Head Above Water

Keeping workers safe and alert

Author YW Staff

Getting the big picture on productivity loss has been the goal of a number of studies conducted in the past decade within Canada and throughout North America. Employers, wellness experts, and governments are recognizing that loss of dollars, paying for an employee who isn’t at work or for the one who shows up but doesn’t rise to expectations, hampers not only the productivity of the organization for which s/he works, but the economy on the whole.

Recently, The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) released a study conducted on global blue-chip employers with the help of Winnipeg’s Infotech Inc., looking broadly at the factors affecting health and productivity. In the JOEM analysis, 17,821 respondents completed the Wellness Checkpoint health risk assessment and the Work Limitations Questionnaire, which weighs 48 factors such as age, work/life issues, gender, and lifestyle habits in terms of limitations they place on meeting normal work demands.

Presenteeism and Absenteeism

The study monitored impaired performance on the job (presenteeism) and off the job (absenteeism), discovering to their surprise that not only did poor general health and greater levels of depression hamper productivity in the workplace, but that having fewer health risk behaviours contributed, too. Jobs that gave little satisfaction, included more shift work, were more physically laborious, or that were boring tended to result in impaired performance on the job. Other non-work-related factors that contributed to presenteeism were being younger, female, and a blue-collar worker. Service-oriented employment, work/life imbalance, and financial concerns as well as any stressors on one’s personal life also had an impact. Depression was the factor that had the greatest effect, followed by personal life impact, and job stress that outweighed job satisfaction.

As to why workers were absent, the JOEM study found that poor health, including major diseases and depression, as well as metabolic syndrome/pre-diabetes, were good predictors of work absenteeism. The same factors that affect presenteeism also play a role in keeping people from their workplaces. In addition, work/life imbalances, financial worries, and negative impact on one’s personal life contributed to time away from the job.

Beyond the Employees’ Control

The Society for Advancement in Consulting (SAC) discovered in its studies that a reduction in staff played havoc with the productivity of remaining workers. “For every employee who is released, we’ve found that three more virtually stop working, although still employed,” says SAC CEO Alan Weiss, Ph.D. “We call these employees ‘zombie workers’.”

According to SAC, zombie workers manifest in three archetypes:

1. The Guilty. These workers feel bad that they still have their jobs while their peers, who have the same or similar financial stressors and family pressures, were let go. These feelings of guilt, which can last for six months or more, impair productivity, because the workers’ sense of normalcy in the work environment has been impaired.
2. The Frightened. Some employees, afraid they may be next on the chopping block, may react by “hiding.” “They will stop answering their phone, will take zero risks, and may even physically disappear from their offices and cubicles,” notes Weiss. “Their mantra is ‘out of sight, out of mind’.”
3. The Bold. High-performing staff, fearing that their positions may not be as secure as thought, will leave for organizations that now appear to be more attractive. Weiss notes, “The ‘bold’ will leave in droves if they see evidence that layoffs are politically determined and/or that cuts seem to ignore actual performance and contribution. Sometimes reductions are inescapable,” Weiss says, “but most organizations lose three people who are still employed for every one they place on the unemployment list, and that’s a productivity loss they simply aren’t expecting and certainly aren’t prepared for.” This phenomenon has been documented by consultants throughout the United States and Canada.

The Bigger Picture

In an effort to assess productivity on a national scale and to make suggestions as to how Canada can become more competitive in the global market, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce examined our productivity as a nation compared to our competitors. For example, in 2005, our output per worker was almost 22.3% lower than that of the United States (Source: OECD). There was a direct correlation with the standard of living, which for Canadians, was 20% below that of the United States. This resulted in an annual income gap of almost $9500 CDN per capita. With the current economic situation, and our interdependence with American markets, we could see an even greater drop in our standard of living. This, in turn, affects our ability to maintain with our taxes all the programs that contribute to healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Also, many workers on modest incomes (between $25,000 and $45,000 annually) may lose 60% of their earnings to taxes, because of the clawbacks that occur to their public transfers with the rise of income. This loss of funds is an anti-incentive to climbing the corporate ladder. Why work harder only to lose money? Funds tied up in taxation are also monies that can’t be saved by workers or invested by employers and entrepreneurs. They remain outside the circulation of the private economy.

The study, Economic Burden of Illness in Canada, conducted in 1993 by the Public Health Agency of Canada, posited that one has to look not only at the cost of illness in terms of disability payments to the injured or ill worker, but also at the loss of productivity in terms of earnings that disability payments are meant to compensate. When a worker falls ill, the burden of earning shifts from the individual to society, as societal resources are summoned to support the non-productive worker.

The report showed that “the major indirect cost components were the value of time lost due to long-term disability, estimated at $38.3 billion (24.4% of the total), and the present value of future productivity lost due to premature mortality, $29.3 billion (18.7%).” It also considered the ripple effect of employee disability in terms of “patient out-of-pocket expenses (i.e. transportation costs to health providers; the cost of relocating or altering property to adapt to a patient’s needs; special diets, clothing or equipment for rehabilitation or comfort; and education and counselling of patients and caregivers), social services (i.e. community programs/services, corrections/legal system costs) and service provider training. Indirect costs of illness might well include foregone employment opportunities for family members and the cost of reduced working hours or leisure time used in providing for a sick or disabled family member.”

What We Can Do

1. Look at the big picture: When assessing a particular case of absenteeism or lack of productivity in the workplace, consider the possibility that factors beyond their control could be affecting your staff member’s ability to work at peak capacity. Perhaps a family member has fallen ill and is requiring your employee’s time or putting a strain on finances. Is your employee nearing retirement? S/he may be stressing over a drop in savings, given the current financial climate. While you may not know the cause of productivity decline, you can create an opening for an otherwise productive employee to feel supported by offering help in the form of restructuring the hours of the position, providing counseling, or suggesting a service that may be useful on the home front.
2. Be proactive: If changes have to be made, such as employee reduction, that will likely adversely affect workers, ensure that all concerns are heard so that workers who remain feel supported and secure. Are duties that were performed by that individual now contributing to a sense of overwork, because they’ve been absorbed by the remaining staff? Does a temporary worker need to be brought in to assist during restructuring? Also, take an active interest in employees on a regular basis to catch signs of stress or potential illness or injury before they fully manifest.
3. Set an example: It’s easy on the managerial level to overextend yourself, working long hours and neglecting your health needs. Show your staff how you want them to guard their health by protecting your own. Let them see you taking rest breaks, eating well, and exercising. Encourage health in the workplace by providing fresh fruit, a vegetable tray, and a generous water supply in the office. Consider scheduling a 10-minute exercise routine twice a day within the workplace. Shift the workplace focus to the recognition that a steady, sustained effort will yield more in the long run than the work-till-you-drop plan.
4. Reward hard work: Create incentives in the workplace that motivate an employee to reach for the stars, such as company-paid educational and travel opportunities, duty rotation among workers sharing functions, and tangible rewards for outstanding work. Staff members who don’t want to enter a higher tax bracket may be motivated to be more productive in their present position if rewards for that productivity don’t affect their take-home pay.

By taking steps toward a healthier, productive workplace, we can create a more sustainable economy that will benefit us as individuals and as organizations well into the future.

Sources:

Layoffs Create Far More Productivity Loss Than Cost Reduction
Improving Canada’s Standard of Living and Quality of Life (PDF)
Economic Burden of Illness in Canada, 1993