The Importance of Hydration Recognized

We have mentioned that businesses are interested in learning how to discourage workers from “doing things on company time that will eventually cost the company many dollars.” One of those factors is the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which have been shown to cause obesity. The particular methodology of this threat is that employees who become obese tend to bend the “bottom line” expensively.

Most people probably do not have a clue about all the history behind the availability (or not) of water in either public locales or in places of business. Over the years, many laws have been argued, passed, contested, and rewritten, over the issue of water in the workplace. Considering the enormous number of different kinds of workplaces that exist, keeping up with the whole field must be an exhausting responsibility. It is good to know that special attention has been paid to the importance of water in preventing obesity.

In the USA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that potable water be available to workers, and that they should be encouraged to drink it, and cannot be asked to pay for it. The rule is not confined only to readily accessible water for the quenching of thirst, but encompasses every use for which potable (technically, safe to drink) water is utilized:

[…] for drinking, washing of the person, cooking, washing of foods, washing of cooking or eating utensils, washing of food preparation or processing premises, and personal service rooms.

Furthermore, “Each industry contains specific requirements tailored to the conditions of these fields,” including guidance on the provision of “reasonable opportunities” to hydrate. Of course, these considerations may be extended not just out of warm regard, but because companies have caught on to the fact that obesity costs them a considerable amount of money.

Perhaps the availability of good water might help to wean some workers off their habitual high-cal drink habits. Never mind that coffee with three spoons of sugar, and forget about sodas and juices, especially those with added sweetener.

In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced the multiply-authored and lengthily titled “Impact of Individual and Worksite Environmental Factors on Water and Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption Among Overweight Employees”. It was described as “the first extensive evaluation of the workplace environment and its influence on water and SSB consumption.”

After taking into consideration many reports, the researchers concluded that workplace factors definitely influence the behavior of overweight employees. They found that reduced access to vending machines could steer habits into healthier channels. Consultants also looked further into the roles played by water coolers, vending machines, and break frequency. Here is the bottom line from that study:

Future intervention trials are warranted to determine whether reducing SSB consumption and increasing water consumption could be an effective dietary strategy for worksite-based weight management interventions and whether individual and environmental intervention features mediate or moderate intervention effectiveness.

A few years ago, similar research scrutinized both “intensive-labor and static-type workplaces” and concluded that promoting the water consumption habit “may benefit employees,” which is pretty weak sauce, considering how the phraseology implies “… or it may not.” Well then, could the provision of both water and nudging reminders induce employees to drink lots of water in order to “diminish their tendency to gain weight”?

At the same time, this research project was looking for more than just how to encourage increased water consumption. Managerial and executive eyes were on a bigger prize, and WHPPs (Workplace Health Promotion Programs) were created to serve the need, and a sentence in the Conclusion affirmed the hope.

“If reminders about water intake can be sent to employees in a timely manner, and if they can be informed with the health benefits brought by drinking water regularly, combined with unforced health education, it may be possible to obtain other additional benefits in addition to enhancing employees’ water intake.”

Of course, businesses are not only concerned about employees’ health, and it would be silly to believe they are. But to discover a factor that can improve the lives of workers while at the same time reducing employer costs, well, that is something to write home about for sure.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Summary: OSHA Water Requirements,” ZTers.com, 09/09/24
Source: “Effectiveness of a Water Intake Program at the Workplace in Physical and Mental Health Outcomes,” NIH.gov, 2022
Image by Picsues/Pixabay

Our Jobs, Our Bodies, and Our Kids

Recent inquiries into the enormous cost that obesity imposes on society have covered a number of bases, but (no surprise here) plenty of angles remain to be explored. In observing places of employment, scholars have examined chronic stressors, acute stressors, and even the condition known as “turmoil in the workplace.” Many researchers are particularly interested in the relationship between those factors and the difficulty experienced by workers in maintaining a healthy body weight.

It seems odd that people — many of them lucky to be employed at all — will carelessly endanger their jobs and their health by allowing excessive weight to creep up on them. How can they be encouraged to remain well enough to perform the work adequately, and not take too many sick days? How can they be prevented from doing things on company time that will eventually cost the company many dollars?

