User talk:MGMT90018 Absenteeism/sandbox

Hi Everyone...this is a talk page for the Absenteeism sandbox. Please use it to discuss anything you would like regarding the Absenteeism page MGMT90018 Absenteeism (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Any ideas on appropriate headings?
I am agree that we should think about the absenteesim in school. This happened in every class. For example, at the beginning of the semester, everyone goes to lecture. However, less and less students go to lecture at the middle of the semester. Why this happened? And any solutions on this problem? Does anyone have any thoughts on appropriate headings for the article?Abarsky1 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

- Divide into the following sections? "Definition", "Cause", "Impact on work performance and productivity", "Prevention methods", "Measurement". And also under "Definition" sub-sections can be made to highlight different time periods or theories.643589MGMT (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should put headings like types of absenteeism (which could appear in company or school/university), why would they occur?, the costs/effects to other party such as company and how to cope with absenteeism.624473MGMT (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that headings should be renamed. It seems that the sequence of "Definition - Cause - Measurement - Impact - Prevention Methods" might be appropriate. 622973MGMT (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to change "cause" as sub-heading with "antecedents". Some studies showed that no single factor that cause absenteeism directly rather than moderated or mediated by another factors. An instance, work strain study found that work strain could affect absenteeism after moderated by psychological and physical illnesses affect. The study identified that excessive work strain is likely influence psychological illness (e.g., depression) and physical problems (e.g., headaches or stomach ulcers) which then drive absenteeism up (Darr and Johns, 2008). In other word, work strain itself didn’t directly cause absenteeism, neither did the other factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 635058MGMT (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we need to add another sub-heading with the title “Relationship between absenteeism and other withdrawal behaviors”. Since some deviant work place behavior studies frequently found the communality of antecedent for absenteeism and the other employee behaviors, discussing the other similar behavior would beneficial to provide comprehensive insight and to better understand a conceptual framework of absenteeism. Understood the important of that discussion, hence, Goodman, Atkin and Associates (1984) put one particular chapter in their book with the title “absenteeism” that specifically talked about the relationship between absenteeism and other employee behaviors in detail and comprehensive.

Here some content that we can put on that topic:

Rosse and Miller (1984) suggested that absence actually is not a unitary concept but behavior concept which inter-related with another behavior especially a group of withdrawal behaviors. In other word, alike another withdrawal behavior, absenteeism is means of employee to escape from a work situation considered as stressful and unpleasant as temporary withdrawal from organization (Zatzick and Iverson, 2011). Beside absenteeism, Berry, Lelchook and Clark (2011) mentioned employee lateness and turnover as withdrawal behaviors since those represent some physical removal from the workplace. An underlying assumption of withdrawal behaviors is that absent or quit or late represent coping mechanism intended to allow employees adjust to their environment in order preventing them from a noxious stimulus. Nevertheless, since incurring cost and giving impact on organization performance, Robinson and Bennet (1995) also classified all those behaviors as production deviance in their deviant workplace behavior typology.

Lateness Lateness is defined as an employee’s tendency to arrive at work after the scheduled starting time (Elicker et al, 2008). Not much different from absenteeism, lost productivity due to employee lateness reach more than $3 billion per year in U.S. businesses (DeLonzor, 2006). Beside financial impact, lateness also negatively impact organization outcome such as cutting supervisors’ time management and burdening employees who have to bear the task of coworkers’ lateness (Blau, 1994).

There are many variables which are susceptible as lateness predictor. By integrated some previous lateness research, Blau (1995) suggested job satisfaction (e.g., Adler & Golan, 1981), job involvement (e.g., Beehr & Gupta, 1978), organizational commitment (e.g., Clegg, 1983), leisure-income trade-off (Leigh & Lust. 1988), work-family conflict (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), transportation concerns (e.g., Gupta & Jenkins, 1983), illness and accidents (e.g., Jamal, 1981), and weather (Motley, 1926) as eight variables of individual lateness.

Regarding some research that used the individual as the unit of analysis, Rosse and Miller (1984) supported hypothesis of a positive correlation between absence and lateness (Adler and Golan, 1981; Beehr and Gupta, 1978; Chadwick-Jones and others, 1971; Farrell and Rob, 1979; Rosse, 1979).

