 |
| Productivity |
Productivity
Stress, anxiety and depression combined are the single greatest cause of sickness absence in the United Kingdom. However workplace costs are not confined to the consequences of clinically diagnosed mental illness but extend to less than optimum mental health. Loss of productivity associated with poor mental health (over and above losses associated with sickness absence) is estimated at twice the cost of sickness absence. The evidence that is available suggests that ‘presenteeism’ (functioning at less than optimum capacity while at work) has a significantly larger impact on worker productivity than absenteeism. A recent United Kingdom study estimated costs of £15.1 billion a year in reduced productivity due to ‘presenteeism’. Presenteeism accounts for 1.5 times as much working time lost as absenteeism and costs more to employers because it is more common among higher-paid staff (Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health 2007).
Other studies show that improved wellbeing or positive affect reduces sickness absence and increases performance/productivity:
• Job performance/productivity: wellbeing predicts good job performance (Harter et al 2003; Cropanzano and Wright 1999)
• Job performance/productivity/creativity: assessed by supervisors (Wright and Staw 1999; Lyubomirsky et al 2005)
• Reduced absenteeism (Pelled and Xin 1999; Keyes 2005)
Factors that have been seen as indicators of wellbeing in the workplace, for example effort/reward balance, levels of social support or job control, also have an independent influence on health outcomes (Ferrie 2007). Over 25 years, a study of Finnish men showed that those with a greater effort/reward imbalance had twice the risk of coronary heart disease. High job control is also associated with significantly lower risk of heart disease, as well as with markers of stress response e.g. lower levels of cortisol and blood pressure (Steptoe 2005; Steptoe and Wardle 2005). Evidence from Sweden shows how changing employment conditions towards less job security and control are impacting upon people’s health and wellbeing in a high income country, influencing rates of cardiovascular disease, alcohol misuse and suicide (CSDH 2007 p22). Box 6 gives an example of positive practice from France.
Stress, anxiety and depression combined are the single greatest cause of sickness absence in the United Kingdom. However workplace costs are not confined to the consequences of clinically diagnosed mental illness but extend to less than optimum mental health. Loss of productivity associated with poor mental health (over and above losses associated with sickness absence) is estimated at twice the cost of sickness absence. The evidence that is available suggests that ‘presenteeism’ (functioning at less than optimum capacity while at work) has a significantly larger impact on worker productivity than absenteeism. A recent United Kingdom study estimated costs of £15.1 billion a year in reduced productivity due to ‘presenteeism’. Presenteeism accounts for 1.5 times as much working time lost as absenteeism and costs more to employers because it is more common among higher-paid staff (Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health 2007).
Other studies show that improved wellbeing or positive affect reduces sickness absence and increases performance/productivity:
• Job performance/productivity: wellbeing predicts good job performance (Harter et al 2003; Cropanzano and Wright 1999)
• Job performance/productivity/creativity: assessed by supervisors (Wright and Staw 1999; Lyubomirsky et al 2005)
• Reduced absenteeism (Pelled and Xin 1999; Keyes 2005)
Factors that have been seen as indicators of wellbeing in the workplace, for example effort/reward balance, levels of social support or job control, also have an independent influence on health outcomes (Ferrie 2007). Over 25 years, a study of Finnish men showed that those with a greater effort/reward imbalance had twice the risk of coronary heart disease. High job control is also associated with significantly lower risk of heart disease, as well as with markers of stress response e.g. lower levels of cortisol and blood pressure (Steptoe 2005; Steptoe and Wardle 2005). Evidence from Sweden shows how changing employment conditions towards less job security and control are impacting upon people’s health and wellbeing in a high income country, influencing rates of cardiovascular disease, alcohol misuse and suicide (CSDH 2007 p22). Box 6 gives an example of positive practice from France.
