IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i13p4711-d378463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Resourceful Work Environment Moderates the Relationship between Presenteeism and Health. A Study Using Repeated Measures in the Swedish Working Population

Author

Listed:
  • Gunnar Bergström

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden
    Institute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Klas Gustafsson

    (Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Emmanuel Aboagye

    (Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden
    Institute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Staffan Marklund

    (Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Gunnar Aronsson

    (Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Christina Björklund

    (Institute of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Constanze Leineweber

    (Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
    Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate if the psychosocial work environment moderates the proposed negative impact of presenteeism on future general health. We expect that the negative impact of presenteeism on general health is weaker if the psychosocial work environment is resourceful, and more pronounced if the environment is stressful. Data were derived from the 2008–2018 biennial waves of the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). The final analytic sample consisted of n = 15,779 individuals. We applied repeated measures regression analyses through generalized estimating equations (GEE). Results from the autoregressive GEE models showed statistically significant interaction terms between presenteeism and all four investigated moderators, i.e., job demands, job control, job support and job strain. The results indicate that the psychosocial work environment moderates the negative association between presenteeism and general health and illustrates a buffering effect of the psychosocial work environment. A possible explanation for these results may be that psychosocially resourceful work environments give room for adjustments in the work situation and facilitate recovery. The results also indicate that by investing the psychosocial work environment employers may be able to promote worker health as well as prevent reduced job performance due to presenteeism.

Suggested Citation

  • Gunnar Bergström & Klas Gustafsson & Emmanuel Aboagye & Staffan Marklund & Gunnar Aronsson & Christina Björklund & Constanze Leineweber, 2020. "A Resourceful Work Environment Moderates the Relationship between Presenteeism and Health. A Study Using Repeated Measures in the Swedish Working Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4711-:d:378463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4711/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/13/4711/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brockner, Joel & Higgins, E. Tory, 2001. "Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 35-66, September.
    2. Skagen, Kristian & Collins, Alison M., 2016. "The consequences of sickness presenteeism on health and wellbeing over time: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 169-177.
    3. Holendro Singh Chungkham & Michael Ingre & Robert Karasek & Hugo Westerlund & Töres Theorell, 2013. "Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Demand Control Support Model: An Evidence from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Takahiro Mori & Tomohisa Nagata & Masako Nagata & Kiminori Odagami & Koji Mori, 2022. "Perceived Supervisor Support for Health Affects Presenteeism: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Matilde Leonor Alba-Jurado & María José Aguado-Benedí & Noelia Moreno-Morales & Maria Teresa Labajos-Manzanares & Rocío Martín-Valero, 2021. "Occupation and Sickness Absence in the Different Autonomous Communities of Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    2. Klas Gustafsson & Staffan Marklund & Constanze Leineweber & Gunnar Bergström & Emmanuel Aboagye & Magnus Helgesson, 2020. "Presenteeism, Psychosocial Working Conditions and Work Ability among Care Workers—A Cross-Sectional Swedish Population-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-12, April.
    3. Sue-Chan, Christina & Au, Al K.C. & Hackett, Rick D., 2012. "Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 459-468.
    4. Elfenbein, Hillary Anger, 2007. "Emotion in Organizations: A Review in Stages," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt2bn0n9mv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    5. Helen Collins & Susan Barry & Piotr Dzuga, 2022. "‘Working While Feeling Awful Is Normal’: One Roma’s Experience of Presenteeism," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(2), pages 362-371, April.
    6. David Candon, 2019. "The joint effect of health shocks and eligibility for social security on labor supply," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 969-988, September.
    7. Dorine Maurice Mattar, 2021. "An Organizational Change With Quarantined Members," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    8. Oana Buliga & Christian W. Scheiner & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2016. "Business model innovation and organizational resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(6), pages 647-670, August.
    9. Warr, Peter & Bindl, Uta K. & Parker, Sharon K. & Inceoglu, Ilke, 2014. "Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviours," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 53129, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Gretchen Spreitzer & Kathleen Sutcliffe & Jane Dutton & Scott Sonenshein & Adam M. Grant, 2005. "A Socially Embedded Model of Thriving at Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 537-549, October.
    11. Li, Andrew & Evans, Joel & Christian, Michael S. & Gilliland, Stephen W. & Kausel, Edgar E. & Stein, Jordan H., 2011. "The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 268-282, July.
    12. Roni Mash & Lihi Cohen, 2018. "Followers' Perception of Leadership Style, Organizational Commitment and Regulatory Focus, Moderated by Organizational Types," Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 137-146.
    13. Johnson, Russell E. & King, Danielle D. & (Joanna) Lin, Szu-Han & Scott, Brent A. & Jackson Walker, Erin M. & Wang, Mo, 2017. "Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 29-45.
    14. Hongrui Liu & Meiling Yao, 2019. "Regulatory Focus Profiles Among Chinese Pre-adolescents and Adolescents and Their Relationship to Personality and Psychological Outcomes," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 1807-1824, August.
    15. Thomas Leoni & René Böheim, 2018. "Fehlzeitenreport 2018. Krankheits- und unfallbedingte Fehlzeiten in Österreich – Präsentismus und Absentismus," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61487, February.
    16. Venus, Merlijn & Stam, Daan & van Knippenberg, Daan, 2013. "Leader emotion as a catalyst of effective leader communication of visions, value-laden messages, and goals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 53-68.
    17. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    18. Svetlana Lakiša & Linda Matisāne & Inese Gobiņa & Hans Orru & Ivars Vanadziņš, 2022. "Sickness Presenteeism among Employees Having Workplace Conflicts—Results from Pooled Analyses in Latvia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-12, August.
    19. Nithima Sumpradit & Richard P. Bagozzi & Frank J. Ascione, 2015. "“Give Me Happiness” or “Take Away My Pain”: Explaining consumer responses to prescription drug advertising," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1024926-102, December.
    20. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:13:p:4711-:d:378463. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.