Absenteeism a Myth or Reality a Study of an Agriculture Company in Suriname by Permilla Bissumbhar MBA6

1 | P a g e

MBA VI

Master of Business Administration Program in Management and

Finance 2009 – 2011

Absenteeism: A Myth or Reality?

A study of an agriculture Company in Suriname

By

Permila Bissumbhar

Supervisor: Dr. Geert Heling, PhD

Date: December 2011

Maastricht School of Management (MSM) in Netherlands and

F.H.R. Lim A Po Institute for Social Studies in Suriname

2 | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Many production companies in Suriname have the challenge to improve productivity and cost

price in order to remain successful in an increasingly competitive world. One factor that leads to

lower productivity is absenteeism. This thesis therefore focuses on the main determinants of

employee absenteeism in an agriculture production company of Suriname. The study was

divided in two parts.

The objective of the first part was to learn and quantify the reasons for employee absenteeism

from workers themselves and management. Management and workers agreed that illness was the

most important reason for being absent. Other common reasons are illness of a child or family

members, and tiredness. However workers mentioned also having appointment with a doctor and

injuries as important reasons, while management believed that transport problems, wage rate and

no childcare were important reasons.

In the second part of this thesis a quantitative research was carried out to examine the

relationship between absenteeism and 5 independent variables of wellbeing ; job satisfaction, job

design, workload, organizational commitment and psychological wellbeing. Also 5 moderated

variables were included in this study. The results show psychological wellbeing as the most

significant predictors of absenteeism. Availability of money, safety, age and tenure were also

significantly correlated to absenteeism. Some results are similar to result found in past research

and some are the contrary.

By understanding what causes employees to miss work, a company can find ways to reduce and

control this phenomenon in order to increase productivity and decrease cost price.

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 RESEARCH MODEL ................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 11

2.2 ABSENTEEISM .................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 WELLBEING ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1 Job satisfaction and Absenteeism ........................................................................................................ 15

2.3.2 Job design and absenteeism ................................................................................................................ 16

2.3.3 Organizational commitment and absenteeism .................................................................................... 18

2.3.4 Psychological wellbeing ....................................................................................................................... 19

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 RESEARCH MODEL .............................................................................................................................................. 22

3.3 RESEARCH METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 23

3.4 SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................ 25

4. ANALYSES AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 28

4.1 REPORTED REASONS FOR BEING ABSENT ..................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 RESULTS AND ANALYSES OF WELLBEING AND ABSENTEEISM ........................................................................................ 31

4.2.1 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................ 32

4.2.3 Correlation between variables of employee wellbeing and absenteeism ............................................ 33

4.2.4 Regression Analyses ............................................................................................................................ 35

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 39

6. RECOMMENDATIONS & LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 42

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 42

6.2 LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................ 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE "REASON FOR ABSENTEEISM" ........................................................................ 51

APPENDIX II: VRAGENLIJST "REDEN VOOR ABSENTEEISME" .......................................................................... 52

APPENDIX III: VRAGENLIJST OVER BELEVING EN BEOORDELING VAN ARBEID ................................................ 53

APPENDIX VI: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY PART 2 ABSENTEEISM ........................................................................... 57

4 | P a g e

APPENDIX V: RESULTS REGRESSION ANALYSES .............................................................................................. 61

5 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

In many businesses in Suriname absenteeism is one of the most important challenges they face in

trying to increase efficiency and productivity. They have problems in meeting deadlines and the

lost time and production is very difficult to manage without negative consequences in quality and

costs. Today with globalization the market is accessible for everyone and to stay in the market

you need to be highly competitive to keep the market or to increase market share. This is also a

very important aspect for especially the export companies in Suriname. Absenteeism occurs

when an employee is not present at his/her work when he/she is expected to be at work according

to the schedule (Brooke, 1986).The management of absenteeism is a fundamental part of the

human resources function, which still is very poorly understood by management.

This research focuses on absenteeism in one agriculture labor intensive production

company. Data is collected in the banana producing company of Suriname, SBBS (Stichting

Behoud Bananen Sector). It is a production company operating on the international market. Not

only in this company, but almost all companies working with mostly low skilled labor have

problems with high absenteeism. For the agricultural sector this absent phenomena is very costly

because agricultural products are perishable (fresh fruit & vegetables). In order to control these

costs, this phenomenon needs to be studied to find methods to reduce employee absence.

Most of the research done on absenteeism assumes that some of the factors leading to

absenteeism possible can be influenced. This suggests that absenteeism is sensitive to some

degree of volition (Stamm, C & Farrel, D, 1988). (Steers, R. & Rhodes, S, 1978) have

developed a model explaining absenteeism and attendance. Attendance and absence are

influenced by two important factors; the employee‟s motivation to attend and the employee‟s

ability to attend (Steers, R. & Rhodes, S, 1978). An employee is present at work when he/she is

6 | P a g e

motivated, or has reasons to come to work, and also must be able to come to work (Rhodes, S &

Steers, R. M., 1981).

Numerous studies have examined the relationship with absenteeism and job satisfaction,

but the empirical findings have not been consistent (K.D. Scott, G.Stephen Taylor , 1985).The

meta-analyses of the relationship between employee absenteeism and job satisfaction (K.D.

Scott, G.Stephen Taylor , 1985) showed that job satisfaction was found consistently to be

negatively associated with absence. A person who is not satisfied with his or her job has a higher

intent to be absent (Jase Ramsey, Betty Jane Punnett and Dion Greenidge, 2008). (J. R. Rentsch,

R.P. Steel, 2003) have identified individual characteristics, job-related characteristics, and

contextual characteristics as three major types of potential absence determinants. Employees

with high levels of organizational commitment are less likely to miss work because it jeopardizes

their membership in the company (Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. , 1998).

Job satisfaction, job related characteristics like job demand and workload are some of the

factors of employee wellbeing. In many studies employee wellbeing has been operationalized by

these variables (Wright, 2005). Employee wellbeing can be defined as the overall quality of an

employee‟s experience and functioning at work (Warr, 1987). If employees feel better they are

likely to perform better and take fewer days off sick. Employee well-being has also a significant

impact on also the performance of companies by its effect on costs which are related to sickness,

absenteeism and turnover (Spector, P., 1997).

The focus of this study is to understand why individuals are absent from work. With this

knowledge, HR managers can better select the most cost-effective interventions aimed at

preventing or reducing absence.

7 | P a g e

1.1 Research Objectives

When an employee decides not to come to work there can be different reasons for this behavior.

Some of these reasons may be in his/her control and some may not. When the causes of the

absenteeism are determined than strategies can be developed to reduce the rate of absenteeism in

production companies in Suriname. The main objectives of this study are to identify the main

factors leading to absenteeism and to measure the impact of these variables on absenteeism.

1.2 The Research Questions

The main research question is:

What are the main determinants of employee‟s absenteeism?

Sub Research Questions are:

1. What are according to employees the main reasons for being absent?

2. What are according to management the reasons why their workers are absent?

3. How can absenteeism be reduced in this company?

1.3 Research Model

The research model has 2 constructs, absenteeism and employee wellbeing. Absenteeism is the

dependent variable and the construct “employee wellbeing” consist of 5 independent variables.

There are also 5 moderating variables included in this study, which can influence the dependent

variable.

8 | P a g e

Employee Wellbeing Absenteeism

1.4 Research Hypothesis

Ho1: Employees who are more satisfied with their job are less absent

Ho2: High perceived workload result in higher absenteeism

Ho3: High physical workload results in higher absenteeism

Ho4: There is no relation between job design and absenteeism

Ho5: More committed employees are less absent.

Ho6: Employees with higher level of psychological wellbeing are less absent

Independent Variables

1. Job satisfaction

2. Job Design

3. Organizational Commitment

4. Workload: perceived & physical

5. Psychological Wellbeing

Dependant Variable

Absenteeism

(Frequency)

Moderating Variables

1. Age

2. Gender

3. Marital Status

4. Job Tenure

5. No of children

living at home

9 | P a g e

1.5 Methodology

Absence can be voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary absences are absences that the worker has

control over and consist of “those absences which occur when the worker is able to work but for

some reason decides to miss work” (Hinze, J., Ugwu, M., and Hubbard, L., 1985). Involuntary

absences are absences that the worker has little control over and consist primarily of illnesses

and injuries (Hinze, J., Ugwu, M., and Hubbard, L., 1985). In this study both type of absence

will be considered, since employees who are absent due to sickness sometimes are not really

sick.

Measure of absence frequency is derived from the personnel records of participating

employees. Absence frequency referred to the total number of absence incidences, ignoring the

length of each absence event. Absence duration (total days lost) is also available but will not be

used in this study because it is likely to show extreme deviations in their statistical properties

(Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. , 1981).

