How companies can deal with in-work sickness

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The coronavirus pandemic is over, but increased sickness is not. In many developed economies, more working people are reporting illnesses that limit the amount or type of work they can do than pre-pandemic. More sick days are being taken, too. German executives warn high absenteeism is compounding the country’s competitiveness problems; in September, Tesla bosses resorted to snap home visits to check up on absent employees at its Berlin plant. In Norway, workers called in sick in the second quarter more than at any time in the past 15 years.

In the UK, official figures estimated a record 185.6mn working days were lost through sickness absence in 2022, for reasons including minor illnesses, musculoskeletal problems and mental health conditions. Post-pandemic healthcare backlogs are partly responsible. Last year some 3.7mn working-age people were in work with a “work-limiting” condition — up 1.4mn in 10 years. The rate of work-limiting conditions has grown fastest among young workers, with sharp increases in reported mental ill health.

Having fewer people working means economies do not grow as fast as they could. It reduces tax receipts to fund increasingly strained public services. But it is employers and businesses that have to deal with the immediate effects of sickness — managing staff and rotas, and confronting any legal backlash. Changes in diagnosis rates and generational attitudes to mental ill health, in particular, have influenced employee expectations of the workplace.

Prioritising employee wellbeing is about building trust and loyalty as well as ensuring long-term productivity. Compassion has to be balanced with practicality. Bosses must provide adequate support to absent workers — but also take into account the impact on other staff and operations.

A transparent and fair sickness policy is vital. Companies need to lay out expectations for reporting illness, documenting absences and returning to work — including when doctor’s notes are needed. If employees know they will be treated fairly and consistently, they are more likely to adhere to the rules, fostering a culture of mutual respect and accountability.

Identifying patterns of absenteeism can help to reveal underlying issues, such as frequent Monday absences or sick leave during school holidays, and signal when bosses need to step in earlier to address concerns at home, burnout or stress. But any sense that bosses are using data ultimately to punish staff will backfire, breeding resentment.

Data should be a conversation starter to better understand the conditions of absences rather than hitting out at those perceived to be slacking. Absenteeism can reflect deeper issues such as excessive workloads, demotivated staff or a lack of support.

But the need for support during poor health is matched by the need for accountability. Problems arise when managers feel trust is being exploited. Setting boundaries on flexible policies and maintaining clear expectations can prevent abuse while still offering assistance. Employees must understand that flexibility is often a benefit, not an entitlement, and respect the parameters set by their employers.

For bosses, employee health information also needs to be handled with the utmost care, and not just to avoid any legal ramifications. When employees believe that their most sensitive information is met with discretion, they will be more open to sharing health issues, and seeking support at their most vulnerable time.

Some companies rely on high pay or rewarding work to attract staff, but in a competitive market, commitments to wellbeing can also help employers to stand out. Building a successful enterprise relies above all, though, on both sides creating a relationship of trust.