I Pass Integrated Pastoral & Academic Support System

MSc in HRM pre-entry academic writing exercise

Purpose

One of the areas in which students are supported within the MSc in HRM/ IHRM is in relation to the development of academic skills, including the evaluation of information sources, critical reading, essay writing and referencing.

In order to allow us to provide support at an early stage of the programme, you and all the other new students are being given the opportunity to submit a piece of writing and to receive qualitative feedback on that writing. Please note that this is entirely voluntary and there is no requirement for you to undertake the task. This piece of work will not be formally marked but will allow staff to identify any particular challenges which you may face regarding academic writing. You will then be offered full support through face to face meetings with programme staff and the University’s Effective Learning Service, access to online study skills information and a personal “academic writing skills” development plan.

This hopefully means that you can begin the MSc in HRM programme with more effective academic skills and strategies and also with more confidence in your own abilities to successfully complete and enjoy the programme.

Task

Please answer the question below and prepare a 1000 word answer. Normal academic conventions allow your word count to be up to 10% under or over this limit, not including the reference list.

Your answer should make reference to appropriate literature to support your arguments. Some information sources have been provided for you. You may use some, all or none of these but your answer should include references to at least 5 sources of information. The following material contains a guide to referencing material within academic work and the article below demonstrates good practice in referencing information taken from other sources.

Your answer should be typed. Please send your completed answer to Margaret Masson at m.masson@gcu.ac.uk or post it to Margaret Masson, Dept of Management, Glasgow School for Business& Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 OBA.

Question:

Discuss the need for effective attendance management within organisations and critically evaluate the contribution of HR professionals to the management of attendance.

Feedback

You will receive written individual feedback and will also have the opportunity to meet a tutor to discuss your answer and the feedback in more detail.

Queries

If you have any queries regarding this writing exercise, please contact Margaret Masson, the programme’s Pastoral and Academic Support Coordinator at the email address shown above.

Possible information sources

Absence Measurement & Management CIPD factsheet July 2009 http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/hrpract/absence/absncman.htm

Absence Management: 9th Annual CIPD Absence Survey http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/hrpract/absence/absmagmt.htm?IsSrchRes=1

Effective Absence Management Measures, Nadia Williams 19 March 2009 http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/03/19/49939/effective-absence-management-measures.html

Health & Safety Executive website, Sickness Absence homepage http://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/index.htm

Metro News Report, Call for Workplace Rehabilitation, 14 July 2008 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=217224&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=

Articles

Revolutionary absence management system for 3PL

Website: LogisticsManager.com, Published Feb 2009

Wincanton has saved thousands by implementing an absence management system from Active Health Partners (AHP).

The system, which was brought in to cut down on employee sickness across a number of its sites, reduced absence by 10,000 days in the first six months.

The 3PL says it is now saving £178 per employee per year.

Previously, evaluating absence rates and trends throughout the business was difficult because of the sheer number of employees working at different locations (30,000 based across 400 sites). Differences in the customer reporting requirements across the company also meant that some sites included staff on long-term sick leave while others excluded these figures.

Wincanton wanted a system that would help improve consistency across the business. The system involves the provision of nurse-led medical advice that assists employees back to health quickly. It analyses trends across each site while providing real-time management information.

With the solution in place, instead of calling their line manager to notify an absence, employees contact a 24-hour nurse-staffed call centre. Based on the symptoms provided by the employee, medical advice is given, along with an anticipated return-to-work date. The line manager is then notified via email or text with an overview of the information, and relevant data is collated to enable comprehensive online management reports.

“We are delighted with the success of the scheme and it has resulted in tangible cost savings for both the business and our customers,” said Claire Webber, human resources manager, strategic projects, Wincanton. “The real-time reports are a real benefit as they enable us to identify trends and manage any staffing issues more promptly and effectively. As a result of the service, the average duration of short-term absence fell from seven days to four and the nurse-led approach has been very well received by employees.”

Initially, the absence management service was trialled for six months on 11 contracts, involving 5,500 staff based at 20 sites. This period was then extended to nine months to allow the system to become fully embedded. In the first eight months, the AHP nurses handled over 22,000 calls, with 90 per cent of employees feeling that their call had been dealt with politely and appropriately.

Due to the success of the pilot scheme – at one site the average absence rate was halved – the scheme is being rolled out to additional sites across the business

Wish you were here: managing absence

Caroline Dunn, VNU Business Publications Ltd, Adrian Wilkinson, Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK

Abstract

Management texts abound on how to develop effective techniques to manage absence, but what actually happens in practice? Aims to shed light on how organisations try to cope with the “problem”. Examines the practices of seven companies from three sectors (financial services, retail, and manufacturing) and has drawn upon the views and opinions of personnel practitioners, line managers, occupational health advisers as well as employees themselves. Focuses on how organisations are addressing the issue of absence and the organisational factors which make up the day-to-day policing of absence levels. Three themes are relevant to the context of this study. First, when is absence perceived to be a problem? Second, how do companies manage absence and do line managers view the management of absence as being within the remit of their responsibilities? Finally, the issue of negotiated discipline is considered. How are rules applied in practice?

Journal: Personnel Review Volume: 31 Number: 2 Year: 2002

Introduction

Management texts (Taylor, 1982; Sargent, 1989) abound on how to develop effective techniques to manage absence but what actually happens in practice? This paper aims to shed some light on how organisations try to address the “problem”. It examines the practices of seven companies from three sectors (financial services, retail, and manufacturing) and has drawn upon the views and opinions of personnel practitioners, line managers, occupational health advisers as well as employees themselves.

Although there is a wide literature on causes of absence, there is much less available on the management of absence: how managers define and police acceptable standards (Edwards and Whiston, 1993). In this paper, we focus on how organisations are addressing the issue of absence and the organisational factors which make up the day-to-day policing of absence levels. Three themes are relevant to the context of this study. First, when is absence perceived to be a problem? Second, how do companies manage absence and do line managers view the management of absence as being within the remit of their responsibilities? Third, how are rules applied in practice?

In the next section we analyse the existing literature in relation to the management of absence and discuss our approach to the research. The section following presents the findings of our case study research. Finally, we review the issues arising from this work.

Managing absence: a review

Absence, as a problem, comes to managerial attention when it appears to cost money (Edwards and Whiston, 1993). Much of the literature lays emphasis on this economic perspective and Nicholson brings this out well when he remarks: “Absence, in the language of economics, is an unpredictable variation in the firm’s labour supply and in labour-intensive and technologically primitive settings this can produce costly concomitant variations in output” (Nicholson, 1977, p. 237).

