S Vincent Dissertation

1 Stephen Vincent 2015

Problem Orientated Project

An Investigation into the causes and management of absenteeism

among hourly contracted staff at ACME Canterbury.

Report by:

Stephen Vincent

BSc Business Management

April 2015

Presented as part of the requirement of the degree of BSc

Business Management, Canterbury Christ Church University

Word Count:

6996


i Declaration and Acknowledgements:

This project is the product of my own work and has not been presented for any other award.

I declare also that this Problem Orientated Project is available for reference purposes and

inter-library loan.

Photocopying rights are reserved by the author and permission must be obtained prior to

any copies being reproduced.

The author of this report would like to extend their gratitude to Bob Smith, Store Manager of

ACME, for allowing the research to be conducted.

The author would like to thank the employees of ACME for their participation in the

Employee Well-being Survey 2015.

Also gratitude is extended to CCCU mentor Robert Mikecz for supporting this report.


Contents:

i Declaration and Acknowledgements 2

ii Executive Summary 4

1.0 Introduction 5

1.1 The Problem Defined and the Organisational Impact 5

1.2 Aims 5

1.3 Objectives 5

2.0 Literature Review 6

2.1 Causes of absenteeism - The individual and motivation to attend 6

2.2 Causes of absenteeism - Physiological and psychological influences 7

2.3 Management of absence - HRM concepts 11

3.0 Methodology of the Report 14

3.1 Data Collection Method 14

3.2 Validity 15

3.3 Questionnaire Design 16

3.4 Sampling 18

3.5 Testing 18

4.0 Data Analysis and Findings 19

4.1 Employee Absence Statistics 19 4.2 The Working Environments Impact on Absence 23 4.3 Employee Absence - Health and Non-Health Issues 27

4.4 Application of Absence Management Procedures 31 4.5 Absence Management - A Managerial Perspective 32

5.0 Conclusions 35

6.0 Recommendations 36

7.0 Bibliography 37

8.0 Appendix 38


ii Executive Summary:

This report was commissioned to provide an analysis and calculate the

cost to the organisation that unapproved absence incurs within a single

store (ACME- Canterbury).

The author conducted primary research, in the form of an Employee Well-

being self-administered questionnaire*, to gather quantifiable data to

ascertain the nature of the issue. This data identifies the internal and

external causes of absence, isolates the problem within the attitudes and

attributes of employees; and audits the managerial attitude and response

towards this cost.

Presented below are several key findings of the report that are of concern

to the researcher:

The average number of incidents of health related absence per

employee at ACME is 8.44 days, P/A; which is 2.34 days P/A higher

than the 6.1 national average. The total of 8.44 days puts the

estimated cost of health related absence at an average of 822.90

per employee, P/A.

The total cost to ACME is estimated to be 22,218.30 P/A.

93% of employees experience stress, 70% of employees have

suffered from stress, 93% of employees perceive their workload to

be unmanageable and 100% of employees perceive time limits for

completion of tasks to be unachievable (% of respondents).

100% of managers stated that they did not have the time to conduct

absence management procedures effectively.

Key recommendations:

Set a target in line with the CIPDs (2013) target of 2.3 days per

employee, P/A; saving ACME and estimated 16,163.55 P/A

(estimated national savings of 9,762,784.20).

Staff absence figures to be measured as part of the monthly KPIs at

Area Managers cost meetings.

Workload and times for tasks require revisiting; retraining or

reengineering where required.

*Data collected via the questionnaire is subject to the employees

perceptions, interpretation of the questions and estimations.


1.0 Introduction:

ACME UK operates 604 retail sites in the UK, competing in the grocery

sector. Key to the firms competitive advantage is a strategy of cost-

leadership.

1.1 The Problem Defined and the Organisational Impact:

According to the CIPD (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014),

private sector employees in the UK average 6.1 days unapproved absence

P/A. The store manager was concerned as ACMEs average appears to

exceed this.

Figures presented by the CIPD (2013) state that the average cost to a UK

organisation due to unapproved absence is 595 per employee, P/A.

Store ACME employs 29 hourly contracted members of staff, this equates

to 17,255.00 P/A of un-utilised labour costs to the firm using the CIPDs

(2013) figure. However this cost is based on the store having a normative

absence average.

1.2 Aims of the Report:

Identify the most frequently reoccurring causes of absenteeism.

Calculate the cost of absence at ACME.

Analyse the level to which current absence management procedures

are implemented.

Provide management with recommendations to reduce the problem.

1.3 Objectives:

Gather data to ascertain how many days of absence ACME

experiences in a 12 month period, (Questionnaire section one).

Investigate the correlation between employee attributes (age, gender,

tenure, role and shift-patterns) and absence, (Questionnaire section

one).

Conduct an overall well-being (physiological/psychological) audit of

employees, (Questionnaire section one part two and section two).

Establish the level of contact between line managers and subordinates

regarding absence, (Questionnaire section three).

Ascertain the attitudes towards absence management procedures from

the managements perspective, (Questionnaire section four).


2.0 Literature Review:

The cost of absence, as estimated by the CIPD (2013), as cited by

Leatherbarrow et al. (2014), of 595 per employee, P/A, is made up of the

cost of statutory sick pay, managerial time re-organising the working day,

covering the absent employee, loss of productivity and lower customer

service.

The literature reviewed for this report researched the - demographic,

psychographic, physiological and psychological - influencers of absence

and HRM concepts to effectively manage this problem.

2.1 Causes of absenteeism - The individual and motivation to attend:

Torrington et al. (2011. P. 311) state that the causes of absence are

complex and interrelated so managerial understanding of an attribute and

attitude model, such as The Rhodes and Steers process model of

attendance (1990), gives managers an insight into the factors that

influence absenteeism (see figure 2.1.1).

Figure 2.1.1


The 1990 model suggests that employee attendance comes under

pressure from a multitude of variable and interrelated factors such as -

personal characteristics, job expectations, job situation, opportunity

for advancement, role stress and job scope.

The Personal characteristics identified for research comprised of age,

gender and tenure.

In relation to age Truss et al. (2012) state that HRM has had to adapt to

demographic changes. According the Truss et al. (2012) generation Y

employees value free time, seek progression and are more inclined to

change career paths or organisations to achieve their goals than previous

generations. This generational change in attitude is supported by

Leatherbarrow et al. (2014), as the authors state that younger members of

the workforce also seek a greater work-life balance, which has made

flexibility a key area of modern HRM.

All the factors identified by Rhodes and Steers (1990), as cited by

Torrington et al. (2011), influence whether an employee can and/or is

motivated to attend; coupled with to what extent there is internal/external

pressure to attend.