It takes all kinds

Researchers looking for answers have created studies that concentrate specifically on middle-aged women. Grad students have scrutinized groups of men who do exhausting labor, and others whose pale shirt collars have never felt a drop of perspiration. They have probed the relationship between something called “job enrichment,” and abdominal obesity in particular, as those two factors may impact even “apparently healthy” individuals.

A typical news item, published near the end of 2017, confirmed what many corporate CEOs and small business owners had already figured out:

The increasingly high levels of overweight and obesity among the workforce are accompanied by a hidden cost burden due to losses in productivity.

That meta-study was called by its authors “a narrative synthesis of the reviewed studies [which] revealed substantial costs due to lost productivity among workers with obesity.” The information, derived from eight electronic databases, pointed out the extent of those indirect costs that might someday, somehow, be eliminated from the figures that populate the corporate budget. It was only one of a great number of academic papers that have explored these possibilities.

But what does this have to do with my kids?

Everything. No matter how much we love our children, and how wonderful we know them to be in every way, the opinion of the outside world may differ. Often, when that assessment is made plain, the results are not happy for anyone. Our kids are growing up in an environment where everyone is increasingly scrutinized from many angles, and information is retained forever.

They deserve our help

A few years from now, our daughters and sons might be secretly weighed every day they show up for work, and then be summarily fired for exceeding the decreed correct weight. These trends are capable of doing real damage, and we need to get a handle on them by understanding why it is probably a mistake to ignore the few extra pounds around a child’s middle. Without being hurtfully judgmental, we can still acknowledge that obesity has the power to mess up her, or his, entire future.

On another level, the situation could become even worse. Imagine this: Your child graduates high school, and the only available job is with a company that severely maintains strict weight standards. A year later, your excellent son is required to fire an employee who also happens to be his best friend since childhood. To both of them, it represents a betrayal, and your boy feels so lousy, he binge-eats to improve his mood, and winds up being fired himself, not long afterward.

Okay, maybe that scenario is a bit dramatic, but whether we like it or not, obesity seems determined to become a larger issue with every passing year. It is a challenge that a lot of kids just might face, if they don’t already. This is why we try to prevent childhood obesity, because people growing into adulthood have enough to contend with.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Productivity loss due to overweight and obesity: a systematic review of indirect costs,” NIH.gov, 10/05/17
Image by milaoktasafitri/Pixabay

Can You Multiply By 10?

The reason for the titular question is the existence of two random documents among many which all point to the same conclusion. The phenomenon known as “presenteeism” has grown immensely, and so has the societal expense associated with it.

Another branch of this knowledge tells us that since obesity is definitely associated with presenteeism, obesity is a problem here as in so many other areas of life. This is just one more of the multiple problems with which obese children who mature into obese adults will have to contend.

The first media production considered here, which appeared on YouTube about 14 years ago, is a very concise (2:27) explanation by Professor Cary Cooper of how presenteeism was at that time costing the American economy about $15 billion per year.

Exhibit #2 is an article published in 2020, a mere decade later, during which time the cost of presenteeism was said to have risen to a towering 150 billion per year. In other words, the annual toll of that phenomenon upon the economy of the USA had multiplied by a factor of 10. And you can bet your bottom dollar on this: In many instances when employees showed up in the workplace only to be unproductive and ineffective, that was, in one way or another, attributable to obesity.

Contemporaneously with the above-mentioned YouTube presentation, by the way, a very scholarly work authored by J. Borak was published by Oxford University Press.

“Obesity and the Workplace” referenced the “global tsunami” of obesity, which was predicted to “certainly demand increasing commitments from occupational health programmes in coming years.” Four obesity-related issues were listed:

1. Enormous negative societal impact
2. Huge financial costs
3. Decreased worker productivity and increased need for support services and disability management
4. Work environments that contribute to increased overweight and obesity

That report quoted a 2006 study whose results had indicated that “annual US obesity-related medical costs were about $86 billion, including $30.3 billion for full-time employed adults.” It also emphasized that obesity “is associated with substantially increased rates of absenteeism (i.e., more days out of work) and presenteeism (i.e., reduced productivity while at work).”