It has been described as the largest single source of lost productivity in business and industry (Harvey and Nicholson, 1993, p. 841). Absence can generate costs in a number of ways. One of the most immediate and substantial costs resulting from absence is the direct payment of sick-pay to employees. Sick-pay can prove costly to the organisation, because, if it is bringing in staff to cover for the absentee, it is, in effect, paying twice – for the absent employee and the replacement worker. The 1994 changes in Statutory Sick-Pay saw the costs of absence shift from state to employer; reimbursements to employers for Statutory Sick-Pay (SSP) payments to employees were abolished, with the exception of small employers. According to the government at the time, the one percentage point reduction in the lower rates of employers’ National Insurance Contributions (NIC), together with the 0.2 percentage point reduction in the standard rate to 10.2 per cent to balance the SSP changes, would more than offset the additional costs to employers of unreclaimable SSP payments (IDS, 1994). Nevertheless, the 1994 changes meant that absence cost became more prominent.

There are also myriad indirect costs which are often more intangible and difficult to measure, such as reduced productivity, as work is done by people who are less experienced and/or tired, lower product quality if replacement staff are not sufficiently competent, loss of customers due to failure to meet deadlines or through an

inferior service, management/ supervisory time used in revising work schedules, etc. (Huczynski and Fitzpatrick, 1989, p. 16).

In their review of the literature, Steers and Rhodes (1984) suggest that organisational control systems which aim to reduce absenteeism can be powerful tools. Schmitz and Heneman’s (1980) review of positive incentive plans showed that it had led to a reduction in absenteeism. Effective reinforcers included bonus points (Baum and Menefee, 1978), bonuses (Grove, 1968; Lawler and Hackman, 1969; Orpen, 1978; Panyan and McGregor, 1976) and participation in lottery (Stephens and Burroughs, 1978; Johnson and Wallin, 1976).

The use of positive incentives raises a major issue surrounding the management of absence. Huczynski and Fitzpatrick (1989) note that the useof attendance bonuses is the most common type of financial incentive. They noted a degree of “ambivalence” as to the relative merits and effectiveness of attendance bonuses. Some managers believe that employees should not receive any additional income to attend work and others felt that many of the attendance bonuses were so small that the value of the scheme was criticised.

Whilst recognising that positive incentives are a method used in the management of absence, the use of sanctions is the focus of much attention within organisations. Disciplinary action remains the usual sanction against persistent absentees and this is recognised by most of the major reviews on methods of organisational control techniques. But the use of negative (punishment) techniques does not imply holistic, homogeneous methods to punish absentees. Instead, the term relates to a variety of practices such as withholding company sick-pay, reducing annual leave entitlement, dismissal for poor attendance and others. Whilst recognising the positive and negative actions taken by organisations to manage absence, the issue of legal compliance is an important factor in their effectiveness. Specifically, absence control programmes involving procedures and sanctions are most effective when based upon patterns of “legal compliance” (Rosenthal, 1979; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Baum and Youngblood, 1975). Thus, as Latham and Napier (1984) conclude:”It would appear that an attendance control policy, established by a legitimate source authority and implemented with clear-cut progressively enforced legal sanctions, should lead to significant improvements in employee attendance”.

Much as an organisation can seek to exert influence in monitoring and controlling levels of absence, ironically, these can encourage higher levels of absence. Sargent (1989, p. 15), states that: “it needs to be faced that a number of personnel policies effectively encourage people to take time off”.

For example, if an absence trigger level is set whereby action is taken after ten days’ absence, this could encourage individuals to take up to nine days. It is important to consider the evidence available on the impact of negative sanctions. Edwards argues that, whilst there has been a shift towards self-discipline, the use of sanctions is still common and widespread: There is thus strong evidence that unions continue to perform their role of providing ways for employees to be managed without the threat of sanctions. And, not surprisingly, large and well-paying firms have alternatives to sanctions (Edwards, 2000, p. 325).

The notion of organisational control policies also relates to wider issues of personnel policy and the role which personnel occupy in managing absence. However, organisational rules are not “tablets of stone”, but can be subject to micro variables at shopfloor level which can determine how they are interpreted and applied in practice.

Edwards (1989) sees discipline as having three faces: The first is the application of punishment for breaches of the rules. Second, there is the formulation of the rules themselves, together with the procedures to be followed in their application. Third is the creation in practice of the expectations, norms and understandings that govern behaviour (Edwards, 1989, p. 297).

The issue of control is central to such analyses. As Edwards (1994) points out, rules, together with the sanctions that follow their breach, encompass the wider relations of conflict and control. Edwards (1989), Edwards and Whiston (1989) and Henry (1987) argue that organisational control is an important ingredient in considering the issue of absence and such control can be generated through policies and procedures defining the limits and boundaries of employee behaviour. Edwards (1989), in reviewing previous research, found that: “The safest conclusion is that disciplinary issues are often discussed with shop stewards, even though the rules themselves are rarely negotiated” (Edwards, 1989, p. 304).

Managerialist accounts of how to control absence abound, but tend to ignore workers’ points of view (Harvey and Nicholson, 1993). Edwards (1989), in his third “face”, does give consideration to informal rules governing behaviour and touches on a major theme that has developed in the absence-discipline literature – the way in which realities of the work situation can seriously undermine the design and execution of disciplinary action. Furthermore, execution of these rules has to be kept within the boundaries of acceptability amongst the workforce, since the manager is dependent on co-operation by his workers in order to get the job done. Edwards and Scullion (1984, p. 569) argue that much research in this area sees absence as reflecting the “inadequate

adjustment of the individual employee instead of understanding absence as part of a conflict-laden relationship between employer and worker”.

The study

Research in 1997 was conducted with seven companies from the retail (Shopco, Superco, Foodco), financial services (Consultco and Bankco) and manufacturing sectors (Prodco, Manufco). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with personnel/human resources managers, line managers, health and safety managers and occupational health managers. Some 50 interviews took place in total, lasting on average an hour each. Documentary data were obtained in the form of written absence policy and procedures, company information, disciplinary procedures and other background information. In essence, the aim for each of the interviews was to explore respondents’ feelings and opinions about certain issues and not our own interpretation of their values and opinions. Furthermore, interviews with different sets of people allow for an appreciation of the different constructions and meanings that people place upon their experience.

Findings

The following sections set out the central themes which arose from our findings. The data are organised in five main sections:

1. (1) The profile of absence. We focused on the importance of absence management to the case study organisation. We found that this varied according to the operational needs of the company, employee profile and industry sector (see Table I).

2. (2) Monitoring absence. We examine the problems the case study organisations faced in achieving equity and consistency via formal methods of monitoring absence. Again, the importance of employee profile and nature of the organisation resulted in varying methods of monitoring.

3. (3) Controlling absence. In this section, we look at formal and informal methods of absence control and the importance attached to them by the case study organisation. We also focus on the uses and difficulties in using positive and negative incentives in controlling absence as well as the wider focus of health promotion at work.

