1
A new perspective on bus driver absenteeism:
The analysis of the modifiable factors absence culture,
leadership, and work strain
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management
2
ABSTRACT
Interest in absence stems from both practitioners and academics. For employers, absence represents large costs every year. For academics it remains a mysterious phenomenon explained by a myriad of factors. Using survey data, this research tests a model of three more or less malleable concepts (absence culture, leadership, and work strain) in order to explain absence. By testing this model among bus drivers in the Netherlands, two fields of research are combined. General research on absence is combined with specific research on bus drivers in order to draw hypotheses for the three factors. Findings concerning the absence culture suggest trust has a negative influence on absence, while this relationship is not found to be moderated by cultural salience. Transactional leadership has a significantly positive effect on absence. For transformational leadership no significant effect was found. Work strain is also positively related to absence. This research extends existing findings and offers practitioners some guidance in how to reduce absence.
Keywords: Absence, Trust, Cultural salience, Transformational leadership, Transactional
3
Introduction
There is a high academic as well as a practical interest in the topic of absence from work. The practical interest stems from the high costs associated with absenteeism (Collins & Cartwright, 2012; Prater and Smith, 2011). In the Netherlands alone the average cost of labor lost to absence was estimated at €12.6 billion in 2010 (Klein Hesselink, Hooftman, & Koppes, 2012). Academically, absence from work has long enjoyed the interest of scholars. It was one of the first phenomena researched by human resource researchers (Bierla, Huver, & Richard, 2013; Johns, 2003) and has received much empirical attention since (Gosselin, Lemyre, & Corneil, 2013; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Johns, 1997; 2003). Still, the predictive abilities of this research remain limited (Sagie, 1998).
Although it is one the oldest topics in the field of work and organization psychology and numerous factors have been identified, there remains much to be investigated (Johns, 2003). Due to its long history of research, a number of explanatory theories have been proposed and a wide methodological diversity has been used which has resulted in a wide variety of antecedents (Gosselin et al., 2013; Johns, 2003; Mellor, Arnold, & Gelade, 2009). Unfortunately, many of these antecedents are outside the control of individual managers (e.g. age, gender, employment levels) (Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). If research wants to contribute to practice in offering viable options for reducing research, a focus on changeable factors is needed. It are these factors that can be of use for practitioners and make it possible to reduce high absence levels.
4
organizations have an influence on the work context (i.e. job design), this, too, is a factor that is changeable to management (Wright, 2004).
This research contributes to the literature and practice in various ways. First, the empirical results should help broaden the understanding of the relation between absence and the related factors. It measures and tests the concept of absence cultures in totality, which is not yet done. Furthermore, it should add to the understanding whether leadership is a predictor. Finally, it tests the influence of work strain on the specifically onerous occupation of bus drivers. Next, because all factors are, to some extent, under the control of the organization, it should also contribute to the practical issue of reducing absence. This research is organized as follows. In the next section absenteeism is substantiated, the three aforementioned factors identified are introduced and their expected relationship with absenteeism is explained. The following section concerns the methods used. The next chapter reports the results, which are discussed in the subsequent chapter. The final chapter concludes this research.
Theory
AbsenteeismAccording to Gosselin et al. (2013), absenteeism is generally defined as ‘’a lack of physical presence at a behavior setting when and where one is expected to be’’ (Harrison & Price, 2003: 204). This definition excludes vacation or other planned absences. Furthermore, the focus on the behavior setting implies that presence is not necessarily related to a fixed physical location (Harrison & Price, 2003). Given the increase in working at home or, related to the profession of bus driver, the lack of a single location to report for work, this advances the definition of absenteeism.
5
2009; Johns & Nicholson, 1982). These measures are, therefore, often used to tap into two main types of absence: voluntary (frequency) and involuntary (time lost) (Hackett & Guion, 1985). However, there is no strong evidence to suggest such a distinction (Steel, 2003). This research will only use the absence frequency as an indicator for absence, since this has proven to be a more stable measure than time lost (Muchinsky, 1977; Steel, 2003). Absence frequency can be defined as the total number of absence occurrences over a specific period of time, irrespective of how long these absences were (Rousseau & Aubé, 2013). In this research absence and absence frequency are used interchangeably.
Absence culture
An important contribution to the literature is the fact that absenteeism and attitudes toward it are greatly influenced by the context (Johns, 2003).The influence social context has on absenteeism is well established (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Johns, 2003). As a result of the awareness of the influence of context, researchers have begun to work at higher levels of analysis (Johns, 2003). While absenteeism was generally considered an individual phenomenon (Davey, Cummings, Newburn-Cook, & Lo, 2009; Hausknecht, Hiller, & Vance, 2008), research has shown that between-unit absence variance is large enough to deserve additional research (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Rentsch & Steel, 2003; Xie & Johns, 2000).
Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson and Brown (1982) their research indicated the existence of large differences in total time lost and absence behavior across groups and concluded that each group is associated with its own absence culture. Building on the work of Chadwick-Jones et al. (1982), Nicholson and Johns (1985) developed a conceptual framework that provided deeper insight into the formation of workgroup norms and absence behavior (Kaiser, 1998). Nicholson and Johns (1985) argued there are four types of absence culture, where an absence culture is defined as ‘‘the set of shared understandings about absence legitimacy in a given organization and the established ‘custom and practice’ of employee absence behavior and its control’’ (Chadwick-Jones et al., 1982: 136). It consists of the perceived legitimacy of absence taking (Nicholson & Johns, 1985) and the normative belief that certain absence is acceptable (Deery, Erwin, Iverson, & Ambrose, 1995). Nicholson and Johns (1985) categorized their absence cultures along two dimensions, which will be elaborated in the next section.