Turnover [A brief definition, impact and antecedent of turnover that are discussing in “turnover Wikipedia sandbox” could be put here and add with some passage below] Similar with lateness, Rosse and Miller (1984) also consistently advocated a positive correlation between turnover and absence (Beehr and Gupta, 1978; Burke and Wilcox, 1972; Farrell and Rob, 1979; Hill and Trist, 1955; Lyons, 1968, 1972; Melbin, 1961; Newman, 1974; Revans, 1964, Ronan, 1963; Rosse, 1983; Van Zelst and Kerr, 1953; Waters and Roach, 1979); only Marsh and Mannari (1977) and Miller (1981) report non-significant relation. In addition, Rosse and Miller (1984) converged conclusion from a number of major reviews of absence and turnover that job-related affect operates as a more powerful predictor of withdrawal behavior than do objective characteristics of the individual, task, or organization (Brayfield and Crocket, 1955; Herzberg and others, 1957; Lyons, 1972; Muchinsky, 1977; Porter and Steers, 1973). Moreover, Rosse and Miller (1984) specifically explained that global job satisfaction predicted consistent negative relation with turnover and lateness and to a lesser extent, absenteeism. Satisfaction could be in many forms such as satisfaction with work content, satisfaction with co-worker relations, and satisfaction with supervision. A different pattern of relation absenteeism and turnover in term of job satisfaction variable are satisfaction with pay and satisfaction with promotion. In contrast with the global satisfaction that inversely related to both turnover and absence, satisfaction with pay and promotion seem to be unrelated to a person’s decision to be absent (Garrison and Muchinsky, 1977; Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Newman, 1974; Nicholson, Brown, and Chadwick-Jones, 1976; Rosse, 1983a; Waters and Roach, 1971, 1973; and Watson 1981). In summary, those three behaviors appear to have common roots in job-related facet which particularly work satisfaction. Nevertheless Mobley (1982) argued and noted some instances in which an absence-turnover correlation unlikely be expected: (1) when positive attraction rather than avoidance drive those behavior; (2) when absence is occurred due to non-job reason; (3) when they share few consequences, or when is constrained; (4) when those are spontaneous; (5) when work role give discretionary time away from workforce; (6) when unused sick pay can be “cashed in” at time of termination; or (7) when absenteeism is deployed as a “safety valve” which minimizes the possibility of turnover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 635058MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize the content
I can see that there may be duplication/ repeated content mentioning about the same thing or mentioning something that are not under appropriate subheadings, I think we should reorganize after we have most of our work done here(or anytime). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 624473MGMT (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah I agree,  I think there is some repeated content in the section " the causes of absenteeism .  It is better to put them together without repeated parts.521686MGMT (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your guys' points, some of the causes are referred couple of times in the first two paragraphs, it will be better if they merge together which will be more clear and brief. What is more, I checked the information of reference No.11 and found that the causes can be more specific and there are another two causes can be added in like the partial shift and childcare and eldercare. What are your opinions, guys?MGMT618373 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I reckon we could add childcare and eldercare as examples under personal stress since they are the issues that happen outside work. Indeed, these may happen rarely in reality.624473MGMT (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, followed the format of Job Crafting I separate the "History" part from Definition. And I found the first paragraph of "Definition" and several places in the "Cause" part have a lot of overlap(the sentences are just exactly the same). I felt it might be better keeping those content in "Cause" part, so I delete those same content in the "Definition" part. However the second paragraph is more like a "distribution" of the absenteeism, do you guys think it's ok left there? Or move it to "Measurement and Benchmark" part as a brief "bringing in"?635127MGMT (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with that the structure of 'cause' is not well. The summary in paragraph one partly overlaps with the latter classification. And the method of classification is not really systematic and comprehensive. The causes are filed up without a logic hierarchy. In order to make the structure more clear, I delete the contents in paragraph one which are overlapped and shift the details of each causes to the latter paragraphs. Meanwhile, I reclassify the causes of absenteeism to four main aspects- individual attitude, health condition, personal stress and organizational environment. According to several references, I also add a new cause related to organizational environment. Besides of that, I wonder whether the twelve cause-partial shifts is a reason for absenteeism. I think it is more likely to be a type but not the reason. So I delete it to make the structure more understandable. (503971MGMT (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I agree with the separation of definition and history of the absenteeism. However, it might be confused to have a sub-heading of “History of Absenteeism and Its Definitions” because it seems to repeat the content of “Definition”. Could we just name it as “History” because it is more about how people realize absenteeism in these years? In an addition, I also find the repetition of causes of absenteeism in definition part. According to the encyclopedic style in Wikipedia, it seems unnecessary to summary causes in definition part. The appropriate content should be brief and plain language. What I have done for the definition part is to move the causes down to the causes sections. Does it make sense? Please feel free to discuss with me. What I also concern is that is it necessary to have summary before those sub-headings under “Cause” section? The structure seems inconsistent because other sections will directly go to the sub-sections and discuss them. Is it better if we delete the front introduction under “Cause” part? 523789MGMT 08:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm not too satisfied with our statistics inputs, in the definition section. I feel our data needs to be more precise, current and factual. If we can't find the data, perhaps we could eliminate the paragraph and just add links below for the reader to explore the statistical data on absenteeism. Any suggestions? 375902MGMT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense after reclassify the "Cause". However I feel like the first catagory(Individual Attitude) is a little bit confused because harrasment(which is under Organasational Environment), Personal Stress can also cause the changing of personal attitude. It makes the catagory overlaping. Is there anyone got better ideas about this? And also, there are academic journals mentioned that absenteeism caused by illness or injurey(wich is defined as involuntary absenteeism)is not concluded in the "Absenteeism" that we normally discussed and company cares about. So should we still include the causes and prevention method in terms of involuntary absenteeism in?? Because I think those involuntary absenteeism are usually defined and recorded by companies as "sick leave" or something. Is there anyone got good ideas???635127MGMT (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with the idea of classifying of the cause of absenteeism, it makes the reader narrowing down the cause and go in depth with each of the classification. However on the disengagement part, I propose to add some facts following the last sentences which explains that senior employers take less leave comparing to the junior. The facts includes a survey conducted by who and display percentage of the survey. Thank you!633339MGMT (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Does anyone have the idea about raising a new subtopic under the definition part, like what the "Turnover" page shows? We can provide a description of the current absenteeism statistics. 631393MGMT (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone - there seems to be an issue with the section "Causes". I can view it in the edit page, and can see it as was, but for some reason it is hidden in the main page. From physical absenteeism the article moves directly to mental health - the entire section on truancy in schools and the introduction to causes of absenteeism is .. ABSENT!!! I am just re-pasting the content that goes missing from the main page here : (Again - I can see them in the edit view!) 375902MGMT


 * BEGIN

Hello, everyone. I think the length of this Wikipedia is so long especially the 'current absenteeism statistics', 'cause' and 'effect'. There are so many illustrations and explanations in cause and effect. I wonder whether these kinds of contents are meaningful and necessary for readers. And the introduction of current situation is significantly comprehensive. Can we delete some secondary information to make it shorter? (503971MGMT (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

[Research shows that over one trillion dollars is lost annually due to productivity shortages as a result of medical-related absenteeism, and that increased focus on preventative wellness could reduce these costs.[116] The line between psychological and medical causation is blurry, given that there are positive links between both work stress and depression and absenteeism.[117] Depressive tendencies may lie behind some of the absence ascribed to poor physical health, as with adoption of a "culturally approved sick role". This places the adjective "sickness" before the word "absence", and carries a burden of more proof than is usually offered.]

I have deleted the whole above part since it was all from other wikipedia page and it is not really necessary to have this part in this topic.673640MGMT (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Just deleted "exception for the self-employed" under the heading of "how to reduce the costs of absenteeism". The whole paragraph is irrelevant since it talks about why self-employed can result in lower absence than paid-workers, however it does not tell us anything about how to reduce the costs of absenteeism.673640MGMT (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Causes
Absenteeism is understood to be affected by various factors, including individual attitude, health conditions, personal stress and the organizational environment. Absenteeism may be viewed as an indicator of an individual’s poor work performance or as a problem with management. Studies have been conducted to demonstrate that some personality characteristics denoting psychological vulnerability may be associated with absenteeism. However, there are many reasons that can be identified as a cause for absenteeism: the most common theory is that employees will choose to avoid a painful or dissatisfying work situation. This can be easily explained by the psychological "withdrawal model". Low job satisfaction and stress relating to excessive workload, interpersonal relationships, lack of task control, role ambiguity, unfair management practices, family and job conflicts, training or career development issues and poor organizational climate have also led to increased absenteeism. While an absent worker can put his reputation and his company at risk, some forms of absence, such as disability leave, performance of jury duty and the observance of religious holidays, are legally protected rights of employees and employers cannot terminate a job contract based on these reasons.