4. (4) Defining responsibilities and ownership. The material in this section addresses three issues. First, it stresses that, in all the case study companies, line management is seen to be primarily responsible for the management of absence. Second, in some of the companies, there have been moves to reinforce this responsibility. Third, the way in which line management accepted and complied with their responsibilities varies between the companies for a variety of reasons.

5. (5) Discipline and the dynamics of line management discretion. Whilst organisations could in theory see the distinction between the enforcement of disciplinary rules and procedures and the exercise of discretion, in practice this was problematic as there were a number of organisational variables.

The profile of absence

Some research suggests that the 1994 changes in SSP raised the profile of absence as an issue, since the employer has to take full financial responsibility for the first four weeks of absence (IDS, 1994). However, in our case studies such changes had a minimal impact on heightening the profile of absence, sick-pay arrangements and absence control procedures. At Shopco the introduction of no payment for the first day of sickness reflected a need to curb one-day absences. The formalisation and current implementation of the new Attendance Policy at Prodco reflected responses to the need to promote consistency. A higher profile was attached to absence within the food retailing sector, which resulted from a need to maintain good staffing levels for operational reasons. Within the financial services sector, the need to manage absence was given a low profile. Many of the interviewees remarked that this was primarily due to a view that “We don’t have a problem here”. Furthermore, it was argued that the professional nature of the company and the employees who reflected this played a large part in determining the significance of absence as a phenomenon. One HR partner at Consultco commented: “I wish I could say more. Absence is not a phenomenon which is part of my mind-set and I just don’t have conversations about absence or absenteeism at all. Absence is almost a non-issue for me. I don’t have strong views on it”.

The significance of absence also related to the issue of cost. At Consultco, Manufco, Superco, Foodco and Prodco costs were calculated as a measurement of the size of the absence problem. In 1997, the production manager at Prodco calculated that, if absence were to be reduced from the then current rate of 11 per cent to the present rate of 2 per cent, £100,000 could be saved. As such, the cost benefits in reducing absence were a significant motivational factor in addressing overall absence levels in these companies. At Superco and Consultco, costs were communicated to line managers via monthly reports. In particular, at Superco, restrictions

on overtime and monthly absence league tables were viewed as particularly effective in raising the overall profile of absence and the need to manage it. As one deputy manager remarked: “If I need eight hours’ overtime, I won’t use the supervisor or a higher band B but will use one of my staff in band A because it’s cheaper. I will get the same work out of them but I’ll be getting the job done a lot more cheaply”.

The direct costs of absence in the form of sick-pay and the continued payments of fringe benefits to the absentee were less of an issue in the case study companies than the more intangible costs such as employee morale. The introduction of an absence management programme at Manufco led one line manager to observe: “Although we’ve reduced our absence costs quite significantly as a result of the new absence programme brought in, for me, and I think I’m speaking for most people here, the real cost benefit has been an increased level of morale for everyone. Prior to the programme, staff morale was at a low ebb ’cause they were sick and tired of having to cover for their colleagues, who they pretty well suspected were pulling a fast one”.

In those companies where financial information was communicated, many line managers paid little attention to the financial impact of absence but had greater concern over matters such as inefficiency, the reputation and credibility of the manager. As one line manager commented: “I do not look at costs in purely financial terms. The costs of absence are the costs of your reputation if you let people down, the costs on the morale of other people, particularly if they feel someone is swinging the lead”.

At Consultco, whilst monthly reports gave an indication of absence costs, most HR partners and line managers were more concerned with the costs of disruptions to the operation of the business and the burden placed on work colleagues. The costs of absence were viewed as more significant when small teams were in operation; thus a major theme was the issue of extra pressures on colleagues: “Absence like this causes extra pressures on work colleagues and it’s bloody annoying when you know they’re pulling a fast one. At the end of the day, someone has to do the work. You owe it to your work colleagues to come into work, except when there is a genuine case of illnes”.

Monitoring absence

The approach to monitoring absence varied amongst case study organisations. There was a clear distinction between those organisations which used clear formulae and those that did not. Whilst all organisations used absence reports to identify absence patterns, the value placed on these reports by line management varied. In the organisations examined, the responsibility for absence was put squarely at the door of line management. Managers were required to complete sickness forms, re-allocate the absentee’s workload and establish when the employee was expected to return to work. The most common methods for absence monitoring were a combination of trigger review procedures, regular absence statistics and informal methods of monitoring. Four case study organisations (Bankco, Superco, Foodco, and Shopco) had various triggers based on an employee’s sickness patterns, which led to certain steps being taken. For these companies who operated triggers, there existed informal or loosely defined arrangements, where, for example, regular reviews were taken of an employee’s sickness absence pattern to determine if any action was necessary; or an analysis of an employee’s absence pattern or record on each occasion of sickness absence with managers using discretion as to any review or action (Bankco). More tightly defined triggers using formulae such as cumulative days’ sickness absence to date in a year; a certain number of days off over a shorter period (such as six weeks or six months); or numbers of spells of absence in the previous 12 months were used at Superco, Foodco and Shopco.

Review procedures were viewed as effective in alerting managers to take some form of action, whilst taking the onus away from managers when deciding acceptable and unacceptable levels of absence. This was clearly an issue at Prodco. The company’s Attendance Scheme was being formalised and implemented across the site with a trigger system. The absence of such a system resulted in inconsistency amongst managers and perceptions of unfairness. As one R&D manager observed: “Withholding sick-pay is a very emotive issue. People start questioning the validity of your decision to do this if one person’s pay is deducted after, for example, five spells of absence, whilst other employees have theirs deducted after three or six”.

At Prodco, one manager remarked: “The main issue I have is the discrepancy between departments. Manufacturing personnel are checked after three periods of absence within a rolling calendar year. No other personnel are checked like that – surely that should apply to everybody?”

Whilst trigger review procedures represented formal methods of monitoring, in all case study companies “informal monitoring” was used to varying degrees. This aspect was particularly evident at Consultco and Manufco. The monitoring of absence was left to the manager’s own judgement, with the close proximity between managers and their staff and the nature of open plan offices believed to facilitate control.

At both these cases, there was a view that defining and publicising an acceptable period of absence (in some cases, before sick-pay would be deducted) not only encouraged individuals to take time off up to the specified limit but also encouraged incidences of “unpaid leave”, once holiday entitlement had been exhausted. This was one of the primary factors in each company’s decision not to apply a trigger system. Furthermore, this was believed to “muddy the water” when a manager wished to deal with an “abuser” who had not reached the publicised acceptable limit. However, amongst companies within the retail industry, the communication of branch standards was believed to be necessary in order to promote good attendance levels and branch expectations. Within Consultco and Manufco, there was a general view that a level of satisfactory absence simply did not exist because of a dependence that staff would turn up to work five days a week. As one manager at Group headquarters exclaimed: “I don’t believe that triggers are necessarily a valuable tool. If ten days is an acceptable number and you go to 11, then you’re actually identifying the fact that we would willingly accept ten days”.

