Presenteeism during public health crises: Examining why organisational sickness preventative practices work differently for men and women

Aleksandra Luksyte et al.

Australian Journal of Management2025https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962241312724article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.41

Abstract

People often come to work sick – a prevalent behaviour even during public health crises. Integrating trait activation and social role theories, we examine how organisational sickness preventative practices affect workplace anxiety, approach and avoidance motivation for presenteeism, in turn, contributing to male–female differences in presenteeism. We conducted a time-separated study. The results ( N = 86 working adults who completed all four waves of the data) supported our moderated mediation model in that organisational sickness preventative practices were beneficial for reducing avoidance motivation to engage in presenteeism for women, but less so for men. These practices were similarly beneficial for reducing workplace anxiety for women, which explained their lower presenteeism compared to men. We performed a cross-sectional replication using only employees who worked in the traditional office at Time 3 ( N = 56) and obtained similar findings. Our results offer steps on how to manage presenteeism. JEL Classification: M12, M14

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962241312724

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{aleksandra2025,
  title        = {{Presenteeism during public health crises: Examining why organisational sickness preventative practices work differently for men and women}},
  author       = {Aleksandra Luksyte et al.},
  journal      = {Australian Journal of Management},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962241312724},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Presenteeism during public health crises: Examining why organisational sickness preventative practices work differently for men and women

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.