6
(1985) see trust as the degree of vertical integration between employee and employer, which differs by occupational status (Iverson et al., 2003). According to their interpretation, trust can be considered a form of vertical integration, where low trust psychological contracts indicate low integration among organizational levels and high trust psychological contracts indicate high integration. This high integration can be expected for high discretion roles, such as managers and professionals (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). In this conceptualization, high trust reinforces work ethic and internalized commitment, whereas low trust contracts foster a more detached view of organizational participation (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). This interpretation of trust implies that everyone in the same job (i.e. no vertical differences) would experience equal levels of trust. Since the present study is conducted among bus drivers, this renders the interpretation of the trust in the psychological contract by Nicholson and Johns (1985) inapplicable. However, Gellatly and Luchak (1998) see trust as a factor that influences the integration of individual and organizational goals. This is more similar to the original definition of trust in the psychological contract. Robinson and Rousseau (1994) interpret the term psychological contract as a belief or perception of some form of a promise that entails what the employer is obliged to provide. If there is a high trust in the psychological contract, this would be positively reflected in the employee’s performance (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). This is similar to the idea by Nicholson and Johns (1985) that high trust would invoke increased work ethic and commitment. Therefore, the term psychological contract will still be used, but in a broader sense.
7
1998). For example, it can relieve resentment and negative feelings (Geurts, Schaufeli, & Buunk, 1993) or restore an inequitable relationship with the organization by reducing their inputs (Johns & Nicholson, 1982). Furthermore, low levels of trust offer no motivation to restrict absence to legitimate reasons. When there is low trust, absence becomes an individual’s consideration between profit and loss in pay and satisfaction (Iverson et al., 2003). As a final argument, referring to the more general findings on the psychological contract, there are negative effects related to a breach of the psychological contract. This breach can be considered low trust, since the promise the psychological contract entails is broken (Robinson, 1996). Examples of these negative effects are performance negligence (Fu, 2007) and the increase in leaving intentions (Purvis & Corpley, 2003). It is expected that absence would also be a negative reaction to such a breach and it is therefore assumed that lower trust in the psychological contract results in higher absence. Based on the arguments made above, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1a: Trust is negatively related to absence.
The second dimension used by Nicholson and Johns (1985) is the cultural salience, i.e. how homogenous and impactful the culture is on the individual’s absence (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). Nicholson and Johns (1985) considered salience as a form of horizontal integration, where low salience indicates fragmentation across organizational subunits (groups and/or individuals). Xie and Johns (2000: 32) summarize absence culture salience as ‘’the extent to which there is homogeneity or mutual agreement among the group members about absence pattern and legitimacy’’. A less salient absence culture should allow individual differences to have a larger impact on absence, since the group’s norms about absence are less obvious. High cultural salience should restrict variance, because of the obvious and shared norms regarding attendance behavior (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). High salience can be expected when there is a clear understanding of the formal and informal rules of absence (Iverson et al., 2003).
8
absence (Gellatly, 1995) and will likely result in a strong social influence, while individual differences play an insignificant role in absence behavior (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998; Nicholson & Johns, 1985). As a corollary, a less salient culture allows individual differences to have a greater impact (Nicholson & Johns, 1985).
A salient culture ties members of the group together and results in strong acceptable absence norms (Iverson et al., 2003; Nicholson & Johns, 1985). Thus, salience is the group’s perception regarding the consensus they have about absence norms, or in other words, what is acceptable. However, the question is to whom these norms are acceptable. It can be either acceptable to the company or to the group. Thus, the content of the absence norm becomes important (Xie & Johns, 2000). The content of the prevailing absence norm is determined by an individual’s trust. As argued before, high levels of trust integrate individual and organizational goals (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998). Furthermore, high levels of trust invoke employees to keep their promise to the organization (i.e. to organizational/contractual rules) (Iverson et al., 2003). Thus, when there is there is a high level of trust among employees, the average norm of the group is similar to that of the organization. Consequently, this would result in absence norms that are beneficial to the organization, too. When a salient culture (i.e. strong consensus) is combined with generally high levels of trust in a group, the salient culture emphasizes absence norms that are within organizationally approved limits (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). As a result, the salient culture limits individual differences and stresses a beneficial absence norm. In other words, high cultural salience should strengthen the negative influence of high levels of trust on absence by stressing that absence is only acceptable within these low limits.
In the case that there is low trust, the interests of the employee and the organization differ (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998; Iverson et al., 2003). This low trust would result in defiant absence norms, since employees are guided by their own interests rather than those of the organization. When this misalignment of interests is strengthened by high cultural salience (strong consensus), norms develop that are acceptable to the group rather than to the organization (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). When this occurs, this would result in an alienated and resisting culture with increased absence (Iverson et al., 2003). In turn, the positive effect of low trust on absence is strengthened by the high cultural salience.
9
or she has no accountability to the group (i.e. there is no group norm to diverge from). Thus, low cultural salience does not influence the relationship between trust and absence.
This reasoning is confirmed by research. Drago and Wooden (1992) found that only when the human relations are good, will the absence norms be beneficial to low rates of absence. If the human relations are not good, the absence norms will generally be established to benefit the employee instead of the organization (Drago & Wooden, 1992). The research by Xie and Johns (2000) supports this idea, too. Others have also found that a more salient absence culture (i.e. stronger norms about absence) results in decreased absence (Geurts, 1994; Markham & McKee, 1995). However, the strength of these norms in itself do not influence the absence, it is the underlying psychological contract that determines the beneficial or detrimental effect of these norms (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). This implies a moderating role of cultural salience, where a salient culture will amplify the effects of trust on absence. Thus, when there is low trust, the effects on absence will be worse in a salient culture. Based on the above reasoning, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1b: Cultural salience moderates the negative relationship between trust and absence, such that the relationship becomes stronger when cultural salience is high rather than low.