In all companies, absence reports were seen as important in establishing patterns of absences, rather than identifying long periods of absence amongst individuals. As one HR business unit manager at Consultco remarked: “I don’t analyse the details of the individuals who have been absent for long periods. Those very extreme cases are matters of public record; everybody knows about someone with a serious illness.”

However, whilst reports were available, a detailed analysis was not common. For some managers, reports were invariably never read. This largely reflected an attitude of “I don’t perceive absence to be a problem here. I know my staff.” At Consultco managers were unaware of the frequency of the reporting. As one audit manager remarked: “I never ask for absence statistics and I am not even conscious of the receipt of statistics. I’m not sure whether we get them on a quarterly or monthly basis; that shows how much I look at them. I know my staff well enough not to need these reports … at the end of the day, it all comes down to good management and knowing your staff”.

The nature of the organisation and the type of employee mix was also an important factor: “I get absence reports, but I rarely look at them because I don’t feel I need to. I do not invest a lot of time and effort on absence management because I don’t think there’s a problem. The work these people are doing is important; therefore they struggle in”.

The instinct of the manager and the relationship with his/her staff were regarded amongst line managers as an overriding factor in the monitoring process. Absence reports therefore tended to be viewed as a useful tool to back up a manager’s instinct rather than alerting him/her to a specific problem. This was highlighted by one commercial director at Manufco: “Our monitoring tends to be more practical than written. I can’t remember anybody in Manufco alerting us to anyone with well-above average absence. I don’t know if reports would really help us. What we do is, we notice (it’s quite an open plan office here). We and local management get alerted pretty quickly just by noticing on an informal basis”.

With the advent of self-certification, in all case studies, the signing of self-certification forms was perceived to be a useful monitoring tool and not regarded solely as a “rubber stamping exercise”.

Controlling absence

Four companies (Superco, Foodco, Shopco and Manufco) used return-to-work interviews as a tool for controlling absence levels. At Superco return-to-work interviews were perceived as being useful for communicating branch standards, ascertaining whether there were any underlying reasons concerning the individual’s absence and for increasing employees’ awareness of pressures to attend work. This was also the case at Manufco, as the HR manager commented: “We have found that return-to-work interviews can be one of the best deterrents to would-be malingerers. I ask managers to discuss with the individual what has happened during his/her absence in terms of work cover etc. We’ve seen a steady fall in absence rates since their introduction”.

While there was evidence that return-to-work interviews could be effective in increasing employee awareness of pressures to attend work, interviews did not always take place. For example, at Shopco one branch manager asserted: “Although the guidelines say we’re supposed to conduct them, I don’t get time to do this. I’m well aware of the philosophy behind it but when you’ve got about 100 people coming in and out of the shop each day, 24 staff to manage and window displays to design, a return to work interview is the last thing on my mind”.

Some organisations simply did not deem them necessary. At Consultco, Bankco, the Manufco Group and Prodco, informal methods of absence management were particularly evident, such as peer group pressures and the work context in terms of open plan offices, close-knit teams and proximity to managers. One corporate personnel manager at the Manufco group headquarters argued that: “In our business, people know their staff very well. A return-to-work interview would become faintly artificial and counter-productive. Here at headquarters we’ve got highly professional people who work weekends and ’till 10 o’clock at night. It would be a bit “naff” really”.

Most managers acknowledged that informal chats were the nearest thing to such interviews but more often than not they were a “Nice to see you back” or “Are you feeling better?” Furthermore, the signing of self-certification forms tended to be viewed amongst line managers as a substitute for return-to-work interviews.

In all three retail companies, absence was a separate rating category in the appraised process. This finding contrasted sharply with the other companies, where an employee’s attendance record remained outside the appraisal process. Within the retail stores appraisals were used to communicate branch absence standards and to ensure that absence levels were minimised. Within Bankco, Consultco, Manufco and Prodco a common theme amongst personnel practitioners and line managers was that the use of appraisals within the context of absence was old-fashioned and that absence was an issue of good management. The issue of justifiable absence is also brought into context, as highlighted by one Consultco HR partner: “I think that using absence as a criterion in appraisals would be really dangerous because the theory is that all absence is justified. If you’ve introduced into the appraisal process how many days you came to work, you’re actually saying it’s a bad thing not to come to work”.

None of the seven companies used financial incentives to promote good attendance. Typical comments were: “With attendance bonuses, you’re rewarding people for the exception rather than the norm …”; “If people are sick, why should they be penalised …?”; and “People are paid to come to work”. One commercial director at Manufco remarked: “If they’re not here, what we don’t do is ask them to give the money back”.

Managers working with blue-collar and clerical workers, together with managers in the retail stores, were particularly cynical of attendance bonuses and the philosophy of paying twice simply for turning up for work. There was also a strong awareness of the negative consequences of using payment of this kind, such as employees attending work when they are ill so as not to lose their entitlement and of penalising those workers who are genuinely ill. Thus, from a management point of view, it was felt that attendance bonuses do not promote an attendance culture, but instead signal to employees that management cannot control the work environment; management has relinquished all responsibility for managing absence; and it is up to the worker whether he turns up for work.

In terms of the use of negative incentives, there was a general trend of avoiding the “disciplinary route” and instead developing open, two-way communication. This was especially the case in the retail sector (particularly Superco), where counselling sessions and return-to-work interviews were utilised. In the remaining case studies, communication tended to be via informal chats. There were sanctions in the form of withholding company sick-pay (Superco, Prodco, Shopco and Manufco) and deducting leave of entitlement (Bankco). However, as the application of the sanctions was inconsistent, this undermined their credibility. Furthermore, as many workers worked beyond their contractual hours, managers found difficulty in applying sanctions.

There were movements towards health promotion at work and to providing health services for employees. All organisations had occupational health advisers and four companies (Bankco, Consultco, Manufco, and Prodco) had on-site occupational health units. In these companies, there was promotion of healthier lifestyles, such as non-smoking policies, nutritional advice, stress management courses and “look after your heart” charters. Furthermore, a range of medical services was provided, such as the provision of screening, eye testing, general advice and counselling, medical, well-woman clinics, ergonomics and physiotherapy.

Defining responsibilities and ownership

There was a general pattern of devolving greater responsibility to line management for managing absence (e.g. return-to-work interviews, counselling, discipline and monitoring) akin to trends identified in the HRM literature (Torrington and Hall, 1995; Storey, 1992), but there was little evidence to suggest that such policies were necessarily successful or welcomed by the line managers. More often than not, the management of absence was a case of “pass the baton”, as managers sought to involve personnel and vice versa. The comment below epitomizes the general rift between the initiatives that personnel attempted to push through and the reality of this drive: “Whilst in the past there have been attempts to push responsibility to the line, often the line is not willing to take on the responsibility because of a strongly held view that HR should manage the problem (HR Partner, Consultco)”.

In five companies (Superco, Consultco, Bankco, Prodco, and Manufco) there was a general pattern to reinforce the line manager’s responsibility to manage absence. A heavy emphasis was placed on communicating the problem to line management and defining their responsibilities in this area. At Manufco, for example, it was recognised that effective monitoring had to start with the line manager. The HR manager worked hard to relay the message that the absence programme was not simply placed on the desk for line managers to browse through, but communicated the idea behind it via absence workshops, training days and meetings. However, this contrasted with Shopco and the introduction of the “Managing Employee Attendance Guidelines” with little

communication explaining why the guidelines were produced and the benefits to be gained from applying them. Branch managers confessed to having little knowledge as to what was contained in the guidelines.

At Superco a large part of the communication process was via financial and statistical information but this was also linked with a commitment to ensure that line managers knew their responsibilities in absence management. The personnel manager at Superco explained how responsibility had been devolved to line management: “Line managers like to see nice neat little packages of statistical and financial information. People say that personnel does not add any value to the bottom line. By providing managers with this type of information which managers need to manage their staff’s absence, we are quietly showing how this function can add value to the bottom line. What’s more, we’ve pushed it through that it’s their (management’s) responsibility. We’re quite happy to feed down the information but we’ve made it clear that we won’t do the managing for them”.

In the case of Superco and Manufco then, the success, from a personnel viewpoint, in devolving responsibility to line management rested on three important factors. First, personnel gave the issue significant priority. Second, the personnel function was committed to ensuring line management accountability. Third, in order to achieve this, effective channels of communication were established (orally and in written form), which ensured that line management knew the boundaries of responsibility; where absences were a problem, and the benefits of effective absence management.

However, at Bankco, Consultco, Shopco and Prodco, who all introduced similar drives to promote greater line management accountability, there was little proactivity on the part of personnel to communicate the benefits of absence management and to give the issue priority in their portfolio of HR activities. Equally, line management were not always keen to embrace this responsibility. At Prodco personnel had wished to place the ownership of absence management clearly within the remit of line management responsibility. However, line managers were not satisfied with this arrangement and there was a general feeling that in the past personnel had tended to “wash their hands of responsibility”, particularly in terms of introducing policies and procedures which defined acceptable and unacceptable levels of attendance. As one manager commented: “Personnel want to push everything on to the line manager. There has been too much discretion on the part of line managers. Personnel do not see it as their remit, they want to push everything to the line manager. I think it should be more shared so that, when the manager deals with an individual member of staff with whom they may well be friendly and work very closely, they’ve got the fact that the company “says””.

This lack of ownership meant that cases of sporadic and excessive absences were dealt with only when they became a “problem”. Frequent comments amongst personnel practitioners were that absences, particularly amongst support staff and blue-collar workers, were dealt with too late. This was highlighted by one manager; “I think that responsibility has not been very clearly defined and I believe that in the time that I have been here there have been various views expressed as to whether it should be HR or line management who should be in the driving seat. There’s been a failure to pursue individual cases, amongst support staff, as promptly as they should be and that’s partly a result of our managers not seeing it within their remit and partly a result of HR not giving it the priority it deserves”.

There were line managers who remarked that they did not have any problems with the ownership of absence. Typical comments were “… part and parcel of my role as a manager is to manage absence” and “it all comes down to good management”. Furthermore, these comments, more often than not, came from managers who worked with highly motivated graduates and professionals working over and above their contractual hours. As one manager from Bankco commented: “Yes, I do see absence control as my remit, but then our absence rates are low. The people we employ here, quite a lot of them are graduates. They’re mostly career-oriented people and so there isn’t really a problem. I don’t even look at absence statistics. People struggle in because they think the work they are doing is important and they want it to be done well. I’ve lived a life of relative luxury here working with well motivated people”.

Discipline

Edwards and Whiston (1989) and Henry (1987) have argued that organisational control is a vital element to consider in order to fully understand the issue of absence. Control through polices and procedures played a part in promoting pressures to attend work. Yet, organisational control is far more subtle than the rule book. Managers were alive to the realities of the work situation. In four companies (Bankco, Consultco, Manufco, and Prodco) the softer approach reflected the concern for the individual. As one R&D manager at Prodco commented: “My approach is that I’m concerned for your welfare as opposed to I’m concerned for the impact of your absence on the business. I like to give them the opportunity to explai”.

There was a general reluctance amongst managers to apply disciplinary rules with a preference to taking the informal route. At Bankco, the line managers interviewed felt that the difficulty in applying these rules stemmed from the culture of the Bank which dictated that absences be dealt with compassionately. Many managers

commented that, historically, the bank had rarely sacked employees on account of their absence. One supervision manager commented: “As an institution, we struggle to question carefully the validity of the absence. We’re not in the same commercial environment as your ICIs and the Courtaulds of this world”.

At Consultco, one HR partner voiced the view: “Our whole ethos is professionalism. We are a professional group of people and so – disciplining people for absence – managers, quite rightly, would shy away from it. We’re talking about highly educated people here”.

Whilst Central HR commented that the company took more of a “stick” approach in managing the absence of support staff, managers were often reluctant to use this approach in practice. The reluctance to invoke punitive sanctions for high absence rates was illustrated by one senior manager, who, 12 months ago, inherited the postal staff and copying department (support staff) and in both these areas the average absence rate was three weeks. The figures clearly indicated a failure to detect high absence levels on the part of both the HR department and the line manager. There had also been a general reluctance to introduce disciplinary measures. As the manager remarked:”The difficulty of inheriting a situation like this is you cannot suddenly descend upon people with stick in hand; instead the approach has to be consistent and tackled at the time it happens”.

In the research, only one example was found of the “stick” approach being applied exclusively and this was used by the production manager at Prodco. The production manager had introduced stricter guidelines and greater enforcement of the rules in an effort to reduce high absence levels. Disciplinary rules therefore became more stringent and across the board. One of the primary tools used to reduce high absence levels was the withholding of company sick-pay, if an employee exceeded four spells of absence in a rolling year. Whilst the manager took into account any mitigating circumstances, these rules were regularly enforced.

A number of employees were dismissed for poor attendance records and there were managers who argued that the “stick” approach had been applied too hard. Others argued that the implementation of stricter rules and procedures was needed to set an example for other workers. One manager at Prodco, however, felt that, whilst absence rates had been reduced from 11 per cent to 2 per cent, one had to look behind those figures and ask whether the Production plant was a better place to work in terms of morale. Having recognised this, the stricter enforcement of rules was not the only factor resulting in the reduction of absence levels at the site. Edwards (1994) argues that the shift away from penalties and sanctions towards a sense of duty is indicative not of the disappearance of control but of it operating in different ways. During the research, organisational pressures within each of the companies presented themselves in a variety of forms, which suggested that control through rules was just one factor in the equation. Teamwork, duty to work colleagues, the structure of working practices, the individuals’ own value system were significant factors. Within Consultco, for example, whilst a bureaucratic system did not exist, organisational control via teamwork pressures, working practices and heavy workloads reflected a hard-edged approach of organisational control. As such, there was difficulty in specifying the point at which a worker’s responsibility stops (Edwards, 1994). The clearest example of this was again at the production site at Prodco. A stricter enforcement of discipline was also combined with the development of a teamwork culture, so that shift workers were organised into four teams according to their shift, together with the appointment of team leaders. Part of the team leader’s responsibility was to monitor team absence levels and notify the administration supervisor recording the absences. As the production manager commented:”I really try and put a lot of the responsibility on to team leaders to be accountable for absence”.

Close monitoring of individual team performance was evident, with absence rates highlighted. All four teams were identified by their absence rate and the production manager was keen to assert that this proved effective in developing team pressures. Furthermore, the publicized graph illustrated the overall target rate (2 per cent) and the current absence level (just over 2 per cent, reduced from 11 per cent) to that goal. A shift worker commented: “Well before, we just used to do our shift and if we didn’t come in, we didn’t come in, that was the end of the story. If I go absent now, it gets noticed. When I come back, team leaders ask me why I was away. Because we work in teams now, my absence gets noticed more. I feel bad when someone else has to cover for me when I’m not here. Saying that, we get to know pretty quickly who’s in and who’s out”.

The problem of managerial time was evident in all the retail organisations. More often than not, managers were too busy trying to cope with gaps that were caused by the initial absence. At Superco, as the store manager pointed out: “Some managers have the opinion that when someone comes back from being sick they’re so grateful to have them back because they’ve suffered when they were off. Sometimes they don’t even enquire as to the reason for absence”.

There was a lack of training for managers in absence management (although many were not keen to go on absence management courses). This tended to reflect the low priority given to the issue but also explained why managers felt uncomfortable administering counselling sessions and attempting to explore the reasons behind certain absences. Consequently, managers often felt the need to enlist the help of personnel for conducting the counselling sessions. Within the food retailing companies, for example, department managers, whilst recognising

their obligations to conduct return-to-work interviews and counselling sessions, were often loath to inquire too deeply into the reasons behind individual absences. Many male managers in all case studies admitted to feeling embarrassed when probing deeply into “women’s problems”. This was brought out by one manager at Bankco: “When people come back generally with simple ailments such as stomach upsets, etc., and it is continual, then I will phone medical staffing and I will push that because I don’t have the necessary skills or rapport skills in actually doing counselling. We as managers here have not been trained to give counselling. And I don’t know whether I actually want to become involved in that … I’m not a doctor …”

The dynamics of line management discretion

Whilst absence control could be generated through policies and procedures, the character of workplace relations was a key explanatory variable in the operation of organisational discipline. Espoused policies and procedures were often compromised and customary understandings reached (Edwards and Whiston, 1989). In short, organisational rules were not “independent variables” (Edwards and Scullion, 1984) but rested upon the dynamics of worker-management relations. The issue of line management discretion confirmed these. At Prodco, the discretionary power of line managers was believed to be crucial to the way in which managers managed the attendance record of certain employees. For example, one R&D manager commented that most of the employees he managed were graduates working “incredible hours, sometimes 18-hour days and at weekends too.” As such, it was felt that under the new guidelines of the “Attendance Scheme”, it would be hard to discipline these employees, if in a rolling year their absences had totalled the three-spell trigger point for counselling and/or deducting leave. As the manager himself remarked: “They might turn round to me and say “Well, I’m not coming in on Saturdays anymore”, I wouldn’t blame them”.

Often, managers were caught in a balancing act between disciplining their staff for absence and the needs of the business. For example, one property services and security manager at Bankco expressed the dilemmas she faced with one member of her staff: “One of my chaps suffers from asthma, so he does take quite a lot of time off work. But when he’s here he’ll stay till 10 o’clock at night and sort out problems. How can I turn round and discipline him if he goes over the trigger level?”

Furthermore, budgetary constraints dictated the balancing act as described above: “It’s horses for courses. I have here basically number crunching. They go spare. I don’t have surplus staff. I have a budget. I can’t go and recruit, it doesn’t work that way. I have got to get these people to work and I have got to balance that with their own personal trials and tribulations. It’s getting that balance which is not very easy”.

At Prodco, whilst managers welcomed the proposed “Attendance Scheme” in its intent to add consistency to existing practices, managers still sought to maintain the initial discretionary power. Whilst they felt that personnel should provide the manager with the initial trigger, it was felt that the manager should have the option to decide whether or not he/she wished to progress the matter further rather than waving the “big stick”. This was felt to be important particularly with staff working beyond their contractual hours. As one R&D manager commented: “People work weekends here, which can destroy their family life. When these absence policies are formulated, they don’t take account of that. If you don’t have the discretion at the initial interview stage, then you could be led the wrong way and this could demoralize staff. People would drag themselves into work, which will ultimately impact on morale”.

The need to be sensitive to the realities of the work situation revealed itself clearly in the case studies. For example, the implications of improved technology was an issue highlighted by managers in the financial service organisations, so that an increasing number of professionals were able to work from home even when absent. As such, they were not always marked down as absent. As one management accounting manager at Bankco remarked: “Many people are working from home, they could be doing it now because the technology is there. We won’t care if they spend all morning in bed. What we care about is whether they deliver the product.”

At Consultco, many managers commented that absence did not get recorded if an individual agreed with his/her manager to “make time up”. As one senior manager observed: “If somebody’s off for the day, they can make it up at the end of the week. Sometimes we don’t mark it down”.

Conclusion

The profile of absence and the significance attached to the issue varied between and within sectors. While there was no standard approach to managing absence, several factors emerged as key elements. We have seen a movement away from financial incentives as a means of promoting good attendance levels (Harvey and Nicholson, 1993). The operation of attendance bonuses was felt by many managers to be a signal to employees that management had effectively given up their right to manage the problem. Instead, there was a general pattern of tackling the problem at “grass-roots” level. This was seen by developments in health promotion at work and the provision of medical services as evidence of a movement towards a more health-conscious culture, where

“prevention is better than cure”. The problem of absence was also tackled by developing open communication via return-to-work interviews, counselling and informal chats. In the case of return-to-work interviews such communication can generate pressures to attend work. Common forms of sanctions for excessive absence levels came in the form of the withholding of sick-pay. Organisational control also operated in far more subtle ways via internal social controls and the nature of open plan offices, which reduced the anonymity of the individual. Bureaucratic systems of control supplemented by control through commitment, as workers felt a strong duty to fellow work colleagues (Geary, 1994). Rules were not “independent variables” (Edwards and Scullion, 1984), but very much part of the dynamics of management-worker relations and, as such, discipline was often the subject of compromise and negotiation. Given the nature of management-worker relations, the rigid enforcement of normative procedures proved difficult and often involved a compromise between actors.

We found that policies and procedures, whilst an important influence on the management of absence, are not a panacea. Instead, the responsibility of everyday cases, which make up the bulk of the problem, rests with line management. Whilst personnel/human resources played an important and integral role in ensuring that live management recognise their responsibilities in absence management, in some cases, elsewhere, the position was left unclear. In some companies, the somewhat ad hoc approach to managing absence on the part of personnel/human resources and line management, coupled with a clear lack of distinction in responsibility, resulted in a case of “muddling through”. As such, absence problems were not identified and dealt with at an early stage. This lack of accountability often resulted in inconsistencies of approach, which had the effect of discrediting the system as a whole. Many managers did not find out that they were presiding over a problem until it was too late. Finally, the unclear distinction of accountability was also a result of inadequate training in basic counselling techniques.

While this study does not provide a comprehensive picture of the management of absence within the context of UK industry as a whole, it does offer insights into the kinds of problems and issues posed in the area of absence management. From a practitioner angle, the management of absence needs to be tackled, first, through a partnership of personnel and line managers, and second, through a more integrated approach rather than simply a reliance on internal social controls.

Table I.Key issues in absence management

References

Baum, J.F., Menefee, M.L. (1978), "An experimental study of operant conditioning and absenteeism", Atlanta, GA., paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, .

Baum, J.F., Youngblood, S.A. (1975), "Impact of an organizational control policy on absenteeism, performance and satisfaction", Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 60 No.6, pp.688-94.

Edwards, P K. (1989), "The three faces of discipline", in Sisson, K. (Eds),Personnel Management in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford., .

Edwards, P.K. (1994), "Discipline and the creation of order", in Sisson, K. (Eds),Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain, 2nd ed., Basil Blackwell, Oxford, .

Edwards, P.K. (2000), "Discipline", in Bach, S., Sisson, K. (Eds),Personnel Management, 3rd ed.,, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, .

Edwards, P.K., Scullion, H. (1984), "Absenteeism and the control of work", Sociological Review, Vol. 32 No.3, pp.547-72.

Edwards, P.K., Whiston, C. (1989), "Industrial discipline, the control of attendance and the surbordination of labour: towards an integrated analysis", Work, Employment and Society , Vol. 3 No.1, pp.1-28.

Edwards, P.K., Whiston, C. (1993), Attending to Work: The Management of Attendance and Shopfloor Order, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, .

Geary, J.F. (1994), "Task participation: employees’ participation – enabled or constrained?", in Sisson, K. (Eds),Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain, 2nd ed., Basil Blackwell, Oxford, .

Grove, B.A. (1968), "Attendance reward plan pays", Personnel Journal, Vol. 47 pp.119-20..

Harvey, J., Nicholson, N. (1993), "Incentives and penalties as a means of influencing attendance: a study in the UK public sector", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 4 No.4, pp.641-855.

Henry, S (1987), "Disciplinary pluralism: four models of private justice in the workplace", Sociological Review, Vol. 35 pp.279-319.

Huczynski, A.A., Fitzpatrick, M.J. (1989), Managing Employee Absence for a Competitive Edge, Pitman, London., .

Incomes Data Services (IDS) (1994), Absence and Sick-pay Policies, IDS, London, .

Johnson, R.D., Wallin, J.A. (1976), "Employee attendance: an operant conditioning intervention in a field setting", Washington, DC., paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of American Psychological Association, .

Katz, D., Kahn, R.L. "1966", The Social Psychology of Work, .

Latham, G.P., Napier, N.K., Atkin, R.S. (1984), "Practical ways to increase employee attendance", in Goodman, P.S. (Eds),Absenteeism, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA., .

Lawler, E.E., Hackman, J.R. (1969), "Impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans: a field experiment", Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 53 pp.467-71.

Nicholson, N. (1977), "Absence behaviour and attendance motivation: a conceptual thesis", The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 14 No.3, pp.231-52.

Orpen, C (1978), "Effects of bonuses for attendance on the absenteeism of industrial workers", Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 1 pp.118-24.

Panyan, S.W., McGregor, M. (1976), "How to implement a proactive incentive plan: a field study", Personnel Journal, Vol. 55 pp.460-2.

Rosenthal, R. (1979), "Arbitral standards for absence discharge", Labour Law Review, pp.732-40.

Sargent, A. (1989), The Missing Workforce: Managing Absenteeism, Institute of Personnel Management, London, .

Schmitz, L.M., Heneman, H.G. (1980), "Do positive reinforcement programmes reduce employee absenteeism?", Personnel Administrator, Vol. 25 No.9, pp.87-93.

Steers, R.M., Rhodes, S.R. (1984), "Knowledge and speculation about absenteeism", in Goodman, P.S., Atkin, R.S. (Eds),Absenteeism, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA., .

Stephens, T.A., Burroughs, W.A. (1978), "An application of operant conditioning to absenteeism in a hospital setting", Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 63 pp.518-21.

Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, .

Taylor, P.J. (1982), Absenteeism – Causes and Control, Industrial Society, London, .

Torrington, D., Hall, L. (1995), in 3rd ed. (Eds),Personnel Management, Prentice-Hall, London, .

.

Information from online guide to referencing, Effective Learning Service, GCU

What does referencing include?

Citing - When you use someone else's ideas you are required to acknowledge the source in your assignment. This is known as citing (or referencing).

References - In your essays you will be required to provide a detailed description of your source using a Referencing System such as the Harvard or Numerical Referencing System. References should be provided within the text, immediately following information taken from that source. Additionally, references should be shown in the form of a Reference List or Bibliography at the end.

Reference Lists - include all the sources you refer to in your writing.

Bibliography - a list of works you refer to plus any texts you have consulted but not specifically mentioned in your answer.

Why reference?

To do sound written research you need to cite references honestly and professionally. This lets the reader check quotations and data, and consult the sources used. Referencing makes sure that you avoid plagiarism and shows the reading you have done.

You need to make references when you

quote - use someone's exact words summarise - sum up someone else's arguments or ideas

paraphrase - put another author's material into your own words

copy - use illustrations such as: diagrams, tables, charts or maps

When you write academic assignments you are expected to refer to ideas and material produced by others. The kinds of information you use will vary and may include: theories, viewpoints, research, diagrams and statistics. You have to acknowledge the author of each source.

There are two main parts to citing references:

1. how you acknowledge your sources in the text. 2. how you list your sources at the end of your work in the reference list or bibliography.

Referencing systems

There are two main systems of linking references in the text to the full bibliographical details at the end of your work.

Numeric (sometimes called Vancouver or Footnote) Harvard

Numeric System – in the text

Cited publications are numbered in the order in which they are first referred to in the text.

They are identified either in brackets or as a superscript number:

‘In a recent study, Smith (5)...’ or ‘In a recent study, Smith5...'

Harvard System – in the text

Cited publications are referred to in the text by giving the author's name and year of publication, in either of the forms shown below (depending on the sentence structure):

In a recent study, Smith (2002) ... In a recent study (Smith, 2002) ...

Introducing quotations

You can put short quotations (exact words from a source) into your text using single quotation marks and the relevant page number:

McIntosh (2001, p.23) noted that 'students' academic work was enhanced by citing sources correctly'.

You should indent longer quotations and use single line spacing. You should use quotation marks. Add the author's name and date at the end.

When you use diagrams, graphs or illustrations, reference your sources in the same way as for quotations (author's name, date of publication).

Some rules for using quotations

Quotes must be exact, including any grammatical or spelling errors. You can include the word 'sic' in square brackets [sic] after the quoted material if there is an error in the words you are quoting. This tells the reader that the error is the writer's and not yours.

Quotes should be used sparingly to make significant points and should fit well with the rest of your text.

If you leave words out of a direct quotation use three dots to mark the omitted words: e.g. You do not 'have to use complete quotations... any unnecessary words can be omitted'.

You can add words [which help in] making the meaning clearer. When you do this put your own words in square brackets, as above. You can use this device to ensure that your writing stays grammatically correct when using quotations.

When quoting from a secondary source the author, year and page number should come from the text you have read e.g. Smith (1966, cited in Fletcher, 2005 p. 57) reported that '... there is no difference between multiplayer high compression...'

Citing references in the text

When introducing references into the text (citing) you should choose suitable reporting verbs as these can:

strengthen your arguments. help the reader understand why the source is relevant.

Ways of introducing references into text

You can introduce references into the text in various ways. Certain rules apply. You should cite all sources you refer to; ideally this should not break up the flow of the writing.

When the author's name occurs naturally in the sentence put the year in round bracketsPiaget (1999) has argued that...

When the author's name does not occur naturally in the sentence, put both the surnames with an ampersand (&) and publication date in brackets. The full stop should appear after the bracket: It is acceptable to use both short and long quotes in academic assignments (Harris & Jones, 2001). Note: When the names are part of the text use 'and': Harris and Jones (2001) have commented on...

When the author is unknown use 'Anon': It has been argued (Anon, 1995) that...Note: Be careful of using work with unknown authors.

When you read the source in another text and are paraphrasing refer to the primary source and link by using the words 'cited in': Burnham (1888 cited in Smith 2000) pointed out that... (In your references at the end, list both sources if possible)

When there is no author, for example, in a newspaper article, then use the name of the paper instead. A recent study describes... (The Herald, 1998, p4)

When there are three or more authors use: 'et al': An additional theory was developed (Hughes et al, 2002) supporting the teaching methods identified above.Note: For Psychology, all the authors' names are mentioned the first time they appear in the text there after they can be referred to using et al

When you refer to different work by the same author in the same year make this clear by adding letters after the date: 'a' for first, 'b' for second and so on. In his first article Jones (1997a) suggests ...Jones (1997b) also argued that...

Referencing at the end of your work

In both systems, the Harvard and Numeric, you have to identify the author(s), the date of publication, the name of the book or journal and so on. You may be asked to produce a reference list or a reference list and a bibliography.

References - a list (usually at the end of a piece of work) that includes all documents you refer to in your writing.

Bibliography - a list of works you consulted, whether or not you referred to them in the text.

In the Numeric System:

references are numbered in the order you quote them in the text

the date of publication goes at the very end of a book reference.In journal references, it goes after the journal's title and before the volume or part number.

In the Harvard system:

references appear alphabetically in order of authors' names underlining can be used instead of italics if bibliography is handwritten

The following are examples of how to reference a book, journal article & website using the Harvard system:

Book: Walsh, M., 1998. Models and critical pathways in clinical nursing: conceptual frameworks for care planning. 2nd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall.

Journal: Dening, F., 1993. Patient controlled analgesia. British Journal of Nursing, Vol.2, (5), pp. 274-277.

Websites: The Business Continuity Institute ( 2006) Mission Statement [online]. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.thebci.org/about.htm [accessed 11 April, 2006].

NB: Within your actual reference list you do not separate books, journals, websites etc but include them in one comprehensive list.

Sample reference list. Abbott, P. (2000) An analysis of efficiency, undergraduate frameworks, awards and progression regulations - modern universities in the UK. Glasgow, Glasgow Caledonian University.

Baren-Cohen, S. (2003) The essential difference: men, women and the extreme male brain. London; Allen Lane.

Barnes, S. (2001) Questionnaire design and construction. Bristol Institute of Learning and Technology. [online] http://www.cros.ac.uk/question_design.pdf#search=%22belief%20questions%20%20Barnes%202001%22 Accessed on 30 August 2006.

Donovan, P. (2003) Insights into maternal health. In: Grandis, S., Long, G., Glasper E.A., Donovan, P. Foundation studies for nursing using enquiry based learning. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.15-47.

Figg, K., McAllister, C., & Shapiro, A. (2006) Effective Learning service - a developmental model in practice. Journal of Access Policy and Practice. Vol. 4, number 1, Winter 2006 pp.39-52.

Hart, C. (2001) Doing a literature search. London: Sage.

Holzworth, R., & Wills, C. (1999) Nurses' judgements regarding seclusion and restraint of psychiatric patients: a social judgement analysis. Research in Nursing and Health. Vol.22, pp. 189–201. In: Lowe, T., Wellman, N., Taylor, R. (2003) Limit-setting and decision-making in the management of aggression. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Vol.41(2), pp 154-61.

McAllister, C. Shapiro, A. (2004) Developing learners at Glasgow Caledonian University: the Effective Learning Service response. Paper presented at Forum for the advancement of Continuing Education Conference, 2- 4 July 2004.

Scottish Executive. (2003) Supporting people, supporting independent living. Edinburgh HMSO, 2003.

Walsh, N., Roe, B., Huntington, J. (2003) Delivering a different kind of Primary Care? Nurses working in personal medical service pilots Journal of Clinical Nursing [online], Vol.12 (3). Available from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00744.x/full/ [Accessed 1st May 2003].