2.2 Causes of absenteeism - Physiological and psychological influences:

Research correlated from the LFS (2012) and the ONS (2012), as cited by

Leatherbarrow et al. (2014. P. 394), lists musculoskeletal disorders,

stress, depression or anxiety and minor illness as the most frequent

reasons for employees failing to attend work.

According to the CIPD (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014. P.

397), stress equated to 40% of all work-related illness and depression

and anxiety areaffecting 20% of the working population. Leatherbarrow

et al. (2014. P. 398) define the causes of stress as stressors, the key

factors generating workplace stressors are those of employee workload

and work schedule. Leatherbarrow et al. (2014) present a model to

highlight the potential stressors and the potential impact upon both the

individual and organisation (see figure 2.2.1).


Figure 2.2.1

The potential stressors, as identified by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014), are

not all within the control of management. However the model identifies

several manageable stressors such as workload, schedule, responsibility

and relationship with colleagues.

Workload influencing attendance can be linked to The Human Function

Curve (see figure 2.2.2 over page), which suggests that there is a tipping

point where stress develops beyond a motivator and workload pressure

instigates fatigue; then eventually a decline into illness and finally results in

employee breakdown. The CIPD (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al.

(2014), state that two-fifths of organisations reported an increase in stress

related illness in 2013 linked to an increased workload.


Figure 2.2.2

The notion of breakdown, as stated by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014), can

also be defined as burnout, Truss et al. (2012. P. 222) state this is argued

to be the opposite of engagement; if burnout is defined as the opposite of

engagement this has significant impact upon the problem of absenteeism.

MacLeod and Clarke (2009), as cited by Truss et al. (2012. P. 220), state

that engaged employees take, on average, 2.7 days of sick leave per year

compared with 6.2 for disengaged employees,

Absence is not the only cost as a result of burnout, according to Truss et

al. (2012), the level of employee engagement impacts on the focused and

productive completion of tasks. Leiter and Maslach (2005), as cited by

Truss et al. (2012. P. 222), developed the Maslach Burnout Inventory

(see figure 2.2.3 over page) as a HRM tool to measure psychological

burnout. This burnout according to Maslach and Leiter (2008), as cited

by Truss et al. (2012), consists of exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy.

All of which can impose a negative impact upon productivity and service

quality; which represent additional costs to an organisation. Also Burnout

in one employee can increase stress in the workplace as a whole. Gross

(1996) states stress is a commuter and can spread from employee to

employee through negative co-worker relations.


Figure 2.2.3

Gross (1996) also states that stress and the human immune system are

invariably linked. Employees who experience stress will suffer from

symptoms which are often mistaken for viral infections or colds. However

prolonged exposure to stress weakens the bodys natural defences

therefore increasing an individuals propensity to contract a virus.

Cox (1978), as cited by Gross (1996. P. 135), developed the engineering

model. This model claimed that stress is inflicted upon an individual by

external factors (i.e. workload) and stress is the internal manifestation of

these external pressures, this in turn gives rise to a stress reaction or

strain; therefore the stress is located in the stimulusstress is what

happens to a person (not what happens within a person). Supporting this

theory Goetsch and Fuller (1995) state, as cited by Gross (1996. P.135),

stress [is] an interaction between an organism and its environment.

Organisations are able to manage the working environment, and as

Leatherbarrow et al. (2014) state, are obligated to provide a safe working

environment conforming to HSE (2014) legislation.

Based upon these viewpoints it would suggest identifying the extent to

which the stress, both psychological and physiological, of an employees

workload/deadlines/time constraints impacts their rate of attendance is key

to the research. Finding a correlation between these factors can allow

management to identify work processes that require improved training or

the reorganising of activities to lessen the exposure to, or the perception

of, stress.


As well as stress being a cause of illness Gross (1996) suggests that pain

is heightened when there is the presence of a stressor. The higher the

stress level of an employee the lower their tolerance or acceptance of pain.

According to the HSE (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014),

manual workers are susceptible to more incidences of absence than non-

manual workers. Based upon this it would be prudent to address the issue

of absence due to musculoskeletal problems not simply from an angle of

Health and Safety in the work place, for example training in manual

handling, but the impact of stress influencing the zone of pain

tolerance/acceptance.

Just as workload and stress influence an employees potential attendance,

or lack thereof, an employees work schedule may place pressure upon

their circadian rhythm. According to Gross (1996) the circadian rhythm

regulates the bodys blood pressure, body temperature and hormonal

stability. Gross (1996) highlights how shift workers suffer from increased

psychological disorders such as stress and depression as a consequence

of irregular cycles of sleep. This theory can be applied to identify to what

extent erratic or routine shift patterns impact upon an individuals rate of

attendance.

2.3 Management of absence - HRM concepts:

Leatherbarrow et al. (2014) state that, although employee absence will be

noticed by management and colleagues, without monitoring and measuring

the problem cannot be quantified nor addressed effectively.

According to the CIPD (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014. p.

373), managing absence can be aided by return-to-work interviews; with

86% of organisations using this method. This process according to the

CIPD (2013), as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014), affords line

managers the opportunity to record details on the causes of absence and

discuss the issues with subordinates.

The return-to-work interview is the only official absence management

procedure implemented by ACME (2014). Although return-to-work

interviews are part of company policy, and the academic sources support

their merit, there are other methods available to managers.


According to Torrington et al. (2011) management can utilise Huczynski

and Fitzpatricks (1989) ALIEDIM process in order to address the problem

of short-term absence. Huczynski and Fitzpatrick (1989), as cited by

Torrington et al. (2011. p. 314) recommend a 7 step process comprising of:

1. Assess the absence problem.

2. Locate the absence problem.

3. Identify and prioritise absence causes.

4. Evaluate the current absence control methods.

5. Design the absence control programme.

6. Implement the absence control programme.

7. Monitor the effectiveness of the absence control programme.

Armstrong (2009) suggests that incidences of absence are not all equal in

their impact. The Bradford Factor offers a formula allowing managers to

quantify the impact that each spell of absence (over a 52 week period, in

terms of number of absences and number of days) has on the daily

operations of an organisation (see figure 2.3.1). Leatherbarrow et al.

(2014) claim that predictability is linked to manageability, therefore utilising

the Bradford Factor it can be seen that an employee experiencing multiple

absences of one day places more pressure on the organisation than an

individual taking an extended period of time off from work on one occasion.

Armstrong (2009) states the benefit of this tool is that the Bradford Factor

scoring system allows for trigger points for intervention to be set,

intervention suggested at 250 points. This would allow managers to not

only conduct return-to-work interviews once the employee returns, but also

monitor and evaluate the disruption caused by an individuals attendance

record over the course of 52 weeks; and have evidence to support possible

disciplinary action.

