Presenteeism: Leadership Behavior at the Workplace

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
References

Abstract

The assessment of the significance of topical leadership approaches used in various organizations may be performed by analyzing these practices from the perspective of presenteeism. With regard to the field of personnel management, this direction can be described as presence in the workplace, regardless of poor health or other factors that complicate the normal performance of direct duties. Presenteeism may manifest itself in some aspects of job performance, in particular, productivity, interest in carrying out particular tasks, and other nuances of corporate activities. To prove this assumption, the analysis of this concept will be conducted in relation to such criteria for evaluating management activities as work engagement, transformational leadership, and meaningful work. Appropriate job performance is the factor of evaluating the implementation of suitable practices. The article conducts a 20 expatriate’s supervisor-subordinate dyad from private and public sector firms in the UAE to show the level of practicing leadership in organizations.

Introduction

The modern sphere of management is characterized by a variety of approaches and principles used by leaders to achieve high performance and coordinate the activities of colleagues and subordinates. In the context of different concepts and theories, the focus on dynamics is significant since ever-changing trends and priorities influence the nature of interventions and largely determine the necessary style. In this case, the concept of presenteeism as a term defining the focus on contemporary trends is relevant. Outdated leadership techniques may be ineffective in the conditions of market globalization, the emergence of innovative technologies, and other aspects of the business sphere. As a result, adherence to popular management practices plays an important role in achieving high job performance and other criteria determining the quality of managerial work. In addition, presenteeism as a theoretical concept allows forming a clear working strategy based on following the designated objectives and explaining the implementation of certain techniques. Therefore, the features of leadership behavior and factors arising from the application of appropriate steps may be considered in the context of this movement, which is also applicable to management and business coordination.

Since presenteeism is the concept that implies dedication to work despite any obstacles or circumstances, its role in shaping leadership behavior is significant. An opportunity to adjust a managerial regime on the basis of those practices that are relevant in a particular business environment opens up positive prospects. In particular, heads of organizations can focus on the specifics of their companies’ activities and not follow classical stages defined as examples. Conversely, presenteeism makes it possible to expand the sphere of influence by introducing those principles of control over subordinates’ labor that meet certain working conditions and influence performance outcomes positively. The emergence of this phenomenon entails new techniques that provide a dynamic solution to current issues and the achievement of goals through the constant transformation of monitoring principles. As a result, the modern business sector is the space where leadership approaches are not limited to a rigid framework and vary based on the characteristics of a certain sphere. This manifestation of presenteeism in management allows leaders to focus on specific tasks and not to strive to create an ideal working environment.

This work is a literature review on the role of presenteeism in modern leadership practice and the impact of this concept on performance aspects. As resources for the study, relevant academic sources are used, and the theses submitted by the authors relate to the topic under consideration. Based on the ideas and conclusions presented, certain hypotheses will be made concerning the effect of such indicators as transformational leadership, meaningful work, and work engagement on presenteeism and overall productivity. The findings will be the valuable evidence of the interaction of modern management principles and methodologies, implying the rejection of classical and rigidly regulated rules. Utilizing scholarly sources will contribute to researching the proposed issues in detail and drawing comprehensive conclusions regarding the relationship between the considered variables in the business environment. In general, the influence of leadership behavior has significant implications not only on the activities of colleagues and subordinates but also on the general mode of work as a whole. Therefore, the importance of establishing the principle of management in accordance with a particular environment is a crucial task that should be reviewed.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership, Presenteeism, and Job Performance

The concept of presenteeism is relevant in view of increasing interest in this phenomenon. Nielsen and Daniels (2016) describe it “as showing up for work when ill” (p. 196). However, this term may have a broader meaning, for instance, the desire to perform the assigned tasks and achieve success, despite those obstacles and difficulties that complicate activities in the workplace. The authors note that transformational leadership as an approach to personnel management has a positive effect on employee performance and contributes to higher productivity (Nielsen & Daniels, 2016). Breevaart et al. (2014) confirm this theory and argue that leaders following this strategy motivate colleagues and subordinates, thereby increasing the rate of their presence in the workplace. In the study by Schmid et al. (2017), the authors emphasize leaders’ support and remark that this practice enhances the level of presence. Accordingly, a low level of integrity, conversely, increases the risk of absenteeism.