Leadership
In the current leadership literature there is considerable interest in two leadership styles; transformational and transactional leadership (Frooman et al., 2012). These two styles have been considered to be separate constructs, but leaders can also exhibit both styles (Burns, 1978). Nevertheless, the processes through which they work are different (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Despite the fact that leadership is a factor that can be altered in order to reduce absenteeism and it is under the full control of a manager, relatively little research has been done on the relationship between leadership and absenteeism (Frooman et al., 2012; Mellor et al., 2009).
10
organization (Bass, 1985). P. M. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter (1990) distinguished six sub dimensions of transformational leadership, namely articulating a vision, providing an appropriate role model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individualized support, providing intellectual stimulation, and expressing high performance expectations. Through these behaviors transformational leadership has the potential to result in dramatic increases in performance (Burns, 1978; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Wang et al., 2011). For transformational leadership it can be expected that, through increased motivation and satisfaction, absence is reduced (Mellor et al., 2009). Since transformational leadership motivates employees to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the group or organization (Bass, 1985) and it leads to extra effort by employees (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), one can expect a negative influence on absence (Frooman et al., 2012). Furthermore, transformational leadership is linked to enhanced workplace performance and organizational outcomes, resulting in lower absence (Lee et al., 2011; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005). Finally, Tharenou (1993) found leaders who provide support to their employees reduce absence. Providing support fits transformational leadership in that these leaders stimulate employees by supporting and guiding them (Elshout, Scherp, & van der Feltz-Cornelis, 2013). Summarizing the above, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 2a: Transformational leadership is negatively related to absence
11
employees feel disrespected and their satisfaction and motivation will drop (Elshout et al., 2013). In turn, the decrease in both satisfaction and motivation will result in increased absence (Frooman et al., 2012; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). Furthermore, it is often found that transactional leadership is less positively, or even negatively, related to performance and organizational outcomes (Elshout et al., 2013; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; MacKenzie et al., 2001). A small, but positive influence of transactional leadership on absence is also consisted with earlier research (Elshout et al., 2013; Lucas et al., 2012). Based on the above reasoning and earlier findings, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2b: Transactional leadership is positively related to absence
Work strain
The final concept of interest is work strain. Building on stress literature there has been a recent increase in work strain. Nevertheless, as Darr and Johns (2008) note, a quantitative, theory-driven framework confirming the suggested relation between strain and absenteeism is missing. Work strain can be defined as ‘’reflecting an individual’s subjective evaluation of work as threatening or harmful to oneself’’ (Darr & Johns, 2008: 294). It encompasses the frequency or amount of strain, tension or pressure experienced by employees with regard to their work and is viewed as an adverse individual experience (Darr & Johns, 2008). Therefore, strain is seen as undesirable.
12
Karasek (1979) considered job strain to be related to mental strain, which was the result of high work load and low decision altitude. This is reflective of bus driving, which is often considered high in demands and low in control (Tse, Flin, & Mearns, 2006). This mental strain was strongly associated with absence (Karasek, 1979). A similar result is offered in the study by Rydstedt, Johansson, and Evans (1998), who concluded that mental strain was associated with increased exhaustion after work, difficulties unwinding after work and problems in coping with demands at home among bus drivers in Sweden. Moreover, mental strain was negatively associated with bus driver health and well-being (Rydstedt et al., 1998). These outcomes have been shown to have negative consequences, like higher absenteeism (Tse et al., 2006).
More general findings of work strain on absence are less clear (e.g. Darr & Johns, 2008; Laaksonen, Pitkäniemi, Rahkonen, & Lahelma, 2010; Spector & Jex, 1998). An explanation for the only small positive or insignificant findings of this previous research is offered by De Vroome et al. (2010). They found differences in work strain between occupational groups. If these groups really experience work strain different, this might explain the non-existent relationship between work strain and absenteeism for the whole group (De Vroome et al., 2010). Consequently, this could explain insignificant or small findings of research that took large groups of employees into account. As Demerouti, LeBlanc, Bakker, Schaufeli, and Hox (2009) argue, the relationship between work strain and absenteeism might be stronger in research that focuses on one homogenous group. Supporting this claim is Rydtstedt et al. (1998) their research among bus drivers and Rajbhandary and Basu (2010) their research among nurses.
In conclusion, the literature on work strain suggest a positive relation between work strain and absence among bus drivers (cf. Rydstedt et al., 1998). Furthermore, since this research focuses on a homogeneous group, this relation is expected to be significant. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Work strain is positively related to absence.
Conceptual model
13
FIGURE 1.
Conceptual model of proposed hypotheses.
Method
In an effort to test the aforementioned hypotheses this research used a cross-sectional design. The data to test the relationships between absence culture, leadership, and work strain to absenteeism was gathered with a questionnaire at a single point in time. Furthermore, the data were gathered at a Dutch public transportation organization and were examined quantitatively.
Sample and procedure
14
Eventually, 142 questionnaires (122 digital, 20 on paper) were used for the analysis, constituting a response rate of 19.6%.
Population and responses. Among the respondents, the majority was male (89.9%), the
majority had a fulltime contract (73%) and the majority had a permanent employment contract (82.3%).