Absenteeism can also be contagious in the workplace, which is seen as a team-based cultural problem. Generally there is a tendency for few members to participate in voluntary absenteeism because people tend to imitate the attendance behaviour of their peers.

Hi, everyone. When I look at the structure of this part, it seems that "causes of absenteeism" is under the section of "classification". Why not we move it out and make it a separate heading rather than a subheading? Besides, I want to add certain points in the "economic recession" part which belongs to "social influence". The existing facts state that the labour sick leave rate is on the rise. I do agree this view. Employees fear that they will lose their jobs. This trend is even more obvious right before the announcement of downsizing or bankruptcy 631393MGMT (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible Causes of Absenteeism could be mainly classified as follows:
 * END

HI,631393MGMT,I could not agree with you about your separation of causes from the classification part because there are some reasons in the classification,if separated,it may be not well organized.Making the causes in the classification part seems more reasonable.601253MGMT (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Grammar
Hey everyone, I've made several changes to grammer and sentence structure. I like the way we have collaboratively found so much material on the topic, but I propose that, as Adam mentioned, we refrain from writing in a style that expresses personal opinion, (surprisingly,interestingly,what's worse, etc, and aim to just deliver content and facts with solid backing and references. 375902MGMT375902MGMT (talk)

Hi guys, I've made some correction related to grammar under sections "Measurement" and "Prevention Methods" and put some spaces where needed. If there's any mistake, please let me know or just edit it. Thanks!--582409MGMT (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hiya, Ive made some grammatical corrections in the Definition and Causes paragraphs. Please feel free to edit it again if the meaning or intent has been lost. Cheers 51894MGMT (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)51894MGMT

Structure
Hi, everyone. I just read the whole page again and find there is a new subsection called "relationship between absenteeism with the other withdrawal behaviors” in the last of the table of content. It might be put in front of the notes and references. Moreover, the name might be too long to use. What about naming a short subtitle of this section like "Other Related Withdrawal Behaviors"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 621240MGMT (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, I think that it might be clear to divide into sub-sections rather than just make the headings bold because it can be clearly shown on the table of content. I have restructured the sections of “Reduction methods” and “Cost of absenteeism”. 523789MGMT 12:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,everyone.i just make the current absenteeism statistics as a separate part because i dont think it is appropriate to be in the definition part.if you have other opinion just let me know.601253MGMT (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Improve& Restructure the content of “ Effect of Absenteeism”
The original structure of “Effect of Absenteeism” was divided into two parts, which are “effect on workplace” and “effect on individual”. However, I think that the original part of “Effect on workplace” contains too much information, which included the effects on company, other people, project and also the data of cost caused by absenteeism. It seems touched many point of effect, but it's not clearly presented and without a good structure/subtitle. Therefore, I restructured the part of “Effect of workplace” into 3 points: “Effect of other employees”, “The Effect on Business” and “The Effect on Customer”. For each of these points, I added some additional information to improved the content, and also allocated the original related content under corresponding points. In this way, the structure of “Effect of Absenteeism” seems more clear and more specific, what's more, the information has been allocated into related points. In addition, I kept the content of “Effect of individual”, so that there are 4 points/subtitle included under this part. 594863MGMT (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey authors, I've just doing some general editing, and I find the following paragraph to be irrelevant to the effects of absenteeism section, and some of the content is repeated from other parts of the page. So I've removed it. Let me know if you have concerns. 327069MGMT (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

....."Conflicts in the workplace such as unsettled dispute or unspoken understanding between co-workers or upward level can lead to individual dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction may be expressed through formal and informal ways. Absenteeism is one of the informal expressions that might occur from employee both individually and collectively. Absenteeism happened as a result of dissatisfaction and poor employment relationship  Absence from work is a significant public health problem. Since it causes both society and organizations to suffer from financial losses, it is an important economic problem as well. High absenteeism in the workplace may be indicative of poor morale, but absences can also be caused by workplace hazards or sick building syndrome. Many employers use statistics such as the Bradford factor that do not distinguish between genuine illness and absence for inappropriate reasons. In 2013 in the UK the CIPD estimated that the average worker had 7.6 sick days per year and that absenteeism cost employers £595 per employee per annum. As a result, many employees feel obliged to come to work while ill, and transmit communicable diseases to their co-workers. This leads to even greater absenteeism and reduced productivity among other workers who try to work while ill. Work forces often excuse absenteeism caused by medical reasons if the employee provides supporting documentation from their medical practitioner. Sometimes, people choose not to show up for work and do not call in advance, which businesses may find to be unprofessional and inconsiderate. This is called a "no call, no show". According to Nelson & Quick (2008) people who are dissatisfied with their jobs are absent more frequently. They went on to say that the type of dissatisfaction that most often leads employees to miss work is dissatisfaction with the work itself."

Hi, I found several relevant papers about the relationship among productivity, familiarity and absenteeism,so I added it under the effect of Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 572065MGMT (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's interesting research, I just didn't find that the content matches the Effects section. Perhaps you could edit the content a bit. Sentences such as "Absenteeism happened as a result of dissatisfaction and poor employment relationship" and "High absenteeism in the workplace may be indicative of poor morale, but absences can also be caused by workplace hazards or sick building syndrome." would be better placed in the causes section, rather than the effects. For the page to be reader friendly it's important that content matches the headings.

Further, this section... "Work forces often excuse absenteeism caused by medical reasons if the employee provides supporting documentation from their medical practitioner. Sometimes, people choose not to show up for work and do not call in advance, which businesses may find to be unprofessional and inconsiderate. This is called a "no call, no show". According to Nelson & Quick (2008) people who are dissatisfied with their jobs are absent more frequently. They went on to say that the type of dissatisfaction that most often leads employees to miss work is dissatisfaction with the work itself." .... sound like it is more relevant to the classification section, or again, the causes section.

Let me know if you have concerns. If you believe it should be replaced into the article, that is also ok. This is just my opinion. 327069MGMT (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I have changed a bit of the order of the four effects into " individuals - other employees - customers - business" cuz I think the original order is a little unorganized. By introducing the effects in this order, I think we would have a better understanding of the effects from a narrow perspective to a broad perspective. I also deleted the first sentence in the original "individual" part ("There are also some effects of Absenteeism from workplace on individuals. ") to suit the new order and corrected a few spelling mistakes. 582409MGMT (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I agree with 582409 because I also think it is much clear to see the whole picture of the effects of absenteeism if we can change the organization of this part. However, I have changed some grammatical errors to make it better to read.

