Voluntary Employee Withdrawal and Inattendance_ a

Voluntary Employee Withdrawal and

Inattendance A Current Perspective

INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE Robert D. Smithers, Series Editor, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida

VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE WITHDRAWAL AND INATIENDANCE A Current Perpsective Edited by Meni Koslowsky and Moshe Krausz

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher.

Voluntary Elllployee Withdrawal and


Edited by Meni Koslowsky

Bar-Ilan University Ramat Can, Israel

and

Moshe Krausz Bar-Ilan University

Ramat Can, Israel

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

ISBN 978-1-4613-5151-1 ISBN 978-1-4615-0599-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-0599-0

2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York in 2002 Softcover reprinl of Ihe hardcover 1 sI edilion 2002 http://www.wkap.nl/

ro 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A c.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

AII rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specificalIy for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Contributors

Helena Mensah Addae University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad & Tobago

Vishwanath V. Baba Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada

Julian Barling School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada

Gary Blau Human Resource Administration Department, Temple University, Fox School of Business Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122

Yair Amichai Hamburger Department of Psychology, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52900

Kathy A. Hanisch Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

David A. Harrison Department of Management and Organization, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

Muhammad Jamal Department of Management, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1MB, Canada

Gary Johns Department of Management, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada

v

vi Contributors

Rabindra N. Kanungo Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. H3A IG5, Canada

E. Kevin Kelloway Department of Management, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3C3, Canada

Meni Koslowsky Department of Psychology, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52900

Moshe Krausz Department of Psychology, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52900

Manuel Mendonca Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A IG5, Canada

Abraham Sagie School of Business Administration, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52100

Caroline Weber School of Industrial Relations, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada

Preface

When we started editing this volume, the world seemed to be a worker's heaven: the high-tech industry was flourishing then and the "New Economy" seemed to have the leading role in the business world. Moreover, the burgeoning need for new recruits created a labor market where the employees had the upper hand. Job candidates and new recruits often dictated the salary and benefit packages that they wanted whereas employers-start-ups as well as more established companies-had to yield to their demands. R&R, i.e., recruitment and retention, were the major concern of many companies due to the disparity between need for, and supply of, qualified and often even unqualified applicants. In addition to their constant demands throughout the recruitment process, employees were also involved in voluntary turnover, leaving one com-pany for the next one, sometimes foregoing a thorough search of the avail-able alternatives and, frequently, having more than one offer at hand.

This state of affairs has taken a marked downturn starting shortly after the beginning of the new millennium and exacerbated by the terror-ist attacks in New York City and Washington. The world has undergone a deep economic crisis affecting, in particular, high-tech where burgeoning numbers of employees are losing their jobs across the Western world. The power balance has shifted toward organizations that now have wider lati-tude in dictating salary and benefits to job candidates as well as restricting their current employees. As a result, employees are more likely to stick to their current jobs or, at least, to be much more timid and cautious when contemplating mild as well as more severe forms of voluntary withdrawal such as late arrival to work and full-day absences, let alone leaving the job and the organization, topics that form the core of the current volume.

In addition, other questions and doubts are raised about the "New Economy" and the outcomes of globalization. Verbal, as well as physical, attacks on the concept of globalization have just culminated in the mur-derous terrorist attacks in the United States, which the heinous perpetra-tors as well as various more objective observers have attributed to the negative outcomes that globalization has had on poorer parts of the

vii

viii Preface

world. During the current phase of the business cycle, companies can dic-tate the terms of employment; the pressure is on to cut many jobs and severely curtail the choice now available to job searchers.

To borrow a term that has been one of the key concepts explaining employee turnover-perceived ease of mobility (March & Simon, 1958)-labor markets have moved, within one year, from a high and often insa-tiable quest for new workers to large scale downsizing, with some companies near bankruptcy. This situation has created fewer labor market alternatives for those beginning their careers as well as for "old-timers" wishing to make a job change or midlife transition. The reader must be cognizant of the fact that these recent developments will undoubtedly have an effect on the issues dealt with in the current volume. The ques-tion may, therefore, be raised as to whether voluntary withdrawal behav-ior is at all an important issue under these circumstances. Moreover, whereas economic and labor market status reflect situational trends in the demand and supply of employees, affected by cyclical fluctuations, the world has for quite some years been undergoing changes that appear to be more enduring and stable.

A related question raised by Harrison in his chapter concerns the present status of the milder or temporary forms of withdrawal, namely, lateness and absence. Are they still viable and important organizational measures in an era where work communication may be considered as "continuous," i.e., not bound by time or distance? Thus, working at home, on the road, or over the Internet does not require an office and is not lim-ited to the hours between 9 and 5.

While current knowledge does not provide firm answers to such questions, it is our belief that the various forms and modes of withdrawal behavior will continue to prevail, though possibly on a somewhat smaller scale. First, good workers and performers are still a premium and are still in demand (Donovan, 2001) even during these times. Second, for the aver-age worker, even in labor markets that are indeed more risky and uncer-tain for employees, individuals will continue to be absent voluntarily and ponder the possibility of finding a "better job," even if chances of doing so are slim. Such behaviors and attitudes are just natural reactions and are, to a large extent, independent of the economy. For example, the of ten-quoted turnover model by Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino (1979) does include job alternatives as an antecedent but also incorporates within it many individual difference variables and company-related measures. Thus, psychological reasons such as job dissatisfaction or the need to alleviate the stress associated with working on dull and unsatis-fying jobs would be expected to explain a large amount of turnover variance. In addition, people will still arrive late or take days off, perhaps,

Preface ix

less frequently and less conspicuously than before so as not to jeopardize their present employment or to prevent other less-drastic employer-initiated sanctions. Although it may be expected that throughout difficult labor market periods, such as currently prevail, the traditional measures of withdrawal will decline, other forms of withdrawal may very well develop (e.g., high frustration with a job that one cannot easily leave may be conducive to psychological problems, lack of concentration and moti-vation, and, in the extreme, more violence and abuse in the workplace).

As for the communication technologies that allow employees to be "absent" but also at the same time to work individually or collaboratively, it should be noted that the benefits as well as the original forecasts about the future of teleworking or telecommuting appear to have been exagger-ated and the number of employees working from home is far less than predicted. In fact, even companies that have favored such arrangements are more sensitive to some of their shortcomings (Kurland & Bailey, 1999) and seem to be shying away from them, "retreating" to the more tradi-tional form of face-to-face work communication.

In conclusion, we contend that employee withdrawal will continue to be an important research and practical issue despite transitory and long-range environmental changes.

A brief review of the various chapters will illustrate quite clearly the wide gamut of issues represented here. The order of chapters follows, in general, a progression from theoretical presentations at the beginning to more empirical and practical applications toward the end.

In the first chapter, Sagie, Koslowsky, and Hamburger present a mul-tilevel model of lateness. Unlike Blau, there is no distinction between chronic and incidental lateness, nor is length considered. Instead, the authors emphasize the usefulness of analyzing lateness in wider con-texts-individual, organizational, and cultural-and draw the effects on each of those circles. Mensah Addae and Johns (Chapter 2) claim that in cross-cultural absence research both individual- and cultural-level absence legitimacy are distinctive criterion measures since absence is influenced by factors beyond employees' control. The model posits sev-eral variables that influence absence legitimacy perceptions such as work centrality and time perceptions. Also, the meaning of time varies by cul-ture. Additional cultural variables relevant to absence legitimacy are locus of control, gender role differentiation, and social support systems. The authors assert that by examining cross-cultural factors, the role of social influence on absenteeism is clarified and permits generalizations beyond single site studies which are constrained by specific and unique factors.

In Chapter 3, Krausz outlines some newer forms and unexplored antecedents of employee turnover behavior, in particular considering

x Preface

turnover as part of an individual's preplanned career program, regardless of work satisfaction and not contingent on unsolicited job opportunities. It is also suggested that turnover may be an outcome of other employees' behavior or of nonwork changes such as relocation of a spouse. The author argues that more attention should be given to intraorganizational job mobility where employees move to another unit or branch. Such moves are similar to extraorganizational turnover since they may involve meaningful losses to the employee him- or herself, to colleagues, to super-visors, and to entire organizational units or branches.