Measurements
In order to test the proposed relationships, the concepts were measured using existing scales. All scales have been tested and validated. All scales had to be translated to Dutch for there were no translated and validated versions available. All translations were discussed with both the direct supervisor of the researcher and the liaison at the company. To test comprehensibility of the questionnaire, both the work council and three randomly selected bus drivers tested the questionnaire before administrating it to the population. Their remarks were used for improvements to the questionnaire. They were asked not to participate in the actual study.
Dependent variable.
Absence was measured using self-reports for the frequency of absence. It is based on
Johns (1994) and reads: ‘How often were absent from scheduled work, in the past six months’. Respondents could indicate their absence numerically. Important to add is the time span over which respondents have to answer the frequency of absence, since it might be associated with random error and systematic bias (Johns, 1994). In this study, a time span of 6 months is used, balancing positive effects of recall for a shorter period with the benefits of a longer period for better absence data (for absence has a low base-rate) (Johns, 1994; Steel, 2003).
Independent variable.
Trust in the psychological contract. In this research, trust will be measured using the
scale developed by Robinson and Rousseau (1994), who specifically tried to capture trust in the psychological contract. This scale consists of seven items, which are averaged to calculate a trust score (α = .87). An example item would be ‘I believe my employer has high integrity’. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 5 (I strongly agree) was used.
Cultural salience. To capture cultural salience, this research follows Drago and
15
Carless and De Paola (2000) will be used. Using the ten items to capture workgroup cohesion, an average cohesion score was calculated (α = .79). This scale used items like ‘Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours’. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 5 (I strongly agree) was used.
Leadership. The concepts of leadership were measured using existing scales.
Transformational leadership was measured using the scale developed by P. M. Podsakoff et al. (1990) and consists of six dimensions (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, having high performance expectations, providing individualized support, and providing intellectual stimulation). From the original scale, thirteen items were used. All items were averaged into one transformational leadership score (α = .90). An example item is ‘My supervisor is always seeking new opportunities for the organization’.
Transactional leadership was measured using the scale developed by P. M. Podsakoff, et al. (1984) and consists of two dimensions; contingent reward behavior and contingent punishment behavior. From the original scale, 10 items were used. Averaged into a composite score, an internal consistency of α = .83 was achieved. Example items are ‘My supervisor always gives me positive feedback when I perform well’ and ‘My supervisor lets me know about it when I perform poorly’, respectively. All leadership questions used a five-point Likert scale (1 = I strongly disagree, 5 = I strongly agree).
Work strain. In order to measure the concept of work strain, a scale developed
specifically for bus drivers was used (Rydstedt et al., 1998). This scale measures the occupational workload using six items. The original scale used a four-point scale to measure the answers. For consistency in the questionnaire, a five-point scale was preferred. An example item is ‘In the past six months, have you been forced to hurry during work’. Internal consistency was good (α = .92).
Control variables. In analyzing the hypotheses, the following control variables were
16
Results
Descriptive statisticsTable 1 presents the mean, standard deviation and correlations between all variables in the analysis. Of the correlations with the dependent variable, only trust (r = -.18, p = .04) is significantly correlated to absence frequency. None of the control variables were significant correlated to the dependent variable.
TABLE 1.
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation of all variables
Correlations M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Gender 1.09 .29 - 2. Employment type 1.27 .45 .08 - 3. Contract type 1.16 .39 -.08 .48*** - 4. Absence .45 .70 .15 -.12 -.06 - 5. Trust 3.26 .70 -.11 -.07 -.06 -.18* (.87) 6. Salience 2.97 .59 .20* -.02 .08 -.09 .23** (.79) 7. Transformational 2.80 .62 .03 -.05 -.01 -.07 .50*** .37*** (.90) 8. Transactional 3.09 .59 -.02 -.13 -.04 .10 .29*** .21* .49*** (.83) 9. Strain 2.52 .98 .07 -.04 -.24** .15 -.28*** -.24** -.28*** -.14 (.92)
Note: Cronbach’s alpha is represented between brackets on the diagonal. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001
Hypothesis testing
Using linear regression analysis, the influences of the factors on absence were tested, the results are presented in Table 2.
The influence of trust on absence (Hypothesis 1a) and the moderating role of cultural salience on this relationship (Hypothesis 1b) were tested in model 1. The results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen in model 1a, trust has a direct and significant effect on absence (β = -.18, p = .04). Hypothesis 1b was tested in model 1d. For testing the moderating relationship of cultural salience on trust, the interaction term was added to the model. Both trust (β = -.66,
p = .11) and cultural salience (β = -.63, p = .16) are insignificantly related to absence.
17
TABLE 2.
Hierarchical regression table
Predictor Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c Model 1d Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 3 Model 4
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE Intercept 1.02** .28 .75* .30 1.10** .37 2.78* 1.34 .64* .28 .10 .32 .21 .35 .18 .16 2.04 1.36 Trust -.18* .08 -.15† .09 -.66 .40 -.71† .41 Culture salience -.11 .10 -.07 .10 -.63 .45 -.70 .45 Interaction .17 .13 .18 .13 Transformational -.08 .10 -.18 .11 .03 .13 Transactional .12 .10 .24* .12 .24* .11 Strain .11† .06 .10 .06 Adjusted R² .02* .00 .02 .02 -.00 .00 .02 .02† .08*
18
The regression analysis for leadership is reported under model 2 in Table 2. Analyzed separately, neither transformational nor transactional leadership has a significant influence on absence. However, when both are analyzes simultaneously, transactional leadership has a significant and positive effect on absence (β = .24, p = .05).