I also have a question about the organization of this part. Is it more appropriate to divide all into "positive and negative effect", or into "individuals - other employees - customers - business - family and society"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 579228MGMT (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with 579228. The classification of effects is confusing. “Effects on individuals” contains favorable influences of absenteeism, which have been written in “ Beneficial effect”. It could be reorganized.571717MGMT (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think the structure could be improved with a new order : individual-family-other employees-customers-business-society, from a narrow perspective to a broad one. Cheers!582409MGMT (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Health Condition/Data
I added some facts and data related into the Health Condition, specifically in the Illness part. I named it Cases related with health absenteeism in the workplace it might need more facts in this section as well in the injuries section. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 525274MGMT (talk • contribs) 13:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did remove the sub-heading Cases related with health absenteeism in the workplace because It is some examples, not another sub-heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 525274MGMT (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I added some studies results related with the "Health Condition" as absenteeism in some cases is fundamentally caused by smoking. The study found that smoking employees have substantially greater absenteeism, injuries, and accidents than non-smoking employees, which should be a considerable factor in this part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 573235MGMT (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the individual attitude part, I suppose there are still some supplementary individual attitudes can be added to the cause of absenteeism.

I added Job insecurity as another important reason under Individual Attitude since job insecurity is a hindrance stressor that is likely to lead to employees' behavioral withdrawal including absenteeism.

I supplemented the Job dissatisfaction part as some researches findings proved that job satisfaction level is directly linked with absenteeism, and listed the seven major extrinsic sources that lead to job satisfaction.

Any other thought under this part?573235MGMT (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, in relation to this statement...."From patients with sub threshold depression, Smit (2006) estimated the mean annual costs of absence from work to be 3,279 euros"... what country does this apply to. It's not a useful piece of info without the location. Thanks 327069MGMT (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right 327069MGMT regarding to the Smit (2006) statement, it doesn't explains detailed form which country was the annual cost of absence. I thought it was in Netherland but it doesn't clarifies specifically on the reading, I did a double check to the article today but nothing, so I removed that statement from the paragraph. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 525274MGMT (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

REORGANIZE THE DEFINITION PART
Hi everyone, I just found out that the original first two parts, "Definition" and "History of Absenteeism and Its Definitions" are pretty similar to each other since they are all about various definitions. So I made some changes and integrated the two parts together as one part "Definition", as you can see now. Basically, these are some changes that I made:

1. I deleted "Interestingly also, there are other finding towards absenteeism.Female in many countries have higher rate of absenteeism than male workers, such research show that women in Europe take around 7 more sick days on yearly basis, if compare to men at same age. Besides, finding suggests a U-shape of absenteeism level, where sick leave rate is higher among teenagers, then decline till reach the lowest between age 25 and 44, and increase steadily again from 45 years old onwards. Even though gender differences may have some impact on absenteeism, in his study of sickness absence, Lu, Xiaoshu et. al (2010) found that socioeconomic and employment conditions have a very significant impact on the occurrence of long term sickness absence. Moreover, short term sickness leave was also mentioned as main predictor of long term sickness absence." Because I reckon that they are not related to definition of absenteeism and may be put under other sections such as "Cause" or "Reduction methods".

2. Voluntary and involuntary absenteeism are mentioned both in the original two parts. So I deleted “Absenteeism can be voluntary and involuntary.Voluntary absenteeism refers to the deliberate absence of workers that hasn’t been permitted or authorised. Involuntary absenteeism refers to the absence caused by those reasons that cannot be controlled by employees. As ‘withdraw’ absenteeism explanation stated in the research of De Boer et al. (2002), voluntary absenteeism refers to avoiding of work. If such absences become excessive, they can have a serious adverse impact on a business's operations profitability. The common concept being discussed does not include involuntary absenteeism due to its uncontrollability.” and kept "A more comprehensive and precise definition towards voluntary and involuntary absenteeism is also developed by Hacket and Guion (1985)." and the following sentences. Because I think that the second one is more comprehensive and substantial and also because its findings are earlier.

3. I changed and added some words to make the integration more clear and coherent.

4. I corrected some grammatical mistakes, such as "a sick employee have a control..." to "a sick employee has a control...".

So, what do you guys think? Please feel free to correct me or just edit it. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 629377mgmt (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys!Here's several changes I made this time: 1. I add some referneces and correct some references that have been overlapped. 2. Referring to other entries that contain "Definition" things in the Wikipidia, I abstracted the very basic and broad concept in the original definition part and put it before the looong content. I tried to find whether there is anything "rules" about how to build a good structure of wikipidia entry but I didn't make it:( I guess most of the entries do this is for the convenience of readers glancing the basic concept of each entry before go into detail so I made the change.

3. Besides, I rearrange the order of the definition part. It is true that each definition are similar to each other but I found they still got a "timeframe" there and actually some researchers made renew the definition of absenteeism based on previous(like the voluntary and involuntary parts) and some researchers hold opposite view at the same concept(for example whether the "planned leave")should be counted in. So I place each researcher's point of view in a chronological order so that readers can see clearly how the definition of absenteeism changing over time.

The "prev" buttom in the history page can easily help us find the changes each one has made. So I'm not going to put changes I made detailly in the talk page. Please feel free to disscuss with me or make further change directly. Cheers:) 635127MGMT (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,everyone.I just correct the notes of the first sentence because the original one is Johns, Gary (2007) "absenteeism" in George Ritzer (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Blackwell Publishing, 2007.Also,i added " It was related to management problems and used as a economic term.Recently,it has been viewed as the indicator of psychological, medical, or social adjustment to work",which is the paraphrase of content in  notes1.I think it is just like background of Absenteeism,which can be the additional content for introduction part.I deleted this part:"It is the term gradually used to refer to short-term unscheduled employee absences from the workplace"because it is not correct as a too narrow way for Absenteeism.The last sentence i added is just one classification to division of Absenteeism:Absenteesim can be divided into schedueld absences,unscheduled absences and partial shift absences....I hope there is a better sentence as the connecting link between the preceding and the following parts.what do u guys think?601253MGMT (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

REORGANIZE THE CAUSE PART
Hello guys, I have made another reorganization, of the Cause part. Here are the main changes I have made. 1.I found some contents that are not properly referred or even no reference at all. For example, in the first paragraph, I cannot find any reference for "Low job satisfaction and stress relating to excessive workload, interpersonal relationships, lack of task control, role ambiguity, unfair management practices, family and job conflicts, training or career development issues and poor organizational climate have also lead to increased absenteeism.". So are "Those employees who stay in the organisation for a long time tend to be more engaged" in "Disengagement", "Empirical evidences indicate that illness absence is accepted as reasonable, it is likely that individuals who are absent due to illness will supposed to be less responsible for their absence, will gain greater sympathy from others and helping intentions, while generating less anger by boss and serious punishment by set rules. " in the first paragraph of "Illness" and "Absenteeism was specifically assessed by asking people how many days of work they have missed due to injuries. " in the "Injuries". Therefore, if anyone could find the right reference for them, please add to the reference.