This is the job market our children are preparing to face. Success in employment, or even simply finding employment in which to succeed or fail, will not be solely about degrees or other official qualifications. It will increasingly depend on not being fat.

But… It takes two to tango

On the other hand, plenty of evidence exists to show that work conditions can contribute directly to obesity, so employers had better take some responsibility. Job stress, shift work, and long work hours are mentioned. Consequently, some employers…

[…] have adopted programmes to incentivize weight loss and the maintenance of recommended body weight, encourage exercise, and promote healthy diets.

The results of such interventions are described as encouraging, and deserving of wide support. The same article mentioned a concept of “libertarian paternalism”:

[…] the idea that private and public institutions can systematically (and legitimately) affect behaviour in order to ‘nudge’ people in directions that will make their lives go better, without eliminating freedom of choice. For example… occupational health professionals should encourage employers to make work sites ‘junk food free’, instead providing healthier alternatives in cafeterias and vending machines.

This tactic of benign psychological and circumstantial influence-wielding has certainly been, and today remains, a fertile field for behavioral studies.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Professor Cary Cooper explains presenteeism,” YouTube.com, undated
Source: “The Complete Guide on Presenteeism (w. Example Intervention),” AIHR.com, 2020
Source: “Obesity and the workplace,” DOI.org, 2011
Image by gugacurado/Pixabay

Obesity, Depression, and Costs

As we have seen, the opinion is widely held that research done so far on the relationship between employment and associated physical and mental disorders is insufficient. In some jobs and with some people, there may be a tendency to escape work whenever possible, on the thinnest of excuses. From the bosses’ side, there may be a tendency to take advantage of people who need jobs by making them do dangerous tasks and then blaming them if injury occurs. It would come as no surprise to learn of lawsuits and strikes related to these issues.

The history of labor has encompassed very complicated and conflict-prone areas. Hard-fought decisions have been made about who is entitled to compensation for being absent from work; as well as who is allowed to show up and underperform (presenteeism), which in the long run costs the company even more.

Obesity is one of the conditions that can influence worker productivity. If our kids are overweight or obese, it is likely they will grow up to be obese adults, and this relationship to work will be just one of the many problems they will be challenged to deal with.

Wider information, please

Archived studies on the subject have been recognized as excellent, but too narrow in scope. One example (published in 2020) focused on almost 3,000 Japanese office workers, of whom 70% were male. According to the researchers,

Ten health risk factors for presenteeism have been identified, including health-related behaviours such as smoking, lack of physical activity, high blood pressure, perception of health and stress. Studies have reported that workers with arthritis, allergies, fatigue, depressive symptoms, hypoglycaemia, overweight and obesity were at higher risk of presenteeism.

In the same paper, mention was made of such impactful organizational policies as sick pay, attendance management, and permanency of employment.

What about profit and loss?

Recently, Investopedia.com looked back at a 2016 study from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, which showed that…

[…] presenteeism associated with depression costs $5,524 per person annually in the U.S., five to 10 times higher on average than costs associated with absenteeism.

And of course, there is an extensive connection between depression and obesity. A 2015 article said,

Human obesity has serious consequences on health, including increased risks for depression, noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, cancer, rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, hypertension, and heart disease. In addition, obesity has been found to reduce the quality of life for both men and women and markedly reduces life expectancy…

Those facts are quite depressing. Depression has been called the enemy of motivation, and one thing from which it can definitely demotivate a person is the desire to wake up, get spiffed up, and travel to a hated job.

And another thing…

It is possible that depression is being promoted for profit. This will not be gone into here, but the following quotation is worrisome in its implications, given all the ways through which obesity’s overall expense to society is likely to increase:

[M]any people who once called themselves alcoholics and drug addicts now say they are “dually diagnosed” with “major depressive disorder” and “bipolar disorder.”[…] Today, when alcoholics and drug addicts leave rehab, they are lifelong Pharma customers… For this lifelong, chronic and lucrative condition — resting on the now disproved chemical imbalance theory — they can remain on drugs like SSRIs for decades.