Lastly, the effect of work strain on absence is analyzed and reported in Table 2 under model 3. This effect was marginally significant and positive (β = .11, p = .07). For sake of clarity, model 5 reports the regression coefficients when all factors are simultaneously added to the regression. Trust and transactional leadership are the only variables significantly related to absence. Cultural salience, the interaction effect of trust and cultural salience, transformational leadership, and work strain showed no significant relationship with absence.
Summary of results
The results concerning all hypotheses are summarized in Table 3. All hypotheses are mentioned once more and the outcomes for all hypotheses are stated.
TABLE 3.
Summary of hypotheses
Hypotheses Outcome
H1a Trust is negatively related to absence. Confirmed
H1b Cultural salience moderates the negative relationship between trust and absence, such that the relationship becomes stronger when cultural salience is high rather than low.
Rejected
H2a Transformational leadership is negatively related to absence. Rejected
H2b Transactional leadership is positively related to absence. Confirmed
H3 Work strain is positively related to absence. Confirmed
Discussion
19
leadership had a negative influence on absence, while transactional leadership would have a positive effect. Finally, work strain was expected to be positively related to absence. The results will be discussed in the subsequent paragraph.
First, the negative effect of trust on absence is confirmed in this study. When the psychological contract is characterized by higher trust, an employee will be absent less frequent. This can be substantiated by the fact that employees with high levels of trust want to reduce any negative effects that their actions can have on the organization (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Biron, 2010; Dello Russo et al., 2013). Hence, by being absent less often they reduce the negative effects associated with absence (e.g. replacement costs). On the other hand, when trust is lower employees do not feel the need to keep their promise to the organization (Rousseau, 2001). In turn they might feel they have the right to some absence for personal gains or to restore their perceived inequality and thus have a higher absence (Geurts et al., 1993; Johns and Nicholson, 1982). Cultural salience was expected to moderate this relationship. However, this was not confirmed in this research. This result contradicts expectations. However, this might be due to an invalid measure, which makes interpretation treacherous. This is discussed in the limitations.
Secondly, the negative effect of transformational leadership was not found. This is contrary to most research (Lucas et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2004; P. Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). A possible explanation is the idea that transformational leadership works through other factors, such as satisfaction (Frooman et al., 2012) and trust (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 1990), which in turn decrease absenteeism (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006). This research did not test for such mediating effects. Furthermore, it might be that the effects of transformational leadership are less effective in the given context. As Mellor et al. (2009) argue, a rule-bound context may limit the ability of managers to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors and thus have an insignificant influence on absence. Nevertheless, the direction of the relationship was as expected.
20
& Tversky, 1984). Therefore, transactional leadership might have a stronger influence resulting in higher absence than transformational leadership.
Finally, work strain was expected to be positively related to absence. The finding in this research confirms this and is in accordance with previous research among bus drivers (Rydstedt et al., 1998) and other similar occupations (Croon, Sluiter, Blonk, Broersen, & Frings-Dresen, 2004; Greiner, Krause, Fisher, & Ragland, 1998). Furthermore, the explained variance is consistent with findings by Darr and Johns (2008) their meta-analysis. There is disagreement whether bus driving is considered a demanding (e.g. Krueger, Brewster, Dick, Inderbitzen, & Staplin, 2007; Chung & Wu, 2012) or a light occupation (e.g. Tse et al., 2006). The results from this study suggest bus drivers consider it not very demanding, based on their mean score. Nevertheless, despite it being considered a relatively light job, increasing perceived work strain does result in increased absence.
Theoretical implications
Up till now, little research has been done on these subjects in relation to absence of bus drivers. Thus, by investigating these effects I took a step toward a more comprehensive view of the factors influencing absence while simultaneously adding to the development of an absence culture measure. This study has several implications for theory.
Firstly, the results from the analyses show that the absence of bus drivers is also influenced by changeable factors. Previous research mostly tested the influence of fixed factors on bus drivers’ absence. Thus, this research contributes by showing that their absence is also influenced by changeable factors, extending the knowledge and offering an advantage over previous research.
21
Thirdly, additional evidence is presented to support the idea that leadership influences absence. By using a different scale than most other studies, this research contributes by providing evidence that transformational leadership might not be related to absence directly. Furthermore, transactional leadership is directly and positively related to absence. The former finding is unexpected, while the latter confirms the expected relationship. Few other studies considered transactional leadership, but the significant influence warrants more attention. A final contribution to the leadership theory is the suggested influence of mediating factors for both transformational and transactional leadership. Based on the results from this research and on theory, several mediating factors are proposed. For example, trust (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2006), and satisfaction (Frooman et al., 2012). Mediating influences of climate of involvement (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005), human capital enhancing HRM (Zhu et al., 2005), and collective efficacy (Walumbwa et al., 2004) have already been proven.
The final theoretical implication is made by confirming findings of Rydstedt et al. (1998), that work strain influences absence among bus drivers. Although general work strain findings are inconclusive (Darr and Johns, 2008), it appears that work strain is an important factor in predicting bus driver absence.
Practical implications
Besides the theoretical implications, this research also has implications for managers. The practical implications will be discussed per factor.
22
of this absence may correct misperceptions (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998). Furthermore, it is possible to converge the group to a similar absence norm by means of the control system (Nicholson & Johns, 1985). Rewarding low absence might create a positive climate (Markham & McKee, 1995), resulting in an absence norm that promotes low absence. This low absence norm, combined with a converged group norm, could result in lower absence. A more detailed account for rewarding is discussed under work strain
The practical contribution relating to leadership is more difficult. Increasing transformational leadership behaviors, while decreasing transactional leadership is easier said than done (MacKenzie et al., 2001). Possible options to increase transformational leadership is by providing training, for example goal-setting interventions (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996) and training to increase self-efficacy (Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010). Both examples increase the transformational behaviors exhibited by leaders. Nevertheless, this study found no significant influence of transformational leadership and therefore does not offer more practical implications.
