If the answer is ‘reduced absenteeism by 5% (or any number)’ what was the question or problem we were trying to solve?
Most management and particularly HR (meeting management expectation) would market this from the rooftops as a job well done……..
But hang on - a few double-loop thoughts for you (to build on earlier comments on this topic by me):
For starters…..
1. Is the current level adequate/good/still poor or very poor (and so on)? (i.e. am I reducing from 40% or 10% and how does this relate?)
2. Why did it need fixing in the first place?
3. How do I know that this new figure is sustainable? (i.e. Have we mapped the various important factors sufficiently and understood their relationship?)
Now the real interesting stuff……..
4. More importantly, why did we pick the target/achieved figure for absenteeism?
5. What is the connection with the assumption of improved productivity? How do we know by reducing absenteeism it improves productivity? The assumption is that the organisation is more productive with people who aren’t absent? Are we sure? Where is the evidence?
6. What employee engagement levels do we have? What if those absent correlate with the less engaged and thus being at work may actually be less productive (and also require management time?)
Screwy isn’t it – I’m sure some reading this will positively choke on their recent HR award……
But ask yourself the question? Does reducing absenteeism actually benefit the organisation or is it just that the numbers look good because we happen to benchmark absenteeism in this way? Where is the model to inform us? Where are the analytics?
Some of you will say ‘absenteeism has to be managed’ and ‘it is also a lead indicator to potential turnover/claims/costs etc……’
Yes - Absenteeism has to be managed. Well actually it’s the causes of absenteeism that have to be managed. Absenteeism is what you get (in many cases) if you don’t i.e a kind of bolting the stable door after the sick-horse
Yep – it could but a lead indicator but how do you know the connection? What type of absenteeism is it? Does your Bradford score provide insight (i.e. do we suffer from frequent small absences or infrequent longer-term or both? How does this trend? And what type of turnover from the organisational perspective is it? High performers or lower perfomers?
At what point were these high performers/low performers and what degree of correlation/causation is there with the instances of absenteeism? There may well be some spill-over effect on existing staff in terns of improving motivation/engagement based on the previous evidence/analysis you have……………………
What? You don’t know? So many questions, but the world was nice and straightforward before. But now?…….
You were sure - right - you won an award for reducing absenteeism – yes? The organisation spent time and resources. The management’s happy. You’re happy…..it was intuitive…………….but you’ve got that uneasy feeling haven’t you……..yes come on admit it. There’s a little niggle now, its annoying even irritating?….mmmm……..
Go one further join the AA – Absenteeism Anonymous. Come and sit with us. Share your feelings……..You’re amongst friends …….Don’t be shy? You‘ve never thought for one moment …………and there’s more, much more. Here’s the red pill or the blue pill…..which one do you want to take?
Welcome to the strange world of paradoxical HR………What next?
Remember today was just a thought experiment.........
