IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i2d10.1007_s10198-020-01250-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Employer survey to estimate the productivity friction period

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen Manipis

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Stephen Goodall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Paul Hanly

    (National College of Ireland)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Alison Pearce

    (University of Sydney)

Abstract

Objectives The friction cost approach (FCA) is one way to estimate lost productivity, which considers the time taken to replace an employee, known as the friction period. The friction period may be influenced by local labour market conditions, limiting the relevance of international FCA estimates. The objective was to estimate the time and costs of replacing an employee in Australia. Methods Staff responsible for recruitment in businesses across Australia were surveyed about the last management and non-management employee hired, workforce composition, friction period time and costs, and team dynamic effects. Primary analyses were conducted on respondents that recruited in the past 12 months. The friction period was decomposed into three periods: recruitment decision, recruitment period, and training period. Descriptive statistics of the friction period time and costs, and team dynamic effects were calculated. Results The sample consisted of Australian businesses (N = 274), primarily micro-organisations (2–4 employees, 44%) in urban locations (75%). The time (12.3 weeks; SD 15.1) and costs ($6230; SD $17,502) to replace a manager were higher than those to replace non-managers (10.0 weeks, SD 13.01; $2666, sd $7849). The training period represented the longest time component in replacing an employee (38–40% of the total friction period). There was an increasing impact on other employees’ productivity, particularly for absent managers as time off work increased. Conclusions The friction period in Australia was similar to international estimates. Interestingly, the friction period mainly consisted of time outside the recruitment period; the decision to recruit and the training period.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen Manipis & Stephen Goodall & Paul Hanly & Rosalie Viney & Alison Pearce, 2021. "Employer survey to estimate the productivity friction period," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(2), pages 255-266, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01250-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01250-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01250-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01250-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark V. Pauly & Sean Nicholson & Daniel Polsky & Marc L. Berger & Claire Sharda, 2008. "Valuing reductions in on‐the‐job illness: ‘presenteeism’ from managerial and economic perspectives," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 469-485, April.
    2. Marieke Krol & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "How to Estimate Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 335-344, April.
    3. Sean Nicholson & Mark V. Pauly & Daniel Polsky & Claire Sharda & Helena Szrek & Marc L. Berger, 2006. "Measuring the effects of work loss on productivity with team production," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 111-123, February.
    4. van Ours, Jan & Ridder, Geert, 1991. "Cyclical variation in vacancy durations and vacancy flows : An empirical analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1143-1155, July.
    5. Bajgar, Matej & Berlingieri, Giuseppe & Calligaris, Sara & Criscuolo, Chiara & Timmis, Jonathan, 2019. "Industry concentration in Europe and North America," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103427, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Krol, Marieke & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Severens, Johan L. & Kaper, Janneke & Evers, Silvia M.A.A., 2012. "Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: Correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1981-1988.
    7. Matej Bajgar & Giuseppe Berlingieri & Sara Calligaris & Chiara Criscuolo & Jonathan Timmis, 2019. "Industry concentration in Europe and North America," CEP Discussion Papers dp1654, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Zhang, Wei & Bansback, Nick & Anis, Aslam H., 2011. "Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 185-192, January.
    9. Joanna Siegel & George Torrance & Louise Russell & Bryan Luce & Milton Weinstein & Marthe Gold, 1997. "Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 159-168, February.
    10. John Quiggin, 2001. "The Australian Productivity Miracle: A Sceptical View," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 8(4), pages 333-348.
    11. Jesse Kigozi & Sue Jowett & Martyn Lewis & Pelham Barton & Joanna Coast, 2017. "Valuing productivity costs using the friction‐cost approach: Estimating friction‐period estimates by occupational classifications for the UK," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1862-1868, December.
    12. Dube, Arindrajit & Freeman, Eric & Reich, Michael, 2010. "Employee Replacement Costs," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt7kc29981, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    13. Jesse Kigozi & Sue Jowett & Martyn Lewis & Pelham Barton & Joanna Coast, 2016. "Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 31-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 22nd March 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-03-22 12:00:01

    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. Paul Hanly & Rebecca Maguire & Frances Drummond & Linda Sharp, 2019. "Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(9), pages 1399-1408, December.
    2. Hanly, Paul & Ortega Ortega, Marta & Pearce, Alison & Soerjomataram, Isabelle & Sharp, Linda, 2020. "Advances in the methodological approach to friction period estimation: A European perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    3. Kenneth Tang, 2015. "Estimating Productivity Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: A Review of Instruments and Psychometric Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 31-48, January.
    4. Ina Rissanen & Leena Ala-Mursula & Iiro Nerg & Marko Korhonen, 2021. "Adjusted productivity costs of stroke by human capital and friction cost methods: a Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 531-545, June.
    5. Oliver Fritz & Peter Mayerhofer & Reinhard Haller & Gerhard Streicher & Florian Bachner & Herwig Ostermann, 2013. "Die regionalwirtschaftlichen Effekte der österreichischen Krankenanstalten," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46672.
    6. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Marieke Krol & Nikkie Hosseinnia & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart Roijen, 2023. "Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1031-1050, September.
    8. Johan A. Liseth Hansen & Thomas Fast & Knut Reidar Wangen, 2023. "Productivity Loss Across Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Low Back Pain or Osteoarthritis: Estimates Using the Friction-Cost Approach in Norway," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1079-1091, September.
    9. Zhang, Wei & Sun, Huiying & Woodcock, Simon & Anis, Aslam, 2015. "Illness related wage and productivity losses: Valuing ‘presenteeism’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-71.
    10. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    11. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Andrea Szalavetz, 2019. "Artificial Intelligence-Based Development Strategy in Dependent Market Economies - Any Room amidst Big Power Rivalry?," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2019(4), pages 40-54.
    14. Andronis, Lazaros & Maredza, Mandy & Petrou, Stavros, 2019. "Measuring, valuing and including forgone childhood education and leisure time costs in economic evaluation: Methods, challenges and the way forward," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    15. David Autor & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2023. "Local and national concentration trends in jobs and sales: The role of structural transformation," POID Working Papers 069_updated, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Cortes, Matias & Lerche, Adrian & Schönberg, Uta & Tschopp, Jeanne, 2023. "Technological Change, Firm Heterogeneity and Wage Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 16070, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Matias Covarrubias & Germán Gutiérrez & Thomas Philippon, 2019. "From Good to Bad Concentration? US Industries over the Past 30 Years," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2019, volume 34, pages 1-46, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Fontanelli, Luca & Guerini, Mattia & Napoletano, Mauro, 2023. "International trade and technological competition in markets with dynamic increasing returns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Elena Grinza & Francois Rycx, 2018. "The Impact of Sickness Absenteeism on Productivity: New Evidence from Belgian Matched Panel Data," Working papers 051, Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics (Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche), University of Torino.
    20. Michał Gradzewicz & Jakub Mućk, 2020. "Unravelling the Markups Changes: The Role of Demand Elasticity and Concentration," KAE Working Papers 2020-056, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Friction cost approach; Friction period; Productivity loss; Economic evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01250-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.