cbi-pfizer absence report 2010 - mas

On the path to recovery:Absence and workplace health survey 2010

Survey sponsored by

For CBI, contact:Robert CummingsPolicy adviser Employment and pensionsCBICentre Point103 New Oxford StreetLondon WC1A 1DU

T: +44 (0)20 7395 8282F: +44 (0)20 7240 8287E: [email protected]: www.cbi.org.uk

www.cbi.org.ukAbout the sponsor Pfizer: Working Together for a Healthier World™

At Pfizer, we apply science and our global resources to improve health and well-being at every stage of life. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacturing of medicines for people and animals. Our diversified global healthcare portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world’s best-known consumer products. Every day, Pfizer colleagues work to advance well-being, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as the world’s leading biopharmaceutical company, we also collaborate with healthcare providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable healthcare around the world. For more than 150 years, Pfizer has worked to make a difference for all who rely on us. In the UK, Pfizer has its European R&D headquarters at Sandwich and its UK business headquarters in Surrey, and is the major supplier of medicines to the NHS. To learn more about our commitments, please visit us at www.pfizer.co.uk

For Pfizer, contact:UK Government Affairs Pfizer Ltd Walton Oaks Dorking Road Walton-on-the-Hill Tadworth Surrey KT20 7NS T: +44 (0)1304 616161 E: [email protected] W: www.pfizer.co.uk

June 2010 ISBN: 978-0-85201-726-5

© Copyright CBI 2010 The content may not be copied, distributed, or dealt with in whole or in part without prior consent of the CBI.

3On the path to recovery: Absence and workplace health survey 2010On the path to recovery: Absence and workplace health survey 2010

Foreword 4

Summary 6

1 Background to the survey 8

2 Downward trend in days of absence 10

3 Employee absence cost the UK nearly £17bn in 2009 14

4 Drivers of absence 18

5 Absence management policies: what works? 24

6 Employee health and wellbeing 30

Contents

On the path to recovery: Absence and workplace health survey 20104

Foreword

Since it first appeared in the 1980s the CBI’s absence survey has charted seismic changes in employers’ approach to managing absence. From a time when measuring absence and taking action was still gathering ground as normal business practice, we have moved

to an environment in which firms deploy a wide range of resources to monitor absence and take appropriate action to aid recovery, speed returns to work and deal with absenteeism.So for businesses, this area is as important as ever, and this year it’s our pleasure to be working with Pfizer on the survey for the first time. The report remains the definitive source of long-term trend data on the extent, costs, causes and solutions to absence in the workplace. Since our last survey in 2008, the UK economy has gone through a period of deep recession. There has been widespread debate about the effects the recession has had on absence rates and on the health of employees. Our survey results support the picture many of us recognise from our own organisation – real resilience during challenging times, with employees pulling together to weather the storm. In total, absence fell to an average of 6.4 days per employee in 2009. While absence has fallen, there is still room for improvement. The gap between the best and worst performers remains large at an average of 8.1 days.

At a cost of £16.8bn, absence remains a significant burden to the UK economy. This is particularly important for public sector employers, who report substantially higher absence levels than their private sector counterparts. One way to improve absence rates is to focus more on the underlying causes, which helps employers to take preventative action and offer better focused support when illness strikes. It is not surprising therefore that the survey reports that despite the recession, employers continued to invest in the health and wellbeing of their workforce. Our survey shows that three quarters of employers operate a wellbeing policy, a trend that has grown over recent years, and with absence rates falling, it is clear that this investment is starting to pay dividends. We are grateful to those who have contributed to the survey – and we hope you find the report valuable.

Katja Hall Director, employment policy, CBI

5On the path to recovery: Absence and workplace health survey 2010

Pfizer is delighted to support the CBI’s Absence and workplace health survey for the first time this year. As the world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company and as a major UK employer of over 6,000 people, we have a direct interest in

understanding the causes of absenteeism and how we can help to maximise wellness and minimise illness. Over the past 23 years, the CBI’s work in this area has evolved from an analysis of long-term absence trends and costs to an evaluation of policies and programmes which promote wellness and prevent ill health. Bringing the causes and consequences of absence together with an examination of proactive management strategies is important, and mirrors a change in the attitude of both employers and policy makers, who are recognising the direct and indirect benefits of investment in the health and wellbeing of the UK workforce.As the survey shows, illness unrelated to the workplace is by far the single most important reason for absence. Although the majority of absence is short-term, long-term absence accounts for a disproportionate amount of working time lost. We have long known that mental health, back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are the leading causes of long-term absence, and this year’s report reiterates this. Employers view loss of productivity

Dr Berkeley Phillips UK Medical Director, Pfizer Ltd

as the main impact of absence, but, as the report rightly highlights, economic consequences stretch further, even before one considers the societal costs of absence and ill-health.

The CBI suggests that there is scope to reduce absence still further. As a society, we have to do more to advance health and wellness at every stage of life. At Pfizer we have committed to advancing wellness, prevention, treatments and cures, because health is one of the most important investments a society can make. As an employer, as a provider of wellbeing programmes to major employers such as the NHS itself, and in our more traditional role as the largest supplier of prescription-only medicines to the NHS, we believe that we can make a significant contribution to this debate. We look forward to discussing this with stakeholders at this year’s CBI Employee Health & Absence Conference and working together to drive action to improve the health and wealth of the nation.


Summary

2 Downward trend in days of absence

• The average rate of absence in 2009 was 6.4 days per employee, a decline from 6.7 days in 2007 and a further step in a long-term downward trend

• Still more could be done to improve attendance levels: the gap between the best and worst performing organisations in terms of average absence levels is wide, showing the scope for levelling up performance

• Absence continues to be higher among manual employees than among non-manual categories and higher on average in larger organisations than in smaller firms

• Despite some improvement, average absence levels remain far higher in the public sector than in the private sector. The results highlight the need for public sector employers to address absence costs as part of the drive to contain spending and make the best possible use of resources at a time when budgets will be under intense pressure.

3 Employee absence cost the UK nearly £17bn in 2009

• The average direct cost of absence was £595 per employee in 2009 – a new record high. With tight resources due to the recession, it’s no surprise that the cost of a sick day has risen

• The cost of absence per employee tends to rise in step with the size of the workforce, so larger organisations experience the highest costs per head

• Absence cost varies considerably by sector, with direct costs in the public sector 50% higher on average than in the private sector

• The indirect costs of absence are harder for organisations to measure but they are substantial, on average totalling £465 per employee

• Loss of productivity is seen as the single most important cost of absence, followed by the cost of sick pay itself and the cost of staff to cover for those who are absent.

