| Literature DB >> 30346986 |
Merce Mach1, Aristides I Ferreira2, Luis F Martinez3, Antonina Lisowskaia4, Grace K Dagher5, Amalia R Perez-Nebra6.
Abstract
This study examines whether the relationship between the employees' perceived job autonomy may be prone to the contextual influence of supervisor support and presenteeism climate in explaining the attendance behaviors of presenteeism-the employees' decision to attend work despite being ill or not feeling well. Does work context play a role on presenteeism climate and the specific act of presenteeism? This study includes 213 health care employees (e.g., nurses, doctors) working in one private hospital in Lebanon. We used the ordinary least squared (OLS) regressions path analytical framework and bootstrapping methods to estimate the hypothesized moderated-mediation models. Our findings indicate that healthcare job resources (job autonomy) is correlated with the presenteeism climate and the occurrence of presenteeism attendance behaviors. We also found that this relationship is mediated by presenteeism climate and that supervisor support moderates the observed indirect relationship. This study extends the organizational attendance research domain to presenteeism climate by explaining for both doctors and nurses how contextual variables explains the relationship between jobs resources and presenteeism attendance behaviors. Supervisor support plays an important role in encouraging task autonomy and thus allowing employees increase their perception of empowerment to manage their actions at work. Overall, healthcare managers should ensure that employees understand their roles and duties and have an up-to-date, clearly defined role (e.g., job description) so that they can meet their organizations' goals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30346986 PMCID: PMC6197659 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The moderated–mediation model of job context and presenteeism attendance behavior.
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
| 7 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 1.62 | 0.49 | — | ||||||
| 2. Age | 33.1 | 8.02 | -0.11 | — | |||||
| 3. Supervisor ( | 1.75 | 0.44 | — | ||||||
| 4. Health status | 4.60 | 0.60 | — | ||||||
| 5. Job Autonomy | 5.92 | 0.69 | -0.08 | 0.03 | -0.04 | 0.04 | (0.85) | ||
| 6. Presenteeism Climate | 4.75 | 0.90 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.02 | -0.01 | (0.83) | ||
| 7. Supervisor Support | 5.52 | 1.03 | 0.06 | 0.02 | -0.08 | 0.07 | (0.94) | ||
| 8. Presenteeism days | 4.50 | 0.50 | 0.08 | 0.08 | -0.03 |
Note. N = 213.
Significant at
**p< 0.01
*p< 0.05
†p< 0.1
Cronbach’s alpha is shown in the diagonal.
Model coefficients for the mediation models of presenteeism climate .
| 0.10 | .00 | 0.05 | .09 | ||||
| — | — | — | 0.04 | .01 | |||
| 1.02 | .05 | 0.50 | .01 | ||||
| 0.05 | 2.37 | .02 | |||||
| 0.05 | 1.72 | .09 | |||||
| 0.16 | .04 | 0.19 | 0.06 | ns | |||
| — | — | — | 0.04 | .02 | |||
| 1.13 | 2.0 | ns | 0.76 | .04 | |||
| 0.55 | 0.06 | 0.88 | ns | ||||
| 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.30 | ns | ||||
| 0.21 | .02 | -0.08 | 0.11 | ns | |||
| — | — | — | 0.07 | .07 | |||
| 1.47 | .07 | -0.19 | 0.78 | ns | |||
| - 0.01 | 0.11 | ns | |||||
| - 0.07 | 0.11 | -0.66 | ns | ||||
Significant at:
*** p< .001
** p< .01
* p< .05
† p< .1
b Coeff = Regression coefficients; SE = Standard error; CI = Confidence interval; X = Antecedent variable; M = Mediator; Y = Dependent variable. Control variables included as covariates were gender, age, supervisor position and health status. (CIs containing zero are interpreted as non-significant).
Conditional direct & indirect effects of job autonomy on presenteeism behaviors .
| -1SD | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.71 | ns |
| Mean | 0.09 | 0.05 | 1.62 | ns |
| +1SD | 0.12 | 0.09 | 1.42 | ns |
| Mean | 0.01 | 0.01 | [-.01, .05 ] | |
a N = 213.
Significant at:
***p< .001
X = Antecedent variable; M = Mediator; W = Moderator; Y = Dependent variable. SE = Standard error; CI = Confidence interval. Control variables included as Covariates were gender, age, and health status.
Values for quantitative moderators (W) are the mean and plus / minus one SD from the mean.
Indirect effect of highest order product of job autonomy on presenteeism behaviors.
| 0.035 | 0.20 | |||
| 0.036 | 0.25 | |||
| 0.043 | 0.69 | [- .039, .270 ] | ||
| 0.056 | 0.60 | [- .035, .201 ] | ||
SE = Standard error
CI = Confidence interval. (CIs containing zero are interpreted as non-significant). Control variables included as covariates were gender, age, and health status.
Fig 2Interactive effect of job context and supervisor support on presenteeism attendance days through presenteeism climate.