2.There are some logic problems with the first paragraph. "Due to the reasons above, a worker being absent put his reputation and his company at risk and has been an annoying problem for companies' managers to tackle absenteeism  . Moreover, some forms of absence are the rights of employees and are legally protected which employers or managers cannot terminate the contract with employees solely based on that." I deleted "due to the reasons above" because the context is not a cause-and-effect relationship. And the last sentence should begin with "however" since it is about some forms of absence that are allowed and legally protected.

3.I deleted an paragraph about voluntary and involuntary absenteeism because it has already been elaborated in the "Definition" part.

4.I deleted "According to Koopmanschap, Burdorf and Lötters (2013) in an extensive study by The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it appears that worldwide the absence from work in general varies between 1 and 7% of total working time (OECD 2010). The Nordic European countries show the highest absence rates, e.g., Norway almost 7%, Sweden 5%, and Finland 4–5% belong to the top three (OECD 2010)", which was originally under the "Illness" part. Because they are not about illness absence but rather some absence rates among European countries.

5.I rephrased some sentences so they are not directly copied from the references.

6.I changed some improper phrases and corrected some grammar mistakes.

Apart from those mentioned above, I also think that the paragraph of "Burnout and stress" under "Organizational environment" part is more like "Emotional issue" and should be integrated into the later. But I haven't done it because I am not quite sure. And, as you can see, the "Cause" part has a lot of contents, it is not possible for me to edit it perfectly alone. So if you have any ideas, please just edit it. Thank you :) 629377mgmt (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In order to make the content more clear, I modify one of the subtitles of the causes of absenteeism. I change the ‘job-hunting’ to ‘job dissatisfaction’ due to job-hunting is a consequence of jot dissatisfaction. The logical reason is that employees may feel dissatisfaction of the job which will lead them find other opportunity. Although the direct reason for absenteeism may be job-hunting, this kind of classification has little senses because employees can have many reasons for absenteeism such as attendance for tuition or something else. The fundamental cause for that is dissatisfaction of the job. I think it would be more valuable for readers.(503971MGMT (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

Use of original reference
Hi all,

I realised there are some problems with the use of original reference in our editing page. In particular, in "6.15 Make the job more interesting", someone used Sydney Morning Herald as a reference to support the argument that absenteeism rate will decrease if employees enjoy their work. I went through that newspaper article referred to by searching it on google. Even though Professor Gary Johns from Concordia University in Canada suggested that "providing employees with interesting work is one way of reducing absenteeism", there was not any facts or data to support this argument. In addition, a saying from newspaper might be not appropriate to be cited as an original reference. If the original editor saw this post, could you please let me know how you think about it?

Apart from this, I deleted reference 76 "Cascio, WF & Boudreau, JW 2008, Investing in people: financial impact of human resource initiatives, 1st edn, Pearson Education, New Jersey, p.58.". I think it might be not appropriate to use materials from a textbook to support the argument that "giving incentives for good attendance is a useful way to reduce absenteeism" in "6.2 Providing incentives to employees". The discussion section following this sentence could support this argument by itself.

Thanks! 622973MGMT (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Some adjustments of the Reduction Methods part
Hi guys, in terms of the method of training manager, I argue that the title seems not appropriate as this paragraph mainly talks about managers' role in reducing employees' absenteeism, so I suggest that the title of 'Managerial intervention' may sounds more reasonable and accurate. Besides, this paragraph really makes sense by demonstrating the managers' impact on employees' attitude and behavior, but it has only talked about the purpose of the training which sounds not convincing enough, I suppose other supplementary information should be added in, to explain the training processes and methods in details so that the readers can have a better understanding of how the mangers should be trained to achieve a managerial intervention. At the end I introduce a managerial intervention method which is proven to be practical in reducing employees absenteeism and constructive in designing training planning and curriculum.573235MGMT (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

the 16th reference is missing (in the cause of absenteeism)
Hi, I have checked the reference list and found that the 16th is missing. I would like to help you but unfortunately I did not know which reference you cited.

648464MGMT648464MGMT (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cost of Absenteeism
Hey all, I have moved the cost of ansenteeism section to sit below the effect of absenteeism section. Costs really are an effect, so it makes sense to me that they are discussed in sequence. This will move 'Methods to reduce absenteeism' to the end. 327069MGMT (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with the current placement of the 'Cost of Absenteeism' section. I propose that it should be moved to section 3, immediately after the definition and classification sections. This is because the entire article, in its current form, takes the view that absenteeism is a negative outcome and a drain on resources without that view being justified until the very end. I think it doesn't make sense to talk about how to fix absenteeism without first establishing that absenteeism is something that needs to be fixed. Further, placing the cost of absenteeism section at the front puts all other information in the article into context.579170MGMT (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey 579170MGMT, I like your logic, I think it makes sense to be shuffle it up below the classifications. 327069MGMT (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I suggest that we put "Costs of Absenteeism" before "Methods to reduce absenteeism" and after "Effect of absenteeism". We can't simply put forward the methods without knowing the actual costs first. Only by having a clear mind of the consequences of absenteeism can we carry out ways/methods to reduce absenteeism and improve the matter. For the reason why costs show up after effects, it must be that absenteeism has some negative influence and it is these influence that directly lead to the occurrence of those costs. 582409MGMT (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