In Chapter 4, Kanungo and Mendonca discuss three types of with-drawal: avoiding or reducing membership behavior such as tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover, avoiding or reducing performance behaviors such as work restriction and social loafing, and avoiding extra role behav-iors which are not part of the role itself. All of these withdrawal forms hamper innovative behavior and reduce the organization's effectiveness. The authors propose that withdrawal is actually a manifestation of employee powerlessness and weak commitment to the job and the organ-ization. Each of these three types represents a relief from tension-ridden environments. Kanungo and Mendonca outline the performance man-agement process-a strategy to reduce employee withdrawal, enhance mutual trust, and increase commitment.

In Chapter 5, Harrison contends that although lateness and absence differ quantitatively from each other, both of them differ qualitatively from turnover, thus justifying a distinction between two types of with-drawal-temporary and permanent. In addition, the author proposes studying turnover as a multiple- as opposed to a single-occurrence vari-able with individual differences describing a continuum of propensity to turnover. In addition to the organizational definitions, Harrison offers a workflow or psychological definition of both lateness and absence, which do not necessarily agree with the organizational definitions. A co-worker may consider a fellow employee as arriving "late" because of work over-load rather than as a result of a violation of organizational rules. In the same manner, lateness or absence may be considered a 360-degree phe-nomenon as seen by suppliers, customers, and superiors regardless of the organizational definition ("1 don't care what your company thinks, you were too late for my needs and plans").

Blau contributed two chapters (6 and 7) to this volume. The first of these is a reprint of the now-classical paper on employee lateness which David Harrison described (Chapter 5) as the "data set [that] probably contains the most meticulous and time-sensitive data measurement in the literature. Few lateness researchers can hope to have the detailed records he was able to exploit, if they can get archival data at all." Blau developed

Preface xi

and tested a lateness taxonomy consisting of three types-increasing chronic, stable periodic, and unavoidable/random lateness. By breaking late-ness into three categories based on the nature, frequency, and duration of lateness, attitudinal measures such as involvement and commitment were found to be stronger predictors of one category-increasing chronic, especially when compared to the findings from previous studies where lateness was examined as a unitary construct.

In Blau's second chapter, the author contends that although there has been only limited research on lateness since the 1994 paper and despite the new employment options, empirical evidence suggests that lateness continues to be an important "time abuse behavior, albeit for specific sam-ples. The author highlights the importance of multilevel studies on late-ness and of incorporating more than one withdrawal form in the context of a single study. Such approaches may raise organizations' interest in lateness studies, particularly if the definition of lateness is expanded, turning it into a more costly occurrence than under current definitions.

Kelloway, Barling, and Weber report in Chapter 8 the results of a meta-analysis comparing absence rates of smokers and nonsmokers. Overall, the data support the hypothesis that smokers are more frequently absent than nonsmokers. Those differences held across various country groupings. The authors, while acknowledging the mediating role of employee health, which guided their hypothesis, contend that other con-siderations such as the relatively high smoking rates among younger and older employees may also be a factor in explaining absence variance. The authors believe that smoking may account for an even higher proportion of nonworking time by its impact on partial absence such as time taken off for smoking breaks. While partial absence appears to be less harmful than full-day absences, the accumulation of many short-duration absence events can eventually be quite costly to an organization.

In Chapter 9, Baba and Jamal present an empirical study of job involve-ment and absence. The authors contend that although the reasons for absence are multilevel-individual, group, or organizational-nevertheless, the attitudes of individual employees' are still central. Their findings show that job involvement is a direct predictor of two absence measures: time lost, an indicator of involuntary absence, and frequency, a measure of voluntary absence. Their main finding is that psychological and behavioral constraints moderate the association between job involvement and absence. Work (e.g., job scope) and nonwork (family roles) constraints seem to weaken the con-trol that individuals have over their work behavior. Empirical support is given to the conceptual distinction between controllable/voluntary and uncontrollablelinvoluntary absence. A low-constraint environment will reduce absence among job-involved employees.

xii Preface

Finally, in Chapter 10, Hanisch presents an empirical study that focuses on some of the implications of the turnover process duration. Specifically, she deals with the time lag between initial turnover thoughts and actual departure for preturnover behavior. Unlike most turnover studies, the current research deals with various forms of withdrawal, rather than the more common focus on a single form in the context of one study. Attitudes and behaviors prior to quitting differed between individ-uals who left in a rather quick process compared to those for whom the process was much longer. The research suggests that the longer one thinks about quitting before making the break from the organization, the more detrimental are the effects on the organization. The data also allowed the author to test some models of withdrawal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank each of the authors for their contribution to this volume as well as for their patience. We also acknowl-edge helpful financial support from the Research Authority of Bar-Han University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication was provided by Elie Lebowitz.

REFERENCES

Donovan, A. (2001, April 22). StiU hearing ') quit' at work. The New York Times, p.4(L).

Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and disadvantages of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 5,53-68.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. w., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Intermediate

linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

Contents

Chapter 1 ................................................ 1 Antecedents of Employee Lateness: A Multiple-Level Model Abraham Sagie, Meni Koslowsky, and Yair Amichai Hamburger

Chapter 2 .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 National Culture and Perceptions of Absence Legitimacy Helena Mensah Addae and Gary Johns

Chapter 3 .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The Many Faces of Voluntary Employee Turnover: A Multifacet and Multilevel Perspective Moshe Krausz

Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Employee Withdrawal Behavior: Role of the Performance Management Process Rabindra N. Kanungo and Manuel Mendonca

Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Meaning and Measurement of Work Role Withdrawal: Current Controversies and Future Fallout from Changing Information Technology David A. Harrison

Chapter 6 ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Developing and Testing a Taxonomy of Lateness Behavior Gary Blau

Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 New Conceptualizations of Lateness since Blau, 1994 Gary Blau

xiii

xiv Contents

Chapter 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Smoking and Absence from Work: A Quantitative Review E. Kevin Kelloway, Julian Barling, and Caroline Weber

Chapter 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Job Involvement and Absence: The Role of Constraints as Moderators Vishwanath V. Baba and Muhammad Jamal

Chapter 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 The Timing of Thinking about Quitting: The Effect on Job Attitudes and Behaviors Kathy A. Hanisch

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Voluntary Employee Withdrawal and


1 Antecedents of Employee Lateness

A Multiple-Level Model

Abraham Sagie, Meni Koslowsky, and Yair Amichai Hamburger

Lateness behavior can be described as arriving at work after the scheduled time (Shafritz, 1980). Typically, lateness is addressed in the literature as a withdrawal behavior, a category that includes absence and turnover as well (Herzberg, Maunser, Peterson, & Capwell, 1957; Mobley, 1987). Compared to the latter behaviors, lateness is a milder form of withdrawal; not every case of late arrival can be considered a violation of company rules. Another distinctive characteristic of lateness is that typically it is a volitional behav-ior, or, at least, within the employee's control. Whereas worker dismissal is an involuntary type of turnover, and certified sickness or funeral attendance can be classified as involuntary absence (March & Simon, 1958; Sagie, 1998), most of the lateness occurrences can be avoided. Indeed, although some causes of lateness (e.g., health problems and difficulties in transportation; Koslowsky, Kluger, & Reich, 1995) are not made intentionally, nevertheless, as Blau (1994) has indicated, proper time management may reduce tardiness even when the immediate cause is not within the employee's direct control.

