When examining the past century of organizational psychology research, few topics have gained as much attention as employee absence, generally referred to as absenteeism. At its core, employee absence is rather straightforward to observe, commonly operationalized as the duration or frequency of non-workdays based on organizational records or self-reports. Duration is typically quantified in the total of units of work time missed (i.e., in absolute numbers or in the proportion of absent workdays) within a specific period (e.g., a year), and frequency denotes the number of such absence episodes per individual within a defined timeframe.

The importance of absenteeism for organizations can be easily explained. Absence or presence has major consequences for the employing organization. Among others, there are expenses associated with (short- or long-term) replacements, losses in productivity, the employer might still need to pay (part of) the absent individual’s wage, the work of others might be interrupted, and customers as well as co-workers might be negatively impacted (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). Various studies show the potential costs of absenteeism that can add up to billions of euros, as in addition to the mentioned direct cost (i.e., absence pay, wages to substitute workers, etc.) absenteeism can have a negative impact on the productivity of firms. Moreover, absenteeism provides a fundamental insight into the person–organization relationship (Miraglia & Johns, 2021), as it could reflect an employee’s adverse work attitudes or experiences. Furthermore, it could be an early warning sign for later turnover, which management could at this stage still prevent. Yet, recent research has shown that avoiding all types of absenteeism, especially when it is due to ill health, can also be problematic as such sickness presenteeism can bring its own set of risks (Ruhle et al., 2020), including more errors or productivity losses. Consequently, understanding absence in an organization is crucial, as absence can be of negative consequence for the individual (i.e., ill health), organization (i.e., performance loss), and society at large (i.e., increasing health care costs).

Hence, it is unsurprising that various disciplines have explored the phenomena employing distinct definitions and interpretations, resulting in a proliferation of terms and conceptual frameworks. For example, absence is multifariously described as an indicator of productivity loss (economics), interruption of work processes (management), deviance behavior (sociology), illness (health sciences), or contact violation (law). Given its substantial significance, organizational psychology scholars are also keen on delving deeper into the rationales behind and outcomes of employee absence.

Within organizational psychology, absenteeism is generally categorized as a temporary withdrawal behavior from the organization. In the organization behavior literature different forms of absence are distinguished; for example, in the 1960s it was defined as the ‘inability, inappropriateness, or unwillingness to work’ (Gibson, 1966, p. 112). Gibson described ‘inability’ closely tied to both physical and mental illness, so employees are unable to work, while ‘inappropriateness’ refers to situations in which not working is generally legitimate, such as emergencies or passing away of close family members. Finally, employees might choose absence simply because they are reluctant to work (‘unwillingness’), which is often considered illegitimate (Gibson, 1966). Other scholars adopt specific classifications of absenteeism, such as ‘excused non-sickness-related’, ‘excused sickness-related’, ‘unexcused absence’, ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary absence’ or ‘unavoidable’ (e.g., illness related), and ‘avoidable’ (e.g., not liking one’s job). Recently, spurred by the growing prevalence of remote work, Ruhle and Breitsohl (2023, p. 974) have defined absenteeism deliberately without specifying the place of work, dissecting sickness absenteeism as ‘the behavior of not working in the state of ill-health’ and motivational absenteeism as ‘the behavior of not working due to a lack of motivation’.

To better understand absenteeism, we must not only consider if the absence was expected and planned, but also scrutinize the ‘legitimacy’ of the absence, as the assessment of absence events and their potential outcomes can significantly diverge. For instance, the potential consequences for an employee might differ based on the nature of the event. A pre-planned absence due to a vacation might be more acceptable compared to an unanticipated absence due to a lack of motip. 2vation, for which the employee would be held accountable. The attribution of absence legitimacy to absence events might differ between individuals, industries, and organizational or national cultures. Broadly, absence events with certified illness are commonly acknowledged as valid grounds for absence and are seldom subject to scrutiny by others (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). In addition, there are differences in legitimacy attribution between different occupations. For a nurse on an intensive care unit, the slightest sign of a cold may be sufficient to legitimize absence to not expose patients to a contagious disease and initial short absence might reduce the need for several absence days later. In other occupations, for example as a work-from-home IT specialist, such behavior could be rated illegitimate. Often, the rules and regulations of the organization provide information for non-illness absences, such as the death of a close relative, birth of a child, or civic duties (Gibson, 1966), and how to deal with them.