Figure 2.3.1


In relation to stress, as discussed in the previous section, the HSE (2013),

as cited by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014. p. 401), produced The

Management Standards for Work Related Stress guide for organisations.

As with Huczynski and Fitzpatricks (1989) ALIEDIM process, as cited by

Torrington et al. (2011), the HSE (2013) suggest management adopt a

stepped approach:

1. Identify the main risk factors for work-related stress.

2. Employers focus on the underlying causes and their prevention.

3. Provide a yardstick by which organisations can gauge their

performance in tackling the key causes of stress.

Activities and procedures, as presented, isolating personal/organisational

causes of absence, combined with the implementation of processes

designed to limit the problem, inevitably lead to lower costs in the long-

term; with the CIPD (2013) suggesting a target of 2.3 days absence per

employee, P/A. Line managers should be proactive in addressing the

problem.

Truss et al. (2012) state that the devolution of HR powers to line managers

is an integral element of modern strategic HRM. However managers,

according to Truss et al. (2012), are not always convinced that HRM

procedures are of value and often do not view HRM tools useful, often

opting to retain a dated ad-hoc approach. An argument, however, can be

made that certain employees are not strategic, as Truss et al. (2012) also

state specific workers may not be considered VRIN and therefore require

low-commitment HR. Contrary to this view The CIPD (2013) suggest that

employee well-being should be embedded into an organisations culture,

with no mention of strategic value being a factor.

The cultural webs element relating to control systems, according to

Johnson et al. (2012. P. 101), sets out how an organisation monitors and

supports employees; and defines what is important to the organisation.

An organisational culture without employee well-being as a KPI (part of

Control Systems) will develop a culture of figures over employees, as has

been suggested by Leatherbarrow et al. (2014). ACME UK LTD (2014) do

not mention HR in relation to a stores key performance indicators.


3.0 Methodology of the Report:

Although a self-administered questionnaire was finally selected as the

optimum method for data collection, one disadvantage of this method of

research, as Saunders et al. (2012) state, is that all data collected for

analysis had to be derived from one source. Therefore careful

consideration had to be taken in regards to this selected method of the

data collection.

Sections 3.1 to 3.5 detail said considerations and the subsequent

decisions in order to meet the reports objectives.

3.1 Data Collection Method:

In order to gather data primary research was required to investigate the

nature and aspects of the absenteeism problem. A questionnaire was

selected, as according to Saunders et al. (2012. p. 417), it is a method

which provides an efficient way of collecting responses from a large

sample prior to quantitative analysis.

Through research into data collection a self-administered questionnaire

was identified as the most appropriate method. Saunders et al. (2012. P.

420) suggest that other methods may have been considered, such as

interviewer-completed questionnaires, however in order to protect the

validity of the data required respondents answers not being contaminated

or distorted was a key consideration.

Bryman and Bell (2003) support this view stating that interviewer led

questionnaires can return bias or socially desirable responses as

anonymity is lost; and as, Leatherbarrow et al. (2014) state, absence in the

workplace is a sensitive area of research, anonymity was considered vital.

Although there is a valid argument that a self-administered questionnaire,

that is delivered and collected upon completion, has the added value of

anonymity protecting against socially desirable responses on a sensitive

subject, Bryman and Bell (2003) state that issues could arise from false

respondents.


This was an issue as by protecting validity through anonymity there was no

way to identify who had produced the responses and possibly corrupted

the data.

In order to maintain a balance between validity through anonymity and

validity through genuine responses, a sign off sheet was included in the

questionnaire pack. This meant that 33 questionnaires (only one for each

of the 29 hourly contracted employees and 4 managers) were delivered

along with a separate sign off sheet. Upon completion the employees were

instructed to seal their questionnaires and submit them via the collection

box, then sign to state that they had participated. This allowed for the

number of returned questionnaires to be cross referenced with the number

of signatures (sign off sheet was destroyed on site in accordance with

ACME UK LTDs (2014) data protection policy once the numbers had been

verified). Although not a fool proof method it did result in 31 questionnaires

returned and 31 corresponding signatures due to ACME UK LTDs (2014)

disciplinary policy on falsifying company records.

3.2 Validity:

As well as the previously discussed notion of validity through anonymity,

there were multiple key concepts surrounding research validity in relation

to the findings from a questionnaire. Several considerations from academic

sources were taken into account with regards to these issues when

developing the Employee Well-being Survey 2015 - sections, questions

and wording.

The general overarching debate when it comes to research relates to the

internal validity of the results, or their reliability. The concept of internal

validity, according to Saunders et al. (2012), suggests that the researcher

must consider the questionnaires ability to measure what is intended to be

measured. Saunders et al. (2012. P. 428) state that the internal validity

and reliability of the data [and] the response ratedependon the design

of [the] questions. Therefore due care was taken when it came to linking

both the literature reviewed and the methodology to the reports objectives.

As well as internal validity there is the concept of content validity.

According to Saunders et al. (2012. P. 429) the principles behind content

validity required the questionnaire to provide adequate coverage of the

key issues being investigated.


Therefore, as Saunders et al. (2012) state, it was vital that all questions

were conscientiously designed to gather essential data, data that was

required to meet the objectives and the aims of the report and nothing

further. This was key to the development of the survey as, according to

Foddy (1994), as cited by Saunders et al. (2012. P. 429), the researcher

[must be] clear about the data required before designing the questions;

which ultimately provided the data for analysis. Achieving this required

breaking down the issue of absenteeism into four areas of HRM -

employee attributes (demographics), employee attitudes (psychographics),

managerial application of procedures and managerial attitude to

procedures - and basing questions around the core theoretical concepts of

HRM relating to absence from the literature reviewed. As well as

customised questions, developed from the key concepts reviewed,

questions were adopted and adapted from the Department for Work and

Pensions (2011) Health and Well-being at work: a survey of employees

report 2011 produced by Young and Bhaumik (2011). This method, as

Saunders et al. (2012) state, allowed the author to compare and contrast

certain results with that of the national average if required.

3.3 The Questionnaire Design:

The questionnaire consisted of a mixture of List questions to identify

attribute variables (Dillman, 2009, as cited by Saunders et al. 2012. P.

425) such as age, gender and contracted hours. This method, as

suggested by Saunders et al. (2012), was appropriate to collect data of a

clearly defined nature. Data defining the attributes of the workforce was

identified as being necessary to the findings based upon The Rhodes and

Steers (1990) process model of attendance.

