Surveys on stress and attendance management
Published: 28 September 2005
Stress is now the second most common reported reason for illness, the UK Health and Safety Executive [1] (HSE) finds. A survey of 1,400 human resource professionals, by the law firm ASB Law [2] and the journal Human Resources [3] (published in March 2005), provides new information, although like other surveys of this type, it gives no details of the survey population or response rates. The survey points to very limited efforts to manage workplace stress.[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/[2] http://www.asb-law.com/[3] http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com/resources/
Three recent UK surveys highlight growing concerns about levels of workplace stress and limited efforts to tackle the issue. Although costs of absence from work continue to worry employers, evidence of systematic and effective monitoring procedures remains patchy.
Management of stress
Stress is now the second most common reported reason for illness, the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) finds. A survey of 1,400 human resource professionals, by the law firm ASB Law and the journal Human Resources (published in March 2005), provides new information, although like other surveys of this type, it gives no details of the survey population or response rates. The survey points to very limited efforts to manage workplace stress.
Key findings were that:
80% of organisations had not undertaken audits to identify likely causes of stress, despite HSE guidance produced in 2004.
Over 80% of respondents said that line managers were not trained to identify warning signs.
Just over half had no specific strategy for managing stress. Almost half said that they were not aware of their legal duty to be proactive in the area.
However, half of firms offered employee welfare counselling and information services.
The authors of the survey underline the lack of preparedness of firms. In their view, firms tend to treat stress as a fad that can be ignored, or to recognise the issue while being uncertain as to what to do about it. The report also underlines organisations’ reluctance to address an issue that is hard to manage.
Absence and attendance
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have released results of their latest surveys on the extent and cost of absence from work. These are regular surveys of the organisations’ members; response rates are not stated. Key figures are shown below. The organisations do not comment on differences between their estimates, but these are likely to reflect sample differences.
| CBI | CIPD | |
|---|---|---|
| Days absent per year: all | 6.8 | 8.4 |
| Days absent: private sector | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Days absent: public sector | 9.1 | 10.3 |
| Average absence rate (%) | 4.5 | 3.7 |
| Cost of absence per employee (GBP) | 495 | 601 |
Source: Summarised from press releases; CBI, 10 May 2005; CIPD, 11 July 2005
Both studies report a slight fall on the previous year. The CBI surveys, which go back to 1987, suggest that absence rates have changed little over the years.
The CBI also asked respondents to estimate how much absence was unwarranted, as opposed to genuine sickness. It offers no precise definition but estimates that 14% of days lost can be attributed to unjustified reasons.
Both surveys highlighted relatively high absence levels in the public sector and among large organisations. According to the CIPD, reasons for high rates in the public sector include the large number of challenging and stressful jobs in the sector, and the pressures of working in ‘target-driven and performance managed environments’.
The surveys also confirm substantial efforts to manage attendance: according to the CBI, 87% of organisations take action to reduce absence. The interview on the return to work is the most common method.
However, according to Stephen Bevan, Director of Research at the Work Foundation, such surveys ‘completely [miss] the point’. Drawing on his own previous research, he argues that:
long-term absence accounts for three-quarters of the cost of absence; therefore, the focus should be in this area, rather than on occasional unjustified sick days;
many organisations remain poor at measuring absence costs and at managing attendance constructively.
Other research (see EIRO reviews, ‘Staff absence a concern for both unions and employers’ and ‘Managing absence from work’, UK0501107f and UK0404103f) confirms that attendance management is more complex than appears at first sight. A 2003 survey of predominantly small engineering firms concluded that ‘much absence reporting is merely a paper exercise’ and that line manager involvement remains weak (IRS Employment Review 794, February 2004). A case study investigation of 13 organisations found that, in only two organisations, could managers place any financial cost on absence (‘How employers manage absence’ (614Kb pdf), DTI Employment Relations Research Series 25, 2004). A study of seven organisations concludes that 'even the most ‘leading-edge’ UK employers ... appear fundamentally ill-equipped to form a view of their sickness absence costs' (‘Costing sickness absence in the UK’, IES Report 382, 2001). Line managers appear to lack the time to think constructively about control measures, and organisations find it difficult to develop pro-active attendance management systems.
Implications
Putting the three recent surveys together suggests that, though issues of stress and the need to understand the underlying causes of absence are acknowledged in broad terms, in practice much attendance management turns on monitoring and the enforcement of rules. Research suggests that such policies rarely work for more than a short time. A review of the effectiveness of absence control policies concludes that return-to-work interviews had no clear effect, but that attempts to improve the attendance of those with high absence levels and early contact with absentees appeared to have value (‘Managing attendance at work’, Institute of Occupational Health, University of Birmingham, 2002). Line managers are often poorly trained to deal with attendance other than through a formal return-to-work interview. Giving them the means to manage work-based stress and resulting attendance problems remains a key need.
Paul Edwards, University of Warwick
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2005), Surveys on stress and attendance management, article.
