This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]

On: 06 January 2015, At: 03:20

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Work & Stress: An International

Journal of Work, Health &
Organisations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twst20

The relationship between

absenteeism and stress
a b
Michael R. Manning & Joyce S. Osland
a
College of Business Administration and Economics, New
Mexico State University , USA
b
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western
Reserve University , USA
Published online: 25 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Michael R. Manning & Joyce S. Osland (1989) The relationship between
absenteeism and stress, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health &
Organisations, 3:3, 223-235, DOI: 10.1080/02678378908251558

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678378908251558

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
 WORK & STRESS, 1989, VOL. 3, NO. 3, 223-235

The relationship between absenteeism and stress

MICHAEL R. MANNING
College of Business Administration and Economics,
New Mexico State University, USA

JOYCE S. OSLAND
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

This study explores the relationshp between stress and absenteeism with a non-managerial white collar
sample (n = 147). Various operationalizations of absence were employed representing, frequency,
hours, and length of absence (one day, two day, > two day). Stress was operationalized with variables
representing stressors and strain from both work and non-work domains. Results found small but
consistent relationships between prior absence (one day, > t w o day, and total absence) and many of
the stress measures (work events, work conditions, life events, life conditions, job satisfaction, strain
and negative affect). Two sets of variance were identified from the prior absence measures, short and
long-term, that were both related to stress. No relationship was observed between stress and
subsequent absence.

Keywords: Stress; Strain; Absenteeism; Employee withdrawal.

A recent computer search on stress and absenteeism yielded 32 pages of references with 99
articles. Most of these articles were located in trade journals o r magazines and strongly
advised managers to establish health promotion and stress management programmes to
remedy employee absenteeism. Only a handful of the articles were scholarly studies
empirically measuring stress and/or absenteeism. While the popular press commonly links
stress with absenteeism, there has been very little empirical research to support this
assumption. This study attempts to build on the small body of empirical literature exploring
the relationship between these two constructs.
The idea that work-related stress results in absenteeism was first suggested by Hill and
Trist (1955). They portrayed absence as withdrawal from the stress of work, thereby
allowing individuals to better adapt or cope with their social environment. Surprisingly,
other theoretical propositions connecting stress and absenteeism are not as well developed.
Steers and Rhodes’ (1978) theory appears to be the only other comprehensive absenteeism
theory that suggests stress plays a central role in withdrawal from work. They contend that
stress, arising from situational work-related factors, influences employee dissatisfaction with
their jobs. Job dissatisfaction,in turn, causes short term dispositional absence. Their model is
cyclical in that absenteeism also influences the job situation and pressures to attend.

This research was supported by grants from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Ohio. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael R.
Manning, Department of Management, College of Business Administration and Economics, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-0001.
02674373/89 f3.00 01989 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
 224 M . R . Manning andj. S. Osland

1. Empirical evidence
The empirical work of Hedges (1973) found high absence rates for labourers, service
workers, and operatives. Frankenhaeuser and Gardell (1976) found perceptions of stress and
absenteeism of lumbermen were highest among those whose work could be characterized as
skilled but low in autonomy. They hypothesized that work perceived as low in control and
autonomy creates stress which results in absenteeism.
More direct research on the relationship between one aspect of stress, anxiety, and
absenteeism has been conducted by Bemardin (1977), Pocock et al. (1972) and Sinha (1963).
All three of these research efforts found a moderate relationship (about r = 0.20) between
self-reported anxiety and absenteeism. In addiiton, Parkes (1983) reported a correlation of
0.15 between frequency of absence and affective state for student nurses.
Empirical research on the relationship between work stress and self-reported
absenteeism has been undertaken by Spector et al. (1988) and Margolies et a f . (1974). With a
sample of 191 female secretaries, Spector et al. (1988) reported only one significant
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