1 Background to the survey • The survey was conducted between

February and April 2010

• There were 241 respondents, employing over 1.28 million people between them

• Respondents came from organisations of all sizes and sectors, across the UK

• The report covers absence data in the 12-month period of January to December 2009.

On the path to recovery: Absence and workplace health survey 2010 7

4 Drivers of absence • While illness is the major cause of

absence, there are a range of other important contributory factors. These include problems in employees’ personal lives and some employees perceiving paid sick leave as an entitlement

• Long-term absences made up less than one in ten of all spells of absence in 2009, but accounted for more than a fifth of total working time lost. This relatively small group cost the UK economy £3.7bn in 2009, highlighting the need to concentrate resources on rehabilitation

• Minor illnesses and ailments were identified by employers as the most common causes of short-term absence, while back pain was identified as the second most common cause. Mental health problems were also identified as a key cause of absence

• Mental health conditions and back pain were reported by employers as the major factors giving rise to long-term absences – encouraging employers to look further at methods to boost rehabilitation support

• Only a third of employers believe all sickness absence among their employees is genuine. While just a small proportion believe non-genuine sickness absence occurs right across their organisation, many more think there are problems in certain locations or among certain groups of employees.

5 Absence management policies: what works?

• Proactive attendance management practices are now widespread and have helped to reduce levels of absence over the past 25 years. Other contributors to the fall have included expanded occupational health services and changing workplace cultures

• Businesses believe the role of line managers is crucial in helping to manage absence and improve attendance, conducting return to work interviews and staying in contact with employees during periods of absence

• Employers see improving GP understanding of workplace health issues as a priority for government in boosting employee attendance. Employers believe the new fit note may well prove helpful in guiding their health interventions, but are sceptical about levels of GP buy-in.

6 Employee health and wellbeing

• Three quarters of employers operate employee wellbeing policies, with occupational health advice and personal counselling provision the most widespread. There has also been rapid growth in programmes to help employees with healthy eating and tackling drink and drugs problems

• The majority of employers offer rehabilitation support to help employees back into work after a prolonged absence, while many also offer support for those employees experiencing stress

• The business case for employee wellbeing policies is seen as resting on their positive impact on employee attendance, workforce productivity and staff morale

• While employee morale is seen as fairly positive, organisations recognise there is more to be done to improve it. Employers believe that praise for a job well done is the most important factor in raising staff morale, so effective performance management is seen as vital.


The CBI has surveyed employers regularly since the mid-1980s about sickness absence and action to improve employee attendance and wellbeing. The aim of the survey is to give employers a benchmark against which to assess the performance of their organisations and to help spread good practice.

The CBI/Pfizer Absence and workplace health survey 2010 – now in its 23rd year – acts as a leading source of up-to-date facts and figures and also provides data on long-term trends in absence. It is intended to help employers in measuring and managing their own arrangements to improve their effectiveness.

The survey was conducted between February and April 2010. Respondents were asked to report on absence data in the 12-month period of January to December 2009 and to provide information on current practices. The survey was completed by HR directors and practitioners in 241 private sector companies and public sector organisations, between them employing over 1.28 million people – representing 5.12% of the UK workforce.

Respondents by sector There were responses from organisations across all sectors of the economy (Exhibit 1). Manufacturing is one of the largest sectors represented, making up a quarter (25%) of respondents. Professional services – such as law and consultancy firms – make up just over one in ten respondents (11%), while ‘other services’ represents about a quarter (26%). The public sector is also well represented, accounting for nearly one in five responses (18%).

Respondents by region Employers in all areas (Exhibit 2) of the UK took part in the survey. More than a third (37%) of respondents operate in more than one part of the UK. Among those with their operations concentrated in a single area, the south east is the most heavily represented region – accounting for one in ten respondents (10%) – followed by the north west (8%) and Northern Ireland (7%).

1 Background to the survey


�,��+ ��

��-�,��

��-��

��-��

�-��

Exhibit � Respondents by workforce size (%)Respondents by workforce size Organisations of all sizes participated in the survey. Very large employers (those with over 5,000 employees) make up 14% of respondents (Exhibit 3). Four out ten of respondents (40%) employ fewer than 250 people, the government’s official classification of a small or medium-sized enterprise.

The average number of days absent last year was 6.4 per employee – down from 6.7 days in 2007

Public sector��

Other services��

IT/hi-tech services andcommunication �

Banking, finance and insurance �

Professional services (legal, consultancy) ��

Hospitality, retail, transportand distribution �

Construction �

Manufacturing��

Utilities �Agriculture �

Exhibit � Respondents by economic sector (%)

Scotland �Wales �

Northern Ireland �

North West �

North East �

Yorkshire and the Humber �

East of England �

West Midlands �East Midlands �

South West � South East ��

Greater London �

Operating in more than one region ��

Exhibit � Respondents by region (%)


When the UK economy was mired in recession during much of 2008 and 2009, there was some debate about what impact this would have on levels of absence. Our survey results show absence fell to an average of 6.4 days per employee last year. While this represents a welcome continued decline, the large gap between the best and worst performing organisations shows that more can be done.

Key findings • The average rate of absence in 2009 was 6.4 days per employee,

a decline from 6.7 days in 2007 and a further step in a long-term downward trend

• More could be done to improve attendance levels: the gap between the best and worst performing organisations in terms of average absence levels remains wide, showing the scope for levelling up performance

• Absence continues to be higher among manual employees than among non-manual categories and higher on average in larger organisations than in smaller firms

• Despite some improvement, average absence levels remain far higher in the public sector than in the private sector. The results highlight the need for public sector employers to bear down on absence as part of the drive to contain costs and make the best possible use of resources at a time when budgets will be under intense pressure.

Employees were absent for an average of 6.4 days in 2009The survey asked respondents to report the average number of days of absence per employee in their organisation in 2009. Overall, the average number of days’ absence last year was 6.4 per employee – down from 6.7 days in 2007 and seven days in 2006 (Exhibit 4). Among respondents able to quantify the proportion of working hours lost, the average emerged as equivalent to 3.9% of working time.

2 Downward trend in days of absence


Exhibit � Trends in absence levels ��-��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

Average days lost Percentage of working time lost

��

��

�.��.� �.� �.�

� � �.��.� �.� �.�

�.� �.�

�.��.�

�.��.� �.�

�.��.�

�.�

�

�

�

�

�

��

'��''��''��''��''��''��''��''��'��''��''��''��''��''��''��''��''��'��''��''��'

��

��

Projecting the number of days lost on average across the whole of the UK workforce, the survey indicates that about 180 million working days were lost to absence in 2009.