hi, i do not really understand about Cost Calculator section as it only has one sentence "A calculator makes employers able to estimate the costs arose from absenteeism. 579170MGMT (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)". for now, i also think that the sentence is also not too comprehensive and essential, i mean everybody know that we can use calculator to calculate something. moreover, there is no supporting source. so, i think for now i will just delete the part. if anybody want to maintain or restore the cost calculator part, i have no problem at all as long as it followed by further explanation and sources.614732MGMT (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The classification of absenteeism
Hi everyone. In my mind, the analysis of voluntary absenteeism and involuntary absenteeism in the definition section could be summarized and involved in the classification section. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 648475GMGT (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, I have done some research about innocent absenteeism, so I think the definition of Culpable absenteeism and Non-culpable absenteeism should also be added to the classification part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 572065MGMT (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,i agree with 572065MGMT,the analysis of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism in definition part should not include too much detail of the classification content.so i moved the details of it to the classification part.601253MGMT (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I think there are overlap between voluntary/involuntary part and unavoidable/avoidable part. It seems like that these two parts are expressing the same thing, so I remove the unavoidable/avoidable part. If anyone has a different opinion, feel free to let me know. Cheers.582409MGMT (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed to the heading of ‘classification and cause’ into ‘classification’ because the content of causes is introduced under a separate heading. I think it would be more logical.(503971MGMT (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi! I am confused that why we put "absenteeism in the public sector" as an independent unit. If we have "public sector", should we add "private sector" as well? That means we classify "absenteeism" in another way - private vs public. 567009MGMT (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) 567009MGMT

Structure change in "Cause of Absenteeism"
Hi, all. I found that the classification of the points in 'Cause of Absenteeism' is not clear. What I have done is that I have move the 'disengagement', 'job dissatisfaction', and 'job insecurity' into organizational effects from Individuals effects. Moreover, I changed the sub-heading 'Personal effects' to "Social effects; because according to research I found that the causes like family stress and financial stress are usually traded as social effects of absenteeism by exports. I also have add a new paragraph in this section, which used to introduced economic recession effects on absenteeism. 662220MGMT (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize the classification and definition parts, edit the classification
Hey guys, I have made several changes in two parts, definition and classification. First of all, I do agree that the analysis of the voluntary and involuntary absenteeism should be reclassified into the "classification" title. Therefore, I removed the paragraph that" comparing the voluntary and involuntary absenteeism" from the definition part to the classification part. Moreover, I noticed that there is another paragraph in the definition depicting the difference between "voluntary and sickness absenteeism", which is quite similar to and actually and an extension of Voluntary VS Involuntary. In this case, I combined and edited these two parts to be logical and readable.

Another major adjustment is deleting the part that regarding the comparison of "authorized versus unauthorized absenteeism" in the classification. The reason is mainly because that this content is identical to the meaning of "voluntary and involuntary absenteeism". Considering that the content in the voluntary and involuntary part is more comprehensive and broader than that in the "authorized and unauthorized" which has a narrow definition and only two simple sentence that relating to this part,I deleted for the sake of avoiding duplication.But the reference is not affected after the editing.

Some remaining issues: After the reclassification, I still notice that the third classification which is analyzing the "avoidable and unavoidable absenteeism", may also have some identical meaning with that of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism from my point of view.Moreover,the last part of the "voluntary and involuntary" is about the measurement of these two, which I believe is more suitable to the "4.measuring absence". However, the first sentence"These definitions imply that voluntary absenteeism can be indicated (or measured) by the frequency in which it occurs, while involuntary absenteeism can be indicated by the number of lost working-hours due to an employee’s absence."of the third paragraph need a reference, which required to be added.

regarding the definition part, it seems that there are lots of historical literature which renders the definition to be fuzzy and unclear.

Above are some changes I have made and some remaining issues. Cheers570542MGMT (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)570542MGMT

hi,I think there are some overlaps in the classification part but it seems clear to classify like what my classmates did in the user page.so i am wondering if it is better to add the introduction paragraph for this part to explain why there is the overlap.601253MGMT (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

HI,I just renamed the classification paragraph as classification and causes because not only it consists of several reasons for absenteeism in the 4 kinds of categories but there are the reasons for absenteeism reflecting in the individual attitude,health condition, social influence and organizational environment parts.Also,there are some overlaps in this paragraph.For example, involuntary absenteeism includes the illness and family problems while illness in health condition and family duty in social influence also has the same factors.Plus,voluntary absenteeism has the same psychological elements that presents in the Physical absenteeism versus psychological absenteeism category.Moreover,Culpable absenteeism versus Non-culpable absenteeism also has overlaps with the other categories.It seems that overlaps in the classification in absenteeism is unavoidable.It is just like some of them are kind of the similar things but have the different names.Anyone got any idea of that?Maybe providing the introduction of this part to explain why there are some overlaps could let other wikipedians clear understand the absenteeism.

In addition,i agree with 570542MGMT,the last paragraph showing how to measure the voluntary and involuntary absenteeism should be moved to the measuring part.601253MGMT (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Article must be purely descriptive.
Some parts of the draft are using prescriptive language, particularly the section about reduction. This should be rephrased so that the article does not give advice or prescribe actions in its own voice. The text should be changed so that it neutrally reports what advice and methods are given by reliable sources. Example: Instead of saying "Give employees free coffee", it should say "A 2008 study by Harvard Business School showed that free coffee for employees reduces absenteeism an average of 5.7%.(ref)Knowall, B., Wiseguy, G. Clever, J. "Keeping staff at work" Harvard Business School 2008.(/ref)" -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Modify the incorrect Notes and References
I found there are some errors on "References" and "Notes" both on their format and related information, so I checked each PDF article, and rewrote the incorrect notes, not only modified the format, but also improve the information which include related pages and author’s name. By the way, I am very confused about the differences between “Notes” and “References”, why there are both “Notes” and “References” exist? In my opinion, these two should become one. But I am not sure whether this view is correct or not, if someone has opinion on this, please talk to me, and we can discuss on this and modify them as soon as possible. 594863MGMT (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that there are lots of duplication between "Notes and References". Personally, I think that most of the notes shown on the page right now are all references which might be automatically generated when someone editing using the "ref". While my understanding is that notes should be something that needs further explanation, like terminologies or abbreviations that non-professionals might not understand, which should be distinguished from bibliographies. Moreover, there are some external links under the notes title, which I wonder should be removed under "external links". 570542MGMT (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)570542MGMT

By the way, I think we should change the tile"note" to reference and delete the "reference"part if these are the same.570542MGMT (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)570542MGMT


 * Hi, thanks a lot for your explanation of the differences between “Notes” and “References”. Besides, I agree with your idea (your second talk) that these two are duplicated, which are both shows the bibliography cited in article, and we need to delete the “References” and keep the “Notes”, the reasons are shown in my another talk(named Notes and References are duplicated), your can check that when you free. 594863MGMT (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you two, there are some duplications in the notes and references part. I reckon it's better to delete the reference and change the title of notes to references. 569818MGNT (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)569818 MGNT

