Absenteeism - a Social Fact in Need of a Theory*)

by Dagfinn Ås

In sociological and social psychological studies of work behavior, measures of

absenteeism have often been used in the analysis. Most often the measures have
been looked upon as dependant variables; indicators of the effectiveness of the
organization or also indicators of satisfaction and adjustment of the employees.
Some studies have had as their explicit goal to find correlates of absenteeism and
spell out the causal relationships; thereby making it possible to improve the situ-
ation, that is, to reduce the degree of absenteeism. 1 ) We would like to state here
at the outset that absenteeism is not necessarily an unquestionable evil. For the
absentee personally it might often be psychologically important to take the day off,
and in many cases will a certain degree of absenteeism fit the particular organi-
zation and even have specific positive functions.
In studying the various reports from studies of absenteeism, however, one is
struck by two phenomena: first the multitude of factors that seem to be related
to absenteeism 2), and secondly the number of contradictions that appear when a

comparison of the findings are performed. In order to cut through this chaos and
construct a model for research on absenteeism there is first a need for grouping
of the factors and weeding out the irrelevant ones in order to be able to handle
a particular study. Secondly we need more work on finding and defining broad

conditional or situational variables that might explain the contradictions between

the findings.
In a recent article John B. Knox 3 has suggested a first grouping of deter-
mining variables into categories that he calls &dquo;incentives to continue employment&dquo;,
&dquo;barriers to adjustment&dquo;, and &dquo;barriers to attendance&dquo;. The inclusion of any one
variable into these categories - or rather the relevance of the variables in studies
of industrial absenteeism - will depend upon the degree to ii,hich the particular
variable clearly impinge upon the tie betwee~t the employees and the company, or
his tendency at any given morning to appear at work. This argument correspond
to the general conclusion drawn by Hill and Trist4) in their excellent study of
industrial accidents and absenteeism. They conclude that their data &dquo;suggest that

’~) &dquo;The data reported on in this paper originate in a study of organizational behavior and
change performed under the auspices of the Survey Research Center at the University
of Michigan where the author stayed in 1958-59 under a grant from the Rockefeller
Foundation.

278
 absence phenomena reflect the quality of the relationship of the person to the
employing institution&dquo;. Not only is this plausible, but it is our argument that the
inclusion of the psychological tie between the person and the company indeed is
necessary for a full understanding of the psychological process that accompany
going absent. A certain barrier to attendance will have different effect upon a
person feeling committed to, or identified with the company, than upon a person
attending because of fear of loosing his job.
The second task, that of defining the broad conditioning variables that might
explain the so far contradictory findings must be attacked by a gradual building
up of interpretations from different studies in different industrial concerns and
different cultures. To make such studies comparable they have to have certain
_
similarities in their design and orientation. This might be obtained by accepting
as a frame for thought that absenteeism is a result of certain psychological forces

within the individuals. This process come about as the incentives to continue em-
ployment and the barriers to adjustment interact with the commitment to the
company that stem from the employment contract; to produce a tie (of a certain
kind and strength) between the person and the company. This will consequently
produce a tendency for the employee to go to work or not. The barriers to at-
tendance will accordingly &dquo;tip the weight&dquo; in favor of attendance or absenteeism.
Comparative studies will be made possible if sufficient attention is given to the
problem of specifying the kind and the strength of the tie with the company. The
before-mentioned broad conditional variables might accordingly be obtained by
concentrating on the factors that specifically produce ties of particular kinds and
strengths.
Absenteeism cannot be explained by simple causal relationships. Most of the

Figure 1.
..,

279
variables listed as casual ones in other studies do not deserve this name. They
must be looked upon as conditioning or intervening ones as they operate to in-
fluence or change the tie between the persons and the company. This way of
structuting the situation can best be illustrated by the following diagram where
we have utilized the categories suggested by John B. Knox.

In studying absenteeism we must for the persons included in the sample,

postulate a minimum tendency to appear at work, or else the employees would
belong to the category of &dquo;leavers&dquo;. Further, according to this model, a person
will be absent on a particular day dependent upon the relative strength of the
tendency to appear at work and the barriers to attendance. In a study concerned
with causes of absenteeism we do not propose that the analysis should be restricted
to these latter forces. In such a study the total model will be involved. The schematic
model presented should in order to be complete contain a more complex set of
&dquo;arrows&dquo; and also &dquo;boxes&dquo;. This however, is not needed at this stage as the model
is meant more as a guide for thinking rather than an instrument of research.
From the data obtained in a study at a Midwestern manufacturing company
we have results that illuminate certain sections of this model. This particular