For the organization, lateness has many financial and nonfinancial costs; it may negatively affect the performance of the late employees as well as the entire unit's productivity (Blau, 1994; Sagie, Birati, & Tziner, 2002;

ABRAHAM SAGlE School of Business Administration, Bar-Han University, Ramat-Gan, Israel 52100 MENI KOSLOWSKY AND YAIR AMICHAI HAMBURGER Department of Psychology, Bar-Han University, Ramat Gan, Israel 52900

1

2 Abraham Sagie et al.

Steers & Rhodes, 1978). In addition, late employees are likely to reflect low motivation, dissatisfaction at work, and low commitment to the organiza-tion (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990), which may diffuse among their co-workers (Jamal, 1984). From the late employee's point of view, lateness behavior may indicate an initial withdrawal from work that may deteriorate toward more severe forms of withdrawal such as absenteeism and turnover (Herzberg et al., 1957; Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Dolman-Singer, 1997). Additionally, management responses to late arrivals may include the recording of the late occurrences in the individual's file, disciplinary reviews, and outright punishment. In view of such responses, lateness could indeed be considered a costly behavior for the involved employee(s).

Being a volitional, generally unexcused, dysfunctional behavior for both the self and the organization, one may ask why the employee does not avoid tardiness behavior, and why frequently he or she consciously chooses to come late to work. As these questions relate to the individual level of analysis, the answers provided in the literature generally adhere to this level. Most of the explanations concentrate on the individual's per-sonality (Blau, 1994; Knatz, Inwald, Brockwell, & Tran, 1992) or on his or her work relationships, experiences, and expectations (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Koslowsky et al., 1997; Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Detailed explana-tions focusing on the individual are addressed below. The overall aim of the present chapter is to suggest that individual-level variables are part of a multiple-level model that also identifies and describes various antecedents at the group (e.g., work-team), organizational, and extraorga-nizational (e.g., national culture) levels. The primary notion is that the process of lateness behavior and its antecedents would better be under-stood if one considers all of these levels of analysis.

Figure 1 shows the proposed multiple-level model; causal linkages within the same level of analysis are depicted by horizontal arrows con-necting antecedents to outcomes (i.e., lateness behavior). Vertical arrows represent causal linkages leading from a higher level (e.g., organizational) to a lower one (e.g., group). Table 1 presents the antecedents at each level. The discussion will be presented first for each level separately and then for the links across levels. In addition to describing the model and its mul-tiple levels, we will provide here the results of a survey of the causes of lateness that were gathered from a sample of managers. The fit between the empirical data and the underlying model will be assessed.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

In the literature, there are five main categories of factors used to explain the individual-level lateness behavior: personality traits, organizational

Employee Lateness 3

Extraorganizational ....

Ex traorganizational-Factors Level

Lateness Behavior

,It

Organizational Organizational-Level Factors Lateness Behavior

,It

Group -"

Group-Level Factors Lateness Behavior

,It

Individual Indi vidual-Level Factors Lateness Behavior

Figure 1. A multiple-level model of lateness behavior. Note: Causal linkages within the same level of analysis are depicted by horizontal arrows connecting antecedents to outcomes. Vertical arrows represent causal linkages leading from a higher level to a lower one.

attributes, work-related situational factors, nonwork situational factors, and commuting, a combined work and nonwork factor (see the first col-umn of Table 1).

Several researchers (Blau, 1994; Richard & Slane, 1990) considered lateness or tardiness to be a personality disposition, the opposite of punc-tuality or promptness. Blau (1994) argued that punctuality is an underly-ing personality construct affecting behavior in both work and nonwork situations. Whereas some workers are always punctual and arrive at work on time or, sometimes, even before the scheduled time, certain others


Table 1. Multiple-Level Antecedents of Employee Lateness

Individual level

Personality dispositions Role, status, power Work-related situational

factors (e.g., voluntary absence)

Nonwork situational factors (e.g., work-family conflict)

Commuting

Variables at the

Group or organizational level

Rules and norms Reward system Leader's self-example Work arrangements (e.g.,

flextime) Organizational change

(e.g., downsizing) or crisis

Extraorganizational level

Industry type, ownership National culture Cross-cultural dimensions:

sequential! synchronic, individualism/ collectivism, and power distance

Labor market conditions Political situation

exhibit either stable levels or, for various reasons, increasing chronic late-ness behavior. The latecomers may "cut things too close," i.e., feel that they have all the time in the world to get to work, and will be quite sur-prised when the train already left at the station or the traffic jam turns out to be worse than expected. Blau's analysis clarifies that the delay time is not the only component that should be taken into account when one cal-culates the impact of mismatched personalities on attendance behavior. Consider a meeting of prompt and tardy participants. Whereas the former may enter the meeting room a short time (e.g., 15 minutes) before the scheduled time, the latter will be there some time (e.g., half an hour) after the appointed time. Hence, the punctual person would wind up waiting during the period between both arrivals (in our example, 45 minutes).

A personality dimension that is especially relevant to attendance behavior is the Type A behavioral pattern. Baker, Dearborn, and Hamberger (1984) found that Type A individuals arrive earlier for appointments than their counterparts, Type B individuals. Also, Burman, Pennebaker, and Glass (1975) have reported that Type A persons judged the lapse of 1 minute sooner than did Type B persons. In a study by Levine and Bartlett (1984), the authors found a moderate, though signifi-cant, relationship between Type A behavior and self-reported measures of punctuality. One specific component of Type A pattern, time urgency, holds considerable promise as a potential predictor of lateness behavior. Time urgency can be defined as working at an "accelerated pace" (Burman et al., 1975; Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991). It is the tendency to consider time as a scarce resource and to plan its use very carefully. An individual with a high level of time urgency always feels that he or she does not have enough time. Indeed, Bercovits (1996) found that time urgency significantly discriminates between never-late and late

Employee Lateness 5

workers. Workers who showed higher levels of time urgency had fewer lateness occurrences at work.

An entirely different approach to promptness and lateness in the workplace considers these behaviors as a result of one's differential social or organizational resources (e.g., role, status, prestige, and power) rather than as an outcome of personality. From an organizational point of view, the employee's working time is not considered to be under his or her exclusive control, but is considered an organizational resource. Further, the cost of employee time is not constant across hierarchy levels. Senior workers' time is believed to be more expensive than that of junior work-ers. Hence, it is typically accepted that higher-ranked members (e.g., superiors) are allowed to control the time of lower-ranked workers. Consequently, in many organizations, different informal rules define the entitlements and obligations of superiors and their subordinates with regard to punctuality and lateness behaviors, in general, and, more specif-ically, when both parties meet with each other. The inequality among the various rules reflects the diversity of roles, power, and status in the work-place. In Table 2, we propose an informal protocol of conduct for two roles: boss (or superior) and subordinate.

Table 2. An Informal Protocol of Attendance Behaviors for Superiors and Subordinates in the Organization

Subordinate

The subordinate's time is money; hence, his/her attendance at work is controlled by strict regulations.

When they have an appointment, the subordinate is expected to precede the superior at the meeting room. He/she should not come late to the meeting. If he/she does, a detailed excuse is required.

Normally, the meeting takes place in the superior's room. If, however, the subordinate is the host, he/she must stop performing current activities (e.g., interview, phone call, document writing) before the meeting's onset.

The subordinate's right to initiate unscheduled appointments is limited.

In the case of a pending appointment, the subordinate has to wait until he/she is called in.

Superior

The superior's time costs more money; nevertheless, his/her attendance at work is controlled by loose regulations.

When they have an appointment, the superior is allowed to arrive after the subordinate at the meeting room. In fact, he/she is expected to come late; in such a case, no or only a general excuse is required.

If the meeting takes place in the superior's room, the subordinate has to wait (in or outside the room) until the superior completes current activities (e.g., interview, phone call, document writing).

The superior's right to initiate unscheduled appointments is generally honored.

The superior is typically allowed to initiate a pending appointment that will be opened on his/her request.


Based on Table 2, one may see that different attendance rules control the superior and subordinate during their meeting. The rules related to the superior are more generous and those related to the subordinate are stricter. The subordinate is expected to precede the superior at the meet-ing room. He or she should not come late to the meeting; if he or she does, a detailed excuse is required. On the other hand, the tardy superior does not need to provide a detailed explanation; often a few general words are adequate. If the meeting takes place in the superior's room (as normally happens), the subordinate has to wait in or out of the room until the supe-rior finishes doing the current activities, such as interview, phone call, or document writing. Conversely, if the meeting takes place in the subordi-nate's room, he or she must stop doing the current activities before the meeting's onset.