To identify the reasons employees are absent, a questionnaire was developed to collect

quantitative data from workers and management. This would give their perception of the factors

leading to employee absenteeism. This questionnaire consist of 15 reasons why a worker might

be absent from work (Awad S. Hanna, Cindy L. Menches, Sullivan, & Sargent, November 2005)

.The workers had to rate each factor as strong or weak reason for their absence at work on a 5-

point liker scale. The management had to rate also each factor as strong or weak factors for their

workers absence. The management and the workers could add other factors if necessary. With

this first part of the study the perception of workers and management for the main determinant of

absenteeism becomes clear. A comparison will be made between the perception of workers and

management.

10 | P a g e

To reduce absenteeism it is important to know the underlying causes for the absence

behavior. In this second part of the study the construct employee wellbeing with 5 variables will

be measured to find the relations between these variable and absenteeism. Job satisfaction was

measured with the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire of (Warr, P. B., Cook, J. and Wall, T. D. ,

1979). Job features were measured by a scale of (Warr, P., 2007), which include some of the

scale of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. , 1975)

(Organizational commitment was measured by 4-items scale employed by (Currivan, 2000). This

measure was assessed on a 5-point scale. The general perceptions of workload were measured by

a 3-items scale employed by (Currivan, 2000) and the physical workload was measured by

(Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K-H, Kylian H., 1999). Psychological Well-Being was

measured by the General Health Questionnaire GHQ12 (Goldberg, D. & Williams, P, 1988).

11 | P a g e

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Suriname is a developing country with only half a million people. The labor force is thus very

limited and needs to be managed properly. Employees not showing up at work when they are

scheduled is one of the mayor problems many company face and finding solutions to reduce this

absence is very essential. There are currently no reliable statistics on absenteeism in Suriname

available, but from different personal resources there are some indications that it varies between

7% and 20 %. This percentage is the number of days lost to absenteeism divided with the total no

of day scheduled. Barbados; also a developing country in the Caribbean, has around 7%

absenteeism (Betty Jane Punnett, Dion Greenidge, Jase Ramsey, 2007). This is an indication that

we could find possibilities in Suriname to reduce the absenteeism. A reduction of the

absenteeism rate can have a substantial impact on the labor force, the productivity of companies

and ultimately the whole economy. The absenteeism rate will vary with the type of industry,

organization, occupation and culture, but they are all experiencing this increasingly costly

problem (Fred Luthans & Mark Martinko , 1976); (Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. , 1984). These

large differences led researcher to hypothesize that working conditions experienced by

employees will influence the pattern of absenteeism (Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., &

Brown, C., 1982) (Kaiser, 1998) .

12 | P a g e

2.2 Absenteeism

Attending work or being absent from work are behaviors and this behavior is caused by different

factors (Fred Luthans & Mark Martinko , 1976) It is a behavior where positive and negative

reinforces (rewards and punishments) are interacting with one another. When an employee is less

absent after a verbal reprimand than the verbal reprimand is a punisher. But if instead of

decreasing, the absenteeism increases, than the verbal reprimand is reinforcing absenteeism. In

the research done by Luthans and Martinko it is states that in order to analyze attendance or

absenteeism, the antecedents and also the consequences must be analyze. Examples of some of

the variables in this kind of analyses are given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Functional analyses of absenteeism behavior

Getting up late

Sleeping-in

Staying home

Drinking

Fishing/hunting

Working at home

Visiting

Caring for sick child

Discipline Programs

Verbal reprimands

Written reprimands

Pay docks

Layoffs

Dismissals

Consequences from

co-workers

Escape and avoidance

of working

Nothing

Illness/accident

Hang-over

Lack of transportation

Traffic

No day care facilities

Family problems

Company policies

Group/personal norms

Seniority/age

Awareness/observation of

any consequence

13 | P a g e

In absenteeism a distinction is made in paid and unpaid absence. Paid absence can be absence

due to sickness or injuries. All public companies and many of the private companies provide

healthcare and also normal payment on sick leave which is authorized by a physician. Other

researchers divide the absenteeism in voluntary or involuntary absence (Brooke, P.P. and Price,

J.L., 1989). Voluntary absence occurs when an employee by its own choice doesn‟t attend work

for reasons that are within his or her control. Involuntary absence is more or less beyond the

control of the employee like illness and injuries. The distinction between the two components is

often whether the employee had an approved excuse for being absent. Being on sick-leave when

the employee is not really sick is within the control of the employee. In this case the employee

was not motivated to attend work for some reason. Most of the times employees are absent from

work for reasons other than sickness (Fred Luthans & Mark Martinko , 1976). In this research

absenteeism includes paid as well as unpaid absence and also voluntary and involuntary absence

since there are overlapping issues between them.

One of the most cited models used in the absenteeism research is the process model of

employee absence by (Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R., 1978). This model is the result of analyses

done on 104 empirical studies on absenteeism. It states that for an employee to be present at

work, the employee must be motivated or have a reason to come to work and in addition must be

able to come to work. Attendance motivation is largely influenced by satisfaction with the job

situation and the social, economic and personal pressure to attend (Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S.

R. , 1984).

It is difficult for employers to verify the claims of employee‟s about the causes of their

absence. How will an employer check if the employee claims that he or she had to look after a

sick child? It is self-reported and it is difficult to obtain objective evidence. Also questioning an

14 | P a g e

employee‟s claim can damage the relationship between the employer and employee, which is not

in favor for both parties. Asking employees to report on their previous absences can give biased

results due to errors of memory and unconscious processes can occur (Nicholson. N,. & Payne.

R., 1987). In this study the opinions of the workers and also the management about the cause of

absenteeism will be assessed and compared.

2.3 Wellbeing

Employee wellbeing can be defined as the overall quality of experience and functioning at work

(Warr, 1987). This definition suggests that employee wellbeing can have an impact on the

performance and sustainability of organization. Happy and healthy employees make more effort

resulting in an increase of their contribution and productivity (Fisher, 2003). Research has also

indicated that employee wellbeing affects the cost of health care, absenteeism and turnover in a

company (Spector, P., 1997). When an employee doesn‟t feel well in an organization he will

tend to go frequently to the doctor, be more absent and the risk that he will leave the company

will increase. In organizational research employee wellbeing has been divided in 3 dimensions:

the psychological wellbeing, the physical wellbeing and the social wellbeing (Warr, 1987)

(Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P., 2004). The psychological wellbeing of employees is the

subjective experience and functioning of the employee. This has more to do with the satisfaction

of their job and lives (Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. , 1993). Other researchers describe the

psychological wellbeing as the employee‟s feelings of fulfillment and purpose in their effort

(Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. , 2003).

15 | P a g e

The physical wellbeing of employees refers to the health and functioning of the employee. The

social wellbeing of employees focus on the quality of an employee‟s relationship with other

employees and his/her functioning (Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. , 2000).

The construct employee wellbeing is according to the literature very broad and has

different variables. In this study we will focus on the variables job satisfaction, job

characteristics, perceived workload, physical workload, organizational commitment and

psychological wellbeing in term of perception of general health. Health of an individual is also a

very broad concept and the status of health should be determined by physicians. This study

focuses on organizational behavior and therefore it is important to know how an employee feels

about certain health aspects.

2.3.1 Job satisfaction and Absenteeism

Job satisfaction is a variable that is widely and extensively researched by many researchers in

organizational psychology (Spector, P., 1997). It is defined as "the extent to which people like

(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs" (Spector, P., 1997). This definition gives an

accurate picture of the perception, the employee‟s have about their job. Accept a global, general

appreciation of their job; it is for some researchers more interesting to know the satisfaction of

the different aspects of the job and the work situation. Assessing the different aspects like:

relation with the supervisor, pay or working conditions gives a more detail and clear view of the

job satisfaction. The satisfaction level is normally a combination of the different aspects, but it

can be largely influenced by one or few aspects. Many of the scales used to measure job

satisfaction have included different aspects and combined these to have an overall global

16 | P a g e

assessment of job satisfaction (Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. W. and Lofquist, L. H., 1967) (Warr, P.

B., Cook, J. and Wall, T. D. , 1979).

The relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism is extensively and widely

researched. Contradictory to the model of Steers and Rhodes, other researchers have found very

weak correlations between job satisfaction and absenteeism (Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson,

N., & Brown, C., 1982). According to (Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. , 1984), the relationship is

not direct, but biographical and situational factors like job involvement moderate it. The meta-

analysis of (Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. , 1998), concluded that in addition to job

satisfaction, absence relationship, a number of direct relationships exist. Another meta-analysis

of the relationship between employee absenteeism and job satisfaction (K.D. Scott, G.Stephen

Taylor , 1985) concluded that this relationship was consistently negative. Employees, who are

more satisfied, are less likely to be absent or to leave a job (Lease S., 1998). They are also more

committed and usually more satisfied with their lives. In this study a hypothesis is formulated

and this will test the strength of the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism in the

agricultural industry.

