The Causes of Absenteeism

The causes of absenteeism may include:

1. bullet serious accidents and illness 2. bullet low morale 3. bullet poor working conditions 4. bullet boredom on the job 5. bullet lack of job satisfaction 6. bullet inadequate leadership and poor supervision 7. bullet personal problems (financial, marital, substance abuse, child
care etc !

8. bullet poor physical fitness 9. bullet transportation problems 10. bullet the e"istence of income protection plans (collective agreement ! 11. bullet benefits which continue income during periods of illness or
accident !

12. bullet stress 13. bullet workload 14.

employee discontent with the work environment

#ost if not all of these causes can be prevented by taking a positive approach to things $y showing the employees that you care, you can help lower absenteeism in the work place

%ow &roductivity

'n our work with individuals and organi(ations, we have found that most people want to perform well, but internal and e"ternal factors detract from their working at their potential )ere are the most common reasons for low performance and productivity:

* +rong person in the job

, -ight person in the wrong job

. -ight person in the right job being wrongly managed

/ %ack of focus, vision, priorities, or direction

0 %ack of ownership or participation by staff or team

1 'nadequate communication between staff or departments

2 Conflict that has not been dealt with

3 'nadequate training or coaching to do the job

4 'nadequate resources or tools to the job

*5 &ersonal problems interfering with people6s ability to work at their best

&oor #anagement

'neffective management practices decrease a company6s productivity in several ways The overall strategy for such a company contains inefficiencies because the manager doesn6t see and take steps to implement the most productive ways to complete tasks 'ndividual employees flounder under poor management They don6t have the freedom and coaching to reach their full potential, so they don6t get as much done as they could 7mployees who do not feel like their supervisors recogni(e their efforts often don6t try hard to perform to their full capacity 8utdated 9ystems

+hen a company uses outdated and clunky methods to carry out its desired goals, its productivity significantly decreases :or e"ample, if one company uses software to automatically record and track data, while another collects it by hand, the second company6s productivity will be much lower because the person collecting and tracking data can6t do much else Companies can increase their productivity by streamlining and automating processes to decrease the work needed to complete tasks 7mployee ;issatisfaction

;issatisfied employees are generally unproductive ones, while happy employees who are passionate about their jobs get the work done effectively &eople have a natural tendency to prioriti(e tasks they like, so an employee who likes his job will naturally put his job ahead of his other desires, such as rela"ing, chatting with a co<worker or getting through the day so he can go home =etting the right employee for the job can lead to a satisfied employee and productive company 7mployee &ersonal &roblems

7mployees who are e"periencing personal problems tend to be less productive than those who are not e"periencing similar problems 'n particular, stress and poor health both contribute to low levels of productivity Companies can provide counseling on<site to help decrease stress levels and help employees sort through other personal problems that are hindering productivity Companies can also encourage employees to take sick time

when needed to help avoid getting a more serious illness or coming into the office and getting others sick

Turnover

>

;ifficulty balancing work?life issues

>

%ow job satisfaction

>

%ack of appreciation

>

'neffective management

>

Conflicts with supervisors or co<workers

>

@uit to take job that will help advance career

> Aon<competitive compensation?benefits package

> &erceptions of unfair treatment

>

'nternal pay inequity

>

+orried about job security

>

Conflicts with organi(ation6s mission or values

>

Childcare issues?elder care issues

>

-eturn to school (learn new skills or change careers!

> -elocation to follow spouse?partner

>

)ealth<related issues

>

$urnout

> -etirement

%ack of 8pportunities for &rofessional ;evelopment (.5B! 'nadequate Compensation (,3B! $oredom?%ack of Challenge (,2B! &oor +ork?%ife $alance (,5B! Cob 9tress and Dnfair Treatment (,5B!

;eviant +orkplace $ehavior ;eviant workplace behavior has always been an interesting topic to be observed by both academicians and practitioners Aegative deviant workplace behavior is a very serious problem in manufacture firms The purpose of this study is to e"amine the causes and consequence of deviant workplace behavior Dsing a sample of *5* operational staff in 9'7(9urabaya 'ndustrial 7state -ungkut!, 'ndonesia, the results show that: (a! intent to quit, dissatisfaction and company contempt have positive effect on deviant workplace behavior, (b! dissatisfaction have positive effect on intent to quit, and (c! deviant workplace behavior have negative effect on individual performance This research has important organi(ational behavior implications to the manufacture firms in terms of the e"amination of deviant workplace behavior #anagers in the manufacture firms should minimi(e negative deviant workplace behavior with the positive deviant workplace behavior in order to increase the strategic role of manufacture industry in supporting economic growth of the country

ocb
According to several studies, three of these seven factors can be readily distinguished by managers: sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness ($ell E #enguc, ,55,F )ui, %ee, E -ousseau, ,55/F %am, )ui, E %aw, *444! 9portsmanship describes employees who are willing to tolerate difficulties in the workplace that are intended to improve the organi(ation, abstaining from unnecessary complaints and criticisms Civic virtue refers the active involvement, interest, and participation in the life of their organi(ation, such as functions, events, and meetings Conscientiousness, sometimes referred to as compliance, reflects the genuine acceptance and adherence of workplace rules, regulations, and procedures