There’s scope to reduce absence still furtherOver the past 25 years, average days of absence per employee have gradually fallen and the figure is now at its lowest level since our survey began in 1987 (Exhibit 5). As the decline in absence levels has tended to level out in recent years, some commentators have suggested that absence rates have reached a plateau and are unlikely to decline further.

But the continued large gap between the best and worst performing organisations shows there is still scope for improvement (Exhibit 6). Across the full range of survey respondents, the best performing employers reported no employee absence in 2009, while the worst performers reported an average of 25 days per employee.

Taking those organisations in the worst performing quartile as a group, absence averaged 10.1 days per employee (equivalent to 5% of working time), whereas the best performing quartile recorded an absence rate of 2.1 days (1.1% of working time).

Absence continues to be higher amongst manual workers Absence rates among manual workers averaged 7.2 days in 2009, while non-manual workers were absent for an average of 5.3 days (Exhibit 4).

The longstanding pattern of higher rates of absence among manual workers can be explained in part by the impact illness or injury can have on an employee’s ability to carry out a job which may be physically demanding. But this cannot fully explain the extent of the gap. It seems likely greater acceptance of absenteeism

Exhibit 4 Absence in 2009 Employees

Average days lost per

employee% of working

time lost

Private sector (average days

lost)

Public sector (average days

lost)

Manual 7.2 4.3 6.4 11.8

Non-manual 5.3 3.4 4.9 7.8

All 6.4 3.9 5.8 8.3

Exhibit 6 Variation in absence level 2007 and 2009

All respondents Best performing quartile Worst performing quartile

Average days lost

% of working

timeAverage

days lost

% of working

timeAverage

days lost

% of working

time

2007 6.7 3.3% 2.3 days 1.1% 11.5 days 4.9%

2009 6.4 3.9% 2.1 days 1.1% 10.1 days 5%


and lower levels of employee engagement may also contribute to the difference of around two days a year which has shown up in successive surveys (Exhibit 7).

Larger employers have higher average absence ratesAs we have found in previous surveys, larger employers typically have higher average rates of absence than smaller organisations. Organisations with 500-4,999 employees had the highest rates of absence in 2009, with an average of 6.7 days per employee (Exhibit 8). The smallest employers had the lowest average absence, with firms of up to 49 employees and 50-199 employees both reporting average absence of five days per employee.

Lower levels of absence in smaller organisations may well be explained by a better understanding among workers of the impact their absence can have on the organisation and on colleagues. Additionally, there inevitably tends to be more direct contact between employees and senior managers in smaller companies, and the evidence shows that where senior managers are directly involved in managing absence, levels tend to be lower.

Absence was on average 2.5 days higher in the public sector The survey results show up distinct sectoral differences in absence levels (Exhibit 9). Professional services firms, in fields such as law and consultancy, reported the lowest average levels of absence, at 3.7 days per employee. Manufacturing reported average absence of 5.6 days, while ‘other services’ registered an average absence rate of 5.8 days per employee in 2009.

The most striking sectoral finding, however, remains the higher average absence level in the public sector than in the private sector. Replicating the pattern of previous surveys, the public sector reported an average of 8.3 days’ absence per employee in 2009, compared to 5.8 in the private sector (Exhibit 10).

� � � � � ��

All employees

�,��+

��-�,��

��-��

��-��

�-��

�

�.�

�.�

�.�

�.�

Exhibit � Average days absence by employerworkforce

Exhibit � Absence levels for manual and non-manualemployees ��-��

��

�

Average days lost – Non-manualAverage days lost – Manual

�

�

�

��

��

��

�


� � � � � ��

Public sector

Private sector

Other services

Manufacturing

Professional Services (law, consultancy)�.�

�.�

�.�

�.�

�.�

Exhibit � Average days of absence by economicsector

Encouragingly, the average rate in the public sector has seen a reduction since our last survey when it stood at an average of nine days. But despite this improvement, absence remains 43% higher on average in the public sector. It is clear the public sector needs to make continued efforts to manage and reduce absence, particularly as budgets will be tightly constrained over the coming years. The CBI report Time for action, which looks at reforming public services and measures needed to help balance the budget, shows that if the public sector could reduce its average absence to the same level as the private sector, around £5.5bn could be saved by 2015-16.1

Organisations which recognise trade unions have higher rates of absence Over half (57%) of respondents recognised one or more trade unions. As one might expect, trade union recognition was more prevalent in larger organisations and in certain sectors – particularly manufacturing, transport and distribution, and the public sector.

Our surveys have consistently shown that organisations recognising trade unions have higher average absence levels than those that do not. The 2009 results show this pattern once more, with organisations that recognise trade unions reporting average absence of 6.7 days per employee compared to 5.3 days for non-unionised organisations.

Exhibit �� Public and private sector levelsof absence (days)

��

�

Private sectorPublic sector

�

�

�

��

��

�

1 Time for action? Reforming pubic services and balancing the budget, CBI, May 2010


Businesses were under acute pressure in 2009, facing the steepest downturn since the second world war, and the cost of absence among employees added to the challenges. The average direct annual cost of absence per employee climbed to £595. Across the economy as a whole, the cost of absence was £16.8bn – a significant burden at a time of serious economic difficulty. As in previous years, larger employers had the highest average absence costs per employee. And the costs of absence among public sector organisations were far higher on average than among their private sector counterparts.

Key findings• The average direct cost of absence was £595 per employee

in 2009, setting a new record high

• The cost of absence per employee tends to rise in step with the size of the workforce, so larger organisations experience the highest costs per head

• Absence cost varies considerably by sector, with direct costs in the public sector some 50% higher on average than in the private sector

• The indirect costs of absence are harder for organisations to measure but they are substantial, on average totalling £465 per employee

• Loss of productivity is seen as the single most important cost of absence, followed by the cost of sick pay itself and the cost of staff to cover for those who are absent.

The average cost of absence was £595 per employee in 2009 Respondents were asked to quantify the direct cost of absence in their organisation in 2009. This cost is based on salary costs of absent employees, costs for their replacements (such as temporary staff or paid overtime) and time lost in service or production.

The average direct cost of absence in 2009 was 12% up on the previous highest cost of £531 per employee recorded for 2005 (Exhibit 11). This brings to an end a period when average direct costs seemed to be stable or falling, and particularly regrettably, coincided with other severe pressures on labour costs resulting from the recession.