correlation (0.17) between perceptions of role ambiguity and frequency of sick day absences
over the past three months. The stress measures of autonomy, workload, constraints, and
interpersonal conflict were not significantly correlated with absence frequency. Margolies
et al. (1974) also measured self-reported frequency of absence, this time with a national
sample of 1,496 working individuals. They found small but significant correlations for
underutilization (0.09), overload (0.06), resource inadequacy (0.06), and non-participation
(0.11).
Probably the two best empirical studies on the work stress-absenteeism relationship
were conducted by Gupta and Beehr (1979) and Jamal (1984). Both studies operationalized
absence through company records. Gupta and Beehr (1979) found that role ambiguity, role
overload, underutilization of skills, and resource inadequacy all correlated, 0.13 to 0.16,
with absence frequency in the subsequent month. Since n o correlation existed between their
stress measures and the prior month’s absence, Gupta and Beehr (1979) suggested that job
stress is a predictor or cause of future work absence. Jamal (1984) reported the highest
correlations found in the literature between stress and absence frequency during a
subsequent four month period. With a sample of 440 nurses, the correlations reported were:
role ambiguity (0.34); role overload (0.27); role conflict (0.23), and resource inadequacy
(0.37). By and large, the correlations derived from the literature support a stress-
absenteeism relationship but of small magnitude.

2. Absence measures
Any attempt to cast further light on the stress-absenteeism relationship raises
methodological issues related to measuring absence. Historically, absence has been
operationalized by the total number of hours absent per unit of time. Recently, researchers
have suggested that different lengths of absenteeism (e.g., one day, two day, short term,
long term, etc.) and different forms of measuring absence (e.g., hours and frequency) might
correlate differently with other variables (Chadwick-Jones et al. 1982) and with stress in
particular (Fogler and Belew 1985).
Chadwick-Jones et al. (1982) proposed that one-day absences are usually voluntary and
may represent what Staw and Oldham (1978) term an ‘unauthorized vacation’. Hence,
Fogler and Belew (1985) have hypothesized that one day absences might be the best
conceptual measure for stress research. Lengthier absences are more likely involuntary
unavoidable absences, such as actual illnesses. To the extent that physical illnesses are stress-
induced, the associated long term absences should also relate to measures of stress. Further
 Absenteeism and stress 225

frequency, rather than hourly indices of absenteeism, that give equal weight to all absences
regardless of length, may be the most effective measure for stress research. This position is
buttressed by Muchinsky’s (1977) finding that frequency of absence is the most reliable
absence index.

3. Research direction and objectives

This study attempts to expand the limited empirical base on the stress and absenteeism
relationship. As Lazarus (1966) states, stress is not one variable but aprocess with a rubric of
variables. The particular variables employed in this study represent both work and non-
work domains and fall in two conceptual categories: (1) stressors that relate to chronic
conditions or stressful incidents and (2) outcome variables which measure the presence or
absence of work and life strain/well-being. Strain/well-being is operationalized through
variables that assess job tensions and satisfaction as well as general affect and quality of life.
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

The study tests the general hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between our
measures of stress and employee absence. Furthermore, based on the conceptual work of
Fogler and Belew (1985), the study examines whether different patterns of absence (e.g.,
length of absence and frequency/hourly approaches) relate differently to our stress measures.
Results of the study should indicate which absence measures might be most useful when
conducting stress research. O u r hope is that investigations like this will yield both a better
understanding of the stress-absenteeism relationship and encourage innovative approaches
to theory development.

4. Methods
4.1. Procedures
Surveys were completed by participants at theirjob site during normal working hours. The
attendance data were gathered for twelve months prior to the survey administration and for
twelve months afterwards. Managers were responsible for keeping track of non-union
employees’ attendance. After receiving attendance information from individual personnel
files, the researchers coded the data.

4.2. Respondents
Survey respondents were recruited from a manufacturing company employing 350
individuals. Subjects were asked to participate voluntarily in a larger research project
focusing on the effectiveness of health promotion programmes in work settings. Three
hundred and three employees participated in the larger research project. However after the
attendance data was ‘cleaned’, 147 respondents were eligible for the present study. It was
necessary to eliminate 56 managers whose attendance was not systematically taken and
approximately 100 production employees who were union members. Although the
production workers’ data were highly accurate due to the use of a timeclock, their union
contract stipulated that one day absences were not reimbursed. This policy did not apply to
non-union members. Therefore, the production employees were dropped from this study
because this policy likely affected the incidence of one day absences. Subjects were primarily
white collar workers in non-managerial support positions.