Indeed, these differential rules are not universal. As described in detail below, the organizational culture and the norms of the surrounding society may affect the discrepancy in attendance rules between the superior and subordinate. Additionally, the quality of the superior-subordinate relationship and, particularly, their mutual trust (Bauer & Green, 1996; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) are inversely related to the diver-gence between both sets of rules. Similarly, the higher the subordinate's commitment to the organizational goals, the higher his or her perform-ance, and the more opportunities for delegation, empowerment, and participative decision making offered by the superior to the subordinate (Sagie & Koslowsky, 2000), the smaller is the discrepancy in their respec-tive attendance rules. The rationale is that achieving better relations between both parties or some resemblance in their authorities (e.g., both are involved in making work decisions) is incongruent with a large gap in the protocols applying to their attendance and lateness. It appears, there-fore, that various measures at the dyadic, organizational, or extraorgani-zational levels may interact with role, status, and power, and then influence employees' lateness behavior. In the following sections, this issue is described in further detail.

According to a personality-based framework, as well as an organiza-tional resource one, it is difficult to attribute either an aim or an external cause to one's lateness behavior. Alternatively, however, Blau himself (Blau, 1985, 1986, and the reprinted chapter in this book) explained that lateness might be a result of work-related situational variables. Rather than internal (personality) causes, the focus here is on the causes or aims of one's behavior, primarily concerned with his or her relationship with the job or the company. Because of opportunities (e.g., important meeting, proximity of raise discussions) the worker may come earlier to work; con-versely, because of difficulties in the work setting (e.g., poor interpersonal

Employee Lateness 7

relations, unfair supervision, low salary, boredom, chronic stress, burnout; Jamal, 1984; Koslowsky et al., 1995), the worker may come late. In an attempt to integrate the diverse lines of thought, we propose the following scheme. Whereas personality and differential organizational resources account for interpersonal differences in lateness behavior, the sit-uational factors primarily account for intrapersonal variations in lateness behavior. Thus, a tardy worker typically arrives later than his or her punc-tual colleague; however, even for the tardy employee, lateness behavior is not uniform. Frequently, this person may come on time to the workplace, especially if he or she expects disciplinary sanctions from the supervisor, if a significant meeting has been scheduled, or a very important client is expected to arrive.

Out of the different situational antecedents, the literature emphasizes situational variables linking lateness with withdrawal from the work. Although there are conflicting views (see Hill & Trist, 1955, and Nicholson & Goodge, 1976, for an alternative, compensatory approach), the bulk of the lateness research indicates that lateness is typically a sig-nal of withdrawal and that the late employee inclines to exhibit other types of withdrawal behaviors including volitional absenteeism and/or turnover (Koslowsky et al., 1997; Sagie et al., 2002). Also, he or she is likely to reflect psychological withdrawal, including dissatisfaction at work and low organizational commitment (Beehr & Gupta, 1978; Sagie, 1998). Based on a meta-analysis, Koslowsky et al. (1997) found that lateness correlates positively with several other withdrawal behaviors (e.g., voluntary absence and turnover intentions) and negatively with perform-ance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Several situational variables that are rooted, at least partially, in the employee's nonwork life (e.g., home, health) may influence lateness and other withdrawal behaviors. Family-work conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) may be particularly relevant for lateness. Demands stemming from the individual's role as an employee (e.g., arriving at work on time) may conflict with demands in the family domain (e.g., taking care of young children in the morning). When individuals are involved in juggling work and family demands, it could be expected that from time to time they would not manage to arrive for work on time (Blau, 1994). Bercovits (1996), for example, found that employees with younger children arrived later for work. The author argued that during the morning hours the demands of a very young child are greatest and a parent must decide between providing for the child and leaving for work at a reasonable time. Hence, the interplay between time resources allocated to work and nonwork activities may account for one's attendance behavior at work.

8 Abraham Sagie et at.

While discussing the antecedents of absence, Johns (1997) reviewed several individual-level nonwork variables that could be relevant as well to lateness. These include medical reasons (e.g., absence and lateness rates would rise in cases of sickness), lifestyle variables (e.g., lateness increases with smoking or drinking), misconduct or deviant behavior (e.g., unex-cused time lost would positively correlate with other deviant behaviors and negatively with altruism and organizational citizenship), and eco-nomic considerations relating either to the employee (e.g., withdrawal increases if one's nonlabor income rises) or to his or her family (e.g., the secondary income earner in a family could "afford" to be late more often; Blau, 1985, 1995).

Finally, one of the most important individual-level factors associated with one's work as well as nonwork life is commuting. Koslowsky et al. (1995) have posited that commuting related stressors such as traffic jams, difficulty in parking, or car breakdown may affect work behaviors includ-ing performance, absenteeism, and lateness. However, research on the commuting-lateness relationship is not conclusive. Leigh and Lust (1988) found that lateness increased as the commuting distance became greater. In contrast, Nicholson and Goodge (1976) found that lateness correlated negatively with commuting distance. This could be explained by the fact that one allocates spare time for long but not for short commutes. Consequently, waste of time due to traffic jams and irregular public transportation could not be compensated for in the case of short commutes.

Drawing on these arguments, we framed the following propositions: Proposition 1: Personality traits, differential organizational resources, and three types of situational factors-work-related, non work, and commuting-account for the variance in individual-level lateness. Proposition 2: Personality traits and the organizational differential resources primarily account for interpersonal differences in lateness behavior; the three types of situational factors primarily account for intrapersonal variations in lateness behavior.

GROUP AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS

As displayed in Fig. 1, the immediate level beyond that of the individual is the group level (e.g., team, organizational unit, subordinates of a com-mon leader). In accordance with Klein, Dansereau, and Hall (1994), we must make two underlying assumptions before applying the term "group-level lateness behavior." First, although interpersonal differences in every behavior are inevitable, lateness is supposed to be relatively homogeneous within the group. This means that group members are

Employee Lateness 9

more similar than dissimilar with regard to their lateness behaviors. Second, for different groups coexisting within a common organization, lateness differs from one group to another. The two assumptions indicate that the group, and not a lower (Le., the individual) or higher unit (e.g., the organization), is the appropriate level of analysis. If the second assumption does not hold and quite similar patterns of lateness behavior characterize most of the organization members, then the group level is not appropriate here. If, in addition, lateness differs from one organization to another, then the organization is the correct level of analysis.

How is it that group (or organization) members exhibit similar atten-dance behaviors? As shown in the second column of Table I, common fac-tors, at the group or organization level, may affect the behaviors of all (or most) members and shape their patterns of work attendance. For instance, formal company rules indicate what is a tolerable or justifiable level of lateness and what is intolerable and unjustifiable. Similarly, reward sys-tems and discipline may account for the uniformity of employee atten-dance behavior (Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky, 1996). As demonstrated by Caplice and Mahmassani (1992), workers may arrive earlier to the work-place in an environment with low management tolerance to lateness. In the case of cohesive groups, informal attendance norms are not less important than formal rules (Kanekar & Vaz, 1993; Spink & Carron, 1992). Indeed, highly interdependent tasks and strong group cohesiveness should lead to low-lateness-tolerance norms among co-workers (Blau, 1995).

The variables-rules, norms, rewards, and sanctions-should be con-sidered in combination. Kerr (1995) demonstrated that norms are deter-mined not by what management says but what it actually does, through the company's reward system. It follows that when the firm preaches the significance of prompt arrival at work but, in practice, does not measure arrival time, the operative significance of this norm may be very low. If, as another example, the manager demonstrates the importance of arrival on time through a personal example, this would be considered a highly significant norm.

