فقدان نامشخص از کار و پنج عامل بزرگ: بررسی سوابق فقدان و مقاصد فقدان آینده

Uncertified absence from work has traditionally been difficult to link to personality. The present paper argues that personality is best conceptualized as influencing an individual’s intention to be absent from work because of reasons that are within their control. This was investigated in an employed community sample of 128 individuals. These individuals used a self-report measure to express their future intentions to be absent from work as a result of several reasons. These reasons for absence were categorized as “being absent because of external pressure or commitment” (ABCo) and “being absence by choice” (ABCh). The Big Five personality factors were found to be unrelated to objective uncertified absence records and unrelated to ABCo. Three of the Big Five were related to ABCh. Agreeableness was negatively related to ABCh whereas Extraversion and Openness demonstrated a positive correlation. It was concluded that the results should be viewed tentatively, but that this study may provide a useful framework for conceptualizing the association of personality with uncertified absence.

When does personality affect whether someone is absent from work? This question has traditionally been difficult to answer for three reasons. First, until the early 1990s, researchers tended to disagree about how the personality side of the relationship should be assessed. Second, absence is influenced by situational and organizational factors outside of the influence of dispositions, meaning that effects are likely to be confounded. Third, the autonomy of workers to decide to be absent from work is limited to only a small proportion of absence antecedents. This article argues that personality is best conceptualized as influencing an individual’s intention about whether he or she will not turn up for work because of reasons within their own control. 1.1. Absence and personality There is a recent trend in organizational research to study absenteeism from a “dispositional point of view”, meaning that enduring personality traits explain absenteeism’s stability over time and across situations (Harrisson & Martocchio, 1998). Earlier studies have uncovered that extraverts (Cooper and Payne, 1967 and Judge et al., 1997) and employees with high levels of emotional instability, anxiety and aggression (Bernardin, 1977, Ferris et al., 1985 and Porter and Steers, 1973) are more frequent absentees, whereas employees with strong self-discipline and a self-reported need for achievement are less likely to be absent (Bernardin, 1977 and Modway and Spencer, 1981). Although all these early studies seem to be in favor of the role of personality in relation to absenteeism, studies prior to around 1990 were difficult to examine jointly because there was no common framework for assessing personality. The emergence of the Five Factor Model provided a common framework for assessing the association of personality and organizational criteria. The generally agreed Big Five factors are: (a) extraversion, (b) agreeableness, (c) conscientiousness, (d) emotional stability, and (e) openness to experience. These five factors emerged from research based on both lexical (Goldberg, 1990) and questionnaire approaches to personality assessment (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Big Five have been researched extensively, are found to subsume many other personality measures (e.g. Conley, 1985, Costa and McCrae, 1988, McCrae and Costa, 1985, McCrae and Costa, 1987 and McCrae and Costa, 1989), and are found in studies in different cultures (Garcia et al., 2004 and Noller et al., 1987). Studies examining the links between the Five-Factor Model and employee absence have provided mixed evidence. Judge et al. (1997) found that conscientiousness and extraversion predicted absence, suggesting that the sociable nature of extraverts could have lead them to view the workplace as another place to socialize or as an obstacle to spending time with friends, whereas the contrary was found for conscientious employees. Intuitively, the strong self-control (Costa & McCrae, 1992) of employees high on conscientiousness and their achievement-oriented nature, may lead them to avoid being absent (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). However, Judge et al.’s (1997) expectation that emotionally unstable employees would be absent more frequently was not supported. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis, reviewing the relationship of the Big Five and counterproductive behaviors (Salgado, 2002) found no relationship between any factor of the Big Five and absenteeism. 