The joint effects of promotion and prevention focus on performance, exhaustion and sickness absence among managers and non-managers

an article by Paraskevas Petrou, (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands), Machteld Van den Heuvel, (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Wilmar Schaufeli, (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium) published in Personnel Review Volume 46 Issue 8 (2017)

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the main and interaction effects of self-rated promotion and prevention regulatory focus on self-rated work performance, emotional exhaustion and sickness absence for managers and non-managers separately. The authors expected that promotion focus relates positively to performance and negatively to sickness absence, while prevention focus relates positively to exhaustion and sickness absence, both for managers and non-managers. Furthermore, the authors expected that promotion focus relates positively to performance but also to exhaustion and sickness absence when prevention focus is high, only for managers (i.e. a manager’s dual regulatory focus can be an effective but also exhausting leadership strategy).

Design/methodology/approach
The authors tested the hypotheses via moderated regression analyses among two independent groups, managers (n=241) and non-managers (n=415).

Findings
Promotion focus was positively related to managers’ and non-managers’ performance and negatively to non-managers’ sickness absence, while prevention focus did not have any main effects. As expected, managers’ promotion focus was positively related to managers’ sickness absence when managers’ prevention focus was high (i.e. dual regulatory focus). Furthermore, managers’ promotion focus negatively related to managers’ performance when managers’ prevention was high, failing to support the hypothesis.

Practical implications
Promotion focus should be enhanced by organizations among leaders and employees. The authors also cautiously discuss the possibility of interventions comparing a promotion focus with dual-focus training.

Originality/value
The authors contribute to the literature by examining the joint (rather than main) effects of promotion and prevention focus on work behavior and the authors address these links among managers and non-managers.

---

Mental health and productivity at work: Does what you do matter?

an article by Melisa Bubonya (The University of Melbourne, Australia), Deborah A.Cobb-Clark (The University of Sydney, Australia, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) and ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course, Australia) and Mark Wooden (The University of Melbourne, Australia and Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)) published in Labour Economics Volume 46 (June 2017)

Highlights

• Poor mental health is associated with both higher absence and presenteeism rates.
• Job conditions influence presenteeism, but only among persons in good mental health.
• The contribution of job control to absence is greater for those in poor mental health.
• Initiatives that reduce job stress offer the most potential to lift productivity.

Abstract
Much of the economic cost of mental illness stems from workers’ reduced productivity. Using nationally representative panel data we analyze the links between mental health and two alternative workplace productivity measures – absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e., lower productivity while attending work) – explicitly allowing these relationships to be moderated by the nature of the job itself.

We find that absence rates are approximately five percent higher among workers who report being in poor mental health. Moreover, job conditions are related to both presenteeism and absenteeism even after accounting for workers’ self-reported mental health status.

Job conditions are relatively more important in understanding diminished productivity at work if workers are in good rather than poor mental health. The effects of job complexity and stress on absenteeism do not depend on workers’ mental health, while job security and control moderate the effect of mental illness on absence days.

JEL Classification: I12, J22, J24

Full text (PDF)

---

Long-term consequences of workplace bullying on sickness absence

an article by Tine L. Mundbjerg Eriksen (Aarhus University, Denmark), Annie Hogh (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) and Åse Marie Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Denmark and The National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark) published in Labour Economics Volume 43 (December 2016)

Highlights

• Gender does not explain exposure to bullying once we include workplace fixed effects.
• We find that, bullying only increases women's long-term sickness absence.
• The findings are robust to personality and work environment characteristics.
• We analyze explanations such as health, turnover, and labor force participation.
• Results indicate that women's health deteriorates, while men leave the labor force.

Abstract

Bullying in workplaces is a problem thought to harm individual productivity. This paper investigates whether being exposed to bullying in the workplace increases long-term sickness absence. We analyze employees from a selection of workplaces from The Bullying Cohort Study conducted in Denmark in 2006.

The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised was used to avoid bias related to self-labeling as being bullied. We account for important confounders, such as historical information on sickness absence and mental health, obtained through rich registry data. Our results show that gender does not significantly explain exposure to bullying and that exposure to bullying is associated with negative immediate self-reported health for both genders.

We also find, however, that only bullied females have higher, persistent increases in long-term sickness absence and adverse long-term health. This suggests that men and women have different coping strategies. We investigate plausible explanations for this and find that the differences cannot be explained by, for example, turnover or lack of employment.

Although insignificant, our results nonetheless indicate that men are twice as likely to leave the labor force immediately after exposure to bullying.

JEL classification: J15, J24, J81

---

Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review

Morten Birkeland Nielsen (National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway and University of Bergen, Norway) and Ståle Einarsen (University of Bergen, Norway) published in Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations Volume 26 Issue 4 (November 2012)

Abstract

This paper reports results from two meta-analyses of the potential individual-level outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying.

After introducing a theoretical framework for the possible relationships between bullying and outcomes, Study 1 summarizes 137 cross-sectional effect sizes from 66 independent samples (N=77,721). The findings show that exposure to bullying is associated with both job-related and health- and well-being-related outcomes, such as mental and physical health problems, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, burnout, increased intentions to leave, and reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Non-significant or weak associations were established for absenteeism, performance, self-perceptions, and sleep.

Study 2 examines longitudinal relationships between bullying and mental health and absenteeism, respectively. Based on prospective associations from 13 samples (N=62,916), workplace bullying influenced mental health problems over time, while baseline mental health problems were associated with a similar increased risk of subsequent reports of exposure to bullying. The long-term effect of exposure to bullying on absenteeism was rather weak. To summarize, the two meta-analyses provide robust evidence for the detrimental effects of workplace bullying that are in line with the theoretical framework presented.

The findings have implications for the development of strategies against bullying. Directions for future research are discussed.

---

The Impact of Back Pain on Sickness Absence in Europe

a research paper from The Work Foundation (part of Lancaster University) by Professor Stephen Bevan published June 2012

Opening paragraphs

Back pain is one of the most common conditions reported by adults across Europe. In fact, it is estimated that half of the European population will suffer back pain at some time in their lives and in excess of a third of the European workforce suffer from low back pain. In fact, the latest survey of workers from across the EU suggests that 46% of women and 47% and men reported back pain at some time in the last 12 months. Thus, it is a condition which regularly affects:

• 14.2m Germans
• 9.6m Britons
• 8m French people
• 6.4m Spaniards
• <5m Poles
• 1m Danes

We know, then, that back pain is common, episodic, often recurrent and generally self-limiting. Long term absence from work is greatest amongst the minority of employees whose condition is chronic (if pain lasts for more than 12 weeks) or is recurrent (if there are several episodes of pain in one year lasting less than 6six months).

Continue reading the full report (PDF 8pp)

---