study was not designed according to the model presented above, but the study is
relevant as it will illuminate the problems involved in specifying the kind of tie
that exists between the employees and the company. This study concerned organi-
zational behavior and change, and in course of the study we obtained from the
Industrial Relations Department in the company statistics on absenteeism of the fol-
lowing kind. 1. Inslancies ofabsenteeism, not specified with respect to whether it
was caused by sickness or not. 2. Instal1cies of appearing late for work. 3. Inslall-

cies of leaviug early, i. e. before official quitting time. For all these measures we
computed indicies based on one month (Nov. 1958) : Number of instancies of
absenteeism/appearing late/leaving early per number of employees in the work
group. In the analysis we utilized 18 workgroups that represented shifts of workers
working under different first line supervisors. These measures were obtained to
be used, among others, as indicators of organizational effectiveness.
In the study by Katz and Hymon 5) various measures of satisfaction were
found to be associated with absenteeism in the way that low degree of absenteeism
could be said to be an indicator of high satisfaction and morale. A common inter-
pretation of such a finding is either to look upon absenteeism as an avoidance-
mechanism : to go absent represent an easy way out of situations of conflict, or to
look upon absenteeism as a more active action: to go absent represents a sanction
on part of the employees in response to some irritating incident at work. In our

study we postulated a similiar relationship and consequently related our measures

of absenteeism to certain measures of satisfaction. We have here selected five
variables of satisfaction that will illustrate our findings.

280
 Var. no: 19, Attitude toward own
workgroup (Index based on six interrelated
questions)
Var. no: 73, Attitude toward own foreman (Index based on seven interrelated
questions)
Var. no: 53, General satisfaction with the company as a
place to work (Index
based on four interrelated questions)
Var. no: 54, Motivation of workers to help company if needed (Index based on

three interrelated questions)

Var. no: 55, Willingness of company to care for the welfare of the workers as
’
judged by the workers themselves (Index based on three inter-
.
related questions)

For all the variables we have arranged the scales so that a negative relationship
indicate an association between High Absenteeism and Good Attitude/High Satir-
faction/High Motivation/High Willingness. For the results see table 1.
Table 1: Relationship between Measures of Absenteeism and AlteruatiteMeasures of
Satisfaction (Product-moment correlation).

Only few of the coefficients in Table 1 are significant, but on the whole we
a

find that our expectations are not met, with the exception that dissatisfaction with
the immediate work situation seems to be related to a high frequency of leaving
work before quitting time. The latter finding is plausible for two reasons: the
conflict or the unpleasant situation that the workers would want to avoid (or
protest) by being absent must first of all be found in the immediate work situation.
Secondly, leaving early will represent the reaction, in time least removed from the
281
determining factors. By leaving early the workers so to say can demonstrate his
dissatisfaction relatively immediately.
The tendency that high satisfaction in general was associated with a high degree
of absenteeism was unexpected and we cannot readily give a valid explanation
of this fact. One suggested explanation of the relatively high degree of absen-
teeism in the American industry during the last world war said that never before
had the workers had so much money to spend and were consequently more inclined
to go absent. These workers were at the same time not necessarily dissatisfied in
their job. This indicates a different type of absenteeism. Instead of being &dquo;pushed&dquo;
oat by unpleasant conditions, the workers in this situation were more oriented
outward and the company did not have a high enough valence for the workers
so they were &dquo;pulled in&dquo; and back to work. This way of reasoning leads us to ,i

kind of &dquo;push-pull&dquo; theory for absenteeism, to borrow some terms from mobility
research.
Our measures of satisfaction can be utilized to test this notion as two of the
measures refer to the workers immediate work situation, and it will be here that
first of all conflicts may arise and dissatisfaction may be produced. The three
other measures however, refer to more general attitudes that reflect the workers’
commitment to the company. The model that would take care of the two different
types of absenteeism can then be portrayed as in Fig. 2.
Figure 2: The &dquo;P~a.rh-Prrll&dquo; Moclel of Ab.rentaciJrrr.

There is reason to believe that the attitudes toward the company in general
will be more stable and enduring than the attitudes toward the immediate work
situation. Consequently we assume that measures of the first set best reflect the
degree of commitment the employees feel toward the company. Those falling into
the &dquo;high&dquo;-category are then the ones that might develop an identification with

282
Table 2:

283
the company. Dissatisfaction with the immediate work situation might very well
in this situation be reacted to by both avoidance and even active protest.
We assume that those being &dquo;low&dquo; with respect to general attitudes toward the
company in general will feel more insecure with respect to holding their own job.
Low satisfaction with the immediate work situation will interact with these feelings
in the way that insecurity is increased. It is consequently only in the situations
with a high degree of satisfaction with the immediate work situation that these
persons will &dquo;risk&dquo; being absent. It is further in this situation that the workers
easily &dquo;fall prey&dquo; to barriers of attendance. As to the distinction between passive
avoidance or active protest, neither will be predominant; the latter probably not
being possible at all unless as sheer provocation.
Two main hypothesis can then be derived from this argument: : .&dquo;
.

