Until a few years ago, research focussed on absenteeism in relation to employee efficiency and organisational performance, while presenteeism was largely ignored (Gosselin et al., 2013). This trend has changed over the last 3–5 years, however, and the concept of presenteeism has gained credibility among academics and practitioners. Munro (2007) suggests that presenteeism is another aspect of absenteeism while Prater and Smith (2011) believe it is the antithesis of absenteeism. Aronsson and Gustafson (2005) state that work-related factors cause attendance pressure and define presenteeism as ‘the phenomenon of people who, despite complaints and ill health that should prompt rest and absence from work, are still turning up at their jobs’ (Aronsson, Gustafsson & Dallner, 2000, p. 503). Gosselin et al. (2013) advise organisations to manage absenteeism without creating presenteeism.

The impact of absenteeism on the bottom line is well documented. For example, MacGregor et al. (2008) state that in Canada alone, billions of dollars are lost each year owing to absenteeism. Baker-McClearn, Greasley, Dale and Griffith (2010) report that absenteeism is the largest source of lost productivity for businesses in the United Kingdom. Absenteeism is trackable and it is possible to count its cost, but it is often impossible to tell when, and to what extent, employees are at work but simply not performing (presenteeism). MacGregor et al. (2008) report that the cost of sickness presenteeism may be even greater than that of sickness absenteeism. A white paper by the Health Enhancement Research Organisation (2014) suggests that presenteeism accounts for three-quarters of the cost of lost employee productivity, while absenteeism accounts for the fourth quarter. Demerouti, Le Blanc, Bakker, Schaufeli and Hox (2009) show that job demands placed on sick employees increase presenteeism and eventually lead to burnout. They say that ‘employees get trapped in a “loss spiral” as symptoms of burnout lead to an accumulation of job demands and less energy to cope with these demands’ (p. 51). This is another example of presenteeism. Likewise, Chatterji and Tilley (2002) report that policies implemented by organisations to reduce absenteeism, such as reductions in sick pay, are more likely to increase presenteeism, which in turn, could lead to more illness and lower productivity. A US survey reported that 56% of employers experienced presenteeism because of some perceived problem in their organisation. Presenteeism in small organisations may be less when compared to medium and large organisations, as managers are more likely to regularly request feedback on tasks performed by subordinates (Matlay, 1999). Employee burnout and lost productivity were found to be 7.5 times greater in cases of presenteeism than absenteeism (Baker-McClearn et al., 2010), while McGregor, Iverson, Caputi, Magee and Ashbury (2014) report that the cost of presenteeism could be fourfold that of absenteeism.

Several studies focus on sickness as the antecedent for presenteeism (Aronsson, Gustafsson & Dallner, 2000; Baker-McClearn et al., 2010; Demerouti et al., 2009), and allergies, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic back pain have been linked to it (Munro, 2007). While valuable, these studies are too narrow in approach for a full understanding of presenteeism (Gilbreath & Karimi, 2012), rooted as they are solely in health-associated matters.

Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) assert that:

job-stress-related presenteeism is most closely the opposite of Rothbard’s (2001, p. 656) conceptualisation of engagement, which focusses on attention – the cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role – and absorption – the intensity of one’s focus on a role. (p. 116)

However, presenteeism is more than mere disengagement from, or low engagement in, work. Most definitions of engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonźalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002) characterise it as pervasive and role-based, whereas presenteeism is considered to be more transitory and situational.

The current study focusses on presenteeism as it relates to job stress. JSRP is a construct developed by Gilbreath and Karamini (2012) as a factor, other than illness, that causes employees to be less focussed on tasks. Chae, Seo and Lee (2011) provide empirical evidence of links between job stress, organisational effectiveness and individual performance, and show that increased job stress results in weaker organisational performance.

While Karlin, Brondolo and Schwartz (2003) studied job stress in relation to support from supervisors, their study did not consider the leadership or supervisory styles that may have played an important role in moderating or mediating the relationship. This research, recognising that leadership style is inextricably interwoven into the creation of conducive working environments, sought to expand the work of Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) on JSRP by providing an understanding of how it is impacted by leadership style.