Ho1: Employees who are more satisfied with their job are less absent

2.3.2 Job design and absenteeism

Job design refers to the components of an individual job, in a very broad sense (Mandy Unterslak

, 2009). In research many different terms are used with overlapping and additional aspects which

make these terms different and specific. Job characteristics, job content, job demand, work

design and job features are some examples. Two of the most influential and dominated models in

17 | P a g e

job design are the Job Characteristics Model of (Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R., 1975) and

the Demand-Control-Support Model of (Karasek, R. A., Jr., 1979), (De Jonge, J., & Schaufeli,

W. B., 1998). The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) proposes five core job dimensions

(autonomy, feedback, skill variety, and task identity and task significance) which reflect the

experienced meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of the job (R. B. Briner , 2000). In

the Demand-Control-Model (DCM) the relationship between job demand and wellbeing (health)

depends on the level of control. Jobs which have negative impact on health are jobs combined

with high demand and low control (Karasek, R. A., Jr., 1979).

Many researchers who focus on job characteristics have used these models. Warr (1999)

developed a model incorporating the JCM and the JDC model. This model is part of his vitamin

model which includes many variables of wellbeing. It is based on 12 job features which can

make a job enjoyable or not. Also (Frederick P. Morgeson and Stephen E. Humphrey, 2006)

have developed another model for job design. They have divided job design in motivational,

social and contextual job design characteristics. They have included also a wide range of job

designs to acknowledge the job and the links between job and the environment in which the job

is performed (Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. , 1998). Researcher have used different approached to

assess job designs.

Most of the research done on the relationship between job design and absenteeism have

found a significant negative correlation (Stamm, C & Farrel, D, 1988) and (J. R. Rentsch, R.P.

Steel, 2003) and especially for autonomy, feedback from the job and skill variety (Fried, Y., &

Ferris, G. R. ., 1987). Absenteeism is assumed to be influence by the job design aspects as low

autonomy and repetitiveness (Bain, P. and Taylor, P. , 2000), (Peter G. W. Smulders, 1983) and

bad working condition (Peter G. W. Smulders, 1983) Low autonomy and repetitiveness

18 | P a g e

(monotony of work) restricts the opportunity for learning and handling problems at work

properly and thus implying negative relationship with job satisfaction and workload (Hackman,

J. R. and Oldham, G. R., 1980).

Researchers as (Philipsen, H. , 1969) and (Shepherd, R. D. and Walker. J., 1957), have

found a positive relation between one or more unpleasant working conditions (noise, dust, heavy

work, etc.) and absence. More recent research shows that workload is related to health problems

(Hendrix, W.J., Steel, R.P. & Shultz, S.A., 1987). Also there is a relationship between job

characteristics and job satisfaction. Work which is more challenging, meaningful and

autonomous is also more satisfying and motivational (Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. ., 1987) and

(Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R., 1975).

The study is carried out in the agriculture banana industry. Work in a banana farm is

labor intensive and 90 % of the work is done manually. The work itself is mostly repetitive with

low autonomy. The physical working conditions are specific and the general perception of

workload is high or heavy workload. To assess the relation between job design and absenteeism

the following hypothesis are formulated:

Ho2: High perceived workload result in higher absenteeism

Ho3: High physical workload result in higher absenteeism

Ho4: There is no relation between job design and absenteeism

2.3.3 Organizational commitment and absenteeism

Organizational commitment can be referred to as a behavior or an attitude (Mowday, R. T.,

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M., 1982) When an employee becomes committed because of

financial consequences in case he/she decides to leave it is a behavior. Organizational

19 | P a g e

commitment referred as an attitude can be defined as a state in which an employee identifies with

a certain organization and its goal, and the employee wishes to be a member of this organization

in order to facilitate its goals.

Other researchers divide organizational commitment in 3 types of commitment: the

affective, the continuous and the normative commitment (Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P., 1990).

The affective commitment is the emotional attachment, the identification with and the

involvement in the organization. Continuous commitment is the commitment linked to the costs

that an employee associates with, in case of leaving the company. And normative commitment

has to do with the feeling of obligation to stay in the organization.

Most of the studies done on organizational commitment and absenteeism have found a

negative relationship (Payne, S.C., & Huffman, A.H. , 2005); (Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J.

, 1998); (Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M., 1982). Employees who are committed

are dedicated, loyal, looking for long term relationships with the organization and social

responsible. They are less likely to be absent because of the negative consequences it can have

on the company. Some researchers suggest that when organizational commitment increases, job

satisfaction increases, and absenteeism decreases (Stamm, C & Farrel, D, 1988); (Somers, M. ,

1995). In this study the general perception of organizational commitment will be assessed in

relation with absenteeism. The following hypothesis will be tested:

Ho5: More committed employees are less absent.

2.3.4 Psychological wellbeing

Researchers have used many different definitions of psychological wellbeing. Psychological

wellbeing is a person‟s cognitive and affective evaluation of his/her life (Diener, E., Seligman,

20 | P a g e

M.E.P., 2002) and it refers to how healthy, satisfied and happy someone is about life (Rainey, D.,

1995). It is their own perception about the quality of their life which can be influence by

different factors (Wright, T.A. & Staw, B.M., 1999). (Ryff, C. D. , 1989) has divided

psychological wellbeing in 6 dimensions; self-acceptance, environmental mastery, positive

relations with others, purpose in life, personal growth and autonomy. Employees achieve higher

psychological wellbeing by working towards a goal they think are worthwhile, with the support

of the manager and the whole team (Ivan T. Robertson, Cary L. Cooper, 2010). Psychological

wellbeing has an impact on absenteeism since healthier, happier and more satisfied employees,

are likely to work harder and take less sick days (Ivan T. Robertson, Cary L. Cooper, 2010). In

this study we therefore hypothesize that:

Ho6: Employees with higher level of psychological wellbeing are less absent

21 | P a g e

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The research was conducted in the banana production company of Suriname “Stichting Behoud

Bananen Sector” (SBBS) employing 2500 employees. This company cultivates, harvests,

packages and exports the fruit with around 2200 employees, mostly low skilled. Almost 90 % of

the work in the farms and packing stations are done manually. Besides absenteeism due to

sickness, employees are absent for many different reasons. Employees who are on sick leave are

also sometimes not really sick. Perhaps there are other underlying reasons why they didn‟t come

to work and sometimes they even don‟t realize that. For this reason this research is divided in

two parts. In the first part a survey was conducted to have an opinion from employees and

management about the main reasons of absenteeism. The second part of this research was

implemented to find the relationship between absenteeism and 5 variables of employee

wellbeing. The data of the first part was analyzed only descriptive and the second part a

regression analysis was carried out.

22 | P a g e

3.2 Research Model

Most of the research done on absenteeism, have found relationship with these variables; job

satisfaction, job design, workload, organizational commitment and psychological wellbeing.

These variables were measured by different validated scales to establish the correlation with

absenteeism in this company.

Job Design

Job Satisfaction

Psychological wellbeing

AB

SE

NT

EE

ISM

Organizational

Commitment

Workload

Age, Gender, Tenure, No of

children, Marital Status

EM

PL

OY

EE

WE

LL

BE

ING

23 | P a g e

3.3 Research Method

To investigate opinions from management and workers about the reasons why workers missed

work, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire was listed with 15 reasons for being

absent, as identified in previous research and also from information of human resources

department of the company. Management was asked to identify why they feel that their workers

were absent from their work and workers were asked to identify the reasons why they actually

missed work. Both types of respondents had to rate each reason as “strong” or weak” on a scale

from 0 to 6. It was also possible to write down additional reasons for absence. The data collected

is a mix qualitative and quantitative. A comparison is made between the opinion and perception

of the employees and management.

Absenteeism can be measured in frequency and duration. Frequency is the number of absence

occurrence (incidences) and duration is the total number of days absent. In this study

absenteeism is measured in frequency and all types of absence are included since sick leave or

leave because of injuries in many cases are not clear. I have gathered one year absenteeism data

from the selected sample through the human resources department of SBBS.

The scales to measure the variables included in this study of the construct employee wellbeing

have demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity in previous studies (Warr, P. B., Cook, J.

and Wall, T. D. , 1979), (Currivan, 2000), (Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K, Kylian H. ,

1999), (Goldberg, D. & Huxley, P. , 1980).

The Job Satisfaction Scale of (Warr, P. B., Cook, J. and Wall, T. D. , 1979) was used to measure

job satisfaction. From this scale with 15 items, 2 items were excluded due to misinterpretations.

The 13 items consisted of different aspects of the job. None of the items were reverse scored.

24 | P a g e

Respondents had to indicate their level of satisfaction for each items on a 7-point liker scale how

satisfied they were with the different aspects, from very dissatisfied to very satisfy.