The array of definitions and viewpoints reflect a variety of perspectives and theoretical explanations for the formation of absenteeism. So, what are drivers for employee absenteeism?

As was evident from the definitions of absenteeism such as ‘inability’, ‘excused sickness-related’, ‘involuntary’, ‘unavoidable’, and ‘legitimate’, employee absenteeism is frequently referred to as sick leave. Sickness absenteeism can be seen as nonattendance for scheduled work due to psychological and/or physical health outcomes. Among them are causes of sick leave that are directly associated with the employment and work conditions, such as workplace accidents, poor safety, and occupational diseases (e.g., knee problems among road workers). Here, most attention is focused on the stress–illness–absence process (Darr & Johns, 2008). The model unfolds the connection between recurrent experienced work strain and absenteeism. The rationale behind this linkage is that work stressors (i.e., felt strain), as a reaction to negative work conditions, are associated with sustained stress reactions in the autonomic nervous system. This causal association of work strain with psychosomatic symptoms may initiate detrimental psychological processes, which in turn produce sickness absenteeism. In addition, research demonstrated direct links between experienced work conditions—the demands to which workers are exposed and the resources available to them—and absenteeism (e.g., Miraglia & Johns, 2021). Consistent with Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, research shows that resources (i.e., supervisor and/or co-worker support, autonomy) buffer the negative effect of high work demands (i.e., workload, role stress) on absenteeism, as for example high-involvement work systems (organizational resource) might reduce absence, especially in situations with high workload (work demand) (de Reuver, Van de Voorde, & Kilroy, 2019).

In addition to such a sick leave perspective, absence definitions such as ‘unwillingness’, ‘unexcused’, ‘voluntary’, and ‘avoidable’ absence denote motivating grounds for being absent. Motivational absence refers to the decision made by an employed individual regarding whether to attend work. Absenteeism is viewed as a discretionary behavior, where employees choose to reduce their contribution to the organization. While motivation to attend is a broad field, several main reasons for this have been found over time. First, employees might choose absence with a recovery perspective, as in some instances they want to avoid getting literally sick from work. In such cases, absenteeism can be a way to recover from work, as absence here is seen as a stress-reducing or coping mechanism (Hackett & Bycio, 1996), in which taking time off from work is used to get back to the pre-strain state. Second, employees may choose absence over presence to minimize exposure to detrimental work conditions. Thus, employees perceiving their work conditions as not satisfactory may place more importance on the benefits they experience from absenteeism and less on the potential costs of doing so (e.g., income or job loss) (e.g., Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Moreover, these employees may use their absences to look for another job which provides more job satisfaction. The third reason is in alignment with the Social Exchange theory. When employees feel unfairly treated by the organization, they can use their absences to reduce their contribution to the organization to restore a balance in effort and reward (Biron & De Reuver, 2013). In contrast, other work attitudes, such as commitment to various targets (organization, leader, team) and work engagement, can reduce or prevent absenteeism (Neuber et al., 2022). Taking all these viewpoints into account, it is essential to keep in mind p. 3that the factors health and motivation are in a complex relationship to each other when looking at absenteeism and that we must consider that absence often has a motivational and a health-related component.