4.3. Measures
The study operationalized the following sets of variables: stressors; strain and well-being
measures; and categories of absence.
 226 M . R . Manning and J . S . Osland

4.3.1. Work and l$e stressors

Stressful life and work events were measured by means of the Life Events Inventory
(Cochrane and Robertson 1973) and the Events at Work Inventory (Naismith 1975). Both
inventories asked participants to indicate if an event did or did not happen during the last
twelve months. The listed events from both questionnaires have been found to stimulate
stress reactions and adaptive behaviours.
Respondents were also asked to rate the chronic occurrence of 19 stressful conditions.
The work conditions variable was measured by asking participants to rate 26 chronic
conditions in their work environment. Both instruments were developed by Adams (1981)
and used a 5-point scale anchored by ‘rarely or never’ and ‘always’.

4.3.2. Work and l$e strainlwell-being

The Job Related Tension Index (Kahn et al. 1964) is comprised of 18 items scored on a
7-point scale (‘never’ to ‘nearly all the time’). Job satisfaction was measured by asking
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

participants to rate on a 7-point scale (‘dissatisfied’to ‘satisfied’) how satisfied they were with
ten specific aspects of their jobs (Manring 1979).
Strain was measured by an instrument constructed by Adams (1981). This questionnaire
consists of26 items on a 5-point response format (‘rarely or never’ to ‘quite frequently’) that
sampled the content domains of depression, anxiety and somatic complaints. The Affect
Rating Scale (Sipprelle et al. 1976) provided a measure of general affective state. T w o scales
from this instrument were utilized: (1) Positive affect and (2) Negative affect. The final self-
report measure, Quality of Life (Medical Datamation Inc. 1982), assessed one’s general life
and emotional well-being.

4.3.3. Absenteeism
Absence was divided into both total hours and frequency of absence for the following
categories: one day, two day and more than two day absences. One and two day absences
were classified as short term absence, while greater than two day absences were considered
long term absence. T w o total absence measures, for frequency and hours, were computed
by adding short term and long term absence figures. All of these categories represent
absences coded by the company as illness. Absence due to other reasons such as personal
business, family emergencies, medical appointments, disability and tardiness, were coded
separately and not included in this analysis.
To make allowances for possible seasonal variations, the absence data were accumulated
for the twelve months before and after the completion of the survey. The totaled absence
figures were divided by the number of months the subjects had been employed. Therefore,
absence figures represent monthly averages. As the study progressed, discussions with
company officials revealed that on infrequent occasions, some managers did not record short
one or two hour absences if an employee worked compensatory non-paid overtime.
Because of this, it is possible that the attendance data for the one day absence category may
be under-reported.

5. Results
5.1. Characteristics of sample
The demographic nature of the 147 participants is quite heterogeneous. Fifty men and 97
women participated in the study. There were 122 whites, 24 blacks, and one Asian. The
mean age was 35.8 years (ranging from 21 to 62). Eighty-four individuals were married, 28
were either separated, widowed, or divorced and 33 had never married. The sample
 A bsenteeism and stress 227

included 66 college graduates, 47 with some college, 32 with high school diplomas, and one
had not graduated from high school. Total family income ranged from less than $12,000 to
more than $60,000 with a median income in the $30,000 to $39,000 category.

5.2. Stress measures

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for the stress measures.
Mean and standard deviation values for these variables appear to fall within a normal range.
As expected, moderate correlations were generally found among the variables in the
stressors and strainlwell-being categories. Not surprisingly, correlations were generally
higher between work stress measures. Positive affect was the only stress variable that did not
consistently correlate (significantly) with all of the other stress measures.

5.3. Absence measures

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the Year 1 (Yl) and Year 2 (Y2) absence
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

measures. These results indicate similar stable mean absence patterns when comparing the
frequency and hourly measures for the subsequent and prior year.