3 Employee absence cost the UK nearly £17bn in 2009


� ��

Public sector

Other services

All

Private Sector

Professional services

Manufacturing ��

��

��

��

��

��

Exhibit �� Average direct cost of absence by economic sector (£)

Taking the workforce as a whole, the direct cost to the UK economy of absence was £16.8bn 2 in 2009. So if absence levels across the board could be reduced by just 10%, we would see annual savings of close to £1.7bn.

The cost of absence is higher for large organisations As in previous years, the average cost of absence is highest for the largest organisations. Organisations with over 5,000 employees reported an average direct cost of £717 per employee in 2009, compared with an average cost of £412 for organisations with 200-499 employees.

The higher costs of absence for larger employers can most likely be explained by the fact that they tend to operate higher rates of pay and more generous occupational sick pay schemes, so the direct costs of each day of absence are likely to be higher. In addition, they may also be more likely to provide cover for absent workers, traditionally through paid overtime for existing staff.

Absence costs vary greatly by sector As in previous years, the cost of absence differed widely between sectors (Exhibit 12). Manufacturing reported the lowest average direct cost at £381 per employee, while the cost of absence per employee in professional services was £500, reflecting the loss of knowledge and IP absence brings in this sector.

Repeating the pattern seen in previous surveys, the average direct cost of absence in the public sector – at £784 per employee – was markedly higher (by 50%) than in the private sector, where it averaged £524. At a time when there is an urgent need to rebalance public finances, the levels and costs of absence in the public sector have rightly been identified as a priority area for action.

Exhibit 11 Direct cost of absence per employee 1996-2009 (£)

Average direct cost (£)

1996 418

1997 478

1998 426

1999 438

2000 434

2001 476

2002 476

2003 475

2004 495

2005 531

2006 537

2007 517

2009 595

2 Based on employment level of 28.28 million in February 2010


Indirect costs are substantial too – averaging £465 per employee Respondents were also asked to estimate the total indirect cost of absence, such as reduction in customer satisfaction or poorer quality service. As this cost is more difficult to calculate than direct costs, only a third of respondents were able to provide an estimate. Respondents that were able to provide a cost put the figure at an average of £465 per employee in 2009.

Projected across the whole economy, this would add an extra £13.2bn to the cost of absence, bringing the total cost of absence to the UK economy in 2009 to £29.9bn. This represents a new high, 8% up on the previous highest total cost of £27.7bn in 2005.

Loss of productivity is seen as the main impact of absence Respondents were asked to identify the main impacts of absence on their organisation and the range of factors that generate additional costs (Exhibit 13). Loss of productivity is identified by the vast majority (85%) of respondents as one on the main impacts of absence, followed closely by sick leave costs (79%). Employers also point to the costs of providing cover for absent staff, whether through paid overtime worked by other employees (40%) or the cost of bringing in temps (39%).

A number of respondents also mentioned the impact more generally on fellow employees who, particularly in smaller organisations, have to pick up the workload when a colleague is absent.

� ��

Loss of staff (through early retirement)

Cost of recruiting new staff

Insurance costs

Loss of staff caring for sick or injured family members

Cost of hiring temporary replacements for sick or injured staff

Cost of overtime to replace sick or injured staff

Other

Sick leave costs

Loss of productivity��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

Exhibit �� Main impact of absence (%)


The pattern of occupational sick payWe asked respondents whether they offer occupational sick pay in addition to statutory sick pay. The results show that nearly four in five (78%) employers operate an occupational sick pay scheme for which all staff are eligible, while a further 16% offer a scheme open to some staff. Only 6% of respondents said that they don’t offer any occupational sick pay arrangements. Respondents with occupational sick pay schemes were asked about the maximum number of weeks of sick pay they offer at full pay – and at a reduced rate of pay – available to employees with 12 months’ service and with five years’ service. For employees with 12 months’ service, the results show occupational schemes paying full pay for a median maximum period of eight weeks and at a reduced rate for a median maximum of four weeks (Exhibit 14).

The maximum duration of sick pay increases greatly for employees with five years of service, with a median of 26 weeks at full pay and a median ceiling of 12.5 weeks at a reduced rate. There were some wide variations in practice around these medians, a few schemes with particularly generous maximum entitlements pushing up the mean. Exhibit 14 Structure of sick pay schemes

Weeks of full pay Weeks of reduced pay

Employees with 12 months’ service

Median 8 4

Mean (average) 11.8 9.6

Employees with 5 years’ service

Median 26 12.5

Mean (average) 21.25 17

Absence cost the UK economy £16.8bn in 2009.


Minor illnesses account for most absences from work and employees are typically absent for short periods. But the relatively few employees absent with long-term conditions account for more than a fifth of all working time lost. Mental health problems and back pain play a major part in these long-term absences. Employers face the added challenge of managing non-genuine sickness absence, which is believed to occur among some employees in most organisations.

Key findings• While illness is the major cause of absence, there are other

important contributory factors. These include problems in employees’ personal lives and some employees perceiving paid sick leave as an entitlement regardless of their state of health

• Long-term absence made up well under one in ten of all spells of absence in 2009, but accounted for more than a fifth of total working time lost. This relatively small group of employees cost the UK economy some £3.7bn in 2009, highlighting the need to concentrate resources on helping them back to work

• While minor illnesses and ailments were identified by employers as the most common causes of short-term absence (by 95% of employers), mental health problems were also widely seen as significant

• Mental health difficulties and back pain were reported by employers as major factors giving rise to long-term absences

• Only a third of employers believe that all sickness absence among their employees is genuine. While just a small proportion believe non-genuine sickness absence occurs right across their organisation, many more think there are problems in certain locations or among certain groups of employees.

Illness is the major cause of absence... Illness unrelated to the workplace was by far the single most important reason for absence amongst both manual and non-manual workers. When asked to identify the three main causes of absence in their organisations in 2009, the vast majority of respondents reported this as a key cause of absence among manual (93%) and non-manual employees (92%).

4 Drivers of absence


In 2009, the great majority of absence spells were short term in the private (95%) and public sectors (92%), in line with the pattern of previous years. But long-term absence accounts for a disproportionate amount of working time lost – in 2009, just 5% of absence spells accounted for 20% of all the working time lost in the private sector. In the public sector the impact was even more severe, with 8% of absence spells accounting for over a third (36%) of all working time lost (Exhibit 15).

Medical appointments were also a significant factor in absence, with just under one third of employers identifying these as one of the main causes (31% for manual and 30% for non-manual employees). The CBI estimates that business loses some 38 million working hours – costing £1bn a year – because employees have to visit their GP during working hours.3 The figures highlight the need for further action to achieve more flexible approaches to provision of GP services.

