Employee Attendance Intervention at Hummel Insurance

Introduction and Executive Summary

Employee absenteeism is one of the most common workplace problems facing employers today. In August, Hummel Insurance Company held a supervisor conference to discuss goals and areas of improvement. It was reported that the average employee absenteeism rate was five days per six-month period. One member of the HR leadership team informed the group that this rate needed to be reduced to one day per six-month period. Immediately following the conference, an investigation was launched into the causes of the attendance problem and how improvement could be achieved. Ultimately, it was determined that a lack of communication about the attendance policy — to both supervisors and employees — made it difficult for employees to adhere to it and for supervisors to enforce it.

The vast majority of everyday human resource problems experienced by supervisors relate to attendance. There is no question that more disciplinary action is taken for attendance-related misconduct than for all other causes combined (Gilson, 2007). Genuine illnesses still account for the bulk of employee absences, but some studies have shown that fewer than one-third of workplace absences are linked to poor health. The majority of employers offer their workers vacation time, sick leave, paid time off, or other forms of paid and unpaid leave (Employee Absenteeism and Attendance, 2011).

One of the most frustrating aspects of administering absence policies is the significant amount of abuse that occurs. A key to reducing abuse is to have an absence policy that clearly sets forth which absences are permissible and what behavior will subject an employee to discipline. "Absenteeism problems can range from employees not calling in or not showing up for their shifts, taking sick leave when well, and exhausting their available leave every month, to requesting extra time off and establishing patterns of abuse. For these non-protected absences, employers can, and should, discipline their employees" (Employee Absenteeism and Attendance, 2011). A company's policy should be clearly written and distributed to all employees. Additionally, the employer should train all supervisors and managers to ensure the policy is being fairly applied. It is good practice to spot-check attendance issues across every department to ensure that company rules are being consistently enforced (Employee Absenteeism and Attendance, 2011).

At Hummel Insurance Company, there is a significant attendance problem within the inbound call center. When employees do not come to work on time — or at all — it leaves the company short of agents to handle inbound phone calls from customers. The company prides itself on providing exemplary customer service and works hard to answer all incoming calls within twenty seconds. When call center agents are absent, it becomes very difficult to provide the quality service that the company strives for within the established timeframe. In an effort to diagnose and address this problem, Human Performance Technology (HPT) is utilized to close the gap between the actual and desired levels of attendance (Wilmoth, Prigmore, & Bray, 2002).

Performance Analysis

Looking at the cost-optimization aspect of Hummel Insurance Company's attendance goals, there is incongruence in how the current attendance process contributes to organizational objectives. By evaluating performance assessments and attendance records for individuals within the work group, HPT is able to determine whether this has been a recent or long-standing problem. Research indicates that the attendance issue has persisted for an extended period of time.

Using the Language of Work Model (see Appendix, Table A), the business unit of the call center, the core processes of coming to work every day on time, the customer service representatives, and the work groups of individual teams were assessed to paint a picture of the "As Is" state. (The HPT team would execute similar discussions with key stakeholders to determine the "ideal" state before completing the "To Be" model.) Additionally, HPT is responsible for surveying primary stakeholders. Sample questions by audience include:

Supervisors: What impact is this attendance problem having on the organization? What resources will you invest in order to improve it? What are your goals for improved attendance?

Human Resources: How do you perceive attendance metrics? How do you perceive morale? How involved are you with attendance procedures? How are individuals evaluated on their adherence to attendance procedures?

Employees: How satisfied are you with the attendance process? What, if anything, do you see as unfair? How could it be improved?

Once the survey data is evaluated in conjunction with the organization's objectives, the outputs, inputs, conditions, consequences, process elements, and feedback of the business unit are combined with the core processes, individuals, and work groups to determine the overall level of work execution (Pershing, 2006). Based on research within the customer base, business unit, and work group — as well as evaluation of data within the Language of Work Model — it can be determined that there is significant opportunity for improvement in attendance, given the high levels of daily absenteeism.

After evaluating all of this data, key stakeholders are surveyed in a similar fashion to understand and define the "ideal" levels of attendance. A "To Be" performance analysis is then executed using the Language of Work Model. Once completed, the HPT team is able to identify performance gaps. Based on business objectives, the ideal attendance rate should be no more than one absence per six-month period. The attendance gap can be quantified as five excess days per six-month period. This gap is then qualified and quantified further in the root cause analysis.