5.3.1. Correlations among frequency measures

Table 2 also presents the intercorrelations among all absence measures for both time periods.
Focusing first on the relations among frequency measures, there are extremely high
correlations between both one day and total short term frequency with total absence
frequency. These correlations clearly indicate that total short term frequency dominates the
total absence frequency score. Frequency of long tcrm absence does not consistently
correlate with any short term frequency measures and is a relatively small component of the
total absence frequency.

5.3.2. Correlations among hour measures

lntercorrelations among hour measures indicates a different pattern from the foregoing
frequency correlations. O f the four hour measures, long term absence correlates the highest
with total absence hours. Short term hours also accounts for a substantial amount of variance
(41 %/61%) in total absence hours. Since long term hours does not consistently correlate
with measures of short term hours, we may assume that much of the variance accounted for
by short and long-term absence hours in total absence hours is unique and not redundant or
overlapping.

5.3.3. Correlations among frequency and hour measures

Table 2 also provides information on the relationship betwecn hours and frequency indices.
With respect to short term absence measures, we find that correlations for the hours and
frequency measures are extremely high, indicating isomorphic operationalizations.
Correlations between long term frequency and hours are of a smaller magnitude. The
rclationship between total hours and total frequency is smaller and indicates that they share
approximately 23%/52% of the same variance. The one day hours and total short term
hours measures correlate strongly with total frequency of absence, suggesting that these
measures are very similar.

5.3.4. Stability of absence measures

The diagonal of the correlation matrix in table 2 reports correlations between Y1 and Y2 for
the ten absence measures. Viewing these correlations as an index ofstability, similar to a test-
retest reliability, we find that the significant coefficicnts ranged from 0.44 (total frequency)
 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

lv
lv
W

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among stress variables.

Standard
Stress variables Mean deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Work stressors
1 . Work events 262.12 162.92 -
2. Work conditions 2.21 0.59 0.49 (0.77)'
Life stressors
3. Life events 201.27 165.41 0.28 0.34 -
4. Life conditions 2.13 0-62 0.28 0.36 0.33 (0.75)
Work strainlwell-being
5. Job related tensions 2.67 1.01 0.52 0.80 0.35 0.46 (0.90)
6. Job satisfaction 4.95 1.23 -0.36 -0.77 -0.34 -0.33 -0.70 (0.88)
Life strainlwell-being
7. Strain 2.02 0.66 0.39 0.52 0.44 0.62 0.57 -0.51 (0-88) %
8. Negative affect 2.93 0.93 0.30 0.43 0.37 0.48 0.44 -0.51 0.71 (0.83)
9. Positive affect 4.84 0.86 -0.10"' 0.20 -0GI"" -0.22 -0.20 0.33 -0.35 -0.47 (0.79) ?
10. Quality of life 5.49 0.82 -0.31 -0.45 -0.17 -0.39 -0.50 0.55 -0.62 -0.73 0.65 (0.93) $
3

' Diagonal entries in parenthesis are internal consistency reliability estimates. 3.

Note: All correlations are significant except as indicated (ns). z
P
3
a
5
n
 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelationsfor Year I and Year 2 absence measures.

Absence Standard
measures Mean deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency
Short term
1. One day 0.13/0.13' 0.15/0.14 (0-40)*
2. Two day 0.03/0.03 0.06/0*06 0.30/0.26 (0.25)
3. Total short
term 0.16/0.17 0.16/0.17 0.9510.94 0.5910.57 (0.44)
Long term
4. > T w o day 0.02/0.04 0.02/0*05 0.12*/0.20 0.03*/0.11* 0.11*/0.21 (-044)*
5. Total absence 0.17/0.18 0.18/0.18 0.9310.91 0.57/0*55 0.98/0.97 0.31/0.46 (0.44)