Whatever degree of legitimacy is represented there, it is bound to involve obesity in a large number of cases, and to be inimical to good employment relationships. Closer to home is a 2020 report from Sweden titled “Childhood obesity linked to higher risk of anxiety, depression and premature death.” Among other statements, we find:

Children with obesity have a three times higher risk of mortality in early adulthood compared with children in the general population and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

When these children grow up and become employed, their tendencies toward impaired physical health and depression are certain to impact their effectiveness at work, which in turn raises the employers’ costs to a greater or lesser extent in every business and in government jobs too, with the result that all these costs are passed on to customers and also eventually to every other facet of society.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Presenteeism among workers: health-related factors, work-related factors and health literacy,” Occupational Medicine, November 2020
Source: “Presenteeism: What It Is and How It Works,” Investopedia.com, 01/06/25
Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2015
Source: “Drugmakers Continue to Profiteer on ‘Free’ Mental Health Programs,” Academia.edu, 11/04/24
Source: “Childhood obesity linked to higher risk of anxiety, depression and premature death,” News.ki.se, 03/18/20
Image by KarlToon/Pixabay

Obesity, Pain, and Presenteeism

Pain is an obesity issue, because “musculoskeletal or joint-related pain in the feet, knees, ankles, and back” can make certain maneuvers difficult or impossible. Obese people often cannot move very well because of arthritis, and, of course, the relative lack of mobility leads to increased obesity. Carpal tunnel syndrome also shows up more often among heavier workers.

It might seem that a very obese person would be more difficult to knock over, but other factors are involved. The authors suggest that, in heavy individuals, balance and coordination are compromised. Obesity is also connected with sleep apnea and heart disease, both of which cause shortness of breath and general weakness, two definite drawbacks in a work situation.

According to an Australian study of long-term health conditions and obesity released in 2020, the mechanisms of the phenomenon are still obscure to the point where “little is known.” That paper’s conclusion “implies that interventions to improve workers’ health and well-being will reduce the risk of presenteeism at work,” an observation that one reviewer with an attitude dryly states “does not actually qualify as helpful.”

A 2018 study, using data compiled around 10 years earlier, compared various occupations in terms of how, and how much, productivity is affected by weight. Not surprisingly, obesity had the most profound impact in the physically demanding field of construction. Arts and hospitality was the next most affected category, which seems like an odd pairing since the arts can include extremely strenuous physical activity like performative dance, while hospitality could encompass standing behind a counter giving out room keys in a hotel.

Perhaps in this context, hospitality only includes the personnel who clean the premises, change the bedsheets, and so forth. A surprising number of jobs might turn out to include repetitive motions, awkward body positioning, and other challenging requirements.

At any rate, the conclusion there was that “Obesity differentially impacted productivity and costs, depending upon occupation,” which could not have come as much of a surprise to anyone. Between 2004 and 2011, all American industries saw weight increases in their average workers. This much was definitely stated:

When examined by occupational group, the highest age-standardized obesity prevalence was found for US adults working in the Motor Vehicle Operator occupational category (39.2%), with the lowest prevalence for those working in the Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioner (15.4%) category.

These facts should also not be startling, because the drivers of trucks and buses are perpetually seated, while employees in the health field have a relatively high awareness level of the dangers of obesity. An interesting insight emerged from a large study in the Netherlands, which…

[…] reported that obesity was predictive of developing musculoskeletal symptoms, especially among workers whose jobs had low (vs high) physical workloads… Yet, the researchers acknowledged that their findings could alternatively be explained by individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms tending to self-select into occupations with fewer physical job demands.

In the field of manufacturing, when physically demanding tasks are involved, excess weight definitely impairs productivity, especially in terms of needing “additional time to complete physically demanding tasks.” In the realm of office workers, management and professional occupations tended to see higher costs “attributable to obesity-related absenteeism across a number of primarily office-based positions.”

Impairments in productivity and higher medical expenditures tend to characterize obese individuals with cardiometabolic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and hypertension. During the time period encompassed by that study, it was found that almost two-thirds of the expenses incurred by businesses were attributable to morbidly obese employees.