Root Cause Analysis

In assessing the "As Is" state compared with the "To Be" performance state, the greatest discrepancies lie within the employees themselves. What is lost in this gap is the motivation to attend work on a daily basis (Pershing, 2006). There is also a lack of communication between supervisors and line staff regarding the attendance policy, indicating that a work execution gap exists (Pershing, 2006). The cause analysis utilizes the Updated Behavioral Engineering Model probe questions (see Appendix, Table B) (Pershing, 2006). These questions help shed light on performance gaps and identify the root cause of the problem by focusing on individual and environmental factors within the department and organization.

From an environmental perspective, employees feel they do not have sufficient information or incentives to properly adhere to the attendance policy. From an individual perspective, supervisors do not possess the necessary knowledge or training to build the required competencies. The root cause of the attendance problem is the training managers' limited understanding of the attendance policy, combined with supervisors' insufficient knowledge of how to carry out that policy and a lack of accountability through incentives and motivation. Because floor supervisors are uncertain of attendance policies and procedures, there is a delay even in recognizing that a problem exists. Providing the necessary information and training to supervisors — and aligning attendance assessment and rewards to employee performance — will expedite improvement in daily attendance.

Conclusion

Attendance problems will always exist in organizations. The key is transforming these problems into opportunities that create sustained competitive advantage. By utilizing the resources and expertise of HPT, organizations are better equipped to continuously identify performance needs before irreparable damage occurs. The advantage of a strong HPT function is its ability to align the needs of all stakeholders and implement interventions that improve the organization holistically. HPT ensures that performance is not assessed haphazardly, as supported by the models and processes described throughout this paper. In the example explored here, Hummel Insurance Company is positioned to significantly improve employee attendance by implementing and evaluating a training system designed to meet the needs of its workforce.

Ultimately, the company's goal is to resolve its absenteeism issue so that customer service workers are more consistently available to answer customer questions. When insufficient call agents are present on any given day, staffing ratios are disrupted and calls are not answered within the timeframe established by upper management. This can result in dissatisfied customers and negative customer satisfaction survey results. Implementing the attendance intervention described above will address current issues and put in place the procedures needed to support sustained business performance improvement.

Bibliography

Dierkes, M. (2009). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. New York.

Employee Absenteeism. (2010). Retrieved from http://backup.brighthorizons.com/smptxt_absenteeism.html

Employee Absenteeism and Attendance. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.hrhero.com/topics/absenteeism.html

Gilson, B. (2007). Getting a handle on attendance problems: 10 steps every federal supervisor can take. Retrieved from http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1415/getting-handle-attendance-problems-steps-every.html

Guidelines for Absenteeism Control. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://benefits.org/interface/cost/absent2.htm

How to Handle an Employee's Attendance Problems. (2011). Retrieved from

McCallaster, C. M. (2004). The 5 P's of change: Leading change by effectively utilizing leverage points within an organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 318–328.

Pershing, J. (2006). Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishers.

Wang, G., & Li, J. (November/December 2003). Measuring HPT interventions: The dilemma, challenges, and solutions. Performance Improvement, 42, 17–23.

Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (September 2002). HPT models: An overview of the major models in the field. Performance Improvement, 41, 16–24.

Yorges, S. (2011). The role of the supervisor in managing absenteeism. Retrieved from

Appendices

Table A: Performance Analysis Model (Dierkes, 2009)

1. Define Outputs

What are the various services, products, and knowledge — as needed, wanted, or expected by internal/external customers?

Staff answers inbound phone calls from customers. Staffing procedures are designed to answer inbound phone calls in a timely manner. Core process outputs include training manuals. Customers require timely answers to their questions concerning their health insurance. The work group is defined as the Trainer, HR Business Partner, and Administrative Assistant. Outputs of the work group include sufficient training materials to support call center associates.

2. Define Inputs

What is needed to produce the outputs?

Triggers for business unit work: (A) New hires; (B) Negative attendance records. Primary resources: (A) Technology — functioning computer systems; (B) People — direction from program managers and support of work group. Triggers for process work: (A) New hires; (B) Negative attendance records. Primary resources used in the process: (A) Technology; (B) People. Individual work is triggered by: (A) Attendance issues. Direction from Training and HR is needed to complete training and discipline processes. New hires and attendance needs trigger work of the work group. Appropriate resources include training materials.

3. Define Conditions

What are the rules that must be followed to produce outputs from inputs?