The literature defines leadership in a number of ways, for example, as the ability to guide followers towards shared goals and as a form of influence (Madlock, 2008). Kouzes and Posner (1987) define leadership as an observable set of skills and abilities. Historically, leadership studies tended to focus on characteristics and personality traits, but the focus has shifted towards the perceptions of followers and the contextual nature of leadership (Robbins & Coulter, 2005). New leadership theories pay greater attention to leaders’ relationships with followers, as these contribute significantly to organisational success. Kara et al. (2013) quote a number of studies linking leadership styles to organisational commitment, organisational learning and adaptation, job satisfaction, employee motivation, as well as decreased absenteeism, a phenomenon particularly important to this study.

Bass’s (1999) ‘full range theory of leadership’ suggests that there are three leadership styles, namely transformational, transactional and laissez-faire. According to Bodla and Nawaz (2010), transformational leaders are charismatic and motivate employees by inspiring them, considering them individually and stimulating their intellectual needs. Bass and Avolio (1993) suggest that transformational leadership is close to the prototype of leadership people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader, and that transformational leaders are more likely to be role models with whom subordinates want to identify. Transactional leaders, by contrast, specify tasks, monitor performance and provide a reward system. Laissez-faire leaders tend to avoid any involvement with their subordinates. Numerous researchers have investigated the relationship between these leadership behaviours and various phenomena, such as burnout, stress, job satisfaction and performance (Dale & Fox, 2008; Danish & Usman, 2010; Failla & Stichler, 2008; Yang, Huang & Wu, 2011; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010).

Hetland, Sandal and Johnsen (2007) studied the effects of leadership style on burnout in a Norwegian information technology firm and concluded that each style impacted the level of employee burnout differently. The study described burnout, which results from job stress, as a syndrome consisting of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and lack of professional accomplishment, and which has detrimental effects for both the individual employee and the organisation. The researchers concluded that high transformational leadership was linked to low levels of burnout whereas high transactional leadership, although also linked to low levels of burnout, had weaker associations than did transformational leadership. High passive-avoidant (laissez-faire) leadership was linked to high levels of burnout. A summary of the results from previous research on transformational leadership shows that it is positively correlated to job satisfaction (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall & Munir, 2009; Wolfram & Mohr, 2009), less stress (Bono & Meredith, 2007; Munir, Nielsen & Carneiro, 2010) and employee well-being (Skakon, Nielsen, Borg & Guzman, 2010).

Transactional leadership theories are founded on the idea that leader–follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010). Research shows a relationship between transactional leadership styles and higher levels of stress in comparison with transformational leadership (Lyons & Schneider, 2009). Other studies have found that transactional leadership is related to lower levels of burnout (Kanste, Kyngas & Nikkila, 2007) and high job satisfaction as well as well-being (Morrison, Chappel & Ellis, 1997), but that these relationships are weaker than those associated with transformational leadership. The Skakon et al. (2010) study shows similar results.

A laissez-faire leader is one who avoids decision-making or supervisory responsibility and believes in freedom of choice for employees, leaving them alone to do as they want (Goodnight, 2004). This leadership style implies failure on the part of the manager to take responsibility for managing. In some studies, laissez-faire leadership was found to be associated with increased psychological distress, a lack of social support and job strain (Nyberg et al., 2009). Early research by Sosik and Godschalk (2000), however, found no relationship between laissez-faire leadership on the one hand and stress and burnout on the other.

While the above studies provide insight into the effects of leadership style on job stress, they offer limited understanding of how leadership styles affect presenteeism, a particular dimension of job stress. If organisations understood the influence of these leadership styles on JSRP, they could maximise their employees’ potential and performance, which in turn could lead to greater organisational performance.

To understand participants’ perceptions of their managers’ leadership styles, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ form 6S) adapted from Vinger and Cilliers (2006) was used. The MLQ form 6S is a self-reporting scale consisting of 21 items and three sub-scales: transformational leadership style (12 items, e.g., ‘I feel good to be around my manager’), transactional leadership style (six items, e.g., ‘My manager helps me find meaning in my work’) and laissez-faire leadership style (three items, e.g., ‘My manager does not ask more of me than what is absolutely essential’). A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the leadership styles. The scale anchors were: 0 – not at all; 1 – once in a while; 2 – sometimes; 3 – fairly often and 4 – frequently. The Cronbach’s alpha for MLQ form 6S was α = 0.86, greater than the acceptable limit of 0.70 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006).