The authors noted that such studies tend to focus on only one or perhaps a few occupations, so…

[T]here exists a dearth of empirical research investigating the impact of obesity across varying occupational groups. Such research is critical, as excess weight may be associated with differing degrees of burden depending on profession and job responsibilities.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2008
Source: “A longitudinal exploration of the relationship between obesity, and long term health condition with presenteeism in Australian workplaces, 2006-2018,” PLOS.org, 08/26/20
Source: “Impact of Obesity on Work Productivity in Different US Occupations: Analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey 2014 to 2015,” NIH.gov, 2018
Image by RosZie/Pixabay

More About Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Obesity

The authors of a 2008 meta-study described the obesity-related costs (that take such a toll on society as a whole) as “astounding.” “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity” found that “the annual presenteeism cost for moderately or extremely obese workers was $1783.81, which is $506 higher than the cost for other workers.”

The study’s subject groups categorized as moderately and extremely obese experienced the highest absenteeism, averaging 91.08 absentee hours “for personal health reasons.” Financially, presenteeism is dreaded because…

[…] absences do not necessarily cost the employer the full value of the worker’s time to the extent that these are unpaid absences and that other workers are able to cover the missing shifts. Meanwhile, presenteeism is always a cost to employers because the worker is receiving a full paycheck despite reductions in productivity.

All in all, this accounts for a sizable chunk of the annual $900 billion that American employers pay for medical expenditures.

As numerous other studies have confirmed, the price paid by businesses for employee obesity is up there in the mega-bucks range. Unfortunately, much more work is needed on the minutiae of “Why?” When the cost derives from absenteeism and/or medical services rendered, this is easily understood.

What seems elusive is the exact process by which, when obese employees are involved, presenteeism (showing up for work but underperforming) is so wasteful. Is it just that they move more slowly when picking up a phone or straightening a stack of papers? Do they take longer lunch breaks, or spend more on-duty time moving back and forth to the snack machines? Do they fall asleep at their desks? What, exactly, is the issue?

Employees are on the job, but not functioning effectively because of medical or psychological conditions. But how does this manifest? We are told that the moderately and extremely obese workers experience the most limitations, as measured by the time needed to complete some tasks, and sheer inability to perform others.

In a broad sense, that tracks. If employed as a ballet dancer, a person with a BMI of over 35 would obviously fail. But how does the extra poundage inhibit or prohibit, for instance, a journalist? Presumably, the fingers on the keyboard would still be just as fast and accurate.

The particular questionnaire utilized in this study comprised 25 items falling into four categories:

The time scale addresses difficulties with meeting job expectations and scheduling demands. The physical scale focuses on workers’ ability to perform their normal job tasks as influenced by bodily strength, movement, endurance, coordination, and flexibility. The mental-interpersonal scale examines cognitive tasks, sensory input, and interactions with others. The output scale focuses on the quantity, quality, and timeliness of meeting job demands.

But the details involved in particular office tasks are not described. We know what the workers in a warehouse do. They move heavy physical objects from one location to another, which presumably requires an energy expenditure that helps prevent them from putting on weight. (Although, don’t count on it.) Still, a job in a plant or warehouse environment usually implies the ability to bend, stretch, squat, push, and walk.

But in an office setting, how heavy is a pencil or a file folder? Someone in the Information Technology department might need to lift a computer once in a while, but in general, what physical task is so daunting that a worker in the top obesity classification would be slowed down, stopped, or injured by its performance?

Okay, the IT person probably has to get under a desk now and then, to check on or reorganize some wiring. For a morbidly obese employee, this would be a struggle, costing time and possibly medical expenses.

It is easy to see why fitting beneath a desk, in the category of physical demands, could be problematic. However, seemingly, it would also qualify as a time issue, because the other employee who should be using that machine to complete work is unable to. Adding insult to injury, hashing out these procedural details adds to the time it takes to finish such studies.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2008
Image by Pexels/Pixabay

Presenteeism and Obesity

A prominent and ever-growing cause of financial loss to businesses is obesity, as described in the previous post. That post included as a subheading “The big but…” which is indicative of the problem in general: Obesity is such an easy target for mockery.

