
(D) FOLLOW-UP - If the behavior occurs again ask for a private meeting and find out why.
After you find out why, confer with your Human Resources department for guidance and
support.

(E) CORRECTIVE ACTION - Follow progressive steps according to company policy, i.e.,
verbal warning, written warning, suspension, and termination. Record each step.

Bielous (1993), Stinson (1991), Dalton and Mesch (1990), Bunning (1988), and Wallin and
Johnson (1976) dealt with the importance of properly communicating the attendance policy to
the employees. All agreed that it was vital to verbally explain the policy to employees and to
give each a written copy of the policy. Each emphasized the importance of consistently
implementing the policy with all employees. Bielous (1991) stressed the importance of managers
as positive role models for subordinates. Stinson (1991) and Bunning (1988) explained the
importance of obtaining employee input when establishing or changing company policy on
absenteeism.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Several recommendations can be drawn from the literature for managing absenteeism.
Controlling absenteeism in the workplace begins with a sound absenteeism policy that is
incorporated into an employee handbook. The policy should define absenteeism and outline
consequences for those who break the rules or whose absences become unacceptably disruptive.

Each employer should identify how many unplanned days of absence are appropriate, taking into
account that, on average, employees are absent 5.1 (Gwaltney, 1994) days per year, and blue
collar workers are absent more than white collar workers (Hazzard, 1990). These findings
suggest that different organizational settings may require different standards.

Once management decides on the number of allowed sick days and has a well written attendance
policy, the next and most important step is to inform and educate all employees of the policy.
This should be done early in the employment process and acceptable behavior regarding
absenteeism should be clearly defined. Records showing that the employee knows and
understands the policies should be maintained. Management should have the employee sign a
statement saying they have received a copy of the policies and are responsible for knowing them.
It has been shown that clarifying and communicating attendance policies reduces the rate of
unauthorized absences (Majchrzak, 1987). The attendance policy should be reviewed with all
employees yearly.

Having an attendance policy is useless unless it is enforced by management and followed

consistently (Healthcare Supervisors, 1994). In order to know if an employee is abusing sick
leave before it becomes blatantly obvious, employers need to keep accurate attendance records
(Bielous, 1993; Stinson, 1991; Bunning, 1988; and Wallin and Johnson, 1976). Such records
show if absentee patterns are developing. Some patterns, such as the employee always being sick
on Fridays, using the same excuse for tardiness, or using sick time as quickly as it is earned, are
relatively easy to identify. More subtle patterns may be difficult to spot and become apparent
only with a thorough review of carefully maintained records. It is important for management to
record not only the reason for the absence but also if the employee followed the correct
procedure for notifying the employer.

Once employees are educated about the attendance policy and management keeps accurate
records, management then has evidence if an employee is abusing the policy. When this occurs,
appropriate disciplinary procedures or corrective actions, as defined by company policies, should
be implemented.

Most employees have good attendance records and do not need extra financial rewards to
motivate them to come to work. What employees do need is to feel financially secure and to
know they will be paid if absent from work due to illness. Employers may reward employees by
allowing them to carry over sick days up to the time a disability policy takes effect. This would
reduce the "use it or lose it" mentality. Allowing sick pay for illness of family members,
especially for young working mothers, may be an added employee benefit.

No one likes confrontations, which is probably why supervisors, especially new ones, sometimes
ignore attendance issues. Attendance problems created by subordinates can be handled by using
good judgment, keeping accurate attendance records, and administrating company policy fairly
and consistently.

REFERENCES

Bielous, G. (1993) Achieving Acceptable Employee Attendance. Supervision, August, 6-8.

Borofsky, G. L. and Smith, M. (1993) Reductions in Turnover, Accidents and Absenteeism: The
Contribution of a Pre-Employment Screening Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 109-
116.

Bunning, Richard L. (1988) Personnel World: A Comprehensive Approach to Improving

Attendance. Personnel Journal, 44-49.

Dalton, D. R. and Enz, C. A. (1987) Absenteeism in Remission: Planning Policy, Culture.

Human Resource Planning, 10, 81-91.

