From Absence to Attendance

Citation

Davies, D.W. (1998), "From Absence to Attendance", Career Development International, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 93-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi.1998.3.2.93.2

In this short book the authors set out in plain terms, practical ways in which to control absence.

Of course, these days it is more acceptable to use the expression “managing attendance” but at heart it is clear that the authors are concerned about how management should “get a grip” of absence.

The current size of the problem is quoted as typically 200 million days lost each year and as that represents about seven times the days lost due to strikes in the worst days of the 1970s, most will agree that something should be done.

However, until the 1990s figures for absence per annum of 350 million were often quoted and had the authors scanned a longer period of time they might have been able to comment on the already significant reductions to the current figures.

The authors themselves admit that fully half to two‐thirds of all absence is sickness related and there must be the danger that enthusiastic management, keen to reduce the aggregate figure even further, might press so hard on genuine cases as to cause bitter resentment and a back‐lash of staff hostility.

The book takes an unashamedly managerialist line and rightly stresses the key roles played by line management, and HR management in achieving improvements.

In that context, there is nothing unreasonable in expecting line managers, with responsibility for performance and results, to monitor and control absence in their areas as the utilisation of human resource effort is central to their performance. HR managers are properly seen as providers of appropriate absence statistics and benchmarks but the book could have stressed further their role in ensuring due process, when disciplinary measures become necessary.

The authors stress the importance that absence control should be seen to have the backing of top management, but is such a bland statement good enough? Surely top management must palpably, in letter and spirit, live the message of dedicated attendance that they would demand of others. Such an example needs to be made more visible if the message is to be credible.

Useful and valid points are made that flexible work arrangements can have a material impact on absence though it could be stressed that this would require careful management and time logging unless a climate of trust and integrity already exists.

Team working arrangements, clearly on the increase, are seen by the authors as a positive and very effective way of reducing individuals’ absence by the mechanism of “peer pressure”. No doubt this is powerful but is there not a danger in such a situation that management will have abdicated its monitoring and disciplinary roles to these teams?

One should not glibly assume that teams are “better” or more just at handling such matters than management and indeed they may be too close to the situation to provide objective and dispassionate “peer pressure”.

The result could be an increase in apparent bullying at the work place, bad enough when created by management but how much worse when initiated by one’s fellows.

The authors advocate pre‐employment health screening and while this is perfectly logical and legal it might, nonetheless, have the effect if used widely, of marginalising the sick and the disabled.

Also advocated is the use of absence records in deciding redundancy. Again, this might be fully sensible and proper but it would be wise before instituting such arrangements to have agreed with the appropriate trade unions that this would form one of the criteria in selection for redundancy.

The book rests to an extent on the excellent work of ACAS in their documents;

1. 1.

   Discipline at Work 1988

2. 2.

   Absence and Labour Turnover 1994

but takes matters forward in a practical and holistic way. The book should be of considerable use to line managers and even HR professionals will find it helpful and informative.