One difficulty with this topic is the temptation to succumb to flippancy and make jokes about the ruinous cost to widen the doorways in workplaces, and replace collapsed chairs… which would be wrong. The humor temptation might be why obesity, as a contributing factor to presenteeism, does not cause as much concern as it should.

But for some very dedicated scholars and business experts, the problem is (to reference another corny old joke) “serious as a heart attack.” They and their colleagues have discovered that in the world of work, presenteeism (reporting for duty but performing less than optimally) is actually more expensive than absenteeism, or not showing up at all. Now, why, in the business realm, is obesity seen as exceptionally harmful to the bottom line?

A worker with a broken wrist will eventually have the cast removed and, after a period of readjustment, will probably return to their original state of productivity. A pregnant worker may need some extra leeway, but will eventually become, instead, the parent of a child who is elsewhere during working hours. That situation offers its own challenges to an employed woman, but most are able to return to their pre-motherhood level of usefulness on the job.

Another big but…

However, in most cases, obesity does not go away. Usually, it increases. Over time, whatever negative effect an employee’s obesity has on the situation will probably not change for the better, and will probably change for the worse.

But how, exactly, does obesity contribute to presenteeism, and how does it do that in an especially impactful and intractable way? Exactly how do our collective tons of excess body fat add to the price of doing business, and thus increase the amount that consumers pay for every product, service, and commodity?

Not surprisingly, it is possible to find a raft of academic papers exploring the relationship between excess weight and presenteeism. The connections may not be immediately obvious to the casual eye, but they certainly exist. There are many reasons why a person’s Body Mass Index might affect their ability to do top-notch work. Also, there is said to be a “threshold effect,” meaning that the workers with a BMI of 35 or higher are significantly less productive than their slimmer counterparts.

Moderately or extremely obese workers… experienced the greatest health-related work limitations, specifically regarding time needed to complete tasks and ability to perform physical job demands. These workers experienced a 4.2% health-related loss in productivity, 1.18% more than all other employees, which equates to an additional $506 annually in lost productivity per worker.

In 2010, journalist Alyssa Zamora described the work done by Eric Finkelstein and many others at Duke-National University of Singapore. Researchers took into consideration “three factors: employee medical expenditures, lost productivity on the job due to health problems (presenteeism), and absence from work (absenteeism).” Furthermore, health problems cost more than medical expenditures.

Zamora wrote,

Collectively, the per capita costs of obesity are as high as $16,900 for obese women with a body mass index (BMI) over 40 (roughly 100 pounds overweight) and $15,500 for obese men in the same BMI class. Presenteeism makes up the largest share of those costs.

Bottom line: “The cost of obesity among U.S. full-time employees is estimated to be $73.1 billion.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and presenteeism: the impact of body mass index on workplace productivity,” NIH.gov, January 2008
Source: “Obese Workers Cost More Than Healthcare, Absenteeism,” Duke.edu, 2010
Image by louisehoffman83/Pixabay

Some Aspects of Presenteeism

As we have seen, the behavior known as presenteeism costs everyone a lot, in ways that are not always immediately obvious. According to a very scholarly work, of which more than seven full pages consist of references…

Studies abound that not only show how prevalent presenteeism is across a range of occupations and sectors… but also position it as more costly than absenteeism.

The first paragraph of “Presenteeism: An Introduction to a Prevailing Global Phenomenon” mentions the current need to “achieve more with less.” The factor that should always matter most is individual health and well-being, which is why we discuss it here. In cases of rampant presenteeism, everyone’s job performance is negatively affected, and productivity is not optimal. This, of course, implies negative financial impact and a bottom line that does not look good. The case is not always hopeless, and strategic management can make a difference.

In the real world, this may mean that, actually, different philosophies or even different value systems are needed. Of course, professional scholars are accustomed to looking beyond superficial meaning. How sick does a person need to be before the illness should be considered serious enough to keep them home? Who gets to decide if a worker is actually ill? And what does “attending work” really mean, anyway? Haven’t we learned from the pandemic that many jobs can be done very adequately from home?