... but there are also other factorsPersonal problems – involving for example drink, drugs and relationship difficulties – were seen as a widespread factor, with more than one in five employers seeing them as among the major contributors to employee absence levels in 2009 (25% for manual and 21% for non-manual employees).

Particularly worrying is the finding that over a third of employers identified perceptions among some employees that paid sick leave is an entitlement even for the healthy – with this being one of the main causes of absence for both manual workers (40%) and non-manual employees (33%). While this is not a new problem for employers, it is troubling that it should be so widespread at a time of severe trading difficulties for many organisations. It is of course important employees who are genuinely ill are able to take time off work, avoiding what has been termed ‘sickness attendance’,4 but it is equally important that employers tackle non-genuine absence to get the message across that sick leave is not an alternative to paid annual leave and its use in this way can imperil sick pay schemes.

Long-term absence accounted for more than a fifth of all working time lostThe vast majority of respondents define long-term absence in their organisations as a period of absence of 20 working days or more. Among the smallest employers with fewer than 50 employees, however, the most common definition is ten days’ absence or more, reflecting the more immediate impact of employee absences on their operations.

3 Just what the patient ordered: better GP services, CBI, September 2007 4 Why do employees come to work when ill?, K Ashby and M Mahdon,

The Work Foundation, April 2010

Long-term absence ��

Private sector

Public sector

Short-termabsence ��

Exhibit �� Working time lost due to short-termand long-term absence (%)

Long-term absence ��

Short-termabsence ��


Overall, long-term sickness absences in 2009 accounted for 22% of all working time lost, costing the UK economy some £3.7bn. The large proportion of lost working hours attributable to a relatively small number of employees – and the huge costs – highlight the importance of managing long-term absence effectively and supporting employees back into work as soon as possible. The business case for investment is clear. Early interventions and effective use of occupational health services can play a key role in helping employees return to work sooner than otherwise after a period of ill health. More effective management of long-term absence can also benefit employees, reducing the risk of them dropping out of the workplace altogether.

Short-term absence mainly caused by minor illness Respondents were asked to identify the three main types of illness that caused short-term absence in their organisation in 2009 (Exhibit 16). Nearly every respondent (95%) identified minor illness, such as colds and flu, as one of the main causes of short-term absence for manual and non-manual workers.

Back pain was the second most commonly identified cause of short-term absence for manual employees (63%), and this was followed by non-work related mental health difficulties (45%). For non-manual groups, migraine/chronic headache (49%) was the second most commonly reported cause of short-term absence, followed by back pain (44%) and non work-related mental health difficulties (39%).

� ��

Non- manual Manual

Arthritis

Cancer

Other

Non-work related stress/anxiety/depression

Back pain

Minor illness (colds, flu etc)

��

��

��

Migraine/chronic headache

��

Non-work related injuries

��

Other musculoskeletal disorders

��

All other pain

Work related stress/anxiety/depression

��

��

Respiratory problems

��

Work related injuries

��

Heart/blood pressure problems

��

��

��

��

Exhibit �� Illnesses causing short-term absence (%)


Mental health problems were a major cause of long-term absence The survey also asked respondents to identify the three main causes of long-term absence in their organisation (Exhibit 17). The main causes differed between manual and non-manual employees, but for both groups non-work related mental health issues, such as stress, anxiety and depression ranked high, with over 50% of employers citing them as among the top factors leading to long-term absence.

Back pain (56%) was the most commonly identified cause of long-term absence for manual workers, closely followed by non-work related mental health problems (52%) and other musculoskeletal disorders (46%). For non-manual employees, non-work related mental health conditions were the most commonly reported cause of long-term absence (57%) by a considerable margin, followed by cancer (41%) and back pain (37%).

The extent to which mental health problems and back pain emerge as key drivers of long-term absence makes a forcible case for active interventions by employers and the NHS by focusing resources on helping employees with these conditions work productively.

Two fifths of employers believe non-genuine sickness absence occurs in their organisation Respondents were asked whether they believed non-genuine sickness absence occurred in their organisation. While only just over one in ten employers (13%) said they thought non-genuine sickness absence happened across their organisation, four out

�

Manual Non-manual

��

Migraine/chronic headache

Arthritis

�

Minor illness (colds, flu etc)

Respiratory problems

All other pain

Other

Work related injuries

Cancer

Other musculoskeletal disorders

Non-work related stress/anxiety/depression

��

Back pain

��

��

��

Work related stress/anxiety/depression

��

Non-work related injuries

��

Heart/blood pressure problems

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

Exhibit �� Illnesses causing long-term absence (%)


Around half of employers (49%) said they believe there is a definite or possible link between employee absence and weekends, and a similar proportion (51%) believe there is a definite or possible link to summer, Christmas or school holidays.

A smaller proportion of employers identified patterns of attendance and absence related to special events such as football internationals. In all, only 4% report a definite link between absence and special events, while one in four (23%) think there is possibly a link. Employers are increasingly taking a proactive approach to managing the risk of this type of absence by offering flexible working patterns or making arrangements for occasional events to be shown in the workplace.

of ten respondents (40%) said that they believe that non-genuine sickness absence happens in certain locations or among certain groups of employees (Exhibit 18).

Respondents were also asked to estimate what percentage of sickness they thought was non-genuine in their organisation. On average, employers believed that 15% of absence was not genuine. Taken across the economy, this equates to 27 million working days lost, at a cost of £2.52bn to the economy.

Celebrating St MondayThe survey also asked employers whether they believed there is a link between absence and breaks from work or special events. Employers monitoring absence can detect patterns in sickness absence, for instance if sick leave occurs disproportionately on Mondays or Fridays or around the time of public holidays or annual leave. Don't know ��

Yes, in certain locations or among certain groups of employees ��

Yes, across theorganisation ��

No ��

Exhibit �� Occurrence of non-genuine sicknessabsence (%)


Don't know �

Mondays/Fridays Summer/Christmas/school holidays

No, definitely not ��

No, probably not ��

Yes, possibly��

Yes, definitely ��

Exhibit �� Respondents believing there may be a link between patterns of absence and ... (%)

Don't know ��

No, definitelynot ��

No, probablynot ��

Yes, possibly��

Yes, definitely ��

Special events, such as football internationals

Don't know ��

No, definitely not ��

No, probably not ��

Yes, possibly��

Yes, definitely �

Employers believe 15% of absence is not genuine, costing the economy £2.52bn a year.