External rules and regulations: (A) All federal and state laws, including FMLA. Internal policies and procedures: (A) Comply with all attendance requirements. Attendance policies and procedures apply at all levels. Government regulations as well as internal attendance policies and processes must be enforced.

4. Define Consequences

What results are expected from the outputs?

Results expected: (A) Meet customer needs for answering phone calls in a timely manner; (B) Timely and effective evaluation and discipline regarding attendance issues. Output determines the discipline actions taken. Effective measures are produced to deal with the issue. The approval chain of command must be followed to implement discipline procedures.

5. Define the Process Element

The process element links inputs and outputs and is affected by conditions and feedback.

Work groups that exist to achieve outputs: (A) Supervisors; (B) HR; (C) Administrative Assistants. Their relationships: (A) Supervisors identify those with attendance issues; (B) HR monitors and guides FMLA issues; (C) Administrative Assistants complete paperwork for FMLA or training. Steps to complete each core process output: (A) Define attendance policy; (B) Distribute policy to all employees; (C) Evaluate all employees' attendance; (D) Select those who need additional training; (E) Select those who need discipline. Actions needed to turn inputs into outputs: (A) Create training materials; (B) Hold training sessions; (C) Implement discipline. Staff must be willing to attend work every day and on time.

6. Define Feedback

Response to outputs, processing, conditions, and feedback that confirms success or indicates adjustment is needed.

Business unit measures of client satisfaction: (A) Improved attendance; (B) Client satisfaction surveys received by the call center. Workforce satisfaction: (A) Improved employee attendance and call performance goals being met. Work group measures: (A) Satisfaction surveys; (B) Improved attendance. Process checks: (A) Monitor attendance records. Individual measures: (A) Positive satisfaction surveys. Improved attendance metrics and client feedback confirm success.

Table B: Updated Behavioral Engineering Model Probe Questions (Pershing, 2006)

Environment

1) Information

1. Have clear performance expectations been communicated to employees? — Yes, there is an attendance policy in place.

2. Do employees understand the various aspects of their roles and the priorities for doing them? — No, staffing roles are often not clearly defined.

3. Are there clear and relevant performance aids to guide employees? — No, additional performance support could be provided.

4. Are employees given sufficient, timely, behaviorally specific feedback regarding their performance? — Yes.

5. Does the performance management system assist the supervisor in describing expectations for both activities and results for the employee? — Yes, individuals are measured on attendance conformance.

2) Resources

1. Do employees have the materials needed to do their jobs? — Yes.

2. Do employees have the equipment to do their jobs? — Yes.

3. Do employees have the time they need to do their jobs? — Yes.

4. Are the processes and procedures defined in such a way as to enhance employee performance? — Yes, processes are defined but not necessarily communicated effectively.

5. Is the work environment safe, clean, organized, and conducive to excellent performance? — Yes.

3) Incentives

1. Are there sufficient financial incentives present to encourage excellent performance? — No, financial incentives are not tied to staffing.

2. Are there sufficient non-financial incentives to encourage excellent performance? — Yes.

3. Do measurement and reporting systems track appropriate activities and results? — Yes.

4. Are jobs enriched to allow for fulfillment of higher-level needs? — Yes.

5. Are there opportunities for career development? — Yes.

Individual

4) Motives

1. Are the motives of the employees aligned with the incentives in the environment? — No.

2. Do employees desire to do the job to the best of their abilities? — Yes.

3. Are employees recruited and selected to match the realities of the work environment? — Yes.

4. Do employees view the work environment as positive? — Yes.

5. Are there any rewards that reinforce poor performance or negative consequences for good performance? — No.

5) Capacity

1. Do the employees have the strength necessary to do the job? — Yes.

2. Do the employees have the dexterity necessary to do the job? — Yes.

3. Do employees have the ability to learn what is expected of them to be successful on the job? — Yes.

4. Are employees free from any emotional limitations that impede performance? — Yes.

5. Are employees recruited, selected, and matched to the realities of the work situation? — Yes.

6) Knowledge and Skills

1. Do the employees have the knowledge necessary to be successful at their jobs? — Yes.

2. Do the employees have the skills needed to be successful at their jobs? — Yes.

3. Do the employees have the experience needed to be successful at their jobs? — Yes.

4. Do employees have a systematic training program to enhance their knowledge and skills? — Yes.

5. Do employees understand how their roles affect organizational performance? — Yes.