Notes and References are duplicated
I found a problem that there are “Notes” and “References” both in the Wikipedia page on Absenteeism and Turnover, however the two part are both shows the bibliography cited in the article. The only difference is the references under the “Notes” is related and can be tracked in the article, which shows the sentences or ideas cited relatively. While under “References” the content are the same (duplicated) with the content in “Notes”, except the bibliography are listed in the alphabetical order (A -Z), which is often shown in personal assignment(but this is Wikipedia page). Therefore, I think that these two part are duplicated, and we should keep the part of “Notes”, which part is more clear listed and related to our Wikipedia page. (After delete the part of “References”, we can rename the part of “Notes” as “References Lists”)   As I am not sure whether the view I presented above is correct or not, so I haven’t modify them yet. Is anyone agree with me or has any good idea on this point??? Looking forward your support! 594863MGMT (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you.I think the "Note" part is on the right form that the reference need to link into the passage. It would be better delete the "reference" part and change the title of "Note" to "reference". (503971MGMT (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your support! However, I checked edit tools which used for generating references this morning, I found there are two methods to get the reference: One is using the templates in “Cite”, it can generate references automatically after you add the information in relevant space, the another method is add references in “references” text space manually. Therefore, I am confused that whether I should delete the “References”.  594863MGMT (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, guys. After the discussion with other classmates(as “talk” shown above), I found they also realized the problem between “Notes” and “References”. I also searched other Wikipedia pages, there is only “References” exist on every pages. What’s more, I compared the content of “Notes” and “References”, the contents under “References” are all included by “Notes”. Thus, I decide to delete the “References” part and keep the “Notes”. If someone has opposite opinion on this action, we can discuss and undo this.(I will keep a copy of “Reference” in case of undo) 594863MGMT (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. There is a reference issue that i found, which are note 80 to 82. They are from the same source, but different pages. They are put separately in the references with same author, name of title but have only different pages. I recommend to combine these three references into one. They were shown like followings: M.Elizabeth.K.M, Dinsdale&Clark.L (2012), Managing Disability and Absenteeism in the workplace, 15 M.Elizabeth.K.M, Dinsdale&Clark.L (2012), Managing Disability and Absenteeism in the workplace, 15-16 M.Elizabeth.K.M, Dinsdale&Clark.L (2012), Managing Disability and Absenteeism in the workplace, 16-18 Could I combine them into M.Elizabeth.K.M, Dinsdale&Clark.L (2012), Managing Disability and Absenteeism in the workplace, 15-18? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 621240MGMT (talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i agree with 621240MGMT. And i also found references (previous numbered 25,50,83,84) are duplicated. So i combined them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 397740MGMT (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A few people have signed their contribution on the user page and I have just deleted them.673640MGMT (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Improve and restructure the content of "methods of reduction absenteeism"
I think the reduction methods listed are comprehensive but a little bit unorganized. The structure is not really clear. I suggest introducing them in three parts- incentive, regulation, and company culture. I have already reclassified those specific suggestions into different segments and combine some overlapped suggestions. One of the methods is that managers are advised to pay more attention to employees’ annual leave and long service leave data which belong to ways of managers’ effective regulation. I have put them together in order to make the structure more logical. Meanwhile, I think that increasing overtime hours is one aspects of working flexibility. So I have integrated them. Besides that, I delete some unrelated information in this part. For example, one of the suggestions is that promoting a high performance work culture talking about how to make employees understand the strategy of the company and know their own responsibilities. I think this suggestion is good for management but not related to absenteeism directly. And the ‘action plan’ part also makes me feel confused, it does partly important to reduce the absenteeism but not has strong link. I’m not quite sure if it should be included. (503971MGMT (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi student ID. 503971,

I do not exactly know what happened but I did create a method of reducing absenteeism in relation to age and team diversity. But it has been deleted in the last minute. I think this is a good way to reduce absenteeism based on my research. If you deleted that section, could you please let me know the reason? Thanks! 622973MGMT (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

651648MGMT90018 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC) If it is allowed, I add heading "resolutions & suggestions" in order to put together resolutions and suggestions about what organization can do in order to reduce or prevent absenteeism. And if it is allowed, I would like to add 2 suggestions that relates to it: Studies found that reducing ergonomics risks in production, such as lowering weight lifting activities at work and providing facilities or working environment that can avoid employees from frequently experiencing awkward body positions/postures, contributes to sustainable productivity and lower risk of having musculoskeletal disorders and employees’ health, safety and well-being at work Therefore, it suggests that absenteeism can be reduce through creating good ergonomics environment and facilites at work. It has been found that team diversity, contributes to lower absenteeism and moreover, a narrow study has found that increasing age-heterogeneous and having higher female proportion in a company that has male as their majority group of worker, correlates with lower absenteeism duration. Therefore, it could be suggested that by increasing team diversity in age and gender, organisation can reduce their risk of having high absenteeism.
 * Ergonomics work design.
 * Team Diversity.

regarding the "current absenteeism statistics"
Hey guys, I found more detailed statistics in Australia, which means there's an overlap regarding this content. so I was wondering if it is ok for you guys, especially for whoever editing this part, to merge together. Look forward to hearing the feedback soon. 571650MGMT (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

hi, yeah there is double information about the australian data. i think it should be merged. because there is a paragraph before you post your part, i think you should adjust your part regarding the information that already existed so that previous contributors did not loose their participation part. just continue the previous paragraph with your part but minus information of existing paragraph, you can also add subheading before the existing paragraph. (previously i post my comment but forgot to sign in). 614732MGMT (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey 614732, thank you for your kind advice and support. will surely do. Cheers. 571650MGMT (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have added some content related to the U.S. and Asia and have separated this whole part into several subsections according to regions in order to have a clearer view: "Europe-the U.S.-Canada-Asia-Australia-South Africa". I also made some spelling corrections and minor adjustments to the sentence structure. Cheers. 582409MGMT (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

need help with reference
Heyyy awesome wikipedians,

I need help with the reference. The contents I was editing were sourced from the same Web, but I cited in 3 different paragraphs. that's why now you can see the reference NO. 10,11,12 are the same. So how to edit it? Thank you for your support.