1. A low satisfaction with the immediate work situation (exemplified by poor

attitude toward own work group and own foreman) will lead to high degree
of absenteeism under the condition of a high degree of satisfaction with the
company in general.
2. A high satisfaction with the immediate work situation will be associated
with a high degree of absenteeism under the condition of low degree of
satisfaction with the company in general. ,

All the variables intended to measure satisfaction are positively related, but
the coefficients are not so high as to call these identical measures. In this case
as in others, we look upon our measures as alternatives or possible ways of

measuring the intended content. In the following table, where we have related
the measures of satisfaction to the measures of absenteeism, we have performed
the same kind of analysis six times, one for each combination of the five variables
of satisfaction. We then base our conclusions on the recurrence of the relationships
in addition to judging the strength of the relationships.
In Table 2 the two hypotheses are tested simultaneously, and the results are
presented in a series of 18 tables. Each table consists of a column of four rates.
According to Hypothesis 1. the second rate is expected to be higher than the first
one. According to Hypothesis 2. the third rate is expected to be higher than the

fourth. We have in the table set in bold type the high rates that come out as ex-
pected.
We see that the first hypothesis hold true for all three measures of absenteeism:
for &dquo;absenteeism&dquo; in five out of the six cases, for &dquo;lateness&dquo; in four out of the
six, and for &dquo;leaving early&dquo; in all six cases.
The second hypothesis is verified with respect to &dquo;absenteeism&dquo; and &dquo;lateness&dquo;,
in both cases in five out of the six cases. The hypothesis does not however, hold

284
true with respect to &dquo;leaving early&dquo;. This result substantiate our
previous notions
about the difference between &dquo;leaving early&dquo; and the two other measures. The
persons leaving work early- are predominantly workers that are dissatisfied with
their immediate work situation, if they at the same time are satisfied with the
company in general the rate of leaving early goes up sharply.

Summary
The many studies on industrial absenteeism at present are difficult to compare
and present a weak basis for designing further studies. This problem arises mainly
from two reasons: first the numerous factors suggested as determining ones and
the lack of organization of these. Secondly, the many contradictory findings point
to the lack of coverage of broader conditioning variables in these studies. A model
to be used as a frame of reference in further studies of absenteeism is suggested.
In this model a first categorization of the determining and conditioning variables
are utilized, while the total model tries to
specify the underlying psychological
pocesses postulated to be valid for the phenomenon of absenteeism. The model
explicitly calls for much attention to and careful description of the kind and
strength of the tie between the employees and the company. It is suggested that
through such work a basis for comparable studies will be obtained. Data form a
study of organizational behavior and change in a Midwestern manufacturing
company is then utilized as an example that shows how measures of attitudes
and satisfaction - taken as indicators of the kind of tie that exist between the
employees and the company - will influence the rate of absenteeism. Finally it
should be mentioned that the not so often used measure of absenteeism, namely
rate of leaving work too early, seems to differ from other measures in the way
that it is through this kind of behavior that the workers first of all &dquo;takes out&dquo;
their dissatisfaction with their immediate work situation.

285
NOTES AND REFERENCES:

1) "Tested Ways to Reduce Absenteeism", Factory Management and Maintenance, 101

(March 1943), p. 83. J. B. FOX and J. F. SCOTT, Absenteeism: Management’s
Problem, Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, 1942. FLOYD
C. MANN and JOHN E. SPARLING, "Changing Absence Rates: an Application of
Research Findings", Personnel, 52, 1956: 392-408. S. A. S. MURTHY, "Absenteeism
in Industry", Indian Journal of Social Work, 14 (September, 1953): 132-143. GRANT
W. CANFIELD and DAVID G. SOASH, "Presenteeism - a Constructive View",
Personnel Journal, 34, 1955: 94-97.
2) "Absenteeism: the New National Malady", Fortune, 27: 104-105. A. G. MEZERIK,
"Why Workers Stay Home", New Republic, 108, 6. 437.
3) JOHN B. KNOX, "Absenteeism and Turnover in an Argentine Factory", American
Sociological Rewiev, 26 (June, 1961) p. 425.
4) J. M. M. HILL and E. L. TRIST, "A Consideration of Industrial Accidents as a Means
of Withdrawal from the Work Situation", Human Relations, 6 (November, 1953) p. 377.
See also: E. WILLIAM NOLAND, "Worker Attitudes and Industrial Absenteeism:
A Statistical Appraisal", American Sociological Review, 10 (August, 1945) p. 504.
5) DANIEL KATZ and HERBERT HYMAN, "Industrial Morale and Public Opinion
Methods", International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, 1 (September,
1947): 13-30. See also: HELEN METZNER and FLOYD MANN, "Employee At-
titude and Absences", Personel Psychology, 6, 1953: 467-485.