To understand job stress, the researchers adapted the Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) JSRP scale. The researchers defined job stress in the questionnaire for participants as ‘work-related activities caused by the demands placed on you by your leader’, and it was measured using a two-item scale, for example, ‘My job has been extremely stressful’. A four-point Likert scale was used to evaluate job stress, with the scale anchors being: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – agree and 4 – strongly agree. The reliability and validity of the construct job stress were established by Gilbreath and Karimi (2012), and it is thus an adequate measure to understand job stress. The Cronbach’s alpha for job stress was α = 0.909, greater than the acceptable limit of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006).

To understand JSRP, the researchers again adapted Gilbreath and Karimi’s (2012) scale. This construct was measured using a six-item scale, for example, ‘Mental energy I’d otherwise devote to my work is wasted on work stressors’. A three-point Likert scale was used to evaluate JSRP, with the following scale anchors: 1 – all the time; 2 – sometimes and 3 – never. The reliability and validity of the construct for JSRP were established by Gilbreath and Karimi (2012). The Cronbach’s alpha for JSRP was α = 0.828, greater than the acceptable limit of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006).

The reliability and validity of the instrument used to measure job stress were established by Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) and were acceptable. As the current study builds on their study, the instrument they used to measure job stress was employed in this research. Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) report a Cronbach’s α = 0.80 for job stress.

Three open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire to understand what employees would like to change in their managers’ leadership styles so that they could be more productive and not engage in presenteeism, for example, ‘What changes in your manager would assist in alleviating stress and improve your performance?’

The instrument was pre-tested prior to the study, to ensure there were no problems in the design (Zikmund, 2003). It was administered to 20 randomly selected individuals, as well as an experienced researcher in the field of leadership, to ensure face and content validity. No significant changes were noted.

Respondents reported that they had faith and trust in their managers and perceived them as role models. There was a significant difference between respondents that reported they had faith and trust in their managers and perceived them as role models and those that did not. The differences in responses were therefore not owing to chance but owing to real differences that could be expected in the population as well.

Respondents reported that their managers do not provide a vision for their employees to find meaning in their work. There were no significant differences between respondents who reported that their managers provide a vision for their employees to find meaning in their work, and those who did not. This indicates that the differences observed in response to inspirational motivation were not ‘real’ but owing to chance.

Managers do not provide intellectual stimulation for their employees to find meaning in their work. There was no significant difference between those respondents who reported that their managers provide intellectual stimulation to find meaning in their work, and those who did not. This indicates that the differences observed in response to intellectual stimulation were not ‘real’ but owing to chance.

Managers show little interest in their well-being. There was a significant difference between respondents who reported that their managers show little interest in their well-being and those who did not. These differences were therefore not owing to chance but reflected real differences that can be expected in the population as well.

There was a significant difference between respondents who reported that their managers emphasise what is expected from them and recognise their accomplishments, and those who did not. The difference is real and not owing to chance and can be expected in the population as well.

There was also a significant difference between the respondents who reported that their managers inform them about their job requirements and are content with standard performance, and those who did not. These differences are therefore not owing to chance.

There was no significant difference between respondents reporting that their managers are content with subordinates doing their own thing, and those who reported they were not. Therefore, what was observed is not ‘real’ and not applicable to the population.

Leadership style was considered as a factor contributing to job stress, which in turn caused JSRP. There was a positive moderate correlation between job stress and JSRP, r (240) = 0.529, p < 0.05.

Once job stress and JSRP were categorised as low or high, a cross-tabulation was conducted to evaluate if low job stress is related to low JSRP, and vice versa. All expected cell frequencies were greater than five, and there was a significant association between high and low job stress and high and low JSRP, Χ ²(1) = 37.614, p = 0.000.

Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) established that job stress caused by positive or negative supervisor behaviour results in JSRP. In this study, leadership style was considered to be the main factor that causes job stress, which in turn causes JSRP. For both the job stress and JSRP sections in the questionnaire, the final scores were calculated using the process defined above. Pearson’s r correlation test was conducted to assess significant associations between the variables of leadership, job stress and JSRP. Cross-tabulation and chi-square tests were also performed to establish if a significant relationship existed between these two variables.

As Table 5 indicates, there is a moderate positive association between job stress and JSRP, indicating that an increase in job stress increases JSRP. Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are significantly associated with JSRP, while laissez-faire leadership is not significantly associated with JSRP, at a 95% confidence interval. For transformational leadership, results indicate a weak negative correlation; JSRP decreases as ‘level’ of transformational leadership increases. For transactional leadership, there is a weak positive relationship; JSRP increases with an increase in the ‘level’ of transactional leadership.