However Saunders et al. (2012. p. 433) state that unpredicted responses

may arise from questions deemed intrusive, therefore prudent care was

taken when wording questions and only attributes highlighted by Rhodes

and Steers (1990), as cited by Torrington et al. (2011), were collected.

Attributes such as race or religion have no theoretical merit to the Rhodes

and Steers (1990) model so were superfluous to requirement. The

sensitive nature of the issues investigated resulted in certain questions,

although adapted from a governmental survey, not being completed by all

respondents (see data analysis and findings figures 4.1.6-4.1.8).


Rating questions, Likert-style, were utilised in order to gauge the

employees opinion on key identified issues on a range from - strongly

agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree.

This order was kept consistent throughout the questionnaire as Dillman

(2009), as cited by Saunders et al. (2012), state that altering the order

throughout the survey can result in confusion on the part of the

respondent, which could corrupt the data.

Based upon the literature reviewed (Rhodes and Steers (1990) and

picturing workplace stress) certain constructs were identified as having a

theoretical impact upon employee absence rates. The Likert-style

questions, as stated by Saunders et al. (2012. P. 430), aimed to measure

the feelings towards those constructs that the researcher deemed

appropriate. In order to derive quantitative data from the attitude related

Likert-style responses, each selectable answer was converted into a

number (+1, +0.5, 0, -0.5 and -1). Strongly Agree was given a ranking

score of +1 and Strongly Disagree measured as -1, since Strongly

Agree represents a perfect positive correlation and Strongly Disagree a

perfect negative correlation. This aimed to produce an intuitive set of

graphs based upon a correlation coefficient (positive and negative

correlation). Also this method aided in simplifying the questionnaire, as it

required less explanation directed at the respondents and limits any

possible confusion; as Foddy (1994) states, as cited by Saunders et al.

(2012. P. 429), validity and reliability pivots on the questions, and therefore

the answers, making sense. Respondents opting to select N/A are

inferred as responding 0 and factored into the mean. Those individuals

selecting Prefer Not to Disclose are counted as a respondent; however

they are not factored into individual means as no numerical amount can be

inferred from this response.


3.4 Sampling:

Questionnaires also encounter validity issues when the sample size is

open to scrutiny. Sampling, as stated by Saunders et al. (2012), is a cost

effective way to gather data to derive a set of statistics that can be

estimated to be representative of a wider population. However suitable

sample size is dependent on several key points - the researchers

tolerance for a margin of error (accuracy of the results), the size of the

population, nature of research and the confidence in the data being

statistically applicable across the total population. Saunders et al. (2012. P.

260) state that time and financial constraints often require samples of

populations, however due to the number of employees at ACME (29 hourly

contracted employees and 4 managers) a census was possible as this

population was of a manageable size.

3.5 Testing:

During the development of the questionnaire it was necessary to trial

several drafts. The initial trial constituted of one student, working in the

grocery sector. The student completed the questionnaire with no

researcher assistance required. However upon reflection it was decided

that although section two of the questionnaire was able to effectively

gather data on health issues, it would have provided no data as to the

frequency to which these issues afflict the respondent; therefore there was

no potential to develop a risk matrix.

According to Mitchell (1996), as cited by Saunders et al. (2012), the validity

of results obtained from a questionnaire are enhanced if the sample

returns the same responses on more than one occasion. However due to

time limits and the motivation of respondents to participate in a

questionnaire twice this was not possible for the final study. In order to

apply the test/re-test principles as suggested by Mitchell (1996), as cited by

Saunders et al. (2012), the questionnaire was piloted by a panel of three

students. Each respondent completed the questionnaire on a Monday

morning and then repeated the process the following Monday. The second

Monday morning was selected to simulate the conditions of the initial trial

as much as controllably possible. The data obtained was 93% identical, the

7% margin of error can be attributed to the week time gap.


4.0 Data Analysis and Findings:

The final questionnaire (see Appendix) consisted of four sections (three

sections developed for hourly contracted employees and one for

management only) with a total of 32 questions. Data - collected, correlated

and analysed - from the individual responses to the questionnaire has

been presented in sections 4.1 to 4.5 of this report. The data has been

compiled from 31 respondents (27 hourly contracted employees and 4

managers) a response rate of 93%.

4.1 Employee Absence Statistics:

Data from section one has been correlated to identify links between

attributes and incidents of absence. Section One: Part One, questions a to

d, identified the four attributes of each respondent being investigated

(gender, age group, contract and length of service) with Qe gathering the

number of days of absence.

Figures 4.1.1 to 4.1.4 present the attribute group in the primary left column

and the data in the tables.

Figure 4.1.1

Gender Number of Respondents

Total Sick Days

Absence*

Mean

Male 22 185 8.4 Female 5 43 8.6 Totals 27 228 8.44

*Denotes estimates of respondents

Figure 4.1.1 presents the data to identify a link between gender and

absence. Store ACMEs workforce comprises of 81% male, while only 19%

of hourly contracted staff are female. This in turn leads to males having the

highest number of days of absence related to health issues, however the

means for both genders are within 0.2 of each other, at 8.4 days P/A and

8.6 days P/A respectively. The total mean of 8.44 is 2.34 days higher than

the 6.1 national average, however it should remain noted throughout this

report that the data is based upon the estimations of respondents.


Figure 4.1.2

Age Group Number of Respondents

Total Sick Days

Absence*

Mean

18-21 7 66 9.42 22-25 12 112 9.33 26-29 5 29 5.8 30-33** 1 4 4.0 45+** 2 17 8.5 Totals 27 228 8.44


**Data from a small sample

The data presented by figure 4.1.1 highlighted that the impact gender

imposed upon the mean absence was negligible. However when the data

for number of days of absence was correlated against the respondents

age grouping attribute significant differences can be seen in the means of

each age bracket. These findings suggest that, as Truss et al. (2012) state,

age is major contributing factor to an employees attendance or lack

thereof. Employees 18-25 years of age reported an average of 9.37 days

absence P/A compared to 5.5 days for employees 26-33 years of age.

Figure 4.1.3

Contract Number of Respondents

Total Sick Days

Absence*

Mean

20 Hours 22 199 9.05 30 Hours 5 29 5.8 Totals 27 228 8.44


As with age groupings, the hourly contract that employees are signed up to

appears to have an impact on their rate of attendance. Respondents on the

lower 20 hours (see figure 4.1.3) contracts take 3.25 more days off than

those on the 30 hours contract; this can be linked to Rhodes and Steers

(1990) model. Thirty hours contracts, as stated by ACME UK LTD (2014. p.

14.), are given to employees for taking on managerial responsibilities.

Therefore employees on 30 hours contracts have a more diverse role and

greater scope of activities.