Since this survey was launched in the mid- 1980s, the degree of sophistication with which organisations measure and manage employee absence has increased hugely. Today, employers’ approaches are focused more and more on enabling them to understand the underlying causes of absence, offering support to employees facing serious sickness problems – for instance through occupational health services – and guiding responses to any problem absence.

Key findings• Proactive attendance management practices are now widespread

and have helped to reduce levels of absence over the past 25 years. Other contributors to the fall have included expanded occupational health services and changing workplace cultures

• Businesses believe the role of line managers is crucial in helping to manage absence and improve attendance, conducting return to work interviews and staying in contact with employees during their absence

• Employers see improving GP understanding of workplace health issues as a priority for government in boosting employee attendance. Employers believe the new ‘fit note’ may prove helpful in guiding their health interventions, but are sceptical about levels of GP buy-in.

Proactive attendance management practices are now widespreadOur survey results show the vast majority of employers have a clear, well-documented approach to managing absence. Over 95% of respondents report that they have a formal policy – a rise of over ten percentage points since our last survey in 2008. The amount of absence required to trigger these policies, however, has remained unchanged – on average, three spells of absence or ten days of absence. Respondents are roughly evenly split on whether they use spells of absence or number of days as their main indicator.

An organisation’s attendance policy is designed to minimise the business costs of absence by addressing the causes, whether genuine or not. While the existence of policies is one thing, what is important is whether they are applied in practice and the effectiveness of interventions.

5 Absence management policies: what works?


Progress has been made, with successive surveys charting a gradual decline in absence levels over the past 25 years. We asked respondents to identify the three key drivers behind this reduction (Exhibit 20). Respondents were clear that closer monitoring and management of absence has been the most important factor, with 80% selecting this option. Other reasons were more evenly backed, but greater investment in occupational health provision and changes in workforce culture (both 36%) were the next most popular explanations.

It is clear, therefore, that businesses believe that absence management is important, both to support the genuinely ill back to work – for instance through occupational health support – and through swift action where non-genuine absence becomes an issue. Over 60% of employers report they took formal disciplinary action – up to and including dismissal – over employee absence in at least some instances during 2009.

Employers see the role of line managers as crucialRespondents were asked which policies or practices they felt were most effective in reducing absence rates, ranking their effectiveness on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most effective (Exhibit 21, page 26). The results for manual and non-manual employees alike show employers feel there is a common denominator to high quality attendance management – an active and engaged line manager. The two top-rated items are the line manager taking primary responsibility for absence management and return to work interviews.

Moving beyond the actions of the first line manager – and perhaps reflecting the differing nature of the work and workforces – the third most effective policy according to respondents is use of disciplinary procedures for manual staff, while for non-manual staff the focus is on rehabilitation plans. Flexible working also scores relatively highly in relation to non-manual employees. Attendance bonuses do not score highly for either category of employee.

� ��

None of the above

Improvements in NHS

Other

Healthier lifestyles

Lower workplace injury rate

Greater awareness by employees of their personal health and wellbeing

Shift to more non-manual work

Advances in medical treatments and medicines

Changing workforce culture

Greater investment in occupational health

Closer monitoring and management of absence by companies/managers��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

Exhibit �� Reasons for long-term decline in absence (%)


Few would disagree that involvement of the employee’s day-to-day line manager is vital in achieving good absence management. Reflecting this, we asked a follow-up question about the three most important things a line manager can do to address absence (Exhibit 22). Remaining in contact during absence (78%), building understanding of the nature of the problem (58%) and a return-to- work conversation (51%) were the most common choices, with discussing possible adjustments (49%) also scoring well ahead of the other options. Many firms’ investment in absence management is likely to focus on training and supporting line managers to carry out these activities.

Conducting return to work assessmentsGiven the value of return to work assessments, it is important they are effectively structured. The survey asked employers both how they conduct these assessments and what factors are included in them (Exhibit 23).

Over two thirds (69%) of respondents hold a formal assessment, while just over a third (37%) rely on less formal line management monitoring. Among those holding a formal assessment, slightly over one in four now includes a productivity assessment to see whether the illness or other cause of absence requires further action in the workplace to ensure the employee can work productively. This is an area we expect to grow in coming years.

� � � � � �

Non manual staffManual staff

Private medical insurance

Health and wellbeing services (eg healthy living advice)

Attendance bonuses or similar

Flexible working

Absence record examined during redundancy selection

Employer-funded occupational health provision

Waiting days before occupational sick pay is payable

Rehabilitation plans (eg staged return to work)

Discipline procedures

Return to work interviews

Line manager taking primary responsibility for managing absence

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

�.��.��

Exhibit �� Impact of policies/practices (average ranking)


Better understanding by GPs about the workplace would helpAs well as the policies and practices that firms operate themselves, there is also a range of support and advice available to employers and employees through the interaction of the NHS and occupational health services. Following the roll-out of many of the recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s review 5 of the health of the working age population, we were keen to find out how employers felt changes in government support might help and where they had concerns.

We asked respondents what three changes the government could make that would improve absence performance in the UK (Exhibit 24). The highest scoring responses all relate to understanding among GPs of the workplace. Nearly two thirds (63%) believe there would be benefits from improved occupational health training for GPs and more than half want improved partnership working between GPs and occupational health professionals (56%). Employers also want to see sufficient training for GPs in the new fit note (43%).

� ��

Other

No formal assessment is made

Formal assessment eg return to work interview with an assessment on productivity

Line management monitoring

Formal assessment eg return to work interview but no assessment on productivity��

��

��

��

�

Exhibit �� Return to work assessments (%)

� ��

None of the above

Other

Improved availability of GP's services near workplace

Better information/support for employers to help deal with mental health issues

Tax relief for provision of health benefits

More flexible GP opening hours

Sufficient training for GPs in the new fit note

Improved partnership working between GPs and occupational health professionals

Improved occupational health training for GPs��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

Exhibit �� Government steps to reduce absence (%)

5 Working for a healthier tomorrow, TSO, 2008

� ��

Other

Flexible working

Set realistic objectives for employee

Regular one-to-ones on progress

Possible adjustments to work

Return-to-work discussion with employee

Understand nature of the health problem and how this impacts on return to work

Contact with the employee during their absence

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

Exhibit �� Most important actions by linemanagers (%)


The concern among employers that GPs have limited understanding of workplace health and a tendency to sign off employees for lengthy periods is a longstanding one. Given the positive impact that work can have on health and the likelihood of some parts of the job being possible for the employee to undertake, employers have long called for a different approach and better understanding of workplace health. Our findings on the help the government could offer are not surprising, given this background.