Organizational work schedules and arrangements also impact employee punctuality. As implied by its name, flexible work time sets more liberal boundaries on what is considered on-time arrival. Observing workers who come to work at an hour that was once considered as late may arouse an impression of increased lateness. Actually, however, fewer occurrences of real lateness can be expected. Hence, one is able to arrive at work at an acceptable time despite the influence of various individual-level factors including commuting problems, family obligations, or even getting up late. Further, in addition to the practical help in the confron-tation with these constraints, the change from fixed into flexible work time


generally provides greater motivation for effective functioning at work and for better adherence to the attendance rules. Several other work arrange-ments, such as part-time employment (Krausz, Sagie, & Bidermann, 2(00) and working at home or in a geographically distributed workplace (Le., switching locations in the course of the work day), may seem to an outside observer that people are missing, but in actuality they reduce the difficul-ties associated with lateness. Conversely, shift work (Barton, 1994) and rigid service time (e.g., at shop or bank) make these difficulties more acute, but help in reducing their magnitude.

All of these variables are relatively constant characteristics of the rel-evant group or organization and have a relatively uniform influence on the attendance behaviors of the involved members. The effects of some other variables on lateness vary, however, as a result of different group or organizational events and occurrences (e.g., change or crisis). For exam-ple, when there is a change in the company (e.g., restructuring; downsiz-ing) and reduction in manpower is considered, punctuality tends to improve. In this case, the violation of the company rules may be too expensive. Conversely, in times of stability, more employees allow them-selves to arrive at work after the scheduled time. As in the case of indi-vidual-level lateness, we propose that while the group (or organizational) constant characteristics account for intergroup differences in lateness behavior, the situational factors primarily account for intragroup varia-tions in lateness behavior.

We conclude this section by framing two group (or organizational)-level propositions:

Proposition 3: Group or organizational factors, like rules, norms, reward system, leader's self-examples, work arrangements, and organizational change, cumulatively account for the variance in group- or organizational-level lateness. Proposition 4: Group or organizational constant characteristics (e.g., rules, norms, reward system, leader's self-example, work arrangements) primarily account for intergroup dif-ferences in lateness behavior; the situational factors (e.g., organizational change) primarily account for intragroup variations over time in lateness behavior.

EXTRAORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Organizations do not exist within a vacuum; the impact of the environ-ment within which the company operates on the staff attendance behav-ior is often crucial and can be more significant than the influence of the specific company for which the employee works. The rightmost column in Table 1 presents several extraorganizational antecedents of punctuality and tardiness. Starting with industry type, it appears that as compared to

Employee Lateness 11

high-tech industrial firms, tardiness is less tolerated in the low-tech industry. The reason may be that as the low-tech worker is expected to operate a machine throughout the entire day without any slack time, his or her lateness is more visible. Conversely, the high-tech employee's late-ness is less felt, as a significant portion of his or her workday is devoted to outside activities such as meetings, coordination, planning, and train-ing. In such an environment, performance is measured mostly by number of projects completed regardless of time spent (or not spent) on each proj-ect. Also, the extended workday for many high-tech employees actually enables them to return missing time. Thus, to the degree that one remains longer time after the workday officially ends, his or her late arrival is not considered to be a serious discipline problem (Ralston, 1989).

Low- and high-tech companies differ also with regard to the vari-ability of attendance rules across organizational levels (see Table 2). In the case of low-tech companies, the gap between the rules applying to senior and junior workers is much larger than the respective gap in high-tech companies. Indeed, in the former, attendance rules for the rank and file are much stricter and more demanding than the rules that are relevant to supervisors and managers. Conversely, in the case of high-tech compa-nies, rules for both junior and senior employees are quite similar and allow each to start the workday late, but to devote as much time as needed for task completion. Ownership of the organization makes a dif-ference as well. Generally, the public sector resembles the low-tech pri-vately owned companies; in both cases, overtime is usually limited, and the difference between attendance codes of senior and junior clerks is pretty high. Nevertheless, management policy in companies and institu-tions within the public sector is very often more liberal than that of the privately owned low-tech companies.

National culture is also an important determinant of work time and lateness behavior (Manrai & Manrai, 1995). Adler (1993) showed that the value of punctuality is more important for workers in Japanese than American companies. This does not mean, however, that workers in the United Sates are typically latecomers; in comparison with some other countries they appear to be quite punctual. For example, in their detailed study of cultural differences and lateness perceptions, Levine, West, and Reis (1980) found that punctuality in the United Sates is a more salient issue than it is in Brazil. Compared with the Americans, the longer inter-vals of time must pass before the Brazilians consider someone late. In addition, Brazilian are more likely to attribute lateness to external causes that are beyond their own control. Other countries can also be classified according to their normative extent of punctuality and time urgency. A case described by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998:133) may

12 Abraham Sagie et at.

illustrate this point. A meeting of managers working for a multinational company was scheduled for precisely 2:00 PM. At 1:50 PM most partici-pants were present in the meeting room. The meeting, however, could not open on time, as the Italian and Spanish representatives remained in a nearby hall until 2:20 PM, making telephone calls.

What accounts for the differences in punctuality among nations? Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) distinguished between two basic types of societies: sequential and synchronic. According to the sequential point of view, events are organized in an ordered sequence or a straight line; any change in the sequence appears as a disturbance or a source of uncertainty. "In the Netherlands you could be the Queen, but if you are in the butcher's shop with number 46 and you step up for service when number 12 is called, you are still in deep trouble. Nor does it mat-ter if you have an emergency; order is order" (p. 126). The synchronic method, in contrast, allows people to track multiple tasks in parallel. Returning to the former anecdote, it appears that the Italian and Spanish executives, representatives of synchronic societies, saw no problem with simultaneous events: their telephone calls and the group meeting.

Additionally, two of Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions, individ-ualism/ collectivism and power distance, could be relevant as well to human diversity in lateness. The individualism/collectivism dimension describes the way in which the individual defines him- or herself as either an independent agent or a part of the collective. It may be proposed that lateness would be less forgivable in individualistic than collectivistic cul-tures. The rationale for this is that in the former culture, one's time is con-sidered as one's private resource, and others are not allowed to waste it (e.g., by coming late to a meeting or the workplace). "Time is money" is a slogan particular to certain individualistic environments. Conversely, for collectivists, one's time could be perceived as a communal resource, so that others may feel they are allowed to use it freely.

Power distance is the extent to which the society and its institutions accept power hierarchy and inequality as legitimate. The larger the dis-tance, the higher is the probability that time at different hierarchical lev-els would not be considered as equal and diverse rules would be applied to using the superiors' and subordinates' time. The protocol in Table 2 would be more justifiable in societies with a higher rather than lower power distance.

Finally, the frequency of lateness occurrences is contingent on various situational aspects of the extraorganizational environment. For example, Leigh (1985) found that absenteeism decreases when unemployment rises. Leigh suggested two explanations for this phenomenon. First, employees tend to exhibit good attendance when layoffs are imminent


and prospects of alternative employment are low. Second, some employ-ers use hard times to divest themselves of problematic employees. Both explanations are equally relevant to lateness; hence, it could be proposed that higher unemployment would be associated with a decrease in late-ness. Another situational variable operating in the extraorganizational environment is the political climate; it could be predicted that in times of higher political stability lateness will decrease. Conversely, in times of higher political tension or conflict, there will be more interference with the employees' orderly attendance behaviors. Similar to our previous analyses, we suggest that constant extraorganizational characteristics account for differences between units (e.g., national cultures) in lateness behavior and situational factors primarily account for within-unit varia-tions over time in lateness behavior.

In summary, the following extra organizational-level propositions are suggested:

Proposition 5: Extraorganizational factors, like industry type, ownership type, national culture, cross-cultural dimensions, labor market conditions, and the political situation, cumulatively account for the variance in lateness at the extra-organizational unit. Proposition 6: Extraorganizational characteristics that are constant (e.g., indus-try type, ownership type, national culture, and cross-cultural dimensions) pri-marily account for interunit differences in lateness behavior; the situational factors (e.g., labor market conditions and the political situation) primarily account for intraunit variations over time in lateness behavior.

AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY

The current analysis indicates that employee lateness is often an outcome of diverse antecedents operating in multiple levels of analysis. A compre-hensive explanation of lateness requires, therefore, the consideration of all relevant levels. An implication of this is that when the manager considers the phenomenon in the company, he or she should remember that although lateness is typically a volitional behavior, it is affected by a wide range of variables, both within and out of the employee'S direct control.

Are managers aware of the different levels of analysis and the various antecedents that could be expected to occur in each level? Discussions with several CEOs and human resource executives clarified that they typ-ically agree with the current trend in the literature and limit their attention to only one or, at most, two levels of analysis. More specifically, asking the managers about causes of lateness yielded most often personality


Table 3. A Multiple-Level Questionnaire of the Causes Attributed by Managers to Employee Lateness

Item

1. Think of two employees in a team. What are the causes of their late arrivals to work? List all relevant causes.

2. Think of employees in two different teams. What are the causes of their late arrivals to work? List all relevant causes.

3. Think of employees in two different companies or even different sectors. What are the causes of their late arrivals to work? List all relevant causes.

4. Think of employees in two different countries. What are the causes of their late arrivals to work? List all relevant causes.

Cause of lateness

Personality dimensions Situational variables Nonwork life Commuting Group norms Leadership Rewards and sanctions Flextime Reward systems Organizational norms Organizational leadership Discipline Cultural differences Industry type Public transport Political tension

Frequency

20 17 8 7

13 7 7 3

10 7 2 2

22 7 6 5

dimensions (e.g., punctuality) or situational variables (e.g., commuting) at the individual level. Therefore, we designed a questionnaire that explic-itly addresses all of the aforementioned levels, and administered it to 40 managers from several private and public organizations in Israel. All of the respondents were participants in a management course for executives: 32 men and 8 women ranging in age from 23 to 50. The number of employees in an organization ranged from 5 to 100. The four question-naire items are given in Table 3. Each item required the respondent to con-centrate on a specific level of analysis and to draw from his or her work experience relevant causes of lateness. The results of the survey are pre-sented in the Table 3.

The findings clarify that for our managerial sample, the employees' personalities were the most common individual-level category of causes attributed to their late arrivals at work; 20 out of the 52 responses to ques-tion #1 dealt with this category (the respondents were allowed to list more than a single cause). In line with Blau (1994), the current managers felt that one's punctuality or unpunctuality is the most important antecedent of one's late occurrences at work. Other factors at the individual level con-tributing to late behavior were situational work variables (e.g., ending late the work of the previous day, interpersonal relations, stressor factors),


nonwork causes (e.g., home obligations, taking care of children), and dif-ficulties in commuting.

Ouring the preparatory interviews with managers (they were not included in the present sample), the interviewees rarely mentioned vari-ables at the group and organizational levels as antecedents of lateness. The questionnaire included, therefore, a direct question requiring the respon-dents to focus on the interteam factors. At these levels, the most important causes of lateness were group norms, leadership, rewards and sanctions, and flexible time. At the interorganizational level the respondents raised such causes as reward systems, company norms, leadership, and disci-pline. Finally, when the respondents focused on national origin, cultural differences were the most frequent explanation of tardiness (22 out of 40). Other responses to this question were concerned with typical industry characteristics (especially the existence of flextime arrangements), public transport system, and political tension. It appears that our respondents believed that an inadequate public transportation system increases the fre-quency of lateness occurrences. Also, they assumed that the higher the political tension in a given society the more numerous are the interferences with one's orderly attendance behavior. In summary, although not designed to test the aforementioned propositions, these results supported the notion that individual, group, organizational, and extraorganizational factors may explain the phenomenon of employee lateness.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to this point the chapter has discussed parallel tracks of influence starting from antecedents of lateness behavior at different levels linked independently to appropriate outcomes. Klein et a1. (1994) used the term "mixed determinants multiple-level effect" to describe a situation where several independent variables at various levels of analysis influence a dependent variable at a lower level. Indeed, one's attendance or lateness behavior may be a product of antecedents at all of the above-mentioned levels. Thus, the employee's nationality is significant, contributing to the prediction of his or her extent of lateness; Latin Americans, for instance, will come late more often than will Germans. Further, the organizational setting is important for enhancing the accuracy of lateness prediction. Hence, even for a Latin American environment, working in a multina-tional company (especially, German owned) rather than in local ones ensures a stronger adherence to the company's attendance rules. Beyond this, knowing one's personality and current work and nonwork situa-tional characteristics may help in predicting lateness.


The fact that multiple determinants at different levels of analysis may affect employee tardiness raises an interesting question: can we identify here a "pecking order" of importance, so that the highest level (e.g., national) is most important, followed by the next level (organizational), and so on, until the lowest level (individual) which would be considered as the least important?} The rationale for this scheme is that features of the environment such as education, tradition, literature, folklore, and media shape the punctuality habits of individuals so that two different persons from the same cultural environment (again, two Germans or two Latin Americans) are more similar than dissimilar to one another. In a like manner, units within each additional level use their mechanisms of social-ization and control (e.g., values, formal rules, leadership) in order to affect attendance or lateness behavior. Each successive unit inserts more con-formity in behavior; hence, two persons from the same national back-ground who are working for the same company are more similar to each other than either of them is to a person from a different company.

Alternatively, one may offer other hierarchies; for example, regardless of the specific level of analysis, inherited factors (e.g., cultural tradition or personality) are more significant than acquired factors (e.g., formal atten-dance rules). Multiple-level studies are required to examine the relative weights of units in the diverse levels. Few such studies have been reported. In the only known study that involved group- and individual-level deter-minants of employee lateness, Blau (1995) found that the contributions of individual-level determinants (previous lateness patterns and personal atti-tudes) exceeded those of the work group norms. Individual-level factors accounted for 34 and 33% of the variance, for samples of bank tellers and hospital workers, respectively, whereas group norms accounted for only 4 and 3%. Nevertheless, using hierarchical regression analysis, Blau entered the individual factors first, followed by the group factor. Thus, the order of variables entry into the regression analysis can explain Blau's results. This issue, therefore, still awaits a systematic and strictly controlled investigation.

A situation involving two or more clashing antecedents of lateness, from the same or different levels of analysis, is instructive in understand-ing the lateness phenomenon in the current globalized society. In the above example of the German parent company and its overseas subsidiaries, applying the German rules would be easier and more successful in a sim-ilar cultural environment (e.g., The Netherlands) than a dissimilar one (e.g., Latin America). In the second case, the clash between the German and local time orientations would be higher. Consequently, though late-ness occurrences are expected to be less common in the Latin American

1 This idea was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.


subsidiary than in neighboring local organizations, they would be more acceptable in this subsidiary than in a Dutch company. The situation in our sample subsidiary can be more complicated due to the possible influence of other variables at additional levels of analysis, such as strict or loose organizational rules, rigid or permissive leader, and an employee's punc-tuality or tardiness. Nowadays, as we face a significant increase in the amount of international transactions and cross-cultural interactions, an accurate assessment of the degree of compatibility among diverse antecedents of lateness is vital for senior managers in multinational firms.

From an organizational perspective, controlling lateness behavior should be a goal worth striving for. A model that allows the researcher or the practitioner to predict, explain, or intervene at the appropriate point would indeed be a welcome addition to the organizational behavior field. The current model may help in this direction; however, additional propo-sitions, especially those that deal with clashing determinants of lateness at diverse levels of analysis, need to be developed, and empirical work to test these propositions is essential. Furthermore, proceeding beyond the lateness model, it may be quite informative to determine which of the antecedents discussed above are common to the other withdrawal behav-iors, such as absence. As the organizational rules are more permissive with lateness (it can often be made up on the same day; hence, a late arrival may not be noted in personnel records) than absence (which is generally recorded in an individual's file), we expect that the variance in lateness behaviors would be higher. Nonetheless, it is interesting whether all of the aforementioned multiple-level determinants are similarly rele-vant to other withdrawal behaviors such as absence.