More important is the question how to reduce transactional leadership behaviors in order to reduce absenteeism. It was found that transactional leadership resulted in higher absence frequency. As Elshout et al. (2013: 832) argue, ‘if they [employees] are managed too tightly, with a focus on numbers and not people, they will feel disrespected and their satisfaction and intrinsic motivation will drop’. Lower satisfaction has been found to increase absenteeism (Frooman et al., 2012). Moreover, absence is argued to be a motivational choice (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998) and subsequently, reduced motivation increases absence (Mellor et al., 2009). An important detail was that Elshout et al. (2013) surveyed professionals at a mental health care institution, who were used to a focus on communication with people in their occupation. According to Elshout et al. (2013), the employees therefore felt more comfortable with leaders that exhibited the same behaviors (in that case transformational). According to de Vroome et al. (2010), bus driving can be considered an occupation with a similar focus on communication in their occupation. Therefore, these arguments might similarly apply to them. Thus, managers should try to reciprocate the behaviors exhibited by employees to adapt their leadership style. In this case, that would mean that managers should exhibit less transactional leadership by focusing less on the numbers and more on the employees behind the numbers.
23
routes) would have lower strain. However, this would only relocate the strain to someone else. More fruitful suggestions are made by Tse et al. (2006), who mention several recommendations for increasing bus driver well-being. Examples are longer rest breaks, supportive leadership, fixed work schedules, and enhancing coping strategies. As Kompier and diMartino (1995) argue, such interventions should involve the participation of the bus drivers. A further possibility to influence work strain relates to the Effort-Reward-Imbalance (ERI) model by Siegrist (1996, 1998). When employees perceive they put in much effort, but this is not rewarded (in money, esteem, or opportunities), they perceive more stress (which is similar to strain). This stress, in turn, negatively affects employees’ well-being (de Jonge, Bosma, Peter, & Siegrist, 2002). Not rewarding an employees’ effort (i.e. low absence rates), might thus, through stress, increase absence. In other words, rewarding low absence might stimulate better attendance.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
24
A second limitation is related to the measures used for absence culture. As Nicholson and Johns (1985) originally defined it, absence cultures are built on two dimensions. The second, cultural salience, is a complex concept and was measured using cohesion. This measure is limited, as it only acts as a precondition for the salience of the culture (Drago & Wooden, 1992). In other words, ‘cohesion captures the motivation in ensuring conformity to the consensus’ (Xie & Johns, 2000: 35). The consensus, then, refers to cultural salience. Thus, cohesion is a mechanism to enforce confirming to the consensus (Drago & Wooden, 1992; Xie & Johns, 2000). Assuming that a cohesive group also has a strong consensus about absence norms is shortsighted. It might very well be that a cohesive group has no agreed upon absence norm, while a non-cohesive group is very clear in what is acceptable absence and what is not. Therefore, results for (the interacting effect of) cultural salience may have been misrepresented.
The third limitation relates to the discussion on transformational and transactional leadership. This research used a different scale (i.e. P. M. Podsakoff et al., 1984; 1990) than most other research on transformational leadership (i.e. Bass & Aviolo, 1995). Therefore, comparing results with former research is only possible to some extent. Future research might test whether the differences from this research compared to former research originate from the used scale or from other factors (i.e. context (Mellor et al., 2009)). Moreover, transformational and transactional were considered single constructs. However, they consist of different dimensions which can have differing effects (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 1990, 2006). Taking these into account might reveal valuable differences.
This research also offers venues for future research. Despite the notable amount of studies on the factors influencing the health of bus drivers, there is a lack of documentation on prevention and intervention projects in bus companies (Kompier, Aust, van den Berg, & Siegrist, 2000). This research extends the knowledge of factors influencing bus driver absence. Where most previous research mostly focused on health-related factors, this research offers evidence of others factors playing a role. Future research should try to replicate these findings to confirm this statement.
25
Further suggestions for future research apply to the measure of absence cultures. Measuring cultural salience directly hopefully improves the understanding of this dimension. Furthermore, there exists a measure for cultural salience (Xie & Johns, 2000), which is not validated other than in the study that developed it. Future research could also investigate the alleged enforcing role this salience has on the group norm (Drago & Wooden, 1992). In addition, the absence culture is now expected to relate to work units. However, evidence by Bamberger and Biron (2007) indicates that group absence norms are not related to a formal organizational unit per se. Future research might offer an answer to the question to which ‘group’ an absence culture applies.
For leadership, there are also opportunities for future research. Distinguishing the different leadership behaviors offers a more complex picture of their influence on absence. Future research could be fruitful in separating the general concepts into specific dimensions. Also, this would alter subsequent intervention suggestions from a general to a more specific level. Furthermore, understanding of how leadership influences work-related outcomes is limited (P. M. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). This research offers the mediating role of trust, satisfaction, and perhaps other factors, as important in understanding the mechanisms underlying leadership. Future research can take these factors into account to offer a more complete picture of the influence of leadership on absence.
Conclusion
26
References
Aiken, L.S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage.
Albright, C. L., Winkleby, M. A., Ragland, D. R., Fisher, J., & Syme, S. L. 1992. Job strain and prevalence of hypertension in a biracial population of urban bus
drivers. American Journal of Public Health, 82(7): 984-989.
Armstrong, J. U. S. T., & Overton, T. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.