Figure 4.1.4

Years of Service Number of Respondents

Contract Total Sick Days

Absence*

Mean

Less than a year 10 0@30hrs 97 9.7 1-2 Years 10 0@30hrs 87 8.7 3-4 Years 3 3@30hrs 17 5.66 5-6 Years 4 2@30hrs 27 6.75 Totals 27 5@30hrs 228 8.44


Rhodes and Steers (1990) model suggested that length of service should

be viewed as an influencing factor in relation to attendance. The data

indeed presents a set of figures which conclude that respondents for whom

employment is less than 3 years average 9.2 incidents of absence P/A,

compared to 6.3 days P/A for employees with 3+ years of service.

However it was prudent to add the contract factor into the chart to highlight

that the notion of tenure influencing absenteeism can be linked back to the

concept of responsibility and role. As evident from the table (see figure

4.1.4) length of service and contract are interlinked.

From the findings it can be calculated (based upon the CIPDs (2013)

average figure for employee absence and the average cost of 595 per

employee, P/A) that the cost of absence in store ACME is estimated at

822.90 per employee, P/A (see figure 4.1.5 for calculations).

Figure 4.1.5

This higher than average number of unauthorised days of absence costs

store ACME an estimated extra 6,153.30 more than the CIPD (2013)

average for a private sector firm; this equates to 22,218.30 in costs

related to staff absence. Setting a goal to meet the CIPDs (2013) target of

an average of 2.3 days per employee, P/A, would save the store

16,163.55 P/A.

595/6.1=97.5 (national average cost per day of absence)

97.5x8.44=822.90 P/E, P/A (227.90^ on national average)

822.90x27=22,218.30 (6,153.30^ on national average)


As well as absence as the result of health related issues, Young and

Bhaumiks (2011) research for the DfWP (2011) identified non-health

related issues resulting in employees being unable to attend. The report

suggested that factors including - child care, transportation, duvet day

culture and family dynamic - added to the total number of days lost in the

workplace.

Figure 4.1.6

Gender Number of Respondents*

Total Non-Sick Days

Absence**

Mean

Male 13 (11) 23 2.09 Female 5 (4) 16 4.0 Totals 18 (15) 39 2.6

*Nine questionnaires left blank, one N/A

and three Prefer not to Disclose

**Denotes estimates of respondents

Figure 4.1.6 highlights that female employees take an average of 1.91

more days off P/A due to non-health related issues (see figures 4.3.3 and

figure 4.3.4 for full details).

Figure 4.1.7

Age Group Number of Respondents*

Total Non-Sick Days

Absence**

Mean

18-21 3 (2) 2 1.0 22-25 8 (7) 24 3.42 26-29 4 6 1.5 30-33 1 1 1.0 45+ 2 (1) 6 6.0 Totals 18 (15) 39 2.6




Figure 4.1.7 presents the relationship between age and non-health related

absence (see figures 4.3.3 and figure 4.3.4 for full details). The mean can

be seen to start at 1 and rise throughout the 20s to level back out at 1.

However the number of respondents dropped from 27 to 18, with 3

respondents opting to disclose no data (Prefer not to Disclose).


It should be noted that the data for the age group 45+ has been taken from

2 respondents, 1 of which selected Prefer not to Disclose. It should also

be noted that the drop off in respondents coincided with questions (see

questionnaire Section Two: questions d and e) attempting to gather non-

workplace information and therefore may have been perceived as too

intrusive; however data of this nature had been collected by Young and

Bhaumik (2011) so it was deemed necessary.

Figure 4.1.8

Contract Number of Respondents*

Total Non-Sick Days

Absence**

Mean

20 Hours 13 (10) 33 3.3 30 Hours 5 6 1.2 Totals 18 (15) 39 2.6




Hourly contracts once again provide significant data (see figure 4.1.8).

Although taken from a reduced number of respondents, employees on the

lower 20 hours contract are absent for 2.1 days more for non-health related

issues than those on 30 hours contracts.

When non-health related absences are added to the total mean of 8.44 the

total means becomes 9.88; adding an additional estimated 3,790.80 to

the total cost of absence, taking the total to an estimated 26,009.10.

4.2 The Working Environments Impact on Absence:

Section Two comprised of 10 questions designed to gauge hourly

contracted employees attitudes towards factors identified in the literature

(see Rhodes and Steers (1990) model, figure 2.1.1) as drivers of

absenteeism.

The first batch of questions (questionnaire Section One: Part Two,

questions a to f, see figure 4.2.1 over page) aimed to assess the hourly

contracted respondents attitudes towards factors influencing an

employees relationship with store management, the organisation and

colleagues.


Figure 4.2.1

Section One: Part Two Questions

Respondents Results

Qa: I have shifts altered on a regular basis. (Filter question)

27

Qb: If your shifts are altered regularly how acceptable is this? (Only applicable to those who answered Strongly Agree or Agree in the previous filter question)

17

Qc: I feel that my efforts at work are recognised.

27

Qd: I feel that there is the chance for progression.

27

Qe: Management support me in my work.

27

Qf: I feel engaged as part of the team.

27

*Respondents selecting Neither Agree nor Disagree produces a neutral coefficient score of 0

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree*

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

Very Acceptable

Acceptable

Neither acceptable nor

Unacceptable

Highly Unacceptable

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


The question I have shifts altered on a regular basis was designed to

ascertain to what extent there is a measure of stability in the working week.

Seventeen employees (9 Strongly Agree and 8 Agree) claimed their

shifts were altered (see figure 4.2.1, Qa). This question acted as a filter

question to assess to what extent this practice causes grievance amongst

staff (If your shifts are altered regularly how acceptable is this?). Of the

17 who passed through the filter question 8 found this practice to be

Highly Unacceptable, 7 Unacceptable, with 2 expressing no opinion +/-

on the issue (see figure 4.2.1, Qb).

Question c aimed to identify to what extent employees feel their work is

valued. I feel my efforts at work are recognised returned a negative

response, with 16 employees experiencing no perception of recognition (7

Strongly Disagree, 9 Disagree) opposed to 7 (2 Strongly Agree, 5

Agree) who feel recognised (see figure 4.2.1, Qc).

According to Rhodes and Steers (1990) the potential for career

advancement factors into the motivation to attend. Respondents

overwhelmingly rejected the statement I feel that there is a chance for

progression, with 18 selecting Strongly Disagree and 7 selecting

Disagree (see figure 4.2.1, Qd).

However when asked whether Management support me in my work 7

respondents selected Strongly Agree and 9 Agree. This suggests that

the response to recognition may have been interpreted as relating to the

organisation as a whole and not store level (see figure 4.2.1, Qe).