For the measurement of job design, the scale of (Warr, P. , 1999) was used. This scale was

developed on the basis of the 12 features of the “Vitamin Model” of (Warr, P. , 1999). It consists

of 26 items which account for each of the 12 features in this model. Due to a low number of

items in each subscale it was not possible to determine the reliability of all the 12 subscales. On a

7-point liker scale the respondents had to indicate from 0 to 6 how much of each features

included in their job. None of the questions were reverse-scored. The score of this scale gives an

interpretation of how enjoyable a job is for a respondent. A high score indicate an enjoyable job

(Warr, P. , 1999).

The perceived workload was measured by the 3 item scale of (Currivan, 2000). Respondents had

to indicate on a 5-point liker scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree for the 3 items related

to the speed of working, the time available and how heavy the job is. All 3 items were reverse

scored. For assessing the physical workload a questionnaire of (Hollmann S, Klimmer F,

Schmidt K, Kylian H. , 1999) with 19 items, describing different work situations was used. Five

items described the postures of the trunk, 3 items asked for the positions of the arms, 5 items

asked for positions of the legs and the last 6 items described the lifting of weights. Respondents

were asked how often they have to work with the body postures described and how often they

have to lift or carry the weights mentioned. The answers were given on a 5-point liker scale from

“never” to “very often”. The score of these 19 items were multiplied with weighting factors to

calculate an index of physical workload (Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K, Kylian H. , 1999).

A high score indicates a higher physical workload.

25 | P a g e

Organizational Commitment was measured by the 4 item scale of (Currivan, 2000) on a 5-point

liker scale. Three items were reverse scored. A high score indicates that the respondent is more

committed to the organization he or she works for.

The score of psychological wellbeing tend to be relative when people compare themselves with

others or with other periods in their past lives (Argyle, M., 1997). The same amount of'

„happiness‟ can be scored differently or different levels of happiness can have the same score.

That‟s why it is important for this study to find a more objective questionnaire. The General

Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is objective and reliable indicator of psychological distress

(Argyle, M., 1997), and is used by many researchers to asses psychological wellbeing (Goldberg

D, 1978) The GHQ-12 is a 12 item scale of (Goldberg, D. & Williams, P, 1988) and it measures

both positive and negative aspects of mental health. It focuses on the inability to carry out

normal functions and the appearance of new distressing experiences. Each item is rated on a 4-

point liker scale from strongly disagree (scored 0) to strongly agree (scored 3). From the 12

items 6 are reverse coded (question 1,3,4,7,8,12). High score for this scale correspond with low

feelings of psychological wellbeing (high levels of stress/depression) and healthy individuals

will score around 10-13 (Goldberg, D. & Williams, P, 1988).

3.4 Sampling and Data Collection

The survey was conducted by two students of the local university. They were involved from the

sampling, the testing of questionnaires and collecting the data. Eight employees were involved in

testing the questionnaires and after that some small corrections were made to clarify some

26 | P a g e

questions. All questionnaires were back to back translated in Dutch before. It was also clear

during this testing that except of the illiterate employees, some of the others also needed

assistance in understanding the questions. So for both part of the survey assistance to fill in the

questionnaire was necessary due to the fact that some employees were illiterate, and some didn‟t

understand the Dutch language. The questionnaires for the management were filled in by

themselves.

The sampling for the first part of the survey was at random. From 5 different farms 20 workers

were selected at random. This survey was anonymous. The management team consists only of 75

employees and compared to the rest of the workforce it is very small. All 75 were chosen for the

survey. For the second part the sampling was done on basis of the different functions in the

company, except the management. This was to include as much as possible all types of work

with different aspects. With the support of the human resources department 30 functions were

identified. From each function 5 employees, employed longer than one year were selected. In

total 150 employees were selected. Only employees working more than one year were included

in this study, since I needed absenteeism data for one year.

The first survey was done in small groups of ten, at convenient times and the second was done

per person. It was organized per department and mostly early in the morning and late in the

afternoons. The two students explained the purpose of this study and how to complete the

questionnaire. They stressed also to all the respondents that the results of the survey would be

handled with strict confidentiality. No contact with co-respondents was allowed during these

sessions to avoid influencing each other. The 150 respondents for the second part of the survey

had to write down their registration number on the questionnaire in order to link the information

on the questionnaire with absenteeism data. The complete survey was done in 3 weeks. From the

27 | P a g e

150 questionnaire 43 were rejected because I was unable to match their code with company

absenteeism data. Some codes were missing, some were incorrect and some were incomplete.

28 | P a g e

4. ANALYSES AND RESULTS

4.1 Reported Reasons for being absent

The purpose of this mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis was to identify the reasons why

workers miss work, as believed by management and reported by the workers themselves.

Self-reported reason for being absent

Workers had to rate the actual reasons for missing work using a scale from 0 to 6, with 0

indicating not a reason for absenteeism, 1 indicating a weak reason and 6 indicating a strong

reason. None of the respondents added another reasons for being absent on the list. The data was

analyzed in a descriptive way. The average rating for the different reasons was calculated and is

presented in Table 2. The rating of the 17 reasons the workers reported for actually missing work

are arranged from strongest to weakest reason. The 5 strongest reasons for absenteeism as

reported by the workers were (1) personal illness, (2) doctor appointments, (3) injuries, (4)

child/family illness, and (5) tired.

Reported reasons for absenteeism as believed by Managers

Managers were asked to rate a list of reasons they felt (believed) workers are absent. The rating

was the same as that of the workers. Two respondents added 3 other reasons they believe

workers are absent and they are: time needed to arrange their personal schedule, lack of

responsibility (towards company or family) and no permitted days on leave available. Because

of the low rating for these reasons they were excluded from further analysis. The results are also

29 | P a g e

presented in Table 2. The 5 strongest reasons managers believed workers are absent were (1)

personal illness, (2) tired, (3) child/family illness, (4) transport problems, and (5) wage rate.

Table 2: Rating of reported reasons for absenteeism

Mean rating Mean difference

Reason for Absenteeism Workers Management Significance

Personal illness 2.15 2.57 0.011

Doctor appointments 1.75 1.24 0.017

Injury 1.44 1.29 0.375

Family/Child illness 1.30 1.75 0.017

Tired 1.16 1.83 0.000

Excessive rework 0.94 0.72 0.206

Transport problems 0.89 1.54 0.000

Wake up late 0.65 1.22 0.000

Wage rate 0.63 1.37 0.000

Simply did not feel like working 0.60 1.00 0.006

Too much overtime 0.46 0.69 0.149

No childcare 0.37 1.25 0.000

Unsafe working conditions 0.37 0.27 0.360

Bad weather 0.32 0.83 0.000

Travel distance 0.31 0.52 0.128

Bad relations with boss/co-worker 0.28 0.28 0.951

Under influence of drugs or alcohol 0.10 0.58 0.000

30 | P a g e

Comparison between the reasons reported from workers and management

Both managers and workers agreed that the strongest reason for being absent is personal illness.

Also illness of a child or family member and tiredness are also two important reasons. To

compare the rating of the two groups, the mean difference was calculated with an independent

sample test in SPSS. For 4 reasons there is a significant difference and practical importance in

the mean rating between the workers and management. The workers reported “doctor

appointment” as the second important reason while management believed that workers rarely

miss work because of this. Management believed that 3 reasons were significant causes for

absenteeism while workers reported that they often miss work for these following reasons:

transport problems, wage rate and no childcare.

Graph 1 Rating reasons for absenteeism

31 | P a g e

4.2 Results and analyses of Wellbeing and Absenteeism

4.2.1 Reliability

The reliability tests were done with SPSS and the Cronbach‟s Alpha was above 0.7. This means

that all scales used in this study were reliable. Three questions from the Job Design scale were

not included in the analyses since these question were not clear to the respondent which led to

misinterpretations (no5, 8, and 10). Table 3 shows the results of the reliability tests. It was not

possible to test the reliability of all the 12 subscales of the job design scale. Only from the

subscales with 3 or more items the test was done and those are job demand (0.54), feedback

(0.286) and safety (0.614). The Cronbach‟s Alpha‟s were lower than 0.7, indicating a low

reliability. From the scale of wellbeing question 12 was also removed since this question seems

to be contradictory to the rest of the questions and in a way misleading the respondents of this

survey.

Table 3: Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha No of Items N

Job Satisfaction .724 13 107

Job design .766 23 105

- Job Demand .540 5 105

- Feedback .286 3 105

- Safety .614 3 105

Organizational commitment .745 4 105

Perceived Workload .706 3 107

Physical workload .772 19 107

Psychological wellbeing .708 11 107

32 | P a g e

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive analysis of the data from the second part of the survey was done with SPPS.

