A New Definition of Presenteeism

Home / Blog / A New Definition of Presenteeism
A New Definition of Presenteeism

One of the reasons I decided to write this book, ‘The Great Workplace Revolution’, was to combat a major challenge that most workplaces in America are now facing, a challenge that America itself must overcome if it is to remain a global leader in the twenty-first century: the problem of presenteeism.

The current benchmark: Absenteeism

You have probably already heard of the problem of absenteeism. That’s when workers don’t show up at all, either because they have a valid excuse (illness, emergency, or severe weather, for example) or because they simply don’t feel like coming in, and don’t bother to give management any reasonable explanation for their absence.

The classic business-school response to absenteeism is that employees should be on site, in the facility, and ready to work nineteen out of every twenty calendar days.

This standard is not enough.

The main thing I want to point out about this standard – leaving aside the question of whether it is right for any given organization – is that it is quantifiable. That’s probably one of the reasons it is so popular as a management benchmark.

The real issue: Presenteeism

The problem of presenteeism is much more difficult to measure.

In general, the definition of presenteeism is the percentage of your workforce that is present at work, but performing significantly below its true potential.

These employees may have shown up for work sick, or hung over, or profoundly distracted because of some pressing family emergency, or even (here’s the part we as managers can have the biggest impact on) unmotivated because of a sense of disillusionment with the workplace itself.

The workers in question have shown up, and are technically present, but they are not “all there.”

If you have ever had the experience of knowing or strongly suspecting that an employee was looking for another job while on your payroll, you have had direct experience with presenteeism. Such employees are “present” in body, but absent in spirit. Because spirit counts, we should be concerned about presenteeism.

Presenteeism: An expanded definition

Presenteeism is a documented phenomenon of great interest to academics, and there’s been quite a bit of research on it in recent years.

My viewpoint expands on the practical definition of the term, so that it includes not only factors that are generally beyond the reach of management, but also factors like the lack of a sense of challenge or the absence of a clear personal development path.

Although it’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to measure the level of presenteeism in a specific workplace at any given moment, and although presenteeism is not something we should expect to be able to eliminate entirely, creating a great place to work is one of the very best ways to counteract this challenge.

How do great places to work, combat presenteeism?

Some organizations have far fewer restless employees who wish they were somewhere else.

These organizations do a better job of tailoring the work-space to individual workers.

This customization of the workplace, for both individuals and teams, is based on generational, career-path-driven, and skill set elements that combine to make each team, and each employee who is worth retaining, a unique, but solvable, retention puzzle.

There are hundreds of examples of organizations that have enhanced the bottom line by eliminating presenteeism. Some of these case studies are outlined in the book – but examination of all of them can help us answer an enduring question about building a great place to work:

What do organizations with a truly motivated, truly present workforce do to tailor their work-spaces and engage their employees?

What do you think?