Yet, causes for absenteeism are not limited to the individual level; also, the social context has been proven to be influential for absenteeism. Research has shown that employees are more absent when the social integration and social control in their working group is low. Furthermore, reasons beyond the organization also play a role, such as child and eldercare responsibilities or other work–life conflicts. Recently, Miraglia and Johns (2021) provided an overview and conceptual model that addresses the work and nonwork factors for individual absenteeism decisions, creating a compelling case for looking at factors related to work, such as the organization and the occupation, but also the family, the community, and the society at large. They boil down to causal paths via ethics, emotions, attitudes, resources, economic exchange, and the attendance norms/legitimacy, summarizing existing links and literature. Moreover, it is important to note that while some relationships seem rather straightforward—such as job satisfaction decreasing absence—these relationships might change over time. That is, job satisfaction and absence influence each other reciprocally. While it is true that dissatisfied individuals are more likely to be frequently absent in the future, such absence might also create dissatisfaction over time. In essence, Miraglia and Johns’ (2021) proposition underscores the indispensability of adopting multilevel models to fathom influences on absence within specific contexts.

The different perspectives provide key insights for organizations to understand and deal with employee absence, tackling both the health and the motivational aspects of absence. For example, stress management and vitality programs can help keep an employee healthy, reducing the need for absence. Further, commitment-focused policies, systems, and work practices, which suggest an interest in both employer and employee concerns, may serve as an effective means to prevent high absence rates due to positive attitudes towards the organization. This highlights the importance for organizations to invest in employees’ well-being by empowering employees to manage their own job (i.e., autonomy), involving them in decision making, and offering supervisor support and fair employment conditions (Guest, 2002). Moreover, it is important to detect and resolve detrimental employment and work conditions before they negatively influence employees’ well-being and health, and eventually to avoid the costs associated with absenteeism.

Despite all the attention that has been paid to understanding and addressing employee absenteeism, research needs to stay focused to further comprehend absenteeism. First, one aspect that influences such comprehensive understanding are the constant changes in the world of work, which impact how individuals behave. Technological developments that allow changes in where and how work is done, such as teleworking and remote work, impact the decision to be absent. Even if first evidence for lower levels of absence due to telework has been found, whether these effects are a tradeoff between health and productivity or an actual benefit from working from home is still unknown. Related to this, in the post-pandemic workplace the perceptions of what is considered acceptable in terms of working with certain illnesses might have changed. Furthermore, the place of work, especially for office staff, is changing (e.g., shared-rooms, open-plan, and non-territorial office designs) which might impact what attendance behavior is considered legitimate.

Second, to understand absenteeism’s formation and consequences, absence needs to be measured properly. Yet, this measure is still a blending of different absence reasons, such as the discussed motivational or health-related absence. Consequently, researchers have started to ask individuals about their own absence behavior in the past. Although meta-analytic evidence shows an acceptable convergence between individual self-reports and organizational records of absence, these self-report days of absence are more accurate regarding sickness than motivational absence and are likely to be systematically underreported (Johns & Miraglia, 2015). That underlines the need to know the absolute absenteeism level of a social unit before establishing management practices based on individual self-reported data on absence.

Third, previous absence research has mainly focused on the work domain and on aspects concentrated on individuals and their job. However, such individual-centric views of absence do not reflect the crump. 4bling boundary between work and nonwork as well as the growing importance of relational, team-focused, and customer-driven work designs (Miraglia & Johns, 2021).

Fourth, the impact of absence on individual health is disputed. While it sounds plausible that absence as coping mechanism, especially in the face of a health impairment, helps the individual to recover, recent developments challenge this broad assumption (Karanika-Murray & Biron, 2019), highlighting that staying at home might not always be the best alternative.

Fifth, given the limitations of some of the earlier work on absence, it might also be useful to retest potential antecedents that have been rejected, such as personality (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998) or the consequences of absence, such as the likelihood of promotions. Additionally, to do justice to the fact that absenteeism can have different distal and proximate causes simultaneously, more advanced analyses should be applied. Enhancements in the fields of statistics and methodology have allowed for a more fine-grained understanding of contextual and temporal factors in interaction with other predictors of employees’ absenteeism. Consequently, using experience-sampling methods, drawing on multilevel models, or using latent profile analysis might be fruitful avenues. While there are some promising starting points, drawing on such developments and rigorously testing the formation and consequences of absence behavior is an important and ongoing challenge for researchers. In conclusion, although research has offered valuable insights into absenteeism, there is an ongoing need to consolidate these findings and conduct a comprehensive examination of absence and presence at work.