Table 4 presents the mean, the standard deviations and significance level of the mean difference

of the moderating, independent variables and dependent variables, separately for men and

women. For the analysis the item marital status was re-coded; 0 was coded for living alone and1

for married or living together. Gender was coded 1 for men and 2 for women. To analyze the

difference of the different variables, an independent sample test was carried out to compare the

means with significant differences. The majority of the sample consisted of men (70%). The

mean age of the sample is 41.4 years and there is no significant difference in the mean of men

(41.9 years) and women (40.1 years). Table 4 shows that men and women had significantly

different means on marital status, no of children living at home, tenure and physical workload.

Approximately half of the sample is “married” or “living together”, but men were “married” or

“living together” (67%) in more significant cases than women (25%). This means that women

employees are more “single” or “living alone”, than men. The average number of children living

at home is 1.83. Women have significantly more children at home (2.47) than men employees

(1.56). The average number of years employed in the company is 6.45 years and it is

significantly longer for men (6.91) compared to women (5.38).

There is no significant difference between men and women in the mean of job satisfaction, job

design, organizational commitment, perceived workload and psychological wellbeing. The

average score of job satisfaction was 63.18 from a maximum of 91. The employees were on

average satisfied for 70%. The job design score gives an indication of how enjoyable a job is

perceived and the mean score was 87.28 from a maximum of 156. This indicates that the level of

33 | P a g e

enjoyment of the job is 56%, which is low. Employee commitment is around 70% and perceived

workload 64 % from the maximum scores. The physical workload is significantly different for

men and women. Men have an average score of 21.22 and women have 11.63. This means that

the workload of men is almost the double of that of the women. The results of psychological

wellbeing in this survey was on average 10.98 and according to Goldberg, D. and Williams, P.

(1988) healthy employees will score around 10-13. This indicates that the employees in this

survey had normal levels of stress/depression and could be considered psychologically healthy.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics

N (107) Male (N=75) Female (N=32) Mean diff

Moderating Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD t Sign.

Age 41.4 11.03 41.9 11.09 40.1 10.9 0.794 0.429

Marital Status 0.54 0.50 0.67 0.47 0.25 0.44 4.247 0.000

No of children living at

home 1.83 1.93 1.56 1.52 2.47 256 -2.28 0.025

Tenure 6.45 2.43 6.91 2.38 5.38 2.22 3.108 0.020

Independent Variables

Job Satisfaction 63.18 11.01 62.59 11.45 64.56 9.94 -0.85 0.398

Job Design 87.28 16.94 85.33 17.44 91.88 14.96 -1.85 0.067

Organizational

Commitment 13.86 3.54 13.61 3.64 14.44 3.26 -1.11 0.272

Perceived Workload 9.56 2.99 9.8 3.06 9 2.78 1.27 0.207

Physical Workload 18.35 12.97 21.22 13.79 11.63 7.41 3.708 0.000

Psychological

Wellbeing 10.98 4.53 11.53 4.76 9.69 3.68 1.957 0.053

Dependant Variable

Absenteeism 17.20 14.39 16.21 13.87 19.5 15.51 -1.08 0.281

4.2.3 Correlation between variables of employee wellbeing and absenteeism

34 | P a g e

A correlation analyses was carried out in SPPS to measure the relationship between the

moderating, the independent and the dependent variables. The results are presented in table 5.

From the moderating variables only age and tenure were significantly correlated to absenteeism.

Older employees are significantly less absent than younger employees (p<0.05) and employees

who have more time in the company are significantly less absent than employees with less years

working for the company. The results show also that there is a significant correlation between

gender and physical workload. Women have a significant lower physical workload in this

company than men (p<0.001). Also older employees have a significantly higher rating of job

design, indicating that older employees perceive their job more enjoyable than younger

employees.

None of the independent variables were significantly correlated to absenteeism. Job Satisfaction

was significantly correlated with job design, perceived workload and wellbeing (p <0.001). The

strongest positive correlation was with job design; employees who are more satisfied have a

perception of a more enjoyable job. Workload and wellbeing are negatively correlated to job

satisfaction. A higher perceived workload results in less satisfied employees. A high score of

wellbeing indicated a low feeling of psychological wellbeing (high levels of stress/anxiety).

Employees with low feelings of psychological wellbeing are significantly less satisfied with their

job (p<0.001). Job design is also significantly negatively correlated to workload and wellbeing.

And perceived workload is also significantly positively correlated to workload and wellbeing.

There is no significant correlation between commitment and any of the independent variable.

35 | P a g e

Table 5: Results of Correlation Analyses

Freq. of

Absence

Job

Satisfaction

Job

Design

Commit

ment

Work

load

Well

being

Physical

Workload

Moderating

Gender .105 .083 .178 .107 -.123 -.188 -.340**

Age -.208* .101 .220* -.026 -.040 -.062 -.023

Marital Status -.189 .073 .059 .054 .161 .092 .145

No of Children .119 -.055 -.086 .100 -.062 -.061 .004

Tenure -.197* -.002 .038 -.013 .001 .070 -.063

Wellbeing

Job satisfaction .027 1 .719** .015 -.389** -.452** -.104

Job design -.037 .719** 1 .004 -.358** -.433** -.124

Commitment .096 .015 .004 1 .151 .084 -.004

Workload .099 -.389** -.358** .151 1 .371** .270*

Psychological

Wellbeing -.179 -.452** -.433** .084 .371** 1 .181

Physical

Workload .081 -.104 -.124 -.004 .270* .181 1

Frequency of

Absence 1 .027 -.037 .096 .099 -.179 .081

* p < 0/.05; ** p < 0/.001; (all two-tailed).

A second correlation test was carried out to analyze the relation between the different subscales

of job design and absenteeism (Table 6). The subscales money and safety were significantly

correlated to absenteeism. Employees who were less satisfied with the payments were more

absent. And employees who perceived their work environment as unsafe were more absent.

36 | P a g e

Table 6: Results of Correlation Analyses of the 12 features of Job Design

12 Features of Job design Frequency of

Absence

Sign.

Personal Control -.049 0.616

Skill use -.102 0.297

Job Demand -.056 0.565

Task variety -.022 0.824

Environmental Clarity -.040 0.683

Contact with others -.098 0.313

Money -.197* 0.042

Safety -.201* 0.038

Valued Social position .002 0.983

Supportive supervision -.043 0.657

Career outlook .091 0.350

Equity -.079 0.419

* p < 0/.05; ** p < 0/.001

37 | P a g e

4.2.4 Regression Analyses

To obtain a better view of the relationship between the dependent variable “Absenteeism” and

the 5 independent variable and the 5 moderating variables a regression analyses was performed.

A full regression analyses was carried out with the variable absenteeism on all the 10 variables

and the results are presented in Table 7. The only variable which is significant predictor of

absenteeism according to these results is psychological wellbeing (t=-2.225, p=0.028).

Employees with higher levels (feelings) of psychological wellbeing are less absent. In the

correlation analyses there were significant correlation between age and absenteeism and tenure

and absenteeism.

Table 7: Results of Regression Analyses

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 22.033 15.364 1.434 .155

Gender -.386 3.695 -.012 -.105 .917

Age -.254 .159 -.194 -1.600 .113

Marital Status -3.470 3.247 -.121 -1.069 .288

No of Children 1.304 .806 .174 1.617 .109

Tenure -.357 .665 -.060 -.537 .593

Physical Workload .089 .117 .080 .763 .447

Job Satisfaction .089 .186 .068 .480 .633

Job Design -.039 .124 -.046 -.317 .752

Commitment .292 .394 .072 .742 .460

Workload .911 .533 .189 1.708 .091

Wellbeing -.786 .353 -.247 -2.225 .028

a. Dependent Variable: Frequency of Absence

38 | P a g e

The results of the regression analyses show that there is no correlation between independent

variables job satisfaction, job design, workload (perceived and physical), organizational

commitment and the dependant variable absenteeism. Therefore I reject the hypotheses: Ho1,

Ho2, Ho3, and Ho5. Ho4 was accepted since the results shows that there is no significant relation

between job design and absenteeism. Ho6 is also accepted since the results shows that higher

levels of psychological wellbeing are significantly less absent.

Ho1: Employee’s who are more satisfied with their job are less absent (Reject)

Ho2: High perceived workload result in higher absenteeism (Reject)

Ho3: High physical workload result in higher absenteeism (Reject)

Ho4: There is no relation between job design and absenteeism (Accept)

Ho5: More committed employees are less absent. (Reject)

Ho6: Employees with higher level of psychological wellbeing are less absent (Accept)

39 | P a g e

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the present study was to determine the main reasons for absenteeism by first

exploring and second by measuring. The results of the comparison made between the opinion of

the workers and the management reveals that management may not understand the true causes of

absenteeism in this company. Management and workers agreed that illness is a common reason

for being absent. However workers reported “appointment with a doctor” as the second

important reason while management believed that is was not an important reason. Management

believes that transport problems, the wage rate and no childcare are also important reasons while

according to the workers they rarely miss work for these 3 reasons. Some of the reasons

mentioned by workers and management as important reasons for being absent can be controlled

by management. When “doctor appointments” is given as a second important reason for being

absent, than it must be possible to give permission to workers take leave. Also transport

problems can be solved by management since the company is responsible for transportation of

their employees.