The final question posed looked to investigate co-worker relations, as

suggested by Rhodes and Steers (1990), which impacts upon attendance

motivation. This returned a positive result, with 15 employees (8 Strongly

Agree, 7 Agree) feeling engaged as part of a team (see figure 4.2.1, Qf).


The second batch of questions that made up Section One: Part Two were

designed to assess the general level of stress in the workplace, identify the

main stressors and how they are perceived by employees.

Figure 4.2.2

Section One Part Two Questions

Respondents Results

Qg: I regularly experience stress at work.

27

Qh: Time-limits for tasks are achievable.

27

Qi: I feel that my workload is manageable.

27

Qj: I am satisfied with my work life balance.

27


Out of 27 respondents 25 (17 Strongly Agree, 8 Agree) regularly

experience stress at work (see figure 4.2.2, Qg). Three further questions

were asked to isolate which stressors were most prevalent. The three

stressors identified from the literature reviewed were time-limits for tasks,

workload and work-life balance.

-5 0 5 10 15 20

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


The results are of concern (see figure 4.2.2, Qh, Qi, Qj) as 100% of

respondents do not perceive time-limits for task as achievable (21

Strongly Disagree, 6 Disagree). Of the 27 employees questioned 93%

of respondents stated that their workload was unmanageable (16 Strongly

Disagree, 9 Disagree) with 56% of respondents being dissatisfied with

their work-life balance (6 Strongly Disagree, 9 Disagree).

4.3 Employee Absence - Health and Non-Health Issues:

The researcher asked several questions aimed at identifying the

causes/reasons for respondents missing shifts, both health and non-health

related.

S2/Qa: Which of these conditions have you experienced in the last 12

months or are currently experiencing?

Figure 4.3.1

Condition Number of Respondents

Minor Illness 21 Musculoskeletal Problems 16 Stress/Depression/Anxiety 21 Headaches and Migraines 2 Prefer not to Disclose 6 Total 27*

*Each respondent could select multiple conditions

S2/Qb: Which of these conditions have caused you to miss a

scheduled shift in the past 12 months?

S2/Qc: If a scheduled shift has been missed due to one or more of the

above conditions please state the most frequent condition/s and

number of shifts missed below?

Figure 4.3.2

Condition Number of Respondents

Total Sick Days

Absence*

Minor Illness 21 117 Musculoskeletal Problems 10 38 Stress/Depression/Anxiety 9 24 Headaches and Migraines 2 2 Prefer not to Disclose 6 - Totals 27** 181


**Each respondent could select top two conditions


As can be seen by reviewing figure 4.3.2 Minor Illness is the predominant

cause of absence (117 days) with Musculoskeletal Problems (38) and

Stress/Depression/Anxiety (24) as the number two and three causes

respectively.

S2/Qd: Which of these issues have caused you to miss a scheduled

shift in the past 12 months?

S2/Qe: If a scheduled shift has been missed due to one or more of the

above issues please state the most frequent issues/s and number of

shifts missed below?

Figure 4.3.3

Non Health Related Issues Number of Respondents*

Total Non-Sick Days

Absence**

Family Member Illness 7 7 Lack of Child Care 10 32

*Each respondent could select top two conditions.


The two causes of non-health absence identified where those of Family

Member Illness and Lack of Child Care. As with health related conditions

the non-health issues causing shifts to be missed were correlated against

the attributes of the respondents.

Figure 4.3.4

Attribute Groups Number of Respondents

Family Member

Illness

Lack of Child Care

Male 13 (11) 6 17 Female 5 (4) 1 15 18-21 3 (2) 1 1 22-25 8 (7) 2 22 26-29 4 2 4 30-33 1 1 0 45+ 2 (1) 1 5 20 Hours 13 (10) 5 28 30 Hours 5 2 4





Using the data presented in this report the causes of absence due to

health related conditions have been plotted on a risk matrix (see figure

4.3.5); along with non-health related issues.

Upon completing the questionnaire 21 respondents, when asked which

conditions they were currently or had recently experienced, selected

Stress/Depression/Anxiety (see figure 4.3.1). However only 9 (42%)

subsequently listed it as the reason for missing a shift. Therefore there is a

high probability that employees will suffer from stress at work, yet the

impact on the absence problem is low.

Figure 4.3.5

Though only 42% of those respondents who stated they had suffered from

Stress/Depression/Anxiety at one point in the last 12 months

subsequently attributed stress as the cause leading to their time off, the

literature reviewed states that stress affects the human immune system

and leads to symptoms that are often similar with those of Minor Illness.

Therefore an employee taking time off work with flu like symptoms may

have been unaware that stress was the primary contributing factor.

A review of figure 4.2.2 clearly highlights that stress should be a key area

for concern. The author is concerned with the number of respondents

stating that they experience stress (93% of employees), have suffered from

stress (70% of employees), perceive their workload to be unmanageable

(93% of employees) and time limits for tasks to be unachievable (100% of

employees).


Responses of this nature suggest that this level of perceived stress can be

inferred as being directly responsible for a number of absences that have

been reported as Minor Illnesses.

This leads to Stress/Depression/Anxiety also being placed as high

probability and high impact if it is, as suggested by the data, a contributing

factor leading to incidents of Minor Illness.

This level of stress can be linked backed to the Human Function Curve,

Maslach Burnout Inventory and Picturing Workplace Stress models. The

CIPD (2013) state that three fifths of UK organisations, public and private

sector, have implemented a process to monitor workplace stress and have

set reduction targets.

Rhodes and Steers (1990) Process Model of Attendance (see figure 2.1.1-

node 5) suggests certain factors influence an individuals motivation/need

to attend. Question g, Section Two, asked respondents to select factors

which they perceived to influence their motivation/necessity to attend.

Figure 4.3.6

*Respondents could select multiple factors

In response to this line of questioning, financial needs and the job market

were selected as the main two factors behind attendance, with promotion

potential once again ranked low. Commitment to ACME received 0

responses.

Question f, from Section Two, How would you express your average

weekly shift pattern? (see questionnaire - Appendix) returned no

responses.

0

5

10

15

20

25

S2/Qg: What factors would you select as the main reasons to attend a shift?*

Financial Promotion Mangerial Pressure Commitment Job Makret Work Ethic


4.4 Application of Absence Management Procedures:

In order to effectively manage absence recording and monitoring is vital.

Figure 4.4.1:

Section 3 Questions Respondents Results

Qa: When you return to work after an absence do you have formal contact with your line manager? (Filter Question)

27

Qb: When you return to work after an absence do you have informal contact with your line manager?