9ome of the other factors, such as altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading, cannot be as readily distinguished ($achrach, $endoly, E &odsakoff, ,55*F #acGen(ie et al , *44*F &odsakoff E #acGen(ie, *44/! According to &odsakoff, Ahearne, and #acGen(ie (*442!, all of these factors might correspond to a broader dimension, which they label as helping

A different ta"onomy was proposed by +illiams and Anderson (*44*!, which differentiated behaviors directed towards individuals, called 8C$', and

behaviors directed towards the organi(ation, called 8C$8 8C$', for e"ample, might include altruism (+illiams E Anderson, *44*!, as well as the other helping behaviors such as courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading 8C$8 might entail conscientiousness (+illiams E Anderson, *44*!, as well as perhaps civic virtue and sportsmanship (e g , Coleman E $orman, ,555F )offman, $lair, #eriac, E +oehr, ,552!

A variety of measures and scales have been developed to assess organi(ational citi(enship behavior To illustrate, &odsakoff, #acGen(ie, #oorman, and :etter (*445! developed a single measure of organi(ational citi(enship behavior This measure, according to confirmatory factor analysis, encompasses five facets of organi(ational citi(enship behavior: conscientiousness (e g , H' obey company rules and regulations even when nobody is watchingH!, sportsmanship (e g , H' consume considerable time complaining about trivial mattersH!, civic virtue (e g , HGeeps abreast of changes in the organi(ationH!, courtesy (e g , H' take steps to prevent problems with other workersH!, and altruism (e g , H)elps orient new people even though it is not requiredH! The Tucker<%ewis goodness of fit inde" associated with this five factor model was 4/* (see also #acGen(ie, &odsakoff, E :etter, *44*!

Cob satisfaction
8rgani(ational citi(enship behavior is positively related to job satisfaction Aevertheless, the precise relationship differs between affective and cognitive job satisfaction 'n particular, researchers sometimes distinguish affective and cognitive job satisfaction @uestions about the feelings their job evokes, such as H' enjoy my workH, represent affective job satisfaction @uestions that invite more deliberate appraisals, such as H#y job fulfills my e"pectationsH, represent cognitive job satisfaction

'n the study conducted by #oorman and $lakely (*440!, participants completed a series of scales, some of which assessed affective job satisfaction, cognitive job satisfaction, and organi(ational citi(enship behavior Their analyses showed that organi(ational citi(enship behavior was

more strongly related to cognitive, rather than affective, job satisfaction

Aevertheless, as %ee and Allen (,55,! showed, distinct forms of organi(ational citi(enship behavior do not relate to the same measures of job satisfaction 'n particular, these researchers distinguished two clusters of organi(ational citi(enship behaviors: organi(ational citi(enship behaviors directed at individuals and organi(ational citi(enship behavior directed at organi(ations +hen both forms of job satisfaction were included in the same analysis, only affective job satisfaction, as represented by affect that is elicited by the job, was positively associated with organi(ational citi(enship behaviors directed at individuals 'n contrast, only cognitive job satisfaction, gauged by a measure of judgments about work, was positively associated with organi(ational citi(enship behavior directed at organi(ations

&resumably, positive feelings motivate organi(ational citi(enship behaviors directed at individuals 'n contrast, the e"plicit belief that helpful acts might be reciprocated could motivate organi(ational citi(enship behavior directed at organi(ations -emuneration

Another determinants of discretionary behaviors might be levels of pay That is, many organi(ations offer pay that e"ceeds the levels of remuneration that are e"pected in the market

Three motivations underpin this competitive pay (see Akerlof E Iellen, *431F =erhart E #ilkovich, *445! :irst, many managers assume that employees will devote more effort into their work<<striving to ensure their job is secure<<if paid handsomely as well as refrain from leaving prematurely (e g , 9alop, *424F 9hapiro E 9tiglit(, *43/! 9econd, managers often assume that competitive wages will attract the most effective or proficient employees (Akerlof E Iellen, *431! These managers assume that proficient employees are able to choose which organi(ation to which they will apply<<and thus choose only companies that offer the best conditions Third, managers assume that competitive pay might encourage discretionary effort (Akerlof, *43,!<<optional activities that enhance the organi(ation