Age and tenure were negatively correlated to absenteeism. This is contrary to the findings that

tenure is positive correlated to absenteeism (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Contrary to our

expectations, job satisfaction, job design, workload and organizational commitment did not play

an important role as determinants of absenteeism. Job satisfaction shows no significant

relationship with absenteeism. Some researchers have found very weak correlations between job

satisfaction and absenteeism (Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C., 1982) and

some have found consistent negative relations (Lease S., 1998). Although there was no relation

40 | P a g e

with absenteeism, the satisfaction level of employees was medium (70%). Job satisfaction had on

the other hand strong significant positive correlation with Job design.

From the 12 job features of job design, availability of money and safety emerged as the two

features that significantly contribute to absenteeism. Pfeifer (2010) also found that absenteeism

was negative correlated to pay. Early studies have also found that income level is more important

for lower-earning employees (Kornhauser‟s (1965). The subscale safety includes absence of

danger, ergonomically adequate equipment, and good working conditions (Warr, 2007). These

aspects are in control of management.

This study shows that there is no relation between absenteeism and organizational commitment.

Previous studies which focused mostly on affective, normative and continuance commitment

(Gellatly, 1995) have found significant correlation with absenteeism (Stamm, C & Farrel, D,

1988). One possible reason for these results can be the scale that is used, which was probable to

general. Organizational commitment was also not correlated to the other independent variables in

this study.

Contrary to the expectation, the perceived workload and physical workload were not related to

absenteeism. Workload has been associated with higher absence rates in other studies (Dwyer &

Ganster, 1991). The results also shows that the physical workload of men is almost the double of

women, and there is no significant different in the mean of the absent rates of men and women.

This explains the results.

The strongest relation that was found was the negative relation between absenteeism and

psychological wellbeing. Psychological wellbeing is also positively correlated to job satisfaction,

job design and negatively correlated to workload. These 3 independent variables are the main

aspects of a job and thus indirectly related to absenteeism.

41 | P a g e

The conclusion of this study is that absenteeism is significantly influenced by illness, thus the

psychological wellbeing of the employee, availability of money, safety, age and tenure.

42 | P a g e

6. RECOMMENDATIONS & LIMITATIONS

6.1 Recommendations

The results of both surveys show that illness is the mayor reasons for employee‟s absence. In

practice we see that employees often have sick leave, when they are not really sick. In Suriname

also the culture exist that when an employer has a doctor appointment, the doctor normally gives

on day leave even if the employer is not sick. To solve this, method must be developed to ensure

that doctors do not issue unjustified sickness certificates. This only can ensure that workers

report sick when they are really sick. This for example can be controlled with special company

doctors or company clinics.

Before recruitment of employees, a medical check must be done to ensure that the new

employees are medically fit to do the job. Another recommendation is to send employees who

are regularly sick for a second medical check to ensure that the employee is medical and

physically fit to do the job required. This is very important because of the physically intensive

labor requirements. Policies need to be put in place how to handle employees after a medical re-

check.

In both studies was safety given as one of the significant reasons for being absent. The company

has to look into this and find solutions for a safe work environment and adequate equipment with

the right procedures. The risk assessment should be evaluated and possibly extended.

43 | P a g e

Return to work interview is also a recommendation in order to decrease absenteeism. When an

employee is absent for a day, his direct supervisor should have an interview the next day he/she

is present, to find out what the reasons is for the absence and find solutions for the reason which

are in control of management and give support, if possible for reasons out of management

control. Injury was the third important reason for being absent and this is largely controllable by

management. Preventive is always better than curative.

6.2 Limitations & Future Research

One of the important limitations of this study was the language barrier. Many respondents had

problems with the Dutch language since it wasn‟t their main language and it was difficult to

understand the questions. The respondent group consisted also of foreigners from Haiti and

Guyana. Most of the Surinamese respondents have also their own language (dialect). The two

students from the university helped in translating and explaining the question verbally. The

survey was done mostly per respondent.

Another potential limitation for the second part of the survey was that it could not be

anonymous. In order to link the variables that were measured with actual absenteeism data, it

was necessary to have individual information. Confidentially was assured by expressing that this

research was for academic use and only the results would be presented to the company. A few

participants had some concern in this regard, and I can‟t be sure that this didn‟t bias the

responses. The questionnaires without registrations coded were excluded for further analyses.

44 | P a g e

Analyses in dept of the subscales of job design would have given also more insight in the

different aspect of the job design. Due to a low reliability of some of the subscale the decision

was taking to measure job design as one variable.

In this survey 5 independent variables were measured. It is also possible that one or more

important variable was not included. There is not must research done in Suriname and the

Caribbean about this topics and it is interesting to explore to find more information on causes of

absenteeism. Culture could be probable one of them. For future research it is also important to

make distension between absenteeism and sickness absenteeism. This will allow having more

detailed analyses about the relation between the different variables. This survey was carried out

in the agricultural sector and the results could be generalized to other sector were physical labor

is essential like the building and construction sector. Research in other sectors and comparisons

between sectors is also necessary for efficient human resources management in the future.

45 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Volume 63, 1-18.

Argyle, M. (1997). Is happiness a cause of health? . Psychology & Health, Volume 12.

Awad S. Hanna, M., Cindy L. Menches, M., Sullivan, K. T., & Sargent, a. J. (November 2005).

Factors Affecting Absenteeism in Electrical Construction. Awad S. Hanna, M.ASCE; Cindy L.

Menches, M.ASCE; Kenneth T. Sullivan; and Joseph R. Sargent. Factors Affecting Absenteeism

in ElectricalJournal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 11, 1212-

1218.

Bain, P. and Taylor, P. . (2000). Entrapped by the Electronic Panopticon?: Worker Resistance in

the Call Centre. New Technology, Work and Employment 15(1), 2-18.

Betty Jane Punnett, Dion Greenidge, Jase Ramsey. (2007). Betty Jane Punnett, Dion Greenidge,

Jase Ramsey. Job attitudes and absenteeism: A study in the English speaking Caribbean. Journal

of World Business. Volume 42 , 211-227.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. . (2000). Relationality in organizational research:

Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551-564.

Brooke, P. (1986). Beyond the Steers and Rhodes Model of Employee Attendance. Academy of

Management Revieuw, 11:345-61.

Brooke, P.P. and Price, J.L. (1989). 'The Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: An Emperical

Test of a Causal Model. Journal of Occupational Pschychology, Volume 62, 1-19.

Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. (1982). Social psychology of absenteeism.

New York: Praeger Publishers.

Currivan, D. B. (2000). The Causal Order Of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.

D.B. Currivan. The Causal Order Of Job Satisfaction.

De Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1998). Job characteristics and employee well-being: a test of

Warr‟s Vitamin Model in health care workers using structural equation modeling7. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19,, 387-407.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, Volume 5. No 1, 1-3.

Diener, E., Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, Volume 13, 81-

84.

46 | P a g e

Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated?

Possible sources of a commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 24. No

6, 753-777.

Fred Luthans & Mark Martinko . (1976). An Organizational Behavior Modification Analysis Of

Absenteeism. Human Resource Management, 11-18.

Frederick P. Morgeson and Stephen E. Humphrey. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire

(WDQ): Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the

Nature of Work . Journal of Applied Psychology.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. . (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, Volume 40., 287-322.

Goldberg D. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER Publishing

Company.

Goldberg, D. & Huxley, P. . (1980). Mental Illness in the community: The pathway to psychiatric

care. London: Tavistock Publications.

Goldberg, D. & Williams, P. (1988). A users guide to the General Health Questionnaire. NFER-

Nelson.

Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. . (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal

of Applied Psychology,Volume 60, 159-170.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, Volume 60, 159-170.

Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. . (1981). Methodological issues in the use of absence data. Journal

of Applied Psychology.Volume 66, 574-581.

Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. . (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of

origins,offshoots, and outcomes. Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for

absenteeism: A Journal of Management, Volume 24, No 3, 305 - 350.

Hendrix, W.J., Steel, R.P. & Shultz, S.A. (1987). Job stress and life stress: Their causes and

consequences. Hendrix, W.J., Steel, R.P. & Shultz, S.A. (1987). Job stress andJournal of Social

Behavior and Personality, Volume 2. No 3, 291-302.

47 | P a g e

Hinze, J., Ugwu, M., and Hubbard, L. (1985). Absenteeism in construction industry. Journal

Management Engineering. Volume 1. No 4, 188-200.

Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K, Kylian H. . (1999). Validation of a questionnaire for

assessing physical work load. Scand Journal Work Environment Health, Volume 25. No 2, 105-

114.

Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K-H, Kylian H. (1999). Validation of a questionnaire for

assessing physical work load. Scand Journal Work Environment Health. Volume25. No 2, 105-

114.

Ivan T. Robertson, Cary L. Cooper. (2010). Full engagement: the integration of employee

engagement and psychological well-being. Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Vol. 31 No. 4, 324-336.

J. R. Rentsch, R.P. Steel. (2003). What does unit-level absence mean? Issues for future unit level

absence research. Human Resource Management Review. Volume 13, No 2, 185-202.

J. R. Rentsch, R.P. Steel. (2003). What does unit-level absence mean? Issues for future unit-level

absence research. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 13 , 185-202.

Jase Ramsey, Betty Jane Punnett and Dion Greenidge. (2008). A social pscychological account

of absenteeisme in Barbados. Human Resource Management,Volume 18, No 2, 2008, 97 - 117.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. . (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction

relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 939-948.

K.D. Scott, G.Stephen Taylor . (1985). An Examination of Conflicting findings on the

relationship between Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of

Management Journal, 1985, Vol. 28, No. 3, 599-612.

K.D. Scott, G.Stephen Taylor . (1985). An Examination of Conflicting findings on the

relationship between Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: A Meta-Analysis . K.D. Scott, G.Stephen

Taylor. An Examination of Conflicting findings on the relationship between Job Satisfact

Academy of Management Journal, 1985, Vol. 28, No. 3 , 599-612.

Kaiser, C. P. (1998). What do we know about employee absence behavior? An interdisciplinary

interpretation. Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 27, No.1, 79-96.

Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:Implications for

job redesign8. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 258-308.

Lease S. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal. Vocational

Behavior. 53(2), 154-183.

48 | P a g e

Mandy Unterslak . (2009). Job Features And Individual Factors:Testing A Model Of Well-Being,

A Research Project. Johannesburg: University of Withwatersrand.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Mowdy, R. T. (1981). The influence of Task and personality characters on employee turnover

and absenteeisme incidents. Academy of Management Journal, 634 - 680.

Nicholson. N,. & Payne. R. (1987). Absence from work: Explanations and attributions.

Intemational Review of Applied Psychology, Volume 36. No, 2, 121-132.

Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. . (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-

being and effectiveness. San Francisco: San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Payne, S.C., & Huffman, A.H. . (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of

mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal,

Volume 48. No 1, 158–168.

Peter G. W. Smulders. (1983). Personal, Nonwork And Work Characteristics In Male And

Female Absence Behavior. Journal Of Occupational Behaviour. Volume 4 , 285-295.

Philipsen, H. . (1969). Afwezigheid wegens ziekte. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

R. B. Briner . (2000). Relationships between work environments, psychological environments

and psychological well-being,, pp. 299-303, 2000 . Occup. Med. Vol. 50, No. 5 Department of

Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK, 299-303.

Rainey, D. (1995). Stress, burnout, and intention to terminate among umpires. Journal of Sport

Behavior, Volume 18. No 93, 312 - 323.

Rhodes, S & Steers, R. M. (1981). A systematic approach to diagnosing employee to diagnosing

employee absenteeisme. Employee Relations, Volume 3, No 2, , 17 - 22.

Ryff, C. D. . (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 57., 1069–1081.

Shepherd, R. D. and Walker. J. (1957). Absence and the physical conditions of worki. British

Journal of Industrial Medicine, vOLUME 14, 266-274.

Somers, M. . (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: an examination of

direct and indirect effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, 49-58.

Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Applications, assessment, causes, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

49 | P a g e

Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Applications, assessment, causes, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stamm, C & Farrel, D. (1988). Meta Analysis of the corelates of employee absence Human

Relations, volume 21. 211 -227.

Steers, R. & Rhodes, S. (1978). Major Influences on employee Attendance: A Process model.

Journal of Applied Pschychology, 63, 391-407.

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. . (1984). Knowledge and speculation about absenteeism. In P. S.

Goodman & R. S. Atkin (Eds.),Absenteeism: New approaches to understanding, measuring .

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences

on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4): 391. Journal

of Applied Psychology, Volume 63. No 4, 391-407.

Warr, P. . (1999). Well-Being and the Workplace. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener & N. Schwarz

(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.392-412). New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.

Warr, P. (2007). Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Warr, P. B., Cook, J. and Wall, T. D. . (1979). Warr„Scales for the Measurement of Some Work

Attitudes and Aspects of Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Occupational Psychology.

Volume52, 129-148.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. W. and Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire, Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XII. Minneapolis. Weiss, D. J.,

Dawis, R. W. and Lofquist, L. H. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire,

Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XII. Minnesota: University of Minnesota

Industrial Relations Center, Work Adjustment Project.

Wright, T. (2005). Wright, T.A. 2005. The role of “happiness” in organizational research: Past,

present and future directions. In P. L. Perrewe & D.C. Gangster (Eds). Wright, T.A. 2005. The

role of “happiness” in organizational research: Past, present and future directions. In P. L.

Perrewe & D.C. Gangster Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol.4, 225-268.

Wright, T.A. & Staw, B.M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: two longitudinal tests

of the happy productive worker thesis . Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 20, 1-23.

50 | P a g e

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. . (2003). Interpersonal Sense making and the

meaning of work. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior. Volume

25, 93-135.

51 | P a g e

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE "REASON FOR ABSENTEEISM"

Management rate reasons they believe workers are absent from

work Workers rate de reasons for actually missing work

Reasons for being absent at work 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Personal illness

2 Doctor appointments

3 Injury

4 Family/Child illness

5 Tired

6 Excessive rework

7 Transport problems

8 Wake up late

9 Wage rate

10 Simply did not feel like working

11 Too much overtime

12 No childcare

13 Unsafe working conditions

14 Bad weather

15 Travel distance

16 Bad relations with boss/co-worker

17 Under influence of drugs or alcohol

Other reasons

52 | P a g e

APPENDIX II: VRAGENLIJST "REDEN VOOR ABSENTEEISME"

Management geeft aan wat de reden is dat werknemers niet aan het werk komen wanneer

ze gescheduled zijn.

Werknemers geven de reden aan waarom ze niet aan het werk zijn gekomen.

Reden waarom je niet aan het werk kon komen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Ziekte

2 Ziekte van Kind of Familie

3 Afspraken met de dokter

4 Geen opvang voor kinderen

5 Moe

6 Verslapen

7 Ik voelde niet voor om te werken

8 Onder invloed van drugs of alcohol

9 Slecht weer (regen)

10 Ongeval

11 Transportproblemen (bus gemist/ autopech etc.)

12 Slechte relatie met de baas/ collega's

13 Afstand van huis naar werk

14 Veel herstel werk

15 Erg veel overtime

16 Lonen

17 Onveilige werkomstandigheden

Andere

53 | P a g e

APPENDIX III: VRAGENLIJST OVER BELEVING EN BEOORDELING

VAN ARBEID

Geslacht: man/ vrouw

Leeftijd:……………….

Burgelijke Staat: ongehuwd/ gehuwd

Aantal inwonende kinderen: ………….

Wat is je hoogste opleiding:…………………..

Hoe lang werk je al voor dit bedrijf (jaren):……………..

Wat voor werk doe je (functie) :……………………….

Wat is afstand van huis naar werk:…………………

Transport: bedrijfbus / eigenvervoer

Tevredenheid over je werk (Warr-Cook-Wall)

Geef aan hoe tevreden je bent over de onderstaande items van je

werk Heel erg ontevreden

1 2 3 4 5

1 Fysieke werkomstandigheden

2 Vrijheid om eigen manier van werken te kiezen

3 Je collega's en medewerkers

4 Waardering (erkenning) die je krijgt voor goed werk (geen geld)

5 Hoeveelheid verantwoordelijkheid die je hebt gekregen

6 Je salaris (Loon)

7 Gelegenheid om je bekwaamheid te tonen (laten zien wat je kan)

8 Je uren dat je werkt

9 Variatie in je werk

10 Je directe baas (leidinggevende)

11 Zekerheid over je werk

12 De aandacht die gegeven wordt aan voorstellen die je doet

13 Als je alles in overweging neemt, hoe voel je over je werk ?

54 | P a g e

Taak Karakteristieken

Ga na in jouw werk hoeveel van elk onderdeel aangegeven voorkomt in je

werk

(1= niets, 7= heel veel) 1 2 3 4 5

1 Mogelijkheid om onafhankelijk te werken

2 Invloed om besluiten te kunnen nemen

3 Gebruik van je vaardigheden (skills)

4 Nieuwe dingen leren

5 Aantal taakeisen

6 Moeilijkheids graad van taakeisen

7 Mogelijkheid om een taak af te ronden van begin tot eind

8 Problemen met taakeisen

9 Problemen tussen werk en thuis

10 Hoeveelheid aan verschillende taken

11 Toekomst voorspellingen

12 Duidelijke omschrijving van je functie

13 Is er feedback over je werk (goed/slecht)

14 Mate van sociaal contact onderling

15 Kwaliteit van sociaal contact

16 Salaris niveau

17 Plezierige werkomgeving

18 Veilige werk omstandigheden

19 Adequate equipment

20 Belangrijkheid voor de rest van de gemeenschap

21 Belangrijkheid voor jezelf

22 Zorg voor werknemers

23 Zekerheid van je werk

24 Goede toekomst perspectieven

25 Werknemers worden eerlijk/gelijk behandeld

26 Normen en waarden van het bedrijf

55 | P a g e

Betrokkenheid bij de organisatie (Currivan 2000)