Baba, V. V., Galerpin, B. L., & Lituchy, T. R. 1999. Occupational mental health: A study of work-related depression among nurses in the Caribbean. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 36(2): 163–169.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2010. Alcohol consumption and workplace absenteeism: The moderating effect of social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 334–348.
Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2007. Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer referent others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2): 179-196.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6): 827–832.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for
Research, Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden
27
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26373/
Bierla, I., Huver, B., & Richard, S. 2013. New evidence on absenteeism and presenteeism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7): 1536-1550.
Brooke Jr., P. P. 1986. Beyond the Steers and Rhodes model of employee attendance. Academy of Management Review, 11(2): 345-361.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership, New York, NY: Harper and Row
Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. 2000. The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1): 71-88.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. 1982. Social psychology of absenteeism. New York: Praeger.
Chung, Y. S., & Wu, H. L. 2013. Stress, strain, and health outcomes of occupational drivers: An application of the effort reward imbalance model on Taiwanese public transport drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 97-107.
Collins, A., & Cartwright, S. 2012. The attendance dynamics of UK employees: A
longitudinal study into the health consequences of presenteeism and absenteeism of public and private sector employees. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from:
http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/59756
De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W., Broersen, J. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. 2004. Stressful work, psychological job strain, and turnover: a 2-year prospective cohort study of truck drivers. Journal of applied psychology, 89(3), 442.
Darr, W., & Johns, G. 2008. Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4): 293–318.
28
absenteeism in hospitals: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3): 312-330.
Deery, S. J., Erwin, P. J., Iverson, R. D., & Ambrose, M. L. 1995. The determinants of absenteeism: Evidence from Australian blue–collar employees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(4): 825-848.
Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. 2006. Toward a better understanding of psychological contract breach: a study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1): 166-175.
De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. 2000. Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and employee well-being: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Social Science and Medicine, 50(9): 1317–1327.
Dello Russo, S., Miraglia, M., Borgogni, L., & Johns, G. 2013. How time and perceptions of social context shape employee absenteeism trajectories. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 83(2): 209-217.
Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hox, J. 2009. Present but sick: A three-wave study on job demands, presenteeism and burnout. Career Development International, 14(1): 50-68.
De Vroome, E. M. M., Smulders, P. G. W., & Houtman, I. L. D. 2010. Longitudinale studie naar oorzaken en effecten van presenteïsme. Gedrag & Organisatie, 23(3): 194-212.
Drago, R. & Wooden, M. 1992. The determinants of labor absence: Economic factors and workgroup norms across countries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45: 764-778.
Edwards, J. R. 1992. A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17(2): 238–274.
29
between leadership style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: a mixed methods design study in a mental health care institution. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 823-837.
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. 2010. Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 29(5): 495-505.
Frooman, J., Mendelson, M. B., & Murphy, J. K. 2012. Transformational and passive
avoidant leadership as determinants of absenteeism. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(5): 447-463.
Fu, C. J. 2007. Psychological Contract Violations and Employees’ Work Behavior Reactions: the Moderating Effect of Job Opportunities. Operational Research and Management Journal, 6(2): 57-78.
Gellatly, I. R. 1995. Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal model. Journal of organizational behavior, 16(5): 469-485.
Gellatly, I. R., & Luchak, A. A. 1998. Personal and organizational determinants of perceived absence norms. Human Relations, 51(8): 1085-1102.
Geurts, S. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. 1993. Social comparison, inequity, and absenteeism among bus drivers. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 3(3): 191-203.
Geurts, S.A. 1994. Absenteeism from a social psychological perspective. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Quickprint.
Gosselin, E., Lemyre, L., & Corneil, W. 2013. Presenteeism and absenteeism: Differentiated understanding of related phenomena. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1): 75-86.
30
accidents, and absenteeism in transit operators: a theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(2): 130-146.
Hackett, R. D., & Guion, R. M. 1985. A reevaluation of the absenteeism-job satisfaction relationship. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 35(3): 340-381.
Hackett, R. D., & Bycio, P. 1996. An evaluation of employee absenteeism as a coping mechanism among hospital nurses. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(4): 327-338.
Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. 1998. Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3): 305-350.
Harrison, D. A., & Price, K. H. 2003. Context of consistency in absenteeism: Studying social and dispositional influences across multiple settings. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 203–225.
Hausknecht, J. P., Hiller, N. J., & Vance, R. J. 2008. Work-unit absenteeism: Effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor market conditions, and time. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1223-1245.
Iverson, R. D., Buttigieg, D. M., & Maguire, C. 2003. Absence culture: the effects of union membership status and union-management climate. Industrial Relations, 58(3): 483-514.
Johansson, G., Evans, G. W., Cederström, C., Rydstedt, L. W., Fuller-Rowell, T., & Ong, A. D. 2012. The Effects of Urban Bus Driving on Blood Pressure and Musculoskeletal Problems: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(1): 89-92.
Johns, G. 1994. How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4): 574.
31
consequences. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12: 115-174.
Johns, G. 2001. The psychology of lateness, absenteeism, and turnover. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology. 232–252. London: Sage.
Johns, G. 2003. How methodological diversity has improved our understanding of absenteeism from work. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 157-184.
Johns, G. 2008a. Absenteeism or presenteeism? Attendance dynamics and employee well- being. In S. Cartwright & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational well-being. 7–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johns, G. 2008b. Absenteeism and presenteeism: Not at work or not working well. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior. London: Sage.
Johns, G. 2011. Attendance dynamics at work: The antecedents and correlates of
presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4): 483-500.