Hours
Short term
6. One day 0.90/0.94 0.97/1.08 0.97/0-99 0,30/0*20 0.91/0.91 0.05*/0.24 0.86/0.88 (0.40)
7. Two day 0.49/048 0.87/0.84 0.28/0.20 0.99/0.99 0.61/0.56 0.23/0.15 0.6210.54 0.29/0.26 (0.21)
8. Total short
term 1.3811.42 1.4911.53 0.7710.78 0.8210.75 0.9410.96 0.18{0.25 0,9210.93 0.82/0.85 0.78/0.73 (0.42)
Long term
9. Two day 0.70/0.64 1.83/1.49 0.01*/0.10* 0.06/0.17 0.03*/0.16 0.6910.74 049/0.34 0.03*/0.18 0.02*/0.12* 0.03*/0.19 (-0.05)*
10. Total absence 2.0812.06 240/2.34 0.2610.47 0.3210.50 0.33/0'59 0.70/0.69 0.4810.72 0.53/0.67 0.50/0.56 0.64/0.78 0.7910.77 (0.18)

The two entries are: Year 1 value/Year 2 value.

Diagonal measures in parentheses are correlations between Year 1 and Year 2.
Note: All correlations are significant except as indicated (*).
 230 M. R. Manning a n d j . S. Orland

to 0-18 (total hours). Hours and frequency measures for long term absence appear to have no
stability across the two time periods. This is not surprising since extended illness may not be
a consistent yearly event.

5.4. Correlations of absence with stress

Table 3 displays the correlations between the frequency absence measures and the stress
variables for Y1 and Y2. Table 4 utilizes the same format for the hour absence measures. A
general overview of these tables indicates two consistent observations. First, significant
correlations exist between prior year absence measures (Yl) and the stress measures;
however, this pattern of significant correlations does not exist between stress and subsequent
measures of absence (Y2). Second, contrary to our hypothesis, the pattern and magnitude of
correlations across the hours and frequency tables are very similar. The one day frequency
measure did not have the strongest positive correlation with our stress measures.
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

5.4.1. Stress and short term absence correlations

Correlations for both hours and frequency are quite similar across both years. This is not
surprising since the correlations between the hour and frequency short term indices were in
the high 0.90’s. For one day absences in Y1, the frequency measure correlates significantly
with all work and life stressors measures. These one day frequency relationships also
influence the significant correlations for the total short term frequency category. When we
partialled one day frequency from this relationship, no significant correlations were
observed between total short term frequency and stress.
‘The one day hours and total short term hours correlations are also very similar to the
frequency correlations reported above. The only difference is that one day hours and total
short term hours measures fail to correlate significantly with the two work stressors
variables. Again, this absence-stress relationship appears to be determined solely by one day
hours, since no relationship exists between stress and total short term hours when one day
hours are held constant. Significant correlations were not found between any of our short
term absence measures and Job Related Tensions, Quality of Life, and Positive Affect. T w o
other observations pertaining to short term correlations are worth noting. First, no
significant correlations between our stress measures and short term hours or frequency
absence were found for Y2. Second, two day absences were not related to any of our stress
measures, even for Y1.

5.4.2. Stress and long term absence correlations

Significant correlations were also found between long term absence and a few of our stress
measures. The frequency of long term absence measures was related to Work Events and
Work Conditions for Y1. However, when we held one day frequency constant, no
significant correlation existed between stress and long term frequency. The Y1 long term
hours measure was significantly correlated with Work Events, Life Events and Strain. These
significant relationships continued to exist even when one day hours absence was partialled
from the relationship, thereby identifying another source of absence variance related to our
stress measures. The only correlation between the Y2 long term measures and our stress
variables was for Work Events.

5.4.3. Stress and total absence correlations

Total absence correlations for the frequency measure (Y 1) and the stress variables are almost
identical to the results for Y1 one day frequency. In fact, these correlations disappear when
 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

n
a
4.
Table 3. Pearson correlations between frequency absence measures and stress variables. 4
cd
-4