1

Het bedrijf waar ik werk is de beste plaats van alle plaatsen om te

werken

2 Ik maak me niet druk om het lot van dit bedrijf

3 Ik spreek heel positief over dit bedrijf tegen mijn vrienden

4 Ik ben trots om anderen te vertellen dat ik deel ben van dit bedrijf

(1= helemaal eens, 2= eens, 3=nog eens of oneems, 4=oneens, 5=helemaal oneens)

Arbeidsbelasting (Currivan 2000)

1 Ik moet erg snel werken (heel veel doen in een bepaalde tijd)

2 Ik heb niet voldoende tijd om mijn taak af te ronden

3 De arbeidsbelasting van mijn werk is zwaar

(1= helemaal eens, 2= eens, 3=nog eens of oneems, 4=oneens, 5=helemaal oneens)

Algemene Gezondsheids Vragenlijst (GHQ 12) Goldberg & Williams (1988)

(1=helemaal eens, 2= eens, 3=oneens, 4=helemaal oneens)

1 Je kan je concentreren op wat je ook doet.

2 Niet geslapen omdat je je zorgen maakt

3 Je voelt dat je een nuttig rol hebt

4 Voelt in staat of besluiten te nemen over dingen 5 Voel regelmatig onder druk

6 Voel dat ik moeilijkheden niet kan overwinnen 7 Ben in staat om te genieten van de normale dag tot dag activiteiten

8 Ben in staat om problemen te confronteren

9 Voel niet gelukkig en ben depressief 10 Heb minder vertrouwen in mezelf

11 Denk dat ik een waardeloos persoon ben 12 Voel redelijk gelukkig met alles

56 | P a g e

Fysieke Werkbelasting (Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K-H, Kylian H., 1999)

Schat, hoe vaak je moet werken met je lichaamshoudingen onderstaand aangegeven en hoe vaak je moet tillen of gewicht dragen zoals onderstaand aangegeven. Vul alle

rijen.

1= nooit, 2= zelden, 3=soms, 4=vaak en 5=heel vaak

Romp 1 2 3 4 5

Rechtop

Licht gebogen

Sterk gebogen

Gedraaid

Zijwaarts gebogen

Armen 1 2 3 4 5

Beide armen onder schouderhoogte

1 arm boven schouderhoogte

beide armen boven schouderhoogte

Benen 1 2 3 4 5

Zittend

Staand

Squatting

Geknield of een knie of op beide

Lopend bewegend

Gewicht, dragen met rechte romp 1 2 3 4 5

Licht (tot 10 kg)

Medium (10-20 kg)

Zwaar (meer dan 20 kg)

Gewicht, dragen met gebogen romp 1 2 3 4 5

Licht (tot 10 kg)

Medium (10-20 kg)

Zwaar (meer dan 20 kg)

57 | P a g e

APPENDIX IV: Questionnaire Survey part 2 Absenteeism

Gender: Male/ Female0

Age:……………….

Marital Status: Single/ Married (living together)

No of children living at home: ………….

Tenure (years):……………..

Job Satisfaction (Warr, Cook, Wall,1979)

Give a rating how satisfied you are about these aspect of your

job(1-7) Satisfied

Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 The physical work conditions

2 The freedom to choose your own method of working

3 Your fellow workers

4 The recognition you get for good work

5 The amount of responsibility you are given

6 Your rate of pay

7 Your opportunity to use your abilities

8 Your hours of work

9 The amount of variety in your job

10 Your immediate boss

11 Your job security

12 The attention paid to suggestions you make

13

Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel

about your job as a whole

58 | P a g e

Job Design

How much of each aspect do you have in your job

(1= nothing, 7= a lot) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Ability to work independently

2 Influence over decisions made in the organization

3 Skill use

4 New learning

5 Number of job demands

6 Difficulty of job demands

7 Ability to perform a complete task, from beginning to end

8 Conflict between job demands

9 Conflict between work and home

10 Range of different tasks

11 Future predictability

12 Clear role requirements

13 Availability of feedback

14 Amount of social contact

15 Quality of social contact

16 Pay level

17 Pleasant work environment

18 Safe work practices

19 Adequate equipment

20 Value to society

21 Significance to self

22 Concern for staff

23 Job security

24 Good future prospects

25 Fair treatment of employees

26 The organization‟s business ethics

59 | P a g e

Organizational Commitment (Currivan 2000)

1

The company in which I work is the best of all possible places to

work. (r)

2 I do not care about the fate of the company in which I work.

3 I speak highly of the company in which I work to my friends. (r)

4

I am proud to tell others I am part of the company in which I

work. (r)

(1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=agree/disagree, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree)

Workload (Currivan 2000)

1

I have to work very fast on the job (e.g., cover a lot of material).

(r)

2 I do not have enough time to get everything done on my job. (r)

3 The workload on my job is too heavy. (r)

(1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=agree/disagree, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree)

General Health Questionnaire (GHQ 12) Goldberg & Williams (1988)

1 Been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?*

2 Lost much sleep over worry?

3 Felt that you are playing a useful part in things?*

4 Felt capable of making decisions about things?*

5 Felt constantly under strain?

6 Felt you couldn‟t overcome your difficulties?

7 Been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities?*

8 Been able to face up to your problems?*

9 Been feeling unhappy and depressed?

10 Been losing confidence in yourself?

11 Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?

12 Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?*”

Answers are coded on a four-point scale running from „Disagree strongly‟ (coded 0) to

`agree

strongly‟

60 | P a g e

Physical workload (Hollmann S, Klimmer F, Schmidt K-H, Kylian H., 1999)

Please estimate, how often you have to work with the body postures displayed

below, and how often you have to lift or to carry the weights mentioned

below. Please fill up all lines!

1= never, 2= seldom, 3=somethimes, 4=often en 5= very often

Trunk 1 2 3 4 5

straight, upright

slightly inclined

strongly inclined

Twisted

laterally bent

Arms 1 2 3 4 5

both arms below shoulder height

one arm above shoulder height

both arms above shoulder height

Legs 1 2 3 4 5

Sitting

Standing

Squatting

kneeling with one knee or with both

walking, moving

Weight, lifted 1 carried with upright trunk 1 2 3 4 5

light (up to 10 kg)

medium (10 - 20 kg)

heavy (more than 20 kg)

Weight, lifted I carried with inclined trunk 1 2 3 4 5

light (up to 10 kg)

medium (10 - 20 kg)

heavy (more than 20 kg)

61 | P a g e

APPENDIX V: RESULTS REGRESSION ANALYSES

Model Summary b

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .418a .174 .079 13.806

a. Predictors: (Constant), Wellbeing, No of Children, Marital Status,

Commitment, Physical Workload, Tenure, Workload, Job Design,

Gender, Age, Job Satisfaction

b. Dependent Variable: Frequency of Absence

62 | P a g e

ANOVA b

Model

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3827.527 11 347.957 1.826 .060a

Residual 18107.352 95 190.604

Total 21934.879 106

a. Predictors: (Constant), Wellbeing, No of Children, Marital Status,

Commitment, Physical Workload, Tenure, Workload, Job Design, Gender, Age,

Job Satisfaction

b. Dependent Variable: Frequency of Absence

Coefficients a

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 22.033 15.364 1.434 .155

Gender -.386 3.695 -.012 -.105 .917

Age -.254 .159 -.194 -1.600 .113

Marital Status -3.470 3.247 -.121 -1.069 .288

No of Children 1.304 .806 .174 1.617 .109

Tenure -.357 .665 -.060 -.537 .593

Physical

Workload

.089 .117 .080 .763 .447

Job Satisfaction .089 .186 .068 .480 .633

job Design -.039 .124 -.046 -.317 .752

Commitment .292 .394 .072 .742 .460

Workload .911 .533 .189 1.708 .091

Wellbeing -.786 .353 -.247 -2.225 .028

a. Dependent Variable: Frequency of Absence