Finally, an interesting theoretical question concerns the adaptation of the current model that is based on contemporary data to future compa-nies with flexible organization-home boundaries. Consider, for example, the idea of virtual teams that their physical meeting at a specific geo-graphical location is the exception rather than the rule; most of a team's task activities can be remote controlled. In such a team, working time is flexible as well. In view of such developments, the traditional terms of the withdrawal literature, including late arrival at the workplace, would seem obsolete. Nevertheless, the basic human motives, attitudes, and behaviors, including the withdrawal phenomenon, would still be rele-vant. Therefore, we should deal in the future with less clear-cut dysfunc-tional conduct like withholding efforts at work or social loafing (Sagie et aI., 2002). Despite the difficulties in assessment, Sagie et al. showed that the latter withdrawal forms are equally costly to both the employee and the employer. Furthermore, like lateness, these behaviors could not be understood fully unless one considers all relevant levels of analysis,


including variables at the individual, group, organizational, and extra or-ganizationallevels.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S. (1993). The "learning bureaucracy": New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 111-194). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Baker, L. J., Dearborn, M., & Hamberger, K. (1984). Type A behavior in women: A review. Health Psychology,S, 477-497.

Barton, J. (1994). Choosing to work at night: A moderating influence on individ-ual tolerance to shift work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 449-454.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.

Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 73-79.

Bercovits, M. D. (1996). Time urgency: A personality attribute for predicting lateness. Unpublished master's thesis, Bar-Han University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Blau, G. (1985). Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic predictors to various types of withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 442-450.

Blau, G. (1986). Job involvement and organizational commitment as interactive predictors of tardiness and absenteeism. Journal of Management, 12, 577-584.

Blau, G. (1994). Developing and testing a taxonomy of lateness behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 959-970.

Blau, G. (1995). Influence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1483-1496.

Burman, M. A., Pennebaker, J. W., & Glass, D. C. (1975). Time consciousness, achievement striving and the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 76-79.

Caplice, c., & Mahmassani, H. S. (1992). Aspects of commuting behavior: Preferred arrival time, use of information, and switching propensity. Transportation Research, 26, 409-418.

Dienesch, R M., & Liden, R C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of lead-ership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11,618-634.

Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational with-drawal: An evaluation of causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39,110-128.

Herzberg, E, Maunser, B., Peterson, R, & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services.


Hill, J. M., & Trist, E. L. (1955). Changes in accidents and other absences with length of service: A further study of their incidence and relation to each other in an iron and steel works. Human Relations, 8, 121-152.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assess-ment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 1-21.

Johns, G. (1997). Contemporary research on absence from work: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In C. I. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Inter-national review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 113-173). New York: Wiley.

Kanekar, S., & Vaz, L. (1993). Effects of gender and status upon punctuality norms. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 377-384.

Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9 (1), 7-16.

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, E, & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.

Knatz, H. E, Inwald, R. E., Brockwell, A L., & Tran, L. N. (1992). IPI and MMPI predictions of counterproductive job behaviors by racial groups. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 189-200.

Koslowsky, M., Kluger, AN., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting stress: Causes, effects, and methods of coping. New York: Plenum Press.

Koslowsky, M., Sagie, A, Krausz, M., & Dolman-Singer, A (1997). Correlates of employee lateness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79-88.

Krausz, M., Sagie, A., & Bidermann, Y. (2000). Actual and preferred work sched-ules and scheduling control as determinants of job-related attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56,1-11.

Landy, E J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time urgency: The con-struct and its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 644-657.

Leigh, J. P. (1985). The effects of unemployment and the business cycle on absen-teeism. Journal of Economics and Business, 37,159-170.

Leigh, J. P., & Lust, J. (1988). Determinants of employee tardiness. Work and Occupations, 15, 78-95.

Levine, R. V., & Bartlett, K. (1984). Pace of life, punctuality, and coronary heart dis-ease in six countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 233-255.

Levine, R. V., West, L. J., & Reis, H. T. (1980). Perceptions of time and punctuality in the United Sates and Brazil. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 541-555.

Manrai, L. A, & Manrai, A K. (1995). Effects of cultural-context, gender, and acculturation on perceptions of work versus social/leisure time usage. Journal of Business Research, 32,115-128.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mobley, W. H. (1987). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satis-

faction and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.


Nicholson, N., & Goodge, P. (1976). The influence of social, organizational, and biographical factors on female absence. Journal of Management Studies, 13, 234-254.

Ralston, D. (1989). The benefits of flextime: Real or imagined? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 369-373.

Richard, D., & Slane, S. (1990). Punctuality as a personality characteristic: Issues of measurement. Journal of Psychology, 124, 397-402.

Sagie, A. (1998). Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job sat-isfaction: Another look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156-171.

Sagie, A., Birati, A., & Tziner, A. (2002). Assessing the costs of behavioral and psy-chological withdrawal: A new model and an empirical illustration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 67-89.

Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Work values: A theoretical overview and a model of their effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 503-514.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and empowerment in organizations: Modeling, effectiveness, and applications. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Shafritz, J. M. (1980). Dictionary of personnel management and labor relations. Oak Park, IL: Moore.

Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group cohesion and adherence in exercise classes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 78-86.

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.

Trompenaars, E, & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

2 National Culture and Perceptions

of Absence Legitimacy

Helena Mensah Addae and Gary Johns

In recent years there has been increasing interest in the cross-cultural aspects of organizational behavior. This interest is a joint effect of the globalization of business, increasing cosmopolitanism among researchers, and recogni-tion that cultural contrasts can provide a new optic on traditional domains of organizational research. Despite the growth in cross-cultural organiza-tional research, one area has remained almost immune to its influence-the study of so-called work withdrawal behaviors such as lateness, absen-teeism, and turnover. This is especially curious when it is recognized that these behavioral manifestations of withdrawal are themselves culture-free, unlike many of the hypothetical constructs favored by organizational researchers. Indeed, in the domain of absenteeism research, Martocchio and Harrison (1993:295) allude to a "gaping cross-cultural hole." This chapter is an attempt to repair this gap by proposing a model of some factors that influence the perception of absence legitimacy across national cultures.

EFFECTS OF NATIONAL CULTURE ON ABSENTEEISM: THE BASIC ARGUMENT

There are at least three reasons to suspect that cross-national cultural differences will have an impact on attitudes toward absenteeism and

HELENA MENSAH ADDAE University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad & Tobago GARY JOHNS Department of Management, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1 MS, Canada

21

22 Helena Mensah Addae and Gary Johns

attendance, and ultimately on attendance behavior. One is growing evi-dence for the impact of social dynamics on absenteeism within cultures, or at least within Western cultures where the extant research has been conducted. Given the marked differences in values that have been observed between cultures (Earley & Gibson, 1998; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1995) and the impact that values have on norms and other social influence mechanisms, there is every reason to expect that views con-cerning absenteeism might differ across cultures.

Absenteeism is a behavior that has at least two qualities that would seem to make it particularly susceptible to social influence, and by exten-sion, cultural influence. For one thing, in the abstract, it is far from clear just what constitutes a reasonable, legitimate level of absence. This fol-lows from the rather large differences in absence rates that have been observed between social units such as work groups, departments, plants, industries, and nations (reviewed by Johns, 1997). This inherent ambigu-ity provides entree for social influence. At the same time, absenteeism is perceived as mildly deviant behavior (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). At least in the West, people make negative attributions about the absence of oth-ers (Nicholson, 1975), feel guilty about being absent (Hackett, Bycio, & Guion, 1989), and get into disputes with employers about absenteeism (e.g., Clay & Stephens, 1994). In both the East and the West, people under-report their own absence behavior and see their attendance as superior to that of their work colleagues (Johns & Xie, 1998). These negative connota-tions do not deny individual differences in the perceived legitimacy of absenteeism, but they do again suggest that people may be socially sensi-tive to how others view the behavior, thus setting the stage for social influence (see Gellatly & Luchak, 1998).