O n e day T w o day Total short term Long term Total absence c

-
Stress variables Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Work stressors
Work events 0.15* 0.08 0.04 - 0.08 0.14* 0.04 0.19* 0.16* 0.08
Work conditions 0.14* 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.14* 0.00 0.06 0.16* 0.01
Life stressors
Life events 0.06 0.02 -0.02 0.20** 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.22* 0.06
Life conditions -0.06 -0.03 0.09 0.13 - 0.02 0-07 0.04 0.14* -0.01
Work strainlwell-being
Job related tensions 0.09 - 0.08 0.03 -0.09 0.09 -0.10 0.13 -0.01 0.11 - 0.09
Job satisfaction -0.18* -0-02 -0.10 -0.02 -0.19** -0.02 -0-06 0.03 -0.19* -0.01
Life strain/well-being
Strain 0-16* 0.01 0.05 - 0.02 0.15* 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.17* 0.01
Negative affect 0.16* 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.14* 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.15* 0.02
Positive affezt 0.05 - 0.05 - 0.07 - 0.01 0.02 - 0.05 0.04 - 0.01 0.02 -0.05
Quality of life - 0.06 0.01 -0.08 0.01 -0.08 0.02 0.01 -0.03 -0.07 0.01

* p <0.05, * * p <0.01.
 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

Table 4. Pearson correlations between hour absence measures and stress variables.

One day Two day Total short term Long term Total absence

Stress variables Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Work stressors
Work events 0.12 0.06 0.04 -0.10 0.10 - 0.01 0.18* 0.16* 0.21 ** 0.10
Work conditions 0.09 -0.01 0.05 -0.02 0.09 -0.02 0.1 1 0.01 O.t4* - 0.01
Life stresson
Life events 0.22** 0-06 0.03 -0.03 0.16* 0.03 0.17* 0.04 0-23** 0.03
Life conditions 0.18* -0-06 -0.04 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.02
Work strainlwell-being
Job related tensions 0.07 -0.09 0-02 -0.11 0.06 -0.12 0.11 -0.05 0.12 -0.11
Job satisfaction -0.15* -0.01 -0.07 0.01 -044* 0.00 -0.03 0.06 -0.11 0.04
Life strainlwell-being
Strain 0.17* 0.01 0.05 -0.03 0.14* -0.04 0.15* -0.04 0.20** -0.04
K
Negative affect 0.15* 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 -0.04 0.15* -0.04 P
Positive affect 0-01 - 0-04 -0.06 0.00 -0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01
Quality of life - 0.06 0.03 - 0.07 0.04 - 0.08 0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.06 0.05

*p<0.05, **p<O.Ol.

0
F
3
a
 Absenteeism and stress 233

one day frequency is partialled from the relationship. This is not surprising, since one day
frequency and total absence frequency appear to be very similar measures (r = 0.93).
At first glance, the correlations with total absence hours (Yl) are very similar to the
results for total absence frequency. But contrary to the findings with frequency measures,
significant relationships still existed when one day or long term hour measures were held
constant. This suggests that the total hours-stress correlation is composed of two sets of
absence variance each related to stress: one day and long term absence. These results also
indicated no significant correlations between Y2 total absence measures and the stress
variables.

6. Discussion
Our primary research question addressed the nature of the relationship between stress and
absenteeism. Results indicated significant but small correlations between many of the stress
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

measures and prior absence. Except for the single significant correlation between work
events and long term absence, no relationships were observed between stress and the
subsequent year’s absence. These findings appear to run counter to the commonly held view
that work absence is a coping response to stress. They also seem to contradict Gupta and
Beehr’s (1979) and Jamal’s (1984) research which suggests job stress is a predictor of future
work absence. One possible explanation is that periods of stress are short with relatively
immediate reactions.
Explaining the nature of cause and effect is not possible with studies employing
correlational designs. However, our results may suggest the need to develop alternative
views ofthe relationship between stress and absenteeism. For example, our data appear to be
consistent with the view that absenteeism is a cause of stress, rather than the reverse. Clegg
(1983) contends that absenteeism is often flawed by researchers’ refusal to consider
alternative hypotheses. His research indicates that attendance impacts job satisfaction,
representing a departure from the traditional view that affect causes behaviour. This is also
consistent with the work of Ross and Fletcher (1985), who found that people who perceive
themselves missing work for trivial reasons conclude that this absence is due to job
dissatisfaction. Ross and Fletcher (1985) suggest that behaviour is affecting cognition rather
than vice versa.
If the explanation that absenteeism causes stress has merit, future research might try to
identify the conditions under which the causal arrow flies in this direction. Could a variable
such as job involvement determine whether stress predicts absenteeism or vice versa? For
example, if you are very involved in your work, absence might well be distressing; in
contrast, if your job is not a central life interest, absence might be a means of coping with
stress.
Causal detection with stress measures is further complicated by the possibility that any
measure of stress may be a generalization of past experiences. If this is the case, the point of
time at which the measurement of stress is taken may mean little more than the point from
which a generalized response, influenced by past experiences, starts. If so, it is hard to
identify which occurred first, stress or the absence. This explanation is indeed possible with
two ofour measures (Work Events and Life Events) since respondents were asked to identify
the occurrence of specific events within the past year. However, this logic is not as clearly
supported with our measures that asked for sentiments pertaining to ‘current status’, ‘how
you feel in general’, and ‘how frequently things are true for you these days’. Presumably the
latter questions would pertain to the past few weeks prior to survey administration. Does
stress that originated months before influence individuals’ responses to these stress measures?
 234 M . R. Manning a n d ] . S . Osland