However, not all researchers advocate the value of transformational leadership with respect to job performance. According to George, Chiba, and Scheepers (2017), this approach entails “job-stress-related presenteeism,” which is not the best indicator of management quality (p. 1). Vänni, Neupane, and Nygård (2017) support this position and cite the opinions of some employees who say that they perceive a very active leadership role negatively. The study by Wan, Downey, and Stough (2014) has less pronounced dissatisfaction with transformational leadership. Nevertheless, the authors remark that stress or boredom are the factors that can appear regardless of the level of motivation (Wan et al., 2014). Deery, Walsh, and Zatzick (2014) are convinced that a large burden on subordinates is the driver influencing a high presence level. As a result, one can assume that transformational leadership has an effect on presenteeism and job performance.

Hypothesis (H1): Transformational leadership influences (a) presenteeism & (b) job performance.

Meaningful Work, Presenteeism, and Job Performance

Assessing the impact of meaningful work on presenteeism and job performance is the subject of different authors’ research. For instance, Miraglia and Johns (2016) argue that employees perform their direct duties more willingly and are more often present in the workplace if they realize the significance of their activities. This statement is common in many studies on this topic. As van Scheppingen et al. (2014) state, if team leaders promote the ideas of the value of health and, at the same time, stimulate subordinates to effectively carry out tasks, productivity will increase. Such an assessment is reasonable because if employees recognize the importance of their immediate responsibilities, it will be an incentive for them to better monitor their well-being and, thus, miss their shifts less often. According to Jensen, Andersen, and Holten (2017), despite the possible short-term effect of such an impact from managers, personnel will be aware of potentially valuable methods of protecting their health, which, in turn, will reduce the level of absenteeism. Therefore, meaningful work is a significant factor associated with presentism.

In some studies, the significance of such a factor as meaningful work is complemented by accompanying nuances, for instance, management confidence. Pohling, Buruck, Jungbauer, and Leiter (2016) argue that control systems promoted by leaders supplement the concept of presenteeism and determine the level of performance. In case heads of organizations demonstrate interest in the productivity of employees and stimulate their job well done, subordinates are ready to perform their immediate duties with greater efficiency. According to Halbesleben, Whitman, and Crawford (2014), employees should be aware of the importance of their roles; otherwise, “the cost and productivity loss associated with presenteeism may be significantly greater than that of absenteeism” (p. 177). As a result, leaders’ interest in their colleagues’ and subordinates’ success is essential and, as McLellan (2017) notes, promotes asset security and job satisfaction. Therefore, meaningful work has an impact on such phenomena as presenteeism and job performance.

Hypothesis (H2): Meaningful work influences (a) presenteeism & (b) job performance.

Work Engagement, Presenteeism, and Job Performance

The impact of job involvement on such employee activity indicators as presentism and job performance is the subject of some authors’ studies. According to Coffeng et al. (2014), involvement takes place, as a rule, in an individual mode of interaction, and communication between managers and subordinates improves. De Beer (2014) confirms this position and argues that “work engagement is an important organisational concept and is connected to productivity and commitment” (p. 8). The active participation of employees in realizing the goals of firms and organizations makes it possible to achieve the aims set as soon as possible, which is an additional incentive for ambitious leaders to promote this strategy. As Karanika-Murray, Pontes, Griffiths, and Biron (2015) note, work engagement is an affective-motivational state, and its impact depends not only on the qualifications of employees but also on managerial skills. Therefore, the effect of active involvement on job performance is indisputable and obvious.