27

Qc: The absence management policies, such as return-to-work interviews, of ACME are professionally applied? (Only applicable to those who answered Yes to the previous filter question)

6


When asked if respondents had formal contact with their line manager

upon returning to work after absence only 6 employees replied Yes, this

acted as a filter question (see figure 4.4.1, Qa). This meant that 21

respondents had received some form of informal contact upon their return

to work (see figure 4.4.1, Qb). Of the 6 respondents who passed through

the filter question 3 perceived that their return-to-work interviews were

conducted professionally (2 Strongly Agree, 1 Agree). However an

equal number (2 Strongly Disagree, 1 Disagree) experienced a

perception of unprofessionalism (see figure 4.4.1, Qc).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Yes No

0

5

10

15

20

Yes No

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Strongly Agree

Agree

Niether Agree nor Disagree*

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


4.5 Absence Management - A Managerial Perspective:

As stated by Truss et al. (2012) line managers have had to adopt HR

responsibilities, in order for this to be effective they require training in their

new duties.

Figure 4.5.1


Qa: Have you received formal training in the company's absence management procedures?

4

Qb: Have you received formal training in the company's HR procedures?

4

Qc: Do you have support from your line manager when dealing with HR issues?

4

Only one manager claimed to have received training in absence

management procedures and HR policies (see figure 4.5.1, Qa and Qb).

Section Four, Qc, referred to support offered to ACMEs management

team, 1 SM and 3 DSMs, from the manager to whom they report. The

response was negative, with all four managers expressing that they

perceive no support when it comes to issues of HR (see figure 4.5.1, Qc).

It should be noted that the responses are subjective and based upon the

store teams interpretation/perception of support. ACME UK LTD (2014) did

not allow the researcher to pose any questions to management above that

of store level.

0

1

2

3

4

Yes No

0

1

2

3

4

Yes No

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


The responses suggest that too much responsibility is placed upon a single

manager, it is unlikely that one individual will be able to effectively apply

return-to-work interviews across 27 members of staff with 228 incidents of

absence. This would equate to a return-to-work interview being conducted

once every 0.6 days, on average.

Figure 4.5.2


Qd: HR is a Key area of store management.

4

Qe: Return-to-work interviews are important.

4

Qf: I have time to conduct absence management procedures.

4

Qg: I would benefit from another absence management procedure.

4


0 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


As highlighted by the research ACMEs management team consider HR

(4 Strongly Agree) a vital aspect of their role (see figure 4.5.2, Qd).

The CIPD (2013) state that return-to-work interviews are the most used

and effective tool to manage absence, with 86% of all organisations

utilising this method. Based upon the data there is no case to suggest HR

apathy; management, by consensus, support the return-to-work interview

procedure (see figure 4.5.2, Qe).

When asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement I have time

to conduct absence management procedures 4/4 managers responded

Strongly Disagree (see figure 4.5.2, Qf). This is represented in the

responses from the hourly contracted employees (see figure 4.4.1, Qa),

with only 6 confirming that they had formal contact with a manager upon

returning to work after a period of absence

In response to the option of having another absence management

procedure (see figure 4.5.2, Qg) managers were divided 50/50 on whether

this would be of benefit to them. This could be due to the fact that there is

no perceived time to conduct the current procedure, therefore an

alternative tool (see literature review - 2.3) would potentially have equally

little time afforded to its implementation.


5.0 Conclusions:

This report concludes that the absenteeism problem in store ACME is in

excess of the national statistics presented by the CIPD (2013).

Minor illness is cited as the most frequently occurring reason for

unauthorised absence, with stress suspected to be the major

contributor.

Employees on 20 hours contracts, with less than 3 years employment

aged between 18-25 take >40% more sick days than those 26+, on 30

hours contracts and with 3+ years of tenure.

The average number of incidents of health related absence per

employee at ACME is 8.44 days P/A, which is 2.34 days P/A higher

than the 6.1 national average. The total of 8.44 days puts the estimated

cost of health related absence at an average of 822.90 per employee,

P/A.

The total estimated cost to ACME is 22,218.30 P/A.

The problem is multifaceted with failings in several key areas with significant

impact.

Stress levels are perceived to be too high due to pressure of workload

and timescales - 93% of employees experience stress, 70% of

employees have suffered from stress, 93% of employees perceive their

workload to be unmanageable and 100% of employees perceive time

limits for completion of tasks to be unachievable (% of respondents).

There is inadequate training in HR and absence management

procedures among the store management team.

Too much responsibility is delegated to one in-store manager to

conduct effective HR procedures linked to absence management.

Management perceive that there is no support from senior

management on HR issues.

100% of managers stated that they did not have the time to conduct

absence management procedures effectively.

Although all 27 respondents received some form of return-to-work

contact, informal contact is ineffective in managing the problem. All the

literature reviewed states absence management procedures require

professional application in order to evaluate, measure and monitor any

issues in order to be effective.


6.0 Recommendations:

The S-A-F (Suitability-Acceptability-Feasibility) model has been applied to

the recommendations made in this section.

To follow up this report internal data should be analysed to score each

case of absence using the Bradford Factor in order to fully gauge the

disruption and potential higher cost of absence at ACME. (S-F).

Staff absence figures to be measured as part of the monthly KPIs at

Area Managers cost meetings. (S-A-F).

AMs to be monitored on HR procedure implementation, employee

absence to be measured as part of the monthly KPIs at Regional

Managers cost meeting. (S-A-F).

A target set in line with the CIPDs (2013) suggested target of 2.3 days

per employee, P/A; would save ACME and estimated 16,163.55 P/A

(estimated national savings of 9,762,784.20). (S-A).

All managers are to attend centralised HR training at RDC, training to

be delivered by a HR professional. (S-A-F).

Return-to-Work interviews must be conducted by a trained manager,

every case of absence must be investigated and the causes recorded.

(S-A-F).

Workload and times for tasks require revisiting; retraining or

reengineering where required (time-motion studies should be

conducted). (S-A-F).

Employees should be offered the opportunity to increase the scope of

their duties in order to develop a more diverse role within the company,

increasing the propensity to attend. (S-F).

The lack of Commitment to ACME issue, raised by question g,

Section Two, requires a follow up study using the same methodology,

in order to investigate employee engagement, commitment and the

perception of the organisation as an employer. (S-A-F).


7.0 Bibliography:

Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrongs Handbook of Human Resource

Management Practice. 11th Ed. Kogan Page. London.

Bryman, A. Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods. Oxford. Oxford

University Press.

CIPD (2013). Absence Management: Annual Survey Report 2013. [Online]

Available: http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/absence-management_2013.pdf

(Accessed: 11 Nov 2014).

Gross, R. (1996). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 3rd Ed.

Hodder & Stoughton Educational. London.