If the answer to this question is yes, then stress as measured here could have occurred prior to
any absence. But, it is still confusing why our stress measures were not significantly
correlated with subsequent absence. To untangle this complex causal web, researchers will
need to employ longitudinal investigations measuring stress and absence at numerous points
in time.
O u r second research question addressed the issue, ‘Do different forms of measuring
absence relate differently to stress measures?’ In addition, the study sought to identify which
absence measures might be most useful when conducting stress research. To explore these
issues we employed five measures of absence duration (one day, two day, short term, long
term and total absence) and two indexing approaches (frequency and hours). Results from
this investigation indicated that all our categories of prior absence had some correlation with
the measures of stress, except for the two day category. These indices did not differ in the
magnitude of correlation with stress. Intercorrelations among the absence measures showed
that one day absence is virtually the same measure as total short term for both hours and
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

frequency. These short term measures also completely dominate total absence frequency.
Therefore, one day frequency, one day hours, short term frequency, short term hours and
total absence frequency are virtually interchangeable measures. All these measures tap into a
source of variance created by one day absence and therefore conceptually reflect the
dynamics of this type of absence.
This discussion brings us back to the results of this study and to the question: W h y is one
day absence associated with stress? Is the one day absence a necessary mental health day to
cope with the mounting pressures ofcomplex life? Or, do those forced to miss a day ofwork
find themselves so overwhelmed when they return by the backlog of work, the pressure
from co-workers, clients and superiors that stress results? Obviously, further research is
needed to explain the connection here.
O u r analysis also uncovered another source of absence related to stress: long term
absence hours. Again, we can ask why long term absence is associated with stress. Does long
term absence create even more pressure when one returns to work than one day absence?
Does illness beget stress or is it a result of a demanding life?
Even though others have advocated the use of frequency measures in absenteeism, we
believe that it is important to utilize a measure that is sensitive to length of absence duration,
especially for the longer periods of absence where there is large variability in the hours index
and almost no variance in the frequency index. A measure of long term hours, like that
employed in this study, is an important measure to use in stress research.
Although we employed different operationalizations of absence in this investigation, we
did not establish stronger relations between stress and absenteeism than has already been
reported. While our correlations were significant, they were very small. Perhaps this is due
to the fact that there is little relationship between these two constructs or, perhaps more
complicated relationships exist than we have been able conceptualize.
O u r objective in undertaking this investigation was to determine whether the stress-
absence relationship was worth investigating and if so, what directions may be indicated for
future research. W e conclude that further investigation appears to have merit and two
directions seem plausible. First, we encourage stress researchers to conduct longitudinal
studies with other variables, such as job involvement or commitment, so that we can begin
to develop more conclusive evidence about the causal relationship between stress and work
absence. This research might clarify when absenteeism is a coping response or a creator of
stress or both. Second, we suggest that research incorporate more controlled designs to
determine the underlying connections between short term absence and stress as well as long
term absence and stress. What different conceptual interpretations are needed to understand
 Absenteeism and stress 235

stress and its connections with short and long term absence? W h a t other variables effect the
stress-absenteeism relationship? Perhaps when w e know the answers t o these questions,
empirical research will have supported, refuted or modified the popular press' claim that
stress management reduces absenteeism.