Table 5 also shows the chi-square results. There is a significant positive relationship between job stress and JSRP. It is therefore possible to evaluate the relationship between the leadership styles under study and JSRP, as both tests demonstrate a strong association between job stress and JSRP.

Cross-tabulation tests (Table 6) were also performed to establish if there was a significant relationship between the two variables.

Several researchers (Phillips, Sen & McNamee, 2007; Schaufeli et al., 2008; Skakon et al., 2010) have shown that knowledge workers are subjected to work-related stress on a daily basis owing to leadership behaviour, workload, work–life balance and performance, as well as job security pressures. According to the Gilbreath and Karimi (2012) study, job stress results in JSRP. To analyse the impact of leadership style on JSRP, the association between job stress and JSRP needed to be validated, and the researchers discovered a strong association.

The cross-tabulation also indicates that a high percentage of respondents who experience job stress engage in presenteeism. This suggests that as knowledge worker stress reduces, presenteeism will also be reduced. The results show that job stress causes presenteeism. The results of the tests successfully validated Gilbreath and Karimi’s (2012) claim that presenteeism is a much broader concept than previously thought, with numerous possible causes. The results also verified the utility and validity of their tool and may prove very useful for further research on understanding the effects of job stress on employees. The results may benefit organisations considerably as they allow them to focus on factors other than sickness to reduce presenteeism.

Research on leadership style and job stress by Munir et al. (2010) showed that transformational leaders cause less job stress among subordinates. As job stress is significantly associated with presenteeism, measurements of the impact of transformational leadership style on presenteeism are discussed here. The results indicate that 66.4% of the respondents who rated their managers as exhibiting low transformational leadership style engage in high levels of presenteeism. This is a significant result and indicates that transformational leadership style is effective in reducing presenteeism.

The average score for idealised influence was noticeably higher than that for the remaining three factors associated with transformational leadership. Bass (1999) states that a leader is most likely to be strong on some factors but not all, which was confirmed by the results of this study. However, the results should encourage transformational leaders to develop themselves on all factors. The higher the score for each factor, the better the overall average score for the leader, which may result in reduced presenteeism. Associations between the individual factors and presenteeism were not tested, as the variable evaluated was leadership style (derived from the average score of the four factors). The result provides motivation for further research to understand the impact of each factor on presenteeism.

Although numerous studies (Bono & Meredith, 2007; Munir et al., 2010) have been conducted on the relationship between transformational leadership style and organisational outcomes, the current study is the first to investigate the impact of leadership styles on JSRP. The results suggest that leaders who adopt transformational leadership styles reduce employee presenteeism. Organisations may therefore benefit by developing transformational leaders, who are already known to significantly increase organisational effectiveness (Nielsen et al., 2008; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010).

Studies by Lyons and Schneider (2009) show that transactional leaders cause job stress, as their relationship is based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains between them and their followers (Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010). The current study found that 64.5% of respondents who rated their managers as exhibiting low transactional leadership style engage in high levels of presenteeism.

The average score for ‘management by exception’ was considerably higher than that for ‘contingent reward’. This means that respondents feel they are not being rewarded for good work, which could be a reason for subordinates to engage in presenteeism. Rewards and recognition are important as they motivate subordinates to perform better (Danish & Usman, 2010). The higher the score for each factor, the better the overall average score for the leader, which may result in reduced presenteeism. This is the first study to measure transactional leadership style in conjunction with JSRP. The systematic review by Skakon et al. (2010) on leadership and employee well-being shows that transactional leadership style has positive associations with employee well-being and negative associations with job stress. The results from this study indicate that transactional leadership style is negatively correlated to JSRP. They complement previous studies and suggest that leaders who adopt transactional leadership style reduce employee presenteeism. However, the association is weaker than that found between transformational leadership and reduced presenteeism, a result similar to those of previous studies on other employee outcomes (Skakon et al., 2010). Leaders that adopt transactional leadership styles can reduce presenteeism but there is incentive to develop the characteristics of transformational leadership style as it has more influence on presenteeism. The combination of both leadership styles may allow organisations to reduce presenteeism significantly.

Skakon et al. (2010), in their systematic review of leadership styles of the last three decades, report that Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Assland and Hetland (2007) found laissez-faire leadership style and job stress to be related. However, Skogstad et al. (2007) also reported that Sosik and Godschalk (2000) found no relationship between them. The Cronbach’s alpha score for the current study did not meet the benchmark score of 0