Sickness Presenteeism in the Aftermath of COVID-19: Is Presenteeism Remote-Work Behavior the New (Ab)normal?

Due to the confinement imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic situation, companies adopted remote work more than ever. The rapid rise of remote work also affected local life and many employers introduced or extended their telework activities because of the associated advantages. However, despite the evident positive benefits, some employees were pressured to work remotely while ill. This evidence brought new challenges to the presenteeism literature. This article investigates how individual, economic/societal, and organizational/sectorial/supervisory-related variables can moderate the role of a contagious disease, such as the COVID-19, in explaining presenteeism behavior. Moreover, the current research presents a multi-level conceptual model (i.e., organizational, individual, supervisory factors) to describe how a new construct of remote-work presenteeism behavior mediates the relationship between different post pandemic health conditions (e.g., allergies, back pain, depression, anxiety) and future cumulative negative consequences. The authors suggested that the widespread pervasive adoption of remote work because of COVID-19 has important implications for the presenteeism literature and opens avenues for further research.

Going to work ill: A meta-analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path model.

Interest in presenteeism, attending work while ill, has flourished in light of its consequences for individual well-being and organizational productivity. Our goal was to identify its most significant causes and correlates by quantitatively summarizing the extant research. Additionally, we built an empirical model of some key correlates and compared the etiology of presenteeism versus absenteeism. We used meta-analysis (in total, K = 109 samples, N = 175,965) to investigate the correlates of presenteeism and meta-analytic structural equation modeling to test the empirical model. Salient correlates of working while ill included general ill health, constraints on absenteeism (e.g., strict absence policies, job insecurity), elevated job demands and felt stress, lack of job and personal resources (e.g., low support and low optimism), negative relational experiences (e.g., perceived discrimination), and positive attitudes (satisfaction, engagement, and commitment). Moreover, our dual process model clarified how job demands and job and personal resources elicit presenteeism via both health impairment and motivational paths, and they explained more variation in presenteeism than absenteeism. The study sheds light on the controversial act of presenteeism, uncovering both positive and negative underlying mechanisms. The greater variance explained in presenteeism as opposed to absenteeism underlines the opportunities for researchers to meaningfully investigate the behavior and for organizations to manage it. (PsycINFO Database Record

The reliability, validity, and accuracy of self-reported absenteeism from work: a meta-analysis.

Because of a variety of access limitations, self-reported absenteeism from work is often employed in research concerning health, organizational behavior, and economics, and it is ubiquitous in large scale population surveys in these domains. Several well established cognitive and social-motivational biases suggest that self-reports of absence will exhibit convergent validity with records-based measures but that people will tend to underreport the behavior. We used meta-analysis to summarize the reliability, validity, and accuracy of absence self-reports. The results suggested that self-reports of absenteeism offer adequate test-retest reliability and that they exhibit reasonably good rank order convergence with organizational records. However, people have a decided tendency to underreport their absenteeism, although such underreporting has decreased over time. Also, self-reports were more accurate when sickness absence rather than absence for any reason was probed. It is concluded that self-reported absenteeism might serve as a valid measure in some correlational research designs. However, when accurate knowledge of absolute absenteeism levels is essential, the tendency to underreport could result in flawed policy decisions.