Related inescapable facts

An employee with the flu can be reasonably expected to stay home until well, and past the point of spreading the contagion. Then they return, and even though some productivity has been lost, it’s back to “business as usual.”

Another case history: An employee with a broken arm in a cast has the doctor’s permission to return to work. But maybe that person isn’t really well enough. The fracture may still be painful, which affects the quality of work. So the person might take analgesics, and although the distraction caused by pain is lessened, the medication may cause problems that add up to “presenteeism” — namely, being slower, less effective, and maybe even dangerously mistake-prone.

Further, the cast itself causes awkwardness and discomfort in several ways. You want to keep it clean. It itches inside. Minor chores and actions that you used to do with one hand have to be ineptly performed with the other hand. You run out of patience sooner. Your general energy level is low, and the little extra kindnesses you might have done to make someone else’s day easier will not be attempted. Again, the conditions are there for presenteeism: the state of technically being on the job, but doing it so poorly that when all is said and done, the business actually takes a financial hit.

Still, even that counterproductive scenario will not last forever. Eventually, the fracture will heal, the cast will be removed, and after perhaps a period of adjustment, the worker will be back to normal. The episode of damaging, costly presenteeism will eventually come to a close.

The big but…

In most cases, obesity does not go away, and it usually increases. This implies that the presenteeism-related financial damage caused by obesity will not eventually subside, and the effect will only become more severe.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Presenteeism: An Introduction to a Prevailing Global Phenomenon,” Cambridge.org, 08/09/18
Image by Vika_Glitter/Pixabay

Presenteeism As a Concept With Consequences

Absenteeism describes the state of being absent, but the term “presenteeism” is loaded with much more significance than merely showing up. The term goes way back to the 1930s, where it appeared in the work of writer H. Withers.

Skipping ahead several decades, we find such citations as a chapter in Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology whose subtitles include “The Many Definitions of Presenteeism” and “Problems with Presenteeism Research.” Almost a century after the phenomenon was first named, here is a contemporary definition by Will Kenton, from Investopedia:

Presenteeism refers to the lost productivity that occurs when employees are not fully functioning in the workplace because of an illness, injury, or other condition.

People arrive at the job site, and even try hard to give an optimal performance, but they are not able to do their best, and are likely to make mistakes and in other ways contribute to an overall loss of effectiveness. Although they are trying, their physical, mental or emotional unwellness renders them unable to operate at the highest — or even an adequate — level.

The American Psychological Association dictionary offers this about presenteeism:

The resulting reduction in productivity is a growing financial and safety concern for employers, particularly since research suggests presenteeism is much more prevalent and damaging than absenteeism. Factors that drive presenteeism include a large workload, fear of missing deadlines, fear of disciplinary action or job loss, missed pay, the desire to conserve leave for future use, loyalty to coworkers, company loyalty, and job satisfaction.

A very recent Childhood Obesity News post quoted Duke University researchers who found that “obesity-related absenteeism and presenteeism cost U.S. employers $73 billion annually.” How do researchers arrive at a number like this, and its related conclusions?

Here is a surprising observation: Presenteeism might be an even larger problem than absenteeism. To use a sports analogy, “playing hurt” can cost the company more money than would be the case if people simply did not show up. On top of that, if a well-intentioned employee insists on working while unfit (or a boss insists on their doing so), it is easy to see how the illness or condition might be prolonged, which can rack up even more expenses down the road.

And obviously, where a communicable disease is involved, there is a real possibility that the illness will spread, leading to even more cases of both absenteeism and presenteeism.

Even enlightened employers who try to address the problem with wellness programs, varied types of leave, flexible scheduling, and other potentially helpful measures find themselves frustrated. Here is a significant quotation:

The costs of presenteeism have been estimated to be larger in real terms as employees suffering from longer-term conditions see persistent drops in productivity.

A perfect example of one of those “longer-term conditions” is… wait for it… obesity. And we will get back to that. Meanwhile, obviously, a company ought to do all it can to incentivize good habits and allow for a workplace culture that avoids presenteeism, whatever that may require. This includes the facilitation of easily transferable workflows, and even of working from home if at all possible.