Johns (1997, 2001) reviews the growing evidence concerning the impact of social influence on absenteeism within national cultures. For instance, a wide variety of operationalizations of absence norms tend to be correlated with actual absence behavior (e.g., Baba & Harris, 1989; Gale, 1993; Gellatly, 1995; Gellatly & Luchak, 1998; Harrison, 1995; Xie & Johns, 2000). Similarly, work group structure and process variables, in particular group cohesiveness, have been shown to predict absence. Although cohesive work groups tend toward less absence (Johns, 1997), moderators such as job dissatisfaction and collusive tendencies can stim-ulate absence in cohesive groups (Drago & Wooden, 1992; Xie & Johns, 2000). Finally, cross- and multi-level research has detected the existence of distinctive absence cultures (Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson, & Brown, 1982; Johns & Nicholson, 1982; Nicholson & Johns, 1985) at the unit (usually work group) level of analysis (e.g., Iverson, Buttigieg, & Maguire, 1999; Johns, 1994; Markham & McKee, 1995; Martocchio, 1994; Mathieu &

National Culture and Absence Legitimacy 23

Kohler, 1990; Xie & Johns, 2000). Such research frequently reveals the impact of the group on individual absenteeism or related perceptions.

A second reason why absenteeism might be expected to vary across cultures rests in cross-national differences in factors such as economic development, infrastructure support for families, social welfare provisions concerning absenteeism from work, and so on. For example, Griindemann, de Winter, and Smulders (1994) documented a range of legislative differ-ences and a corresponding range of absenteeism rates between nations of the European Union. Kaiser (1998) interpreted such differences in terms of the economic implications of Hofstede's (1980) cross-cultural typology of values. If the social influence described above constitutes discretionary stimuli on the part of the culture that might shape absence attitudes and behavior fairly directly, the influence being described here is ambient stim-ulation (Hackman, 1992), background factors that condition views about the legitimacy of absenteeism and stem indirectly from cultural values.

A third reason why perceptions and attitudes about absenteeism might be expected to vary across cultures rests in a small body of research that has actually examined culture and job withdrawal. In the domain of turnover, Abrams, Ando, and Hinkle (1998) found that low identification with one's organization predicted intentions to quit in both Japan and Britain. However, subjective norms regarding turnover had a much more potent influence in collectivistic Japan than individualistic Britain. In a case study of a General Dynamics plant in Arizona staffed by Navajo Native Americans, Winfield (1995) explored how Navajo culture and tra-dition influenced work attendance. In particular, she described how par-ticipation in a nine-day healing ceremony led to absence and how plant management accommodated this ritual. Kuzmits (1995) studied absen-teeism among employees in a midwest U.S. food processing plant, some of whom were Vietnamese refugees. Based on Confucian values, he pre-dicted and confirmed that the Vietnamese exhibited less voluntary absence and less absence-related discipline than non-Vietnamese, while not differing on involuntary absence. Johns and Xie (1998) predicted and found that Chinese and Canadians were equally self-serving in underes-timating their own absence from work and seeing their attendance record as better than that of their peers. However, in line with collective values, the Chinese were also more inclined to group-serve, seeing the attendance of their work peers as much superior to the occupational norm. The authors also found cultural differences in the perceived legitimacy of var-ious reasons for absenteeism. Finally, at the same Chinese research site, Xie and Johns (2000) found that work group cohesiveness and absence culture salience interacted to predict absence at the individual, work group, and cross-levels of analyses. Although this was a uniculture study,


the collective orientation of the Chinese was particularly conducive to the observed effects.

In summary, we believe that the above lines of argumentation and empirical evidence suggest that there is considerable merit to exam-ining potential cross-cultural differences in the perceived legitimacy of absenteeism.

ABSENCE LEGITIMACY AT CULTURAL AND INDIVIDUAL LEVELS

A key dependent variable in the model of absence to be presented is perceptions of absence legitimacy. Legitimacy can be defined as the extent to which employees perceive absenteeism as an acceptable work behav-ior, and it is embedded in the social context within which the behavior is enacted. The study of absence legitimacy has at least three distinct advan-tages for examining absence cross-culturally. First, one of the most useful ways to understand cultural differences and similarities is to consider what behaviors are considered more or less legitimate and thus sanc-tioned by the society in each culture. This more direct, more behavioral approach is thus complementary to the study of more general, more abstract cultural values. Next, the concept of absence legitimacy would seem to have the potential for construct validity at both the cultural and individual levels of analysis. That is, cultures might differ in the extent to which absenteeism itself or certain causes of absence are seen as legiti-mate Oohns & Xie, 1998), but so might individuals within these cultures. As will be detailed below, there is considerable merit to developing a model that applies at both the cultural and individual levels of analysis. Finally, absence legitimacy may be a more proximal and useful criterion for initial cross-cultural studies of absence than absenteeism itself. This is because cross-cultural studies almost necessarily involve a host of uncon-trolled variables, some of which might influence work attendance in spite of the perceived legitimacy of absence. Thus, just because a behavior is viewed as legitimate does not guarantee that it will be enacted. Nevertheless, we do conceive of absence legitimacy as a mediating vari-able between more distal cultural causes and absenteeism, with more per-ceived legitimacy resulting in a higher absence rate. However, moderators of the legitimacy-absence connection are quite feasible.

Harvey and Nicholson (1999) studied the perceived legitimacy of various illnesses as causes of absence. They found considerable variation by illness type and by respondents' job grade and age. They also found that those who attributed greater legitimacy to absence due to colds,

National Culture and Absence Legitimacy 25

upset stomach, or mild backache were absent from work more frequently. As they note, these are high-discretion illnesses in terms of attendance. Directly relevant to the cross-cultural thesis, Johns and Xie (1998) found similarities and differences between Chinese and Canadians in the per-ceived legitimacy of a wide variety of causes of absenteeism. For example, the Chinese were less likely to endorse illness, stress, and depression as reasons for absence and more likely to endorse house maintenance and personal business. No difference was observed regarding problems with bosses or co-workers. This limited evidence suggests promise for a theo-retically sound model of cross-cultural differences in absence legitimacy.

In the model to be presented below, it will be argued that the follow-ing variables influence perceptions of absence legitimacy at both the cul-tural and individual levels of analysis: work centrality; time orientation; locus of control; perceptions of gender role differentiation; perceptions of the efficacy of social support systems. These variables were chosen for consideration because of their documented or suspected variation both between individuals and between cultures. This choice was intended to accommodate cross-national variation while recognizing individual dif-ferences in values and perceptions within cultures. As such, the proposed model is a multilevel model (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999; Rousseau, 1985) in that the proposed effects for absence legitimacy are expected to occur at both the cultural and individual levels. As Klein et al. (1994:223) explain, such models are "uniquely powerful and parsimonious."

WORK CENTRALITY

There is a general recognition that work occupies a great deal of an individual's time in industrial societies (England & Harpaz, 1990). Is work therefore the activity of most value and importance to individuals? In an attempt to provide answers to this question, Dubin (1956) posited that the social world of individuals is subdivided into various areas of fairly inde-pendent social activity and interest. Moreover, all social settings do not have equal salience to people, and they will spend more time at a given location and on an activity that reflects their central life interests.

Dubin (1956) found that although most people spend a considerable amount of their time at work, only 24% of the respondents surveyed indi-cated that work was a central life interest. A number of researchers have criticized the validity of his measures and the conclusions drawn from his research (Maurer, Vredenburgh, & Smith, 1981). In spite of the criticisms, subsequent studies have investigated the relationships between central


life interests and attitudinal variables. Dubin, Champoux, and Porter (1975) found that blue-collar workers in a bank and a telephone company with high work centrality had higher levels of organizational commit-ment than those with nonwork central life interest. Baba (1989) found a significant positive correlation between work as a central life intere

Documents

Voluntary Employee Withdrawal and Inattendance_ a