Employers believe the new fit note should be helpful... The most specific example of how the government has tried to address this business concern is the introduction of the new fit note from April 2010. The aim of this document is to ensure that GPs, employers and employees focus on what an employee can do in assessing capability for work, not on what they can’t do.

The fit note has been welcomed with open arms by businesses. Over three quarters of firms (76%) say it could help their rehabilitation policy, while a similar proportion (78%) say that they may use it to guide their occupational health interventions (Exhibit 25).

... but are sceptical about levels of GP buy-inThere is a notable change of sentiment when it comes to GP use of fit notes. Two thirds of respondents (69%) told us they do not have confidence that GPs will have the training to make the most of fit notes. Given the relatively limited extent of the training programme rolled out to date by the Department for Work and Pensions, which has reached only a small percentage of GPs, this concern may well be valid. Continuing to focus on GP acceptance of – and engagement with – the fit note should be a key plank of future government policy in this area.

Don't know�

No, definitely not�

No, probably not��

Yes, possibly ��

Yes, definitely��

Exhibit �� Respondents’ views on the fit note (%)

Don't know�

No, definitely not�


Yes, possibly��

Yes, definitely��

I have confidence that GPs will have sufficient training to use the new fit notes differently to the old sick notes

Don't know��

No, definitely not��


Yes, possibly��

Yes, definitely�

A new fit note could help my rehabilitation policy

I may use a fit note to guide my occupational health interventions


Development of the ‘fit note’ initiativeSince the beginning of this survey some 25 years ago, firms have been concerned by the poor match between the way GPs used the sick note and occupational health assessments organised by employers. In particular, sick notes often signed employees off work completely for an arbitrary period of time with little assessment of any work capacity they may have had. Furthermore, the hand-written forms could all too often be illegible to line managers and HR staff.Following a long campaign by the CBI – based in particular on the analysis offered by this survey – the need for a new version of the form, a so-called ‘fit note’, became widely accepted. A review of this field by Dame Carol Black recommended the government take on the development of the fit note. Work has progressed quickly since her report, with the fit note launched in April this year. A fully electronic version will be launched in October, meeting a longstanding CBI lobbying goal.

The new note is designed to encourage GPs, when meeting patients, to analyse what sorts of work they may be able to do. While this is necessarily limited by the short length of an appointment, the form seeks only basic assessments (for instance “can do sedentary work, but not standing”) which the employee can then take to the employer as a basis for discussion about possible altered work. While a phased return to work or altered duties are not always available, in many cases the absence period will be shortened by this new approach. This is good for the employer, but also good for the employee, given the positive impact work can have on health.The fit note is a big step forward – but it is also a challenge for employers and GPs, who must work to ensure it is a success.


Over recent years, awareness of health issues and of the impact lifestyle choices can have on productivity has rapidly increased. Employers have come to recognise the importance to business of building an actively engaged and healthy workforce, leading growing numbers to invest in the health and wellbeing of their employees.

Key findings • Three quarters of employers operate employee wellbeing

policies, with occupational health advice and personal counselling provision the most widespread. There has also been rapid growth in programmes to help employees with healthy eating and tackling drink and drugs problems

• The majority of employers offer rehabilitation support to help employees back into work after a prolonged absence, while many also offer support for employees experiencing stress

• The business case for employee wellbeing policies is seen as resting on their positive impact on employee attendance, workforce productivity and staff morale

• While employee morale is seen as fairly positive, organisations recognise there is more to be done to improve it. Employers believe that praise for a job well done is the most important factor in raising staff morale, while they see effective performance management as key to improving morale.

Three quarters of employers operate a wellbeing policy Employers understand that wellbeing policies can not only help to reduce levels of absence and improve staff retention, but also increase morale and boost their bottom line. The survey results show more and more employers are implementing wellbeing policies in the workplace.

Among the array of wellbeing policies operated by employers, occupational health advice emerges as the most widespread, offered by four out of five employers in our survey – by 70% to employees only and by a further 9% to their families as well (Exhibit 26). Personal counselling provision has also become very widespread, with 75% of respondents offering it in 2009, up from 69% in 2007.

6 Employee health and wellbeing


Supporting employees in making positive lifestyle changes has grown particularly fast. While in 2007 some 40% of employers provided healthy eating advice/encouragement, by 2009 this has climbed to 60% (52% for employees only and 8% for their families too). Support for employees battling with drink problems or substance misuse has grown even faster – offered by 44% of employers in 2007, two thirds of organisations (67%) make help available just two years later.

This expansion in wellbeing policies and practices is particularly striking, given the tough economic climate of the past two years. It shows employers increasingly understand the business case for investment in the health and wellbeing of their employees, and can see there are bottom-line benefits in reducing the costs of absence.

Access to mental wellbeing and stress support is provided by two thirds of employers (50% for employees only plus 17% extending access to employees’ families). Given the prevalence of non-work related stress and related conditions as a cause for short-term and long-term absence, it is encouraging to see employers being increasingly proactive in supporting employees with mental health problems. There is a great deal of support available to employers who want to do more to tackle stress – the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 6 provides an authoritative source of information for those employers wanting to do more.

Nine in ten employers offer rehabilitation support... Increasing attention has been given in the past few years to the growing number of people on incapacity benefit and what can be done to help stem the flow from the workplace onto benefits. Following Dame Carol Black’s review of the health of the working age population, the government introduced a range of measures to help achieve this goal, most notably the new fit note. But employers are also playing an important role.

� ��

To employees and family To employees only

Employer-funded medical check ups

Immunisation eg flu vaccination

Subsidised gym membership/sporting opportunities

Work-life balance advice/support

Smoking cessation support

Access to mental wellbeing and stress support

Healthy diet advice/encouragement

Support dealing with drink and substance misuse

Personal counselling

Occupational health advice

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

�

Exhibit �� Wellbeing policies offered to employeesand their families(%)

6 www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards. In collaboration with the TUC, CEEP, FPB and in partnership with BIS and the HSE, the CBI has also drawn up a guide on dealing with work-related stress issues, which is available at www.cbi.org.uk/stress


� ��

Other

Case management services

Guidance from another source

Training programmes

Counselling

Job/organisation redesign

Occupational health support

Flexible working

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

Exhibit �� Type of rehabilitation policies (%)

Survey respondents were asked (Exhibit 27) if they have arrangements, formal or informal, to help rehabilitate staff and return to work after a period of ill health or injury. Over nine in ten (93%) respondents said that they have some form of rehabilitation policy in place, up from 81% in 2007. The figures reflect that employers increasingly recognise the importance of having policies to help employees return to work from long-term sickness absence, which accounted for nearly a quarter of working time lost in 2009.