Johnson, G. Whittington, R. Scholes, K, (2012). Fundamentals of Strategy.

2nd ed. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow.

Leatherbarrow, C. Fletcher, J. (2014). Introduction to Human Resource

Management: A Guide to HR in Practice. 3rd Ed. Chartered Institute of

Personnel Development. London.

ACME UK LTD (2014). Store Management Training Handbook. Version 1.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for

Business Students. 6th ed. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow.

Torrington, D. Hall, L. Taylor, S. Atkinson, C. (2011). Human Resource

Management. 8th Ed. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow.

Truss, C. Mankin, D. Kelliher, C. (2012). Strategic Human Resource

Management. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Young, V. Bhaumik, C. (2011). Health and Well-being at Work: A Survey of

Employees. [Online] Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f

ile/214526/rrep751.pdf (Accessed: 11 Nov 2014).


8.0 Appendix:

Employee Well-being Survey 2015. 1.0 Overview:

Dear member of Team ACME,

The company values all employees who make ACME the success it is and as

an employer ACME strives to continually improve every aspect of store life. ACME

believes that a united, vibrant and healthy team enjoys their time at work; and

offers our customers the highest experience possible. This survey is your

opportunity to express your views on a range of work place situations and issues.

The survey is being conducted by a third party researcher, so all answers and views

expressed will remain 100% confidential. DO NOT INCLUDE NAME OR EMPLOYEE

NUMBER.

So please take this wonderful opportunity to help us improve your work place.

Feel free to be as honest as you see fit, remember the more you speak, the more

we listen and the more improvements can be made by working together.

Now thats TEAM WORK!

Yours Sincerely

S Vincent Canterbury Christ Church University

2.0 How to complete the survey:

This survey is simple.

There are no trick questions, so do not be scared, this is not being marked. Simply

select the answer that best represents you.

Example One:

Which gender do you consider yourself? Female

Male

Transgender

Simply circle the answer that best matches you.

Now that wasnt so bad was it? Okay same principle for our next example.

With certain questions there will be a statement and you have to select to what

extent you agree or disagree with it. In order not to suggest any potential answers

the following question does not represent any of the questions in the survey.

Example Two:


I enjoy the smell of freshly cut grass? Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

So now we would know that the staff room should smell like a fresh spring

afternoon.

Now some questions you will be given the option to select more than one answer.

Example Three:

In the last week when have you been to the cinema?

Monday Morning/afternoon Tuesday Morning/afternoon

Wednesday Morning/afternoon Thursday Morning/afternoon

Friday Morning/afternoon Saturday Morning/afternoon

Sunday Morning/afternoon

As you can tell we enjoy movies so, as in the example, you will be offered similar

questions relating to shifts and other job related elements, simply circle the answers

that relate to you.

3.0 What to do when you have finished:

When you have completed the survey just pop it into the envelope provided and

seal it tight. Once sealed post it into the collection box in the office labelled

Employee Survey 2015.

Questions begin over page.


Section One - Part One:

Please select one answer from the options given.

a. Which gender do you consider yourself? Female

Male

Transgender

b. Which age group do you fit into? 18-21

22-25

26-29

30-33

34-37

38-41

42-45

45+

c. What is your current hourly contract? 10 hours

20 hours

30 hours

40 hours

d. How long have you worked for ACME? Less than 1 year

1-2 years

3-4 years

5-6 years

7-8 years

8+ years

e. To the best of your knowledge how many days of absence have you taken in the

past 12 months? (If more than 10 please enter amount in the box).

None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Section One - Part Two:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statements below.

a. I haven shifts altered on a regular basis. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

b. If your shifts are altered regularly how Very Acceptable

acceptable is this to you? Acceptable

Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Highly Unacceptable

c. I feel that my efforts at work are recognised. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

d. I feel that there is the chance for progression. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

e. I feel engaged as part of the team. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

f. Management support me in my work. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


g. I regularly experience stress at work. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

h. Time limits for tasks are achievable. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

i. I feel that my workload is manageable. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

j. I am satisfied with my work life balance. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Section Two:

Please select all options that are relevant to you.

a. Which of these conditions have you experienced in the last 12 months or are

currently experiencing?

Musculoskeletal problems Minor illness Stress/Depression/Anxiety

Gastrointestinal problems Respiratory conditions Headaches and

migraines

Ear/ Nose/Throat/ Dental/Eye Heart/Blood pressure Other

Prefer not to disclose N/A

b. Which of these conditions have caused you to miss a scheduled shift in the past 12

months?

Musculoskeletal problems Minor illness Stress/Depression/Anxiety

Gastrointestinal problems Respiratory conditions Headaches and

migraines

Ear/ Nose/Throat/ Dental/Eye Heart/Blood pressure Other


Prefer not to disclose N/A

c. If a scheduled shift has been missed due to one or more of the above conditions

please state the most frequent condition/s and number of shifts missed below.

d. Which of these issues have caused you to miss a scheduled shift in the past 12

months?

Family member illness Lack of child care Personal transport problems

Public transport problems Work colleague problems Duvet day

Other Prefer not to disclose N/A

e. If a scheduled shift has been missed due to one or more of the above issues please

state the most frequent issue/s and number of shifts missed below.

f. How would you express your average weekly shift pattern? Please circle all

appropriate options.

Monday Open/close Tuesday Open/close Wednesday Open/close

Thursday Open/close Friday Open/close Saturday Open/close

Sunday Open/close

g. What factors would you select as the main reasons to attend a shift?

Financial Promotion Potential Managerial

Pressure Commitment to ACME Lack of Other Jobs Work Ethic


Section Three:

Select the answers that you feel most appropriate.

a. When you return to work after an absence do you have formal contact with your

line manager?

Yes

No

N/A

If NO please answer question 3.b if YES please answer question 3.c

b. When you return to work after an absence do you have informal contact with

your line manager?

Yes

No

c. The absence management policies, such as

return-to-work interviews, of ACME are

professionally applied? Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Section Four:

This section applies to DSMs, TSMs and SMs only.

a. Have you received formal training relating to the companys absence management

procedures?

Yes

No

b. Have you received formal training in the companies HR procedures?

Yes

No

If YES please state which areas of HR.


c. Do you have support from your line manager when dealing with HR issues?

Yes

No

d. HR is a key area of store management. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

e. Return-to-work interviews are important. Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

f. I have time to conduct absence management Strongly Agree

Procedures. Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

g. I would benefit from another Strongly Agree

Procedure. Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

END.

S Vincent Dissertation

Documents

management of absence

employee absence health

employees of acme

employee absence statistics

unapproved absence

external causes of absence

management of absenteeism

acme canterbury