Not all instances of working while unwell are ‘presenteeism’, and in some cases can be beneficial to both the employee and the organisation, according to research that debunks the myth that working while ill is always costly for businesses.
Data collected by employee wellbeing and psychology specialist Robertson Cooper has shown that there are three different types of working while unwell, only one of which can be classed as presenteeism and should be eradicated from working life.
Working while unwell vs presenteeism
Its report, Seeing Presenteism Differently: Revealing the Good, the Bad and the Misunderstood, said that presenteeism could be defined as when employees work despite feeling unwell but were too ill to perform their tasks or receive any therapeutic benefits from working, such as social connection. This situation could be detrimental for both the employee and organisation.
However, the study found that the two other types of working while unwell may actually be desirable for both organisations and employees. These were:
- “Pragmatic presence”: when employees perform close to, or at, their full capacity and at the same time recover at least to a certain degree from their health impairment. Employees want to be in work to complete some tasks.
- “Therapeutic presence”: when employees are performing well below their maximum productivity, but they get some form of therapeutic benefit by being in work, such as forming social connections or a sense of purpose. This can include when when duties and/or hours are adjusted to aid return to work after a period of illness.
Professor Sir Cary Cooper, co-founder of Robertson Cooper, said: “This re-evaluation of presenteeism is a major breakthrough. It enables employers to truly understand presenteeism: what it is and what it isn’t; its real impact on workplace performance; what you can do to manage it more effectively. By dispelling outdated notions, it opens up a new era of informed strategies that optimise productivity and foster a culture of employee health and wellbeing.”
Managing director Ben Moss said: “By accurately categorising the types of working whilst unwell, businesses can improve their management of it. Where previously, the narrative was simply ‘presenteeism is bad and must be stamped out’ our research demonstrates that a change in approach could lead to significant improvements in productivity and absence reduction, plus more personalised support for employees.
“Even today, it is widely cited in HR and wellbeing press that the cost of presenteeism is three times the cost of absenteeism. However, this figure is not a reliable baseline. It was originally presented in a 2003 study that actually measured ‘productivity loss’ rather than modern conceptions of presenteeism.”
Robertson Cooper’s survey of 3,000 UK respondents found that 60% had worked while unwell in the past three months.
It found that productivity tended to dip to about 40% while an employee was working while ill.
If an employee works while unwell for less than five days in any three-month period, it is no more detrimental to overall productivity than absenteeism. However, if an episode of presenteeism lasted for longer than five days, productivity was dramatically reduced.
The research also found that periods of absenteeism and working while unwell rose and fell together. It suggested that employers might need to consider how the two issues were managed together.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR Consultant opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR Consultant jobs