Formal policies are particularly widespread among public sector organisations (69% compared with 40% in the private sector). Despite this, the public sector continues to have higher long-term absence rates. As we enter a period of rebalancing public finances, it will be important for employers in the public sector to improve the effectiveness of their policies to reduce the amount of working time lost to long-term absence.

Respondents were also asked about the types of policies they have to assist rehabilitation (Exhibit 28). Of those employers with a rehabilitation policy, nine in ten (90%) offer flexible working, showing that rehabilitation policies do not need to be expensive. Other widely used approaches include occupational health support (85%), job/organisation redesign (74%) and counselling (71%).

...while half offer formal stress management supportAs we saw in chapter 3, mental health problems are a cause of both short-term and long-term absence. Employers are therefore taking stress management increasingly seriously, with the vast majority (84%) now operating a formal or informal stress management policy to help employees (Exhibit 29).

Policies to help employees cope with stress are varied (Exhibit 30). Counselling is the most common (89%) form of assistance offered to employees, followed closely by occupational health support (83%). Well over half of employers also offer practical workplace changes to help employees experiencing stress, through flexible working (72%) and job/organisation redesign (53%).

No arrangements �

Yes, informal arrangements ��

Yes, a formalpolicy ��

Exhibit �� Organisations offering rehabilitationpolicies (%)

No arrangements��

Yes, informal arrangements ��

Yes, a formal policy ��

Exhibit �� Organisations offering stressmanagement policies (%)


The business case for wellbeing policiesGiven the financial pressures of the past couple of years, there has to be a business case for investment in employee wellbeing if programmes are to be sustained and perhaps expanded. So our survey asked respondents what they perceived as the single most important benefit of operating employee wellbeing policies. There was no consensus over just one benefit (Exhibit 31), but three stand out as of leading value for employers: reduced absence levels (26%), a more productive workforce (25%) and improved staff morale (25%).

Given these important potential benefits, it can seem puzzling that not every employer has adopted employee wellbeing policies. To explore the barriers, the survey asked respondents not operating wellbeing policies about the factors deterring them. They were asked to rank the factors on a scale of one to five, with one being least influential and five being most influential.

The most influential factor identified was the existing service provided by their occupational health service, which the employers concerned see as providing all the wellbeing services their employees need (Exhibit 32). Cost is inevitably an important consideration, emerging as the second most important factor, ahead of uncertainty about the benefits of wellbeing programmes.

Over two thirds of employers believe praise for a job well done is important in raising staff morale High levels of employee morale and engagement are important contributors to high levels of employee attendance at work. And UK employers are well aware of the need to work on these areas continually. Indeed, the CBI/Harvey Nash employment trends survey, Picking up the pace,7 shows that employers’ top workforce priority over the next 12 months will be boosting levels of employee engagement, which is closely linked to high levels of morale. The survey found that while two out of five employers (42%) consider current levels of employee engagement as high, most employers feel they have room for improvement.

� ��

Other

Case management services

Guidance from another source

HSE management standards for stress

Training programmes

Job/organisation redesign

Flexible working

Occupational health support

Counselling��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

Exhibit �� Type of stress management policies (%)

None of the above �Other �

Reduced labour turnover �

A healthier workforce ��

Improved staff morale �� More productive

workforce ��

Reduced absence levels ��

Exhibit �� Main benefit of employee wellbeingpolicies (%)

� � � � � �

Have implemented them before but have since stopped

Do not know how to do it/have the expertise to implement programmes such as these

Unclear of the benefits of such programmes

Cannot afford to implement programmes/think it is too expensive

Occupational health services provide necessary services already�.��

�.��

�.��

�.��

�.��

Exhibit �� Factors inhibiting adoption of wellbeingpolicies (average ranking)

7 Picking up the pace – CBI/Harvey Nash employment trends survey 2010


When we asked respondents to this survey about their perception of the state of workplace morale, the picture that emerges is encouraging but still capable of improvement (Exhibit 33). Despite the pressures and anxieties generated by the recession, just over half (57%) said morale in their organisation is good or very good. Small employers with less than 50 employees are the most likely to report high morale, with nearly three quarters (71%) reporting morale to be either good or very good in their workplace.

Employers were asked what they thought are the three most important factors in raising morale in their organisation (Exhibit 34). Over two thirds (70%) of respondents identify praise for a job well done as one of the most important factors in raising staff morale – highlighting yet again the critical role that line managers play in setting the tone of organisations. Ability for employees to influence the way their work is done is seen as the next most important factor (60%), followed by development opportunities (45%).

Given that these factors are seen as drivers of employee morale, our survey went on to ask employers what areas they wanted to focus on to improve morale in their organisation (Exhibit 35). Nearly half of respondents (48%) believe effective performance management is key. Honest feedback from supervisors (39%) and praise for a job well done (38%) are the next two most commonly identified areas for focus. These findings give further force to the view that line managers act as the key link between an organisation’s policies and the experiences of employees.

Very Poor �

Poor �

Average ��

Good ��

Very good �

Exhibit �� Employers’ views on level of morale (%)

� ��

Other

Opportunity to have views represented via third party (eg trade union/staff council members)

Regular information from senior management

Effective performance management

Honest feedback from supervisors

Development opportunities

Ability for employee to influence the way their work is done

Praise for a job well done��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

Exhibit �� Factors important in raising morale (%)

� ��

Other

Opportunity to have views represented via third party

None of the above

Ability for employee to influence the way their work is done

Regular information from senior management

Development opportunities

Praise for a job well done

Honest feedback from supervisors

Effective performance management

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

Exhibit �� Areas for focus in the future (%)

CBIThe CBI helps create and sustain the conditions in

which businesses in the United Kingdom can compete and prosper for the benefit of all.

We are the premier lobbying organisation for UK business on national and international issues. We work with the

UK government, international legislators and policymakers to help UK businesses compete effectively.

Our members benefit from our influence, a wealth of expertise, business services and events.

June 2010

© Copyright CBI 2010The content may not be copied, distributed, reported or dealt with in whole or in part without prior consent of the CBI.

www.cbi.org.uk/higher education

For further information or a copy in large text format, contact:

Robert CummingsPolicy adviser

Employment and pensionsT: +44 (0)20 7395 8282

E: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-0-85201-726-5

Product code: HRE_083

www.cbi.org.ukProduct code HRE_106

Printed by Stephen Austin on Revive 75 Pure White Silk made from 75% de-inked post-consumer waste product with FSC certification.

cbi-pfizer absence report 2010 - mas

Documents