Regarding the concept of presenteeism, work engagement provides an opportunity to increase the level of employee loyalty and reduce sickness absence rates. Burton, Chen, Li, and Schultz (2017) state that the concept under consideration is closely associated with retention rates and, consequently, personnel management. As one of the ways of solving the problem, McGregor, Magee, Caputi, and Iverson (2016) offer leaders to control the parameters of their subordinates’ health, thereby strengthening workers’ confidence in their importance. Such a step may have a positive effect on employees since the awareness of personal value for a company can be an argument in support of their frequent presence in the workplace. In addition, as Black, Balanos, and Whittaker (2017) remark, the role of HR specialists in this issue is also essential because the selection of productive workers is their responsibility. In this case, according to Leon, Halbesleben, and Paustian-Underdahl (2015), it is crucial to maintain a balance between involvement and excess requirements to avoid burden. In general, the concepts of work engagement, presenteeism, and job performance are closely related.

Hypothesis (H3): Work engagement influences (a) presenteeism & (b) job performance.

References

Black, J. K., Balanos, G. M., & Whittaker, A. C. (2017). Resilience, work engagement and stress reactivity in a middle-aged manual worker population. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 116, 9-15.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138-157.

Burton, W. N., Chen, C. Y., Li, X., & Schultz, A. B. (2017). The association of employee engagement at work with health risks and presenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(10), 988-992.

Coffeng, J. K., Hendriksen, I. J., Duijts, S. F., Twisk, J. W., van Mechelen, W., & Boot, C. R. (2014). Effectiveness of a combined social and physical environmental intervention on presenteeism, absenteeism, work performance, and work engagement in office employees. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 258-265.

De Beer, L. T. (2014). The effect of presenteeism-related health conditions on employee work engagement levels: A comparison between groups. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 8.

Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Zatzick, C. D. (2014). A moderated mediation analysis of job demands, presenteeism, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2), 352-369.

George, R., Chiba, M., & Scheepers, C. B. (2017). An investigation into the effect of leadership style on stress-related presenteeism in South African knowledge workers. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 1-13.

Halbesleben, J. R., Whitman, M. V., & Crawford, W. S. (2014). A dialectical theory of the decision to go to work: Bringing together absenteeism and presenteeism. Human Resource Management Review, 24(2), 177-192.

Jensen, U. T., Andersen, L. B., & Holten, A. L. (2017). Explaining a dark side: Public service motivation, presenteeism, and absenteeism. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X17744865.

Karanika-Murray, M., Pontes, H. M., Griffiths, M. D., & Biron, C. (2015). Sickness presenteeism determines job satisfaction via affective-motivational states. Social Science & Medicine, 139, 100-106.

Leon, M. R., Halbesleben, J. R., & Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. (2015). A dialectical perspective on burnout and engagement. Burnout Research, 2(2-3), 87-96.

McGregor, A., Magee, C. A., Caputi, P., & Iverson, D. (2016). A job demands-resources approach to presenteeism. Career Development International, 21(4), 402-418.

McLellan, R. K. (2017). Work, health, and worker well-being: Roles and opportunities for employers. Health Affairs, 36(2), 206-213.

Miraglia, M., & Johns, G. (2016). Going to work ill: A meta-analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(3), 261-283.

Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2016). The relationship between transformational leadership and follower sickness absence: The role of Presenteeism. Work & Stress, 30(2), 193-208.

Pohling, R., Buruck, G., Jungbauer, K. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Work-related factors of presenteeism: The mediating role of mental and physical health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2), 220.

Schmid, J. A., Jarczok, M. N., Sonntag, D., Herr, R. M., Fischer, J. E., & Schmidt, B. (2017). Associations between supportive leadership behavior and the costs of absenteeism and presenteeism: An epidemiological and economic approach. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(2), 141-147.

Vänni, K. J., Neupane, S., & Nygård, C. H. (2017). Associations between perceived leadership and presenteeism in an industrial population. Occupational Medicine, 67(9), 672-677.

van Scheppingen, A. R., de Vroome, E. M., ten Have, K. C., Zwetsloot, G. I., Bos, E. H., & van Mechelen, W. (2014). Motivations for health and their associations with lifestyle, work style, health, vitality, and employee productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(5), 540-546.

Wan, H. C., Downey, L. A., & Stough, C. (2014). Understanding non-work presenteeism: Relationships between emotional intelligence, boredom, procrastination and job stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 86-90.

Click Here To Order Now!