Cheers^^... 571650MGMT (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, and a few other referencing glitches. Guidance is available at Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Big thanks, Roger. You are awesome^^.. 571650MGMT (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

absenteeism in school
hi all, when i read the page, the whole page is discuss about absenteeism in the workplace, but suddenly i found "absenteeism in school" in the definition section. i think the "absenteeism in school" less relevant to the rest of the contents. there is no other section that discuss or even mention "absenteeism in school", so i propose to delete this part. however, if somebody want to elaborate more about "absenteeism in school", that would be better so that we can also provide information about it equally to information about absenteeism in the workplace. all section need more information about "absenteeism in school" (if any). but, if there is no body add more information, i prefer to delete it. looking for further feedback especially for the contributors of the section.614732MGMT (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you to delete this part. It is a good point, but I think the main purpose across the three sandboxes is to discuss problems in the working environment. Although there are lots of deep thoughts in this branch (I mean, absenteeism in school is worth noting), it seems irrelevant here.631393MGMT (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

i have the same feeling about the absenteeism in school with u guys.The whole part of Absenteeism here is all about things happen in workplace,nothing to do with the school.Also,until now,there is no one adding more information about it so i delete the irrelevant part although i did see the contents about absenteeism in other materials.601253MGMT (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw some contents about "absenteeism in school" added by other people when I was about to make some changes about restructure this morning. However, due to some technical failure, the contents which were under "classification" at the edit page, did not appear at the user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 579228MGMT (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked the contents about "absenteeism in school" at the edit page, and these contents were classified as "Truancy vs School refusal vs School withdraw vs Early leaving". However, I do not think that is a perfect way to do the classification about students absenteeism. According to some articles I read, the issue of absenteeism in school includes truancy and chronic absenteeism. And there are some differences between truancy and chronic absenteeism. So I guess it is better if the contents can be classified as truancy and chronic absenteeism. But I am not sure if we should discuss this any further as school absenteeism is not the main point in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 579228MGMT (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I say we may want to keep "absenteeism in school" part for the sake of absenteeism as it is a part of it even though it may not be as important as in workplace. But it would be incomplete if we did not include, unless we simply change the title of the page to - absenteeism in workplace. 624473MGMT (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Some restructure about causes & Why combine the cause and classification?
Hey guys, I simply edited the format of the cause and suggestions part so that materials can be read easily. I changed some headings into dot points because I believe that some of them are just examples listed,using too many headings will make them more confused.I also adjusted the structures of the cause part as well where I put forward the narrative paragraphs and remove the supporting statistics behind to make more sense.

Moreover, I also found out some duplication about the "individual attitude" and "Health condition" part. More specifically, one sub-title called mental health is under the individual attitude which, personally, I think is definitely health condition. I will try to adjusted it later if there's no disagreement.

While I also notice that the classification and the cause part has been combined without no notification, I just wondered why there's such changes.

570542MGMT (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)570542MGMT

Hi 570542, I have the same concern with you about the combination of classification and causes that have been changed. I think the original separated version is better cuz it provided us with a clearer structure and I believe we need the part of "causes" to better demonstrate the issue we are discussing relating to absenteeism. It is an indispensable part. 582409MGMT (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 570542 and 582409. That's exactly what I wanted to say this morning. I wrote them in the "causes" section, though. But does anyone get technical problem? I wanted to do it myself and make the "causes" a separate point. However, when I tried to use Edit(beta), the reasons cannot be seen. All I can see on the page is the "Definition", "Classification" and "Reference List". All the other parts were gone. I mean I did use the button on the "classification" section, but it didn't work no matter which search engine I use. Can anyone solve this?631393MGMT (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the changes of restructuring on the edit page instead of user page. I tried to help but I failed. However, I corrected some grammatical errors of contents about "causes" on the edit page. I also have some questions about the restructuring that I hope others can discuss with me. 1. For "mental health" under the subheading of "individual attitude", as I read the following contents, is mental health the same thing as individual attitude? Under the "mental health" page, the editor refers the mental health as the working attitude and discusses the influence of different kinds of attitudes employees may have towards their jobs. So is it more appropriate to change "mental health" to the "working attitude"?

2. If we change "mental health" to "working attitude", is "individual attitude" a perfect subheading to cover the following contents? Maybe not. Instead, I think "individual causes" or something other can be better.

3. I do not really understand the term "Springer" under "organizational environment" on the edit page. Can someone tell me the connection between this term and other contents in the subheading of "organizational environment" please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 579228MGMT (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Measuring Absence
Hey guys, I think the subsections "innocent absenteeism" and "The test for non-culpable termination of absenteeism" are not appropriate to appear in the "Measuring absence" section as two separate sections. It seems like they are chosen specifically to be discussed in this section but shouldn't have been put directly under "Measuring absence". It gives me a feeling that they would be better to appear in the "classification" section as a deeper illustration to the content related to culpable/non-culpable absenteeism. What do you think?582409MGMT (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I do agree with 582409 that the ‘innocent absenteeism’ part seems not brief and clear enough and not closely related to ‘Measuring absence’; it is more suitable to put it under the ‘classification’ part. In my view, the ‘Test for Non-culpable Termination of Absenteeism’ part should be adjusted as the editor did mention some content related to measuring absence such as ‘but absences should excessive and beyond the average level of absenteeism among other employees’, ‘it is insufficient to simply indicate the employee’s previous record of poor attendance as demonstrative of the future’, but the remaining part is not relevant to measuring absence, it is all about how to decide whether to terminate the employment relationship to enhance attendance. Thus I think this part is just partly valuable. What‘s others' opinions?573235MGMT (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 573235, yes, that's exactly what I feel. Also, I agree with you regarding the valuable content in "Test for Non-culpable Termination of Absenteeism".582409MGMT (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi 573235 and 582409, I agree with your opinions. The "innocent absenteeism" part should be better added to classification part instead of measurement part. In "measuring absence" part, we can tell people what steps should be taken to measure absenteeism rate in a general way. We can also say something about how to read these data. That is, what each of these ratios indicate when it comes to the performance of a specific company or what would the future of the company be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 579228MGMT (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

linking
Hi everyone, I have been removing many of the repeated and unnecessary links throughout the article as the wiki tutorial Tutorial/Wikipedia links states that "To avoid too many links, you should normally create a link in an article only where the first occurrence of a word or phrase occurs." I hope this is ok with you all. 389235MGMT (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)389235MGMT

Hi 389235, thanks for reminding, I just edited some of the links to ensure the first occurrence rule.582409MGMT (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)