8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

1/6

REPRINT

Rewarding good attendance: 'A comparative study of positive ways toreduce absenteeismK. Dow Scott, Steven E. Markham and Richard W. Robers

The Yoder-Heneman Personnel Research Award honors the report-ing of itrnovative research in the personnel field. It is named for DaleYoder, APD' PhD, and Herbert G. Heneman, Jr., APD' Phf), two ofpersonnel managemento most re spected scholars.K. Dow Scott is an associate ro-

fessorof managentent at VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State[Jniuersity. He hold"sa PhD from theState Uniuersityof New York at Buffalo and is the author of numerousarticles.SteaenE. Markharn is an associateprofessorof management at VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and StateUniuersity. He holds a PhD fromMichigan State (Jniuersity,and hisresearch enterson productiuity

,55UeS.R.W. Robeis s the uicepresident ofadministration for the Maid BessCorp. n Salem, VA. A graduate ofXauier Uniuersity n Cincinirati, OH,

he has beenaruASPA membersince1973. Roberss the author of seueralarticleson human resource opics.

umerous programs havebeen developed to controlabsenteeism, and a myriad

of studies have been conducted onthe subject (Steersand Rhodes,I 978). Nevertheless, bsenteeismstill represents a serious problemfor many organualions. Accordingto a survey conducted by theBureau of National Aftairs, Inc., 60percent of all participating com-panies considered absenteeism obe their most serious disciplineproblem (BNA, l9B5). Yet withinevery problem there lies opportuni-ty. Absenteeism represented ustsuch an opportunity for collabora-tion by two companies and auniversity research team.

Origrnally our research approachwas to focus on examining the ef-fect that absenteeismcontrol prac-tices had on employeeattendancerather than trying to identify factorsthat cause absenteeism.Theauthors previously conducted aregional and national survey of

absenteeismcontrol practices (Scottand Markh am, l9B2; Markhamand Scott, lg8l) that was fundedby the ASPA Foundation. Bothsurveys indicated that companieswhich recognized good attendancehad lower absenteeism han com-panies that did not. These findingspersuaded Kenneth H. Klein andLinda Neumann of the BaHour Co.to investigate the possibfity of anew market for the company'srecognition programs (Balfour hassold service recognition awards toindustry for over 75 years).Neumann inquired about thepossibility of conducting a morerigorous research program toevaluate the effects of personalrecognition on absenteeism.

This was an opportunity to ex-tend our past research onabsenteeismby conducting a com-parative field experiment that wouldpit several major attendance im-provement programs against eachother for a substantial period of

Personnol Adminlstrator,/AUGUsT 1985

8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

2/6

time. We were most interested inpositive attendance improvementprograms because: (I) these pro-grams do not involve sanctions ordisciplines that are di{ficult to ad-minister; (2) these programs specifydesired employee behavior; and (3)these programs do not create othernegativeoutcomes associatedwithpunishment.

There has been a history of fieldexperiments in absenteeismcontrol(seeSchmitz and Heneman, l9B0).This research has most frequentlyfocused upon positive approachesto absenteeismcontrol such as obredesign, employee participation,attendance lotteries, employeeassistance programs and financialincentive programs (".g., Pedalinoand Gamboa, L974; Wallin andJohnson, L976; Orpen, 1978).Some of the shortcomings of thesestudies include the following:(l) usually only one type of at-tendance improvement programwas implementedi(2) most pro-grams did not last more than 16'weeks; (3) few designs.used controlgroups for comparisons; and (4) theresults of these experiments werecompared with absence rates frommonths immediately prior to the ex-periment, thus allowing for an in-correct inference because of thelack of control for seasonal n-fluences or national economic con-ditions (Markham, Dansereau andAlutto, l9B3).

In order to design a study thatwould respond to these problems,an extensiveyear-long search wasmade to locate a company thatwould be willing to try a number ofdifferent attendance improvementprograms over an exteirded periodof time. The Maid Bess Cotp.agreed to participate in the studybecause this research provided anopportunity to reduce theirabsenteeismrate, which averagedover six percent. Even thoughemployees are not paid when ab-sent, absenteeismcost the corpora-tion over $700,000 annually in lost

salesoovertime payments, addedoverhead dnd extra employees.

The basic purpose of thisresearch was to conduct a field ex-periment in an organizational set-ting which would provide a simul-taneous comparison of a variety ofpositive attendance improvementprograms under similar conditions.Research methodsThe attendarrce mprouementpro-,gran6. Based on the literature andthe feasibility of program im-plementation at the Maid BessCorp., the following attendance im-provement programs were selected.o Financial incentiae program: Afinancial incentive program pro-vided a $50 cash bonus at the endof the year for employees who hadno absences.Employees who hadone or two absences received a$25 cash bonus. During the courseof the year no attempt wa-qmade torecognize individuals who were stilleligible to receive the financialbonus.. Recognition program: At a dif-ferent plant, a personal recognitionprogram was installed with theassistanceof the Balfour Corp. Col-leen O'Connell, marketing managerfor,Balfour, analyzed he worksituation at Maid Bess and designeda unified, thematic program usingposters, cards and awards. At theend of each quarter, employeeswith no more than one absencereceived a card signed by themanager notifying and con-gratulating them of this fact.Employees who had perfect at-tendance or who missed one or twodays during the entire yearqualified for a custom-designedpiece of engraved ewelry.o Lottery program: At anotherplant, a quarterly lottery programwas instituted. The prize (a mantleclock or a portable television) wasgiven at the end of each quarter.The value of each pnze was ap-proximately $200. If an employeehad perfect attendance for the

quarter, his or her name wasentered twice in the lottery. If theemployee had one absence,his orher name was.entered ust once forthe drawing.o Information feedback program:At one plant, an information feed-back program was installed. In thisprogram employees receivedabsenteeism eedback once amonth with their paychecks.Thisfeedback indicated the employee'syear-to-dateabsencerecord. No at-tempt was made to change theabsence policy; no positive ornegative connotation was attachedto the information about absences.

A fifth plant (Control l) was usedbecause a survey had been ad-ministered to examine employee at-titudes toward absenteeism and theattendance mprovement programs.Although this questionnaire was nota program per se, it may have af-fected the absence ates (i.e., a"Hawthorne effect"). Therefore, toassessand control for the effects ofthe survey, only questionnaire datawere collected at this fifth plant.The survey was administered at thesame times as in the other plants.

A sixth plant (Control 2) wasestablishedfrom which onlyabsencedata were collected..Theonly time the plant was visited wasto establish a procedure to collectthe absenteeism data fromemployee records. These data werecollected by the personnel assistant,who was informed that this informa-tion was being used for an experi-'ment and was not an evaluation ofmanagement.

Research ncatinn. The Maid BessCorp. has six "cut-and-sew" gar-ment factories in southwesternVirginia and North Carolina. Theseplants are very similar in terms ofwork force, manufact,rri.tgtechnologyand employmentpolicies. Each plant operates in-dependently; thus, there is littlecommunicationamong employeesof different plants. Plant sizesranged from L49 to 400. There are

AUGUST 1985/Personnel Adminlstrator

8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

3/6

approximately I,800 emplovees nall of the plants,,and about 94percent of the employees arewomen. Turnover rates varied from30 percent per year to 70 percent,compared to an industry average ofabout 65 percent. Employees areon a piece rate pay system.Although they are pSraranteedheminimum wage when hired and$3.75lhr. after one year, theiraverage hourly wages are $5, withsome workers earning up to $9 perhour.

There was an identical at -tendance control policy at each ofthese plants prior to the ex-periments. Employees weredisciplined (and in some casesterminated) for excessiveabsenteeism. The absenteeismratefor each plant was calculated daily.It was computed by dividing thenumber of absentees disregardingthose on vacation, jury duty andlayoff) by the total number on thepayroll for that day. The six percentabsenteeismrate at Maid Besswasmoderate for this industry.

Adminiifatktn of the stud,y. Thefour attendance improvement pro-grams were conducted at the sametime: July l9B3 throughJune1984. The fact that the ex-periments lasted for a full year wasvery important for two reasons.First, from a methodological view-point this reduces the possibilitythat the results were attributable toseasonal variation, as noted byCook and Campbel l I976:277) oreconomic conditions (Markham,l9B5). Second, t also provides atest of the endurance of the pro-Brsffi, which is an important con-sideration from a practicingmanager's perspective.

ResultsFigure I shows the results of thetreatments for the six plants duringthe experiment. For each programthe average absenteeism rate forthe prior two years is shown in Col-umn 2, and the experimental

period's rdte is listed in Column 3.Column 4 contains he percentagechange and the level of statisticalsignificancefor a one-way ANOVAwith unequal cell sizesfor the com-parison of the experimentalandmatching previous rates.

Figure 2 showsemployeeresponses o survey questionsaboutabsenteeism n general and thespecific control programs. Theresponses o four questions areshown for each of the five plantswhere the questionnairewas ad-ministered.The questionsare listedin Column l. Column 2 indicateswhen employees esponded tothesequestions.Wave I data werecollected before the program wasannounced July l9B3); Wave IIdata were collectedafter the pro-gram had been in effect for sirmonths (January 9B4); and WaveII I data were collectedafter theprogram had been in effect for ayear (July l9B4). Columns3-7 in-dicate horv he emplovees espond-ed. Each question had six responsecategories anging from "stronglvdisagree" to "stronglv agreet'. andthe tabled valuesare the per-centages f thoseernployeeswh oagreed, strongly agreed, orsomewhatagreedwith the question.Fo r example, n Column 4. Wave [.53.7 percentof the employeesagreed that "good attendance" wa^srewarded at the plant where thepersonalrecognitionprogram wasimplemented.

PersonaL ecognition.At the piantwhere the personal recognitionpro-gram was implemented, ab-senteeismdecreasedby 36.9 per-cent, which is the largestdecreaseof the four positiveattendance m-provementprograms. This programcost approximately$10,000 to im-plement in a plant of 400employees. hirt l ' employees 7. 5percent) received he award forperfect attendance,and 30employees 7.5 percent) receivedthe award for good attendance oneor two days absent).Absenteeism

costswere reduced by over$58,000'in terms of direct laborcosts.

The data in Figure 2 indicare rlatemployee attitudes owardabsenteeismalso changeddramatically. Before the programstarted,only 53.7 percentof th eemployeesbelieved that attendancewas rewarded. After the programwas mplemented,67.9 percent(Wave II ) an d 75.8 percent (WaveIII) of the employees el t thatattendancewas rewarded. Thesuney indicates hat a high percen-tage of the employeeswere awareof the attenclancemprovement pro-gram (88.5 percent an d92.2 per-cent), and that most employeesliked the program (72.7 percentand 83.3 percent ) .

FinanciaL incentiues.The finan-cial incentive treatmentexperiencecla non-significant decrease nabsence rom 6.35 percent to 6.04percent. The total award cost of thisprogram was $3,675 in a plant ofapproximately400 employees.Fifty-sevenemployees(13.7 per-cent) received the award for perfectattendance that ytr, and 33employees 8.0 percent) received.the award for good attendance (oneor two days).

The change in employee attitudesabout absenteeismat this plant wasdifferent from the pattern at therecognition program's plant. Hereemployees believed that attendancewas rewarded even before the pro-gram was implemented (72.L per-cent). Employees knew about theprogram (78.8 percent and 83.7percent), and they indicated thatthey liked the program (76.2 per-cent and 75.6 percent). However,fewer employees indicated agree-ment that the program was working(60.2 percent and 66.7 percent)than employeeswho participated inthe personal recognition program atthe other plant.

Informatinn feedback The infor-mation feedback condition showedPersonnel Administrator/AUGUST 1985

8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

4/6

, Figure IFOUR ATTENDAIICE IMPROVEI/ffiNT PROGRAMS AND FOUR CONTROLS

ProgramPersonal RecognitionFinancial IncentiveInformation FeedbackLotteryControl I: Survey EffectControl II: No Treatment

Average of PreviousTwo Yearst Rates

7.566.356.335.594.225.23

ExperimentalRate4.776.O46.09g. l4.244.54

PercentChange

-36.9"4.9 n.s.3.8 n.s.

+ 9.3 n.s.+ 0.5 n.s.- 13 .2b

h < 000rbp( .otn.s. : Not significant.

Figure 2PERCENTAGE OF POSITTVE RESPONSES BY PARTICIPANTSTOWARD ATTENDANCE CONTROL PROGRAMS

Questions

C'ood attendance is rewardedhere.

I know about the newattendance program here.

I feel that the new attendanceprogram has worked here'

I like the attendance programthat was started in July.

SurveyWave

IIIII IIIIII I

IIIIil

IIIII I

Recognition

53.7o/o67.975.8

BB.592.2

72.783.3

Financiallncentive

72.1o/o74.OB l . 7

7B.Bo J . i

6A266.7

76.275.6

InformationFeedback

54.60/o46.840.6

65.06 l . B

80.377.0

Quarterlyl,ottery

42.0o/o64.259.3

8 1 . 0B l . 0

79.886.3

SurweyControl

52.2o/o63.959.9

56 . 1s9.2

54.353.4

63.865.8

65.966.662.256.250.974.6

Note: positive responses were: Strongly airee.agree and somewhat aFee.Each treatment (program) was at a separate faciliw and respondentsanswered the question in terms of program that was implemented at their plant'

a non-significant eduction nabsenteeism,rom 6.33 percent o6.09 percent.Therewas no costfor this program because t simPlYrequired gving employeesperiodicfeedbackabout heir absenceates.The plant had approximately300employees.Figure 2 indicates hat emPloYeeattitudes oward absenteeismchangedmarkedly. However, his

was n the opposite irectionof theotherattendance rograms.Employeebeliefs hat attendancewould be rewardeddecreaseddur-ing the courseof the study(54.6percento 6.8 percentand 40.6percent, espectively).mployeesseemedo be lessawareof thispro-gram han the attendancemProve-mentprogramsat the other loca-tions 65 percentand6I.8

percent). lnnery. For the yff, the plantwith the quarterly lottery treatmentshoweda statistically ignificant n'creesen absenteeism,oing rom5.59 percento 6.ll Percent. heprograrhseemedo haveno in-fluenceon absenteeism,xceptduringthe secondquarterwhen theplant had a statisticallysignificantdecreasen absenteeism14 per-

AUGUST1985/Personnel Administrator

8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

5/6

cent).During his quarter,employees ad the opportunity oselect he prize. The plant had ap-proximately140 employees, ndone employeewon the award eachquarter. Employeeseligible for thedrawing each quarter were: 54 forthe first quarter (39 percent),76for the secondquarter(54 percent),60 for the third quarter(43 per-cent), and 62 for the fourth quarter(44 percent).Absenteeism ostswerereducedby $650 duringthesecondquarter,when the ab-senteeismateswerereduced.Thetotal cost of this programwas$800for prizes or the year. \Figure 2 indicateshat employee

attitudesoward absenteeismchanged.Only 42 percentof theemployees elieved hat attendancewirsrewarded before the programwas mplemented.After the pro-gramwas mplemented,64.2 per-cent (Wave I) and 59.3 percent(Wave II) of the employeeseltthat attendance asrewarded.Figure2 also ndicates hat a highpercentageof the employeeswereawue f the program Bl percentand Bl percent), nd mostemployeesiked the program 79.8percentand 86.3 percent).

Control (Suruq). A non-significant hange n absenteeismoccurredat the plant where onlyquestionnaire atawerecollected.It should be noted hat absenteeismdid decrease ignificantlyduringthe first quarter(17 percent).ThisHawthorne effect was n reaction othe administration f the surueyand did not reappearduring thesubsequent uarters.Control I (No interuentian).At thisplant, no surueyor treatmentpro-gramwas mplemented.However,unlike Control I, there was a signifi-cant decreasen absenteeism.W'esuspecthat this reductionwas dueto productioncutbacks,whichresulted n layoffs.DiecussionThe data suggesthat the recogni-

tion program had the most dramaticimpact of all the programs in termsof reducing. absenteeism,changingemployee attitudes and savingmoney. Although we rewarded onlythose employees with two days orless absenteeism n the recognitionplant, attendance improved acrossthe entire spectrum of employees.Many employees who previouslyhad six to eight percent had four tofive percent rates during the:experi-ment. This improvement in at-.tendance did not occur at the plantlocations where the other programswere implemented.

A unique feature of this researchis the simultaneous comparison ofeach attendance improvement pro-gram. Because the results indicatedifferences in the pattern ofabsenteeismand employee attitudesfor the different attendance im-provement programs, one has cer-tain insights into why the programsmay have had the effects that theydid.

For example, one possible ex-planation for the positive results ofthe recognition program is thatemployees were responding to theperceived economic value of theaward. If this were the case, itwould seem that the results at thefinancial incentive plant would havebeen stronger. An alternative ex-planation for the success of therecognition program might be thatit established a clear, specific at-tendance goal. However, both thefinancial incentive and the lotteryprogram established goals; becausethese programs showed no effect,this alternative also seems unlikely.Another alternative is that therecognition program merely alertedemployees to the importance thatmanagement placed on good at-tendance. This effect was isolatedin the information feedback pro-gr&fl, with no positive result, so thisalso seems unlikely.

Certain unique features of therecognition program may have con-tributed to its success. First,employees who had perfect or good

attendance were publicly recog-nized each quarter by having theirnames placed on bulletin boards.In addition, a card was sent to thehome of those with good attendancerecords. Second, this was a profes-sionally designed proetram by theBalfour Co., and was customizedfor this plant. The employees trulyseemed to be enthusiastic about theprogram because ofthe per-sonalization of the jewelry award.

In Control Plant II, the significantdecrease n absenteeismduring theexperiment was not anticipated.Regardless of the alternafive ex-planations for this effect, it is possi-ble that national unemploymentlevels, inflation or other en-vironmental'conditions were suchthat absenteeismshould havedeci"easedat all plant locations.However, it also is possible that thiscontrol group had been con-taminated by the plant manager'sknowledge of what was happeningat the other plants. Another possi-ble explanation is that due to areduction in work orders, em-ployees at this plant recognized thatthey might lose their jobs and cameto work to preserve their job se-curity. Poor performers were laidoff first.SummaryIn conclusion, the two strong pointsof this research are the comparisonof multiple attendance improvementprograms and the year-long trial ofthese programs. However, limita-tions should be noted. First,because the participants werewomen, the generalization of resultsmay be limited. Further experimen-tation will be required to, know howthese treatments might affect men.Second, it would be unfair to dis-count the attendance improvementprograms that did not reduceabsenteeism. These programs maynot have had an effect because ofthe way they were designed. For in-stance, the quarterly lottery mayhave had a much greater impact ifa drawing occurred each month or

Personnel Administrator/AUGUsT 1985

8/8/2019 Good Absenteeism

6/6

if numerous, smaller prizes wereused instead of one large pize.Finally, each attendance improve-ment program was only im-plemented at one plant location inone industry. The successor lackof success of these programs mayhave been influenced by some.specific characteristic of the plant,the Maid Bess Co. or the garmentindustry.

In summary, the results indicatethat the recognition program wiuassociatedwith the largest decreasein absenteeism and the mostdramatic changes in employeeattitudes. nThis researchwasfuryded by a grant

fiom the Balftur Co. and the Com-m.o w ealth of Virginia ProductiuityFund. Collection, coding and

analyis of the data werepeformedwith the assistance f Gail McKee,Jt y Fox and Barb Sperrcer.

RefereneesBNA (Bureau of National Aflairs. Inc.) "Trends anclissues in discipline", Penowwl Polbi.es Forum.

Washington, DC, Number 139, Januaryt985.J.K. Chadwick-Jones, N. Nicholson and C. Brown.Socinl Psychology of Absenteer^sm.New York:

Praeger, 1982.T.D. Cook and D.T. Campbell, "The design and

conduct of quasi-experiments and true ex-periments in field settings", In M.D. Dunnette,Handbook of InAsirial and OrganizatbrwlPsycholngy. Chicago: Rand-McNall y, 197 6

S.E. Markham, "An investigation of theunemployment-absence elationship: A multi-level approach", Aca.dcmy of ManagemcntJournal, 1985, in press.

S.E. Markham, F. Dansereau and J.A. Alutro,"Absenteeism rates as measures in organiza-tional experiments: Hidden cyclical and struc-tural variation", Reuicw of Businessand

Ecorwmic aearchn 983, 18 3, pp. 2l-31.S.E. Markham and K.D. Scott, "An assessment ofabsenteeism control methods: A pretminary

report", Sowhcm Managemcr* AssociationPrcceedings. 98l, pp. 67 -69.C. Orpen, "Effects of bonuses for attendance on theabsenteeism of industrial workers", Joumal ofOrganizatiltwl Behauinr M anngemcr*, 197 B,/, pp. llB-124.E. Pedalino and V.U. Gamboa, "Behavior modifica-tion and absenteeism", Joumal of ApplicdPsychnlagy, 197 4, 59, 6, pp. 694-698.K.D. Scott and S.E. Markham, "Absenteeism con-nol methods: A survey of practices andresults", Penonncl Administrator, lg92, 22,(6),pp.73-Bs.L.M. Schmitz and H.G. Heneman, "Do positivereinforcement programs reduce employeeabsenteeism?", Personnel Administraor,1980,2s,9) , p.87-93.R.M. Steers and S.R. Rhodes, "Major in{luences onemployee attendance: A process model",,/our-rwl of Appli.ed Psycha@gy,1978, 6J, (4), pp.39r-407.J.A. Wallin and R.D. Johnson, "The positive rein-

forcement approach to controlling employeeabsenteeism", Penonncl Joumal, August

. r976, p.390-392.

Reprinted with permission from the August/85 issueof PersonnelAdministrator@, 1985. The American Sociery for Personnel Administration. 606 North$Tashington Street,Alexandria, Virginia 22314.AUGUST 9BS,zPersonnelAdministrauor