1.2. Absence and non-dispositional factors The findings from the dispositional approach are ambiguous but unsurprising, since many studies linking personality to absence have not accounted for the situational and organizational variables that are outside the influence of predispositions and that can influence employees from attending or missing work. For example, according to Steers and Rhodes’s (1978) model of attendance, attendance motivation is influenced by job satisfaction. However, one’s actual ability to attend work is influenced by various external pressures such as for example economic and market conditions, incentives and reward systems. Additionally, job involvement (Blumberg, 1980 and Cheola and Farr, 1980) has been found to predict absence frequency better than job satisfaction (Farrell & Stamm, 1988), and absenteeism has also been associated with work stress (Gupta and Beerh, 1979 and Hackett et al., 1989). There is a growing concern among situational researchers to view absence as a decision-making process (George, 1989 and Harrison and Hullin, 1989) meaning that individuals make decisions to be absent which in turn, predict actual absences. Deciding whether to attend work depends on individuals’ subjective expected utility since they always strive for utility maximization (Chelious, 1981 and Youngblood, 1984). For example, if engaging in leisure activities has a higher utility than going to work, employees will choose to be absent. Similarly, in support of this argument and in combination with elements of decision-making Martocchio and Harrison (1993) developed a short-term model of absenteeism. According to this model, deciding whether to attend work also depends on the behavioural norms within the organization (i.e. if it is socially acceptable to be absent, then an individual is more likely to do so). These elements combine with perceived moral obligation to form attendance intentions, which are immediate predictors of actual attendance (Martocchio & Harrison, 1993). Evidence supports this argument, showing that intentions to be absent are a useful way in predicting absenteeism ranging from six to ninety days (Harrison, 1995 and Martocchio, 1992). 1.3. Examining absence criteria It is argued here that the relationship between the Big Five and absence may be defined more clearly by examining the criterion of absence in more detail. Accepting that absence behavior is likely to be influenced by both dispositional and situational factors, leads to the conclusion that an association between only dispositions and actual absence is unlikely. Personality is much more likely to relate to an individual’s intention to be absent. Additionally, it is argued here that this relationship is likely to be demonstrated only when the reasons for an individual being absent are within their control. For example, one could intend to be absent from work in the next week because of a family commitment, but this is likely to reflect circumstances beyond one’s control (e.g. a relative may have a medical appointment). By contrast, deciding to be absent because of a leisure activity is within one’s control. One is absent by choice rather than through commitment. Two absence criteria are therefore proposed. These are intending to be absent by commitment (ABCo) and intending to be absent by choice (ABCh). It is proposed here that absent antecedents that are relevant to personality are those, which an individual has a choice about (i.e. ABCh) rather than those that reflect some external commitment (i.e. ABCo). Both are examined as criteria in the present study. Importantly, these exclude illness or medically certified absence. Whilst factors such as Neuroticism are known to predict aspects of subjective well-being (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998 and Diener et al., 2003), the aim of this paper is to examine future intentions of absence, which means that absences through medical reasons are not considered. Given the above, it is possible to suppose how the Big Five are related to ABCh. Extraversion is characterized by traits such as sociable, assertive, gregarious, ambitious, energetic, and high extraverts may seek social interaction and excitement through leisure activities or vacations. Extraversion may therefore relate positively to ABCh. Similarly, because Openness to Experience is characterized by the traits imaginative, cultured, experience seeking, and curious, this factor may also be positively related to ABCh. Because the traits of Agreeableness reflect being cooperative and compliant, the conforming nature of those high on Agreeableness may mean that they are less likely to ‘go against’ company policy and choose to be absent from work. Conscientiousness may be negatively related to ABCh, since the self-control and achievement-oriented facets of this factor may predispose an individual as less likely to choose to be absent. Although emotional stability is associated with subjective well-being, the trait domain of emotional stability (i.e. calm, relaxed vs. tense, envious) seems outside of the defined ABCh domain. Emotional stability is therefore likely to be unrelated to ABCh. 1.4. Summary and hypotheses The present study examined the relationship between the Big Five, recorded attendance and workers’ self-reported intentions to be absent as a result of several antecedent reasons. Several hypotheses were set for the study. H1: The Big Five will be unrelated to objective absence records. H2: The Big Five will be unrelated to intention to be absent through external commitment (ABCo). H3: The Big Five Factors Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience will be related to the intention to be absent by choice (ABCh).