Dalton, Dan R., and Mesch, Debra J. (1990) The Impact of Flexible Scheduling on Employee
Attendance and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370-387.

Dalton, D. R. and Mesch, D. J. (1991). On the Extent and Reduction of Avoidable Absenteeism:
An Assessment of Absence Policy Provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 810-817.

Drago, R. and Wooden, M. (1992) The Determinants of Labor Absence: Economic Factors and
Workgroup Norms Across Countries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 764-776.

Dunn, L. F., and Youngblood, S. A. (1986) Absenteeism as a Mechanism for Approaching and
Optimal Labor Market Equilibrium: An Empirical Study. Review of Economics and Statistics,
68, 668-674.
George, J. M. (1989) Mood and Absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-323.

Gwaltney, M. J. (1994) Countering Abusive Absenteeism. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

March, 24-26.

Hazzard, L. E. (1990) A Union Says Yes to Attendance. Personnel Journal, November, 47-49.

Mona Buschak is the Executive Director of Human development of Erie, Inc.; Christa Craven, a
graduate student of business administration at Gannon University, is Program Supervisor for the
Greater Erie Community Action Committee; and Dr. Ledman had extensive management
experience in the health care industry prior to his current teaching career.

Managing absenteeism for greater

productivity.
By Ledman, Robert
Publication: SAM Advanced Management Journal
Date: Sunday, December 22 1996

Dropping out is the outcome of a long process of disengagement and alienation, preceded by less
severe types of withdrawal such as truancy and course failures (Finn, 1989,1993). Appreciation
has grown for viewing the path to dropping out as complex and multidimensional, and for
focusing on family and school variables in efforts to reduce dropout rates (Egyed, McIntosh, &
Bull, 1998; Finn, 1993). Four broad intervention components are important in enhancing student
motivation to stay in school and work hard: opportunities for success in schoolwork, a caring and
supportive environment, clear communication of the relevance of education to future endeavors,
and addressing students’ personal problems (McPartland, 1994).

In the early 1990s, three projects funded by OSEP successfully implemented interventions to
prevent student dropouts among those students with disabilities who were at greatest risk—those
with learning disabilities and those with emotional or behavioral disabilities. These projects
carefully tracked students so that they knew who continued in school and who dropped out. Five
intervention strategies used by the projects helped to prevent school dropouts among a high risk
population (Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995):

References

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children,
62(5), 399-413.

Christenson, S., Sinclair, M., Thurlow, M., & Evelo, D. (1995). Tip the balance: Policies &
practices that influence school engagement for youth at high risk for dropping out. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Egyed, C.J., McIntosh, D.E., & Bull, K.S. (1998). School psychologists’ perceptions of priorities
for dealing with the dropout problem. Psychology in the Schools, 35(2), 153-162.

Evelo, D. Sinclair, M., Hurley, C., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids in
school: Using Check & Connect for dropout prevention. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on
Community Integration.

Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2).

Finn, J.D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Buffalo, NY: State University. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 362 322).

GAO. (2002). School dropouts: Education could play a stronger role in identifying and
disseminating promising prevention strategies (GAO-02-240). Washington, DC: Author.

McPartland, J.M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In R.J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools
and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 255-276). New York:
Teachers College Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Dropout rates in the United States: 1992.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Dropout rates in the United States: 1998.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). A recommended approach to providing high
school dropout and completion rates at the state level. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States: 2000.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A
national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., Evelo, D.L., & Hurley, C. (1998). Dropout prevention for
youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional
Children, 65(1), 7-21.

Thurlow, M., Christenson, S., Sinclair, M., Evelo, D., & Thornton, H. (1995). Staying in school:
Strategies for middle school students with learning & emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(4), 305-314.
Williams, P.A. (1987). Standardizing school dropout measures (Research Report Series RR-
003). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Literature points to a strong link between positive nurturing interpersonal relationships between
teachers and students as an important ingredient in the recipe for student success. Socially
supportive relationships can have powerful and lasting effects on the lives of children (Cassidy &
Shaver, 1999; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998). Pianta (1999) found that emotionally warm
relationships between teachers and students provide students with a sense of security within
school settings. It is believed that this sense of wellness promotes exploration and comfort, as
well as social, emotional, and academic competence among students. Similarly, Birch and Ladd
(1997) found that students who had closer relationships with teachers were better adjusted
academically than students with conflicted teacher-student relationships. Ryan and Grolnick
(1986) found that students who perceived their teachers as personally positive and supportive
were more likely to feel a greater sense of competence and to be more intrinsically motivated.

It is important to note that personality clashes between teachers and students can and do exist.
Ridicule, favoritism, exclusion, and deliberately demeaning behaviors exhibited by teachers
toward certain students can be a reality in some situations. It is in these types of situations that a
savvy administrator must evaluate the situation, devise a plan and make a change for the better
when working closely with the student and teacher, or other stakeholder involved.

Why is it Important to Develop a Plan for Establishing and Maintaining Positive Interpersonal
Relationship Practices on your Campus?

Successful educational leaders are successful planners. They have developed the ability to
collaborate with their leadership team, teaching staff, students, and parents including all stake
holders associated with the operation of a successful school. The planning process allows
participants to become involved in the implementation and completion of the plan and to have a
voice in the decision making process thereby empowering those who will be effected by the plan
itself.

An effective campus principal is constantly involved in establishing and maintaining a

professional environment that includes the modeling of positive interpersonal relationship
techniques. It becomes essential for the effective instructional leader/principal to lead in
establishing a vision for what positive interpersonal relationships should look like and sound like
whether the relationship is between teachers and students, teachers and other teachers, teachers
and parents, teachers and administrators. This includes all school personnel and the community
surrounding the campus.

An effective interpersonal communications plan may include measurable goals designed to meet
the expectations set forth in the vision that have been established collaboratively by campus
personnel. For instance, a vision statement may include the phrase similar to the following; “It is
essential that we establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships with all of the
students, parents, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders we work with everyday while
on this campus”. We will do so by using the following types of words and actions when working
with each other…. Under this statement, the teachers and other stakeholders will come to a
consensus on what types of words and actions they agree will help to establish and maintain a
positive professional working environment. This (agreed upon by consensus) document can
become a written contract among the school personnel that all can sign in agreement. The
contract can be posted throughout the building and used as a reminder and tool for future
situations that might call for encouragement toward meeting the goals set forth in the vision for
establishing and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships.

Another evaluation tool administrators can use for measuring positive interaction between
teachers and students involves an administrative document used for tallying verbal and
behavioral interactions teachers have while communicating with students during a brief
classroom walkthrough observation. The tally document allows the administrator to document
positive and negative teacher remarks and actions observed during the walkthrough process. A
post-observation meeting can become a useful tool for administrators as they give feedback to
teachers concerning the observed verbal and behavioral message they may be giving to students
and whether or not the teacher is aware of the connotations of the message they are projecting to
the students in their classroom.

A third useful informational feedback tool that can be used to measure interpersonal
relationships involves the distribution of surveys to students, teachers, and all stakeholders. The
items on the survey can be written in terms used to collect data pertaining to overall participant
feelings toward their interpersonal relationships at work. The survey respondents can remain
anonymous in the hope of raising the level of honesty when responding to the survey items
answer choices.

Policies Concerning the Interpersonal Aspect of Professional Relationships at Work

All public school districts are required by law to have an employee handbook. The employee
handbook should contain federal, state and local policy regarding behavior toward students,
peers and supervisors. As a campus principal, you will be responsible for monitoring and
enforcing the written policies. The documentation tools mentioned above can be used to verify
your leadership in establishing a vision for establishing and maintaining a positive productive
learning environment for all students. (You may choose to have your students bring in an
example of an employee handbook from a school district from which they are employed and
compare the contents and discuss the reasoning for included the contents).

Policy Examples

Policy DH (Example taken from a working 2006-2007 Employee Handbook of a Texas public
school district)

All employees are expected to work together in a cooperative spirit to serve the best interests of
the district and to be courteous to students, one another, and the public. Employees are expected
to observe the following standards of conduct:
 * Recognize and respect the rights of students, parents, other employees, and members of the
community.

* Maintain confidentiality in all matters relating to students and coworkers.

* Report to work according to the assigned schedule.

* Notify their immediate supervisor in advance or as early as possible in the event that they
must be absent or late. Unauthorized absences, chronic absenteeism, tardiness, and failure to
follow procedures for reporting an absence may be cause for disciplinary action.

* Know and comply with department and district policies and procedures.

* Express concerns, complaints, or criticism through appropriate channels.

* Observe all safety rules and regulations and report injuries or unsafe conditions to a
supervisor immediately.

* Use district time, funds, and property for authorized district business and activities only.

All district employees should perform their duties in accordance with state and federal law,
district policies and procedures, and ethical standards. Violation of policies, regulations, or
guidelines may result in disciplinary action, including termination. Alleged incidents of certain
misconduct by educators, including having a criminal record, must be reported to SBEC not later
than the seventh day the superintendent first learns of the incident.
The Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators adopted by the State Board for
Educator Certification, which all district employees must adhere to, is reprinted below:

Cole of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators

Statement of Purpose

The Texas educator shall comply with standard practices and ethical conduct toward students,
professional colleagues, school officials, parents, and members of the community and shall
safeguard academic freedom. The Texas educator, in maintaining the dignity of the profession,
shall respect and obey the law, demonstrate personal integrity, and exemplify honesty. The Texas
educator, in exemplifying ethical relations with colleagues, shall extend just and equitable
treatment to all members of the profession. The Texas educator, in accepting a position of public
trust, shall measure success by the progress of each student toward realization of his or her
potential as an effective citizen. The Texas educator, in fulfilling responsibilities in the
community, shall cooperate with parents and others to improve the public schools of the
community.
Professional Standards

1. Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices, and Performance

Standard 1.1 The educator shall not knowingly engage in deceptive practices regarding official
policies of the school district or educational institution.

Standard 1.2 The educator shall not knowingly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel,
property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage.

Standard 1.3 The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or
pay.
Standard 1.4 The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or
partisan advantage.

Standard 1.5 The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair
professional judgment or to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the
acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents, or other
persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service.

Standard 1.6 The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so.

Standard 1.7 The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board poli-
cies, and other applicable state and federal laws.

Standard 1.8 The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility
on the basis of professional qualifications.
2. Ethical Conduct toward Professional Colleagues

Standard 2.1 The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information con-
cerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law.

Standard 2.2 The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a
colleague or the school system.

Standard 2.3 The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and
federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel.

Standard 2.4 The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional,
or citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Standard 2.5 The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, or family status.
Standard 2.6 The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order
to influence professional decisions or colleagues.

Standard 2.7 The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint
with the SBEC under this chapter.

3. Ethical Conduct toward Students

Standard 3.1 The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless
disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law.

Standard 3.2 The educator shall not knowingly treat a student in a manner that adversely affects
the student's learning, physical health, mental health, or safety.
Standard 3.3 The educator shall not deliberately or knowingly misrepresent facts regarding a
student.

Standard 3.4 The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny
benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, sex, disability,
national origin, religion, or family status.

Standard 3.5 The educator shall not engage in physical mistreatment of a student.

Standard 3.6 The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship
with a student.

Standard 3.7 The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any student
or knowingly allow any student to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence
of the educator.
Conclusion

Think about the following:

1. Explain how your knowledge of interpersonal relationships can benefit the students on your
campus as you plan to establish and maintain a positive learning environment for all students.

2. Explain how your knowledge of creating tools for collection of data pertaining to
interpersonal relationships might be useful as you begin leading a school.

3. Would you ever use the written contract among the teaching staff and other personnel, the
classroom tally documentation tool, and survey instruments to help establish and maintain a
positive learning environment for all students? If so, what might these documents look like and
how would you use the information generated from each?

4. Explain how your knowledge of the types of interpersonal relationships between students
and teachers; teachers to teachers; teachers to parents; and all other campus stakeholders would
change the way you lead.

Resources:
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.

Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P.R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
implications. New York: Guilford.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social support for adolescents at risk
of school failure. Social Work, 43, 309-323.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origin and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.