'ndeed, several studies have shown that competitive pay might be related to these discretionary acts 9ubramony, Grause, Aorton, and $urns (,553!, for e"ample, showed that shared perceptions of competitive pay across employees were positively related to customer satisfaction &resumably, this competitive pay fostered the inclination to engage in supportive, helpful behaviors<<behaviors that ultimately translate to customer satisfaction

'n this study, the American Customer 9atisfaction inde" was utili(ed to gauge customer satisfaction The scale, which is usually administered over telephone, comprises *2 questions, such as reliability of the product or services, complaints regarding the product or service, and so forth (see Anderson, :ornell, E #a(vancheryl, ,55/F :ornell, Cohnson, Anderson, Cha, E $ryant, *441! Customer satisfaction in turn predicts many other measures of organi(ational performance, such as return on assets (9mith E +right, ,55/! and return on investments (Anderson, :ornell, E #a(vancheryl, ,55/! 7mployee withdrawal

8rgani(ational citi(enship behavior tends to be negatively related both to intentions to leave the organi(ation and to actual departures (e g , Chen, ,550F #ossholder, 9ettoon, E )enagan, ,550! Conceivably, the abstention from organi(ational citi(enship behavior might reflect a form of withdrawal, which tends to predict turnover (Chen, ,550F Chen, )ui, E 9ego, *443! and may be related to absenteeism as well Corporate citi(enship

As 7vans, ;avis, and :rink (,5**! demonstrated, when individuals feel their organi(ation is an e"emplary corporate citi(en<<sensitive to social, legal, ethical, and environmental issues<<they are more likely to engage in organi(ational citi(enship behavior :or e"ample, in one study, participants answered a series of questions that assess whether their organi(ation is responsible 'n particular, they indicated the degree to which their organi(ation is ethically responsible (e g , H:airness toward coworkers and business partners is an integral part of the employee evaluation processH!, legally responsible (e g , HThe managers of the organi(ation try to comply with the lawH!, economically responsible (e g , H+e have been successful at ma"imi(ing our profitsH!, and sensitive to the rights of employees (e g H:le"ible company policies enable employees to better coordinate work and personal lifeH!

'n addition, the e"tent to which these participants help colleagues, demonstrate initiative, and show loyalty<<forms of organi(ational citi(enship behavior<<were assessed by their supervisors :inally, participants completed a series of other measures, such as the degree to which they value compassion, equality, and altruism, as well as the e"tent to which they feel that socially responsible behaviors are integral to their role

'n general, if participants perceived their organi(ation as responsible, they were more likely to demonstrate organi(ational citi(enship behavior This relationship, however, was observed only in participants who value compassion, equality, and altruism

&resumably, employees seek cues in the environment to ascertain which behaviors are suitable +hen the organi(ation is responsible, employees feel that ethical and supportive behaviors will be rewarded They even perceive organi(ational citi(enship behaviors are central to their role at work They naturally engage in these helpful behaviors, especially if they value such altruism Consequences of organi(ational citi(enship behavior

Although the majority of studies focus on the antecedents of organi(ational citi(enship behavior, the consequences of these acts have also been e"amined (e g , e g , Allen E -ush, *443F ;unlop E %ee, ,55/F 7hrhart E Aaumann, ,55/F Goys, ,55*F &odsakoff E #acGen(ie, *442F +al( E Aiehoff, ,555! 'n particular, researchers have investigated whether of organi(ational citi(enship behavior culminate in positive consequences for the individuals themselves, such as performance evaluations and rewards, as well as for the organi(ations, as gauged by productivity and profitability, for instance

'n most instances, citi(enship behavior is positively related to the wellbeing of individuals and the functioning of organi(ations Aevertheless, some e"ceptions have been unearthed in specific settings :or e"ample, organi(ational citi(enship behavior can be associated with role overload and conflicts between work and family ($olino E Turnley, ,550! :urthermore, &odsakoff and #acGen(ie (*44/!, in a study of insurance agencies, showed that helping behaviors of agents were inversely related to the performance of

that agency &erformance evaluations and reward allocations

-esearch does indeed indicate that individuals who often engage in organi(ational citi(enship behavior do indeed receive more positive performance evaluations (e g , Allen E -ush, *443F +erner, *44/! 'n addition, these individuals are more inclined to receive additional rewards as a consequence of these associations (Allen E -ush, *443F Cohnson, 7re(, Giker, E #otowidlo, ,55,!