Johns, G., & Nicholson, N. 1982. The meanings of absence: New strategies for theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4(1): 127–172.
Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. 1988. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78(10): 1336-1342.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768.
32
Kaiser, C. P. 1998. What do we know about employee absence behavior? An interdisciplinary interpretation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(1): 79-96.
Karasek Jr, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 24: 285-308.
Klein Hesselink, J., Hooftman, W., & Koppes, L. 2012. Ziekteverzuim in Nederland in
2010 [Absenteeism in the Netherlands in 2010]. Hoofddorp: TNO.
Kompier, M. A. J., Mulders, H., Meijman, T., Boersma, M., Groen, G., & Bullinga, R. 1990. Absence behaviour, turnover and disability: A study among city bus drivers in the Netherlands. Work & Stress, 4(1): 83-89.
Kompier, M. A. J., & diMartino, V. 1995. Review of bus drivers’ occupational stress and stress prevention. Stress Medicine, 11(1): 253–262.
Kompier, M. A. J., Aust, B., van den Berg, A. M., & Siegrist, J. 2000. Stress prevention in bus drivers: Evaluation of 13 natural experiments. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1): 11–31.
Krueger, G. P., Brewster, R. M., Inderbitzen, R. E., Staplin, L., & Dick, V. R. 2007. Synthesis on Health and Wellness Programs for Commercial Drivers. In Transportation
Research Board 86th Annual Meeting.
Laaksonen, M., Pitkäniemi, J., Rahkonen, O., & Lahelma, E. 2010. Work arrangements, physical working conditions, and psychosocial working conditions as risk factors for sickness absence: Bayesian analysis of prospective data. Annals of epidemiology, 20(5): 332-338.
Lambert, E. G. 2001. Absent correctional staff: A discussion of the issue and
33
Lee, D., Coustasse, A., & Sikula Sr., A. 2011. Transformational leadership and workplace injury and absenteeism: Analysis of a national nursing assistant survey. Health Care Management Review, 36(4): 380-387.
Long, L. & Perry, J. 1985. Economic and occupational causes of transit operator's absenteeism: A review of research. Transport Reviews, 5(3): 247-267.
Lucas, O., Bii, P. K., Sulo, T., Keter, B., Yano, E. M., & Koskey, N. 2012. School principal’s leadership style: a factor affecting staff absenteeism in secondary schools. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(4): 444-446.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 2001. Transformational and
transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2): 115-134.
Markham, S. E., & McKee, G. H. 1995. Group absence behavior and standards: a multilevel analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4): 1174–1190.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. 2003. Group absenteeism and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Behavior, 24(6): 667-687.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. 2009. The role of leader motivating language in employee absenteeism. Journal of Business Communication, 46(4): 445-479.
Mellor, N., Arnold, J., & Glade, G. 2009. The effects of transformational leadership on employees’ absenteeism in four UK public sector organisations. Health and Safety Executive. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/ rrhtm/rr648.htm
Muchinsky, P. M. 1977. Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10(3): 316-340.
34
Nielsen, A. L. 2008. Determinants of absenteeism in public organizations: A unit-level
analysis of work absence in a large Danish municipality, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7): 1330-1348.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. 1984. Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: fact or fiction?. Organizational behavior and human performance, 34(1): 21-63.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2): 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3): 513-563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2): 113-142.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. 2007. Differential challenge stressor-
hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2): 438.
35
Purvis, L. J., & Cropley, M. 2003. The psychological contracts of National Health Service nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(2): 107-120.
Rajbhandary, S., & Basu, K. 2010. Working conditions of nurses and absenteeism: Is there a relationship? An empirical analysis using National Survey of the Work and Health of Nurses. Health policy, 97(2): 152-159.
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. 2003. What does unit-level absence mean? Issues for future unit- level absence research. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 185-202.
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and
transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5): 561-589.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of organizational behavior, 15(3): 245-259.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative science quarterly, 41: 574-599.
Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the
Psychological contract. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(4): 511-541.
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. 2013. Collective autonomy and absenteeism within work teams: A team motivation approach. The Journal of Psychology, 147(2): 153-175.
Rubin, R. S., Bommer, W. H., & Bachrach, D. G. 2010. Operant leadership and employee citizenship: A question of trust? The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 400-408.
36
Sagie, A. 1998. Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: Another look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(2): 156-171.
Siegrist, J., 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low- reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41.
Siegrist, J., 1998. Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbalance at work: Theory,
empirical support and implications for prevention. In: Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Theories of Organizational Stress: 190-204, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sims, R. R. 1994. Human resource management's role in clarifying the new psychological contract. Human Resource Management, 33(3): 373-382.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. 1998. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4): 356.
Tharenou, P. 1993. A test of reciprocal causality for absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(3), 269-287.
Tse, J. L., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. 2006. Bus driver well-being review: 50 years of
research. Transportation Research part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9(2): 89-114.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2003. The impact of
psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 29(2): 187-206.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. 2004. The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4): 515-30.
37
performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group and Organization Management, 36(2): 223-270.
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. 2007. Family friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60(2): 397-427.
Williams, M. L., & MacDermid, S. M. 1994. Linkages between employee benefits and
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes: A research review and agenda. Human Resource Review, 4(2): 131-160.
Winkleby M. A., Ragland D. R., Fisher J. M., & Syme S. L.1988. Excess risk of sickness and disease in bus drivers: a review and synthesis of epidemiological studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 17: 255-262.
Wright, B. E. 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1): 59-78.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 2000. Interactive effects of absence culture salience and group
cohesiveness: A multi-level and cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in the Chinese context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1): 31-52.