References
ADAMS, J. D. 1981, Health, stress and your lye style (NTL Institute, Arlington, Virginia).
BERNARDIN, H. J. 1977, The relationship of personality variables to organizational withdrawal,
Personnel Psychology, 30, 17-27.
CHADWICK-JONES, J. K., NICHOLSON, N. and BROWN,C. 1982, Social psychology of absenteeism
(Praeger, New York).
COCHRANE, R. and ROBERTSON, A. 1973, The life events inventory: a measure of the relative severity
of psychosocial stressors,Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 17, 135-139.
CLEGG, C. W . 1983, Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: a methodological
critique and an empirical study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 88-101.
FOGLER, R. and BELEW, J. 1985, Nonreactive measurement: a focus for research on absenteeism and
Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 03:20 06 January 2015

occupational stress, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7 , 129-170.

FRANKENHAEUSER, M. and GARDELL, B. 1976, Underload and overload in working life: outline of a
multidisciplinary approach, Journal of Human Stress, 2, 35-46.
GUPTA,N. and BEEHR,T. A. 1979, Job stress and employee behaviors. Organizational Behavior and
Human Pelformance, 23, 373-387.
HEDGES, J. N. 1973, Absence from work: a look at some national data, Monthly Labor Review, 96,
24-31.
HILL,J. M. and TRIST,E. L. 1955, A consideration of industrial accidents as means ofwithdrawal from
the work situation, Human Relations, 8, 121-152.
JAMAL, M. 1984,Job stress and job performance controversy: an empirical assessment, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1-21.
KAHN,R. L., WOLFE, D. M., QUINN, R. P., SNOEK, J. D. and ROSENTHAL, R. A. 1964, Organizational
stress: studies in role contict and ambiguify (Waey, New York).
LAZARUS, R. S. 1966, Psychologicat stress and the coping process (McGraw-Hill, New York).
MANRING, S. L. 1979, Career patterns of technically-trained professionals: a person-environment
interaction model. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Case Western Reserve University.
MARGOLIS, B. L., KROES,W. H. and QUINN,R. P. 1974,Job stress: an unlisted occupational hazard,
Journal of Occupafional Medicine, 16 (lo), 659661.
Medical Datamation Inc. 1982, Health 80's questionnaire (Medical Datamation Inc., Bellevue, Ohio).
MUCHINSKY, P. M. 1977, Employee absenteeism: a review of the literature, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 10, 316-340.
NAISMITH, D. C. 1975, Stress among managers as a function of organizational change. Unpublished
PhD dissertation. George Washington University.
PARKES, K. R. 1983, Smoking as a moderator of the relationship between affective state and absence,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 69&708.
POCOCK,S. J., SERGEAN, R. and TAYLOR, P. J. 1972, Absence of continuous three-shift workers,
Occupational Psychology, 46, 7-13.
Ross, M. and FLETCHER, G.J. 0.1985, Attribution and social perception. In G. Linzey and E. Aronson
(eds), Handbook of social psychology vol. 2 (Random House, New York), 73-122.
SINHA, A. K. P. 1963, Manifest anxiety affecting industrial absenteeism, Psychological Reports, 13,258.
SIPPRELLE, R. C., GILBERT, F. S. and ASCOUGH, J. A. 1976, The affect rating scale: unipolar, semantic
space components of affective state. Unpublished manuscript. Purdue University.
SPECTOR, P. E., DWYER, D. J. and JEX,S. M. 1988, Relation ofjob stressors to affective, health and
performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources,Journal ofApplied Psychology, 73
(l), 11-19.
STAW,B. M. and OLDHAM, G. R. 1978, Reconsidering our dependent variables: a critique and
empirical study, Academy of Management Journal, 21, 539-559.
STEERS, R. M. and RHODES,S. R. 1978, Major influences on employee attendance: a process model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.
Manuscript received 10 February 1989
Manuscript accepted 28 April 1989.