9everal mechanisms could relate organi(ational citi(enship behavior to improved evaluations from managers (Allen E -ush, *443F %efkowit(, ,555F &odsakoff, #acGen(ie, E )ui, *44.F 9hore, $arksdale, E 9hore, *440! :irst, organi(ational citi(enship behavior, because they are seldom mandatory or prescribed but discretionary and optional, imply the individual must be motivated This perceived motivation of these individuals could translate to more positive performance appraisals (9hore, $arksdale, E 9hore, *440! 9econd, organi(ational citi(enship behavior will often facilitate the job of managers, and managers might reciprocate by appraising individuals who engage in these acts more positively Third, when employees engage in organi(ational citi(enship behavior, they are more inclined to be liked by other individuals, including managers, which often translates to more positive evaluations (%efkowit(, ,555!

The relationship between organi(ational citi(enship behavior and management evaluations is more pronounced when both these acts and assessments are rated by the same individual, such as a supervisor (#acGen(ie, &odsakoff, E :etter, *44.! 9everal biases could amplify this relationship when the same person assesses both the incidence of organi(ational citi(enship behavior and the performance of individuals, such as the need to be consistent or lenient (&odsakoff, #acGen(ie, %ee, E &odsakoff, ,55.! +orkplace effectiveness

'n general, organi(ational citi(enship behavior is indeed related to measures of workplace effectiveness (;unlop E %ee, ,55/F Goys, ,55*F &odsakoff E #acGen(ie, *44/F +al( E Aiehoff, ,555! That is, these behaviors coincide

with reductions in costs but improvements in efficiency, profitability, and production quantity

9everal mechanisms might underpin the associations between organi(ational citi(enship behavior and workplace effectiveness (see $orman E #otowidlo, *44.F 8rgan, *433F &odsakoff E #acGen(ie, *442! :irst, when e"perienced employees e"hibit organi(ational citi(enship behavior, they might impart their knowledge and skills to novice employees<whose productivity might thus improve e"ponentially 9econd, some facets of e"hibit organi(ational citi(enship behavior, particularly civic virtue and voice behavior, might facilitate the identification of insightful and innovative solutions to improve the organi(ation Third, organi(ational citi(enship behaviors might promote positive emotions and feelings, including morale and cohesion Customer satisfaction

Ien and Aiehoff (,55/! conducted a study of ,1 branches of a bank, located in Taiwan They discovered that organi(ational citi(enship behaviors do indeed correspond to customer satisfaction

Ien and Aiehoff (,55/! delineated several mechanisms that could underpin this association between organi(ational citi(enship behaviors and customer satisfaction Altruism, for e"ample, might facilitate cooperation amongst employees and thus more effective coordination, ultimately improving the service to customers Conscientiousness and courtesy ensures that employees are cogni(ant of recent developments, which can also facilitate customer satisfaction :inally, civic virtue or voice behavior uncovers ideas and insights that could improve the interface between employees and customers as well as optimi(e products and services Turnover in the unit

'n units, workgroups, departments, or organi(ations characteri(ed by elevated levels of organi(ational citi(enship behaviors, turnover of employees tends to diminish (-ichardson E Jandenberg, ,550F 9un, Aryee, E %aw, ,552! &resumably, organi(ational citi(enship behaviors correspond to cooperation among employees 'ndeed, such behaviors are positively related to team cohesion (=eorge E $ettenhausen, *445F Gidwell, #ossholder, E $ennett, *442!, and these measures of cohesion are inversely related to

turnover Alternative frameworks and related concepts

8ne of the most recent accounts to characteri(e discretionary behaviors of work was developed by =riffin, Aeal, and &arker (,552! This model of work< role performance distinguishes between three dimensions of performance The first dimension is called proficiency, which relates to the e"tent to which individuals fulfill their formal requirements, somewhat akin to in<role or task performance The second dimension is called adaptivity, which revolves around the capacity of individuals to adapt in response to changes work roles and systems The third dimension, proactivity, relates to the e"tent to which individuals initiate actions to change and improve works roles and systems< akin to various forms of discretionary behavior

These three dimensions can apply to three different levels of analysis: individual, team, or organi(ational That is, individuals can engage in behaviors that enhance the functioning of themselves, their team, or their organi(ation

:or e"ample, proficiency can be demonstrated at these three levels 'ndividual task proficiency, for e"ample, partly entails the e"tent to which tasks are completed appropriately Team member proficiency partly represents whether individuals coordinate their work effectively with other colleagues in the team 8rgani(ation member proficiency includes the e"tent to which individuals, for e"ample, discuss their organi(ation in a favorable light