No matter how inconvenient or apparently costly these measures may be in the moment, they are almost guaranteed to reduce overall expenses and rescue the bottom line from even worse consequences. And of course, a manager would do well to set a good example by not showing up in the workplace in obviously unfit condition, especially if their situation involves germs.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Presenteeism,” OED.com, undated
Source: “Presenteeism: A Short History and a Cautionary Tale,” Wiley.com, 03/29/12
Source: “Presenteeism: What It Is and How It Works,” Investopedia.com, 01/06/25
Source: “Presenteeism,” APA.org, undated
Image by re_almeida/Pixabay

Is Obesity Everyone’s Business?

Here is one final look at an archived piece of health journalism from Dr. Bruce Y. Lee, which featured seven myths about obesity under the punning title, “Obesity is Everyone’s Business.” The general topic of this sequence of posts is the overall cost to society of treating and/or preventing obesity, and especially the way in which it has increasingly affected the cost of doing business.

In a very pragmatic demonstration of cause and effect, the author enumerated some of the
“immediate and long term physical, psychological, and social ailments” caused by obesity, which in turn affect a person’s effectiveness on the job. It should be mentioned that upper-level executives are just as prone to debilitating illness as the most humble new hire in the shipping department. The difference is that the folks in the higher ranks are more advantageously positioned to hide the deficiencies in their work output.

The check makes a difference

Also, executives can much more easily afford health-producing commodities like high-quality food, vacation time to recover from stress, membership in fitness establishments, and so on. However, in recent years, there has been some improvement in the equality with which corporations try to affect the basic health of their people.

Many physical ailments may be detrimental to an employee’s productivity. Depending on what field of commerce they are in, the damage from workplace machines, noise, and substances in the air can be quite serious. Even psychological issues (depression, anxiety, etc.) are perfectly capable of minimizing the usefulness of a worker at any level. A conscientious manager never wants to see conditions deteriorate to where workers experience sickness, pain, lack of energy, and the consequent lowering of morale.

Hopefully, that consideration results at least partly from generous human considerations. It is possible, after all, to operate simultaneously on two different planes of consciousness. Management can care and, at the same time, remain conscious that any and all physical and mental dysfunction in the workplace leads directly to lowered productivity, increased healthcare expenses, and shrinking profits.

This quoted paragraph illustrates some of the trends that motivated the business world to take a hard look at the consequences of obesity in the workplace. As previously mentioned,

A study by researchers at Duke University tabulated that obesity-related absenteeism and presenteeism cost U.S. employers $73 billion annually. [W]hile normal-weight employees cost on average $3,838 per year in healthcare costs, overweight to morbidly obese employees cost between $4,252 and $8,067.

Once researchers have wrapped their heads around some numbers, they enjoy expressing the significance of those figures in various ways. In this case, the authors also calculated the dollar amount of Body Mass Index points above the normal range. Once the border of obesity territory has been broached, statically speaking, each BMI point was said to represent an additional amount of around $200 per year that the company would pay out in healthcare costs for that employee.

The broad overview matters

Getting back to Dr. Lee, he formatted his Forbes.com article as a series of propositions which turn out not to be true; or myths. As Myth #5, he specified: “Obesity has little to do with overall business strategy, management, operations and finance.”

On the contrary, this author emphasized the big picture and maintained that “Employee weight and health can be a bellwether or ‘canary in a coal mine’ of how the overall business is functioning overall.” Why? Because a person’s normal weight can say a lot about their dedication, discipline, and work ethic, as well as function as an indicator of “the social, cultural, and financial situation and environment.”

In various industries, many members of the workforce have learned (the hard way) to keep the majority of their job-related opinions to themselves. Surveys and requests for feedback about company policy are often thinly-disguised traps designed to identify underlings who might be inclined to cause trouble. If “management” really cared about the average worker (the thinking goes), that collective noun would have caught on a long time ago, and realized that the whole outfit, from top to bottom, needed refurbishment.

Instead of initiating feedback requests that could be viewed with suspicion, the wise executive might be well advised to consult a psychologist familiar with the health manifestations of discontent — because obesity can definitely be interpreted as one of them.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity Is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Image by daha3131053/Pixabay

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources