I was leafing through the pages of the Sickness Absence Review today (as you do), when I stumbled across a couple of items that I had underlined when I first read the report, but which I had yet to expand on within this blog.

The first was this quote:

‘It is estimated that each year one in six workers in England and Wales is affected by anxiety, depression and unmanageable stress.’

Now that is a pretty stark figure. Employee Assistance Plans (EAP’s) really came of age as an employer response to workplace stress, and stress related absence, so the driver to provide an EAP here is quite obvious.

My second quote comes from another page of the same report:

‘Organisations offering flexible working also report lower absenteeism, as it helps achieve a better work-life balance and manage some of the pressures that can lead to non-health related absence.’

Whilst this quote is specifically dealing with ‘non-health’ related absence, surely these two quotes suggest that an organisations response to absence should be joined up?

I think most people would accept that more ‘unmanageable’ stress is caused by issues outside of the workplace than within it. The stress experienced at work is often only an additional symptom of other pressures. And flexible working (where appropriate) may go a long way to reducing an employee’s stress levels.

So, if nothing else, these two quotes do emphasise that it’s important for employers to approach such issues in the round.

Too many employers expect one policy, product, or approach to be the entire solution. In reality, the employer needs to develop an absence policy that encompasses as many employees as possible, with the dual aims of reducing absence and helping the employee.

An EAP should now be considered ‘the norm’ for most employers. The next step for many organisations will be embedding the EAP at the heart of a more holistic absence policy.

Worth considering the next time you come to review your organisations approach to absence perhaps?

Best regards

Steve