9imilarly, adaptivity can pertain to these three levels 'ndividual task adaptivity refers to whether employees can adjust to changes in their own role Team member adaptivity alludes to whether individuals respond suitable to changes in the team :inally, organi(ation member adaptivity relates to whether individuals can accommodate changes in the operation and strategy of the organi(ation

The three forms of behavior and the three levels of analysis thus represent nine distinct sets of behavior =riffin, Aeal, and &arker (,552! developed a

series of nine scales, together called the multilevel performance inventory, to represent these nine sets of behavior Typical items are H9uggested ways to make your work unit ore effectiveH (organi(ational proactivity! and H'nitiated better ways of doing my core tasksH (individual proactivity!

Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed these nine factors, which taken together comprise ,2 items Consistent with this model, =riffin, Aeal, and &arker (,552!, showed that factors measured at the individual level, such as role clarity, predicted individual level performance Team support predicted team level performance :inally, organi(ational characteristics, such as organi(ational commitment, predicted organi(ational performance ;iscretionary effort

%loyd (,553! differentiated the concept of discretionary effort from organi(ational citi(enship behavior According to %loyd (,553!, discretionary effort refers to the e"tent to which individuals devote intense and persistent e"ertion into their work This definition evolved from an article, constructed by Iankelovich and 'mmerwahr (*43/!, in which the concept was defined as voluntary effort, e"ceeding the requirements of a job

According to %loyd (,553!, both discretionary effort and organi(ational citi(enship behavior represent voluntary and constructive inclinations or acts that cannot be contractually enforced Aevertheless, in contrast to organi(ational citi(enship behavior, discretionary effort can apply to both core roles and activities that transcend formal responsibilities 7mployees can devote this effort to their primary tasks as well as to optional activities, such as helping colleagues

%loyd (,553! undertook a study that verified her proposition that discretionary effort is distinct from organi(ational citi(enship behavior 9he developed a measure of discretionary effort, which comprised seven items such as H+hen ' work, ' really e"ert myself to the fullest, beyond that what is e"pectedH and H' persist in overcoming obstacles to complete an important taskH The level of alpha reliability was 31 and 32 in two distinct samples

&articipants completed a measure of discretionary effort, organi(ational

citi(enship behavior, and in role behavior as well as skills and autonomy A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that discretionary effort, organi(ational citi(enship behavior, and in role behavior most likely reflect three separate constructs, with -#97A K 50 and C:' K 423 A two factor model, in which discretionary effort and organi(ational citi(enship behavior were combined, generated inadequate fit, with -#97A K *3 and C:' K 35.

:urthermore, %loyd (,553! showed that autonomy, as gauged by items such as H'n my job, ' have control over my hours of workH, was related to discretionary effort<<even after organi(ational citi(enship behavior and in role behavior were controlled 'f discretionary effort and organi(ational citi(enship behavior were equivalent, this relationship would have vanished Cob crafting

Cob crafting represents the e"tent to which employees change features of their job, at least partly to satisfy their personal needs or preferences (for a seminal article, see +r(ensniewski E ;utton, ,55*! These changes are not always intended to enhance the organi(ation and, thus, may diverge from citi(enship behaviors

To illustrate, %yons (,553! e"amined the characteristics and correlates of job crafting 9ales representatives were interviewed :irst, these participants were asked to describe a time, within the last year, in which they adjusted or modified one of their work activities 8nly changes that were not encouraged by managers or training programs were sought These individuals were also asked to specify the effort that was dedicated to this task, the time that was needed to adjust the activity, and the significance of this modification 'ndependent judges then rated the e"tent to which the change demanded considerable time or effort and was perceived as important and interesting :urthermore, participants completed a series of scales to assess their cognitive ability, self esteem, perceived control over their work, and willingness to change

Almost 35B of participants reported at least one incident in which they crafted or modified their work activities 8n average, participants reported * 0 incidents over the last year

According to participants, they typically adjusted their job to develop their skills and performance 7"amples might include learning the language of some customers, developing more paraphernalia, or acquiring additional skills :urthermore, most reports emphasi(ed the modifications improved performance, enhancing the productivity of organi(ations Admittedly, participants could have reported only desirable adjustments Aevertheless, at first glance, these results imply that job crafting tends to be constructive

The level of job crafting, as gauged by the e"tent to which individuals argued the modifications demanded effort or time and were perceived as significant and important, was positively related to self esteem, perceived control, and willingness to change As these findings imply, job crafting can be beneficial Aevertheless, if employees are not aware of the broader objectives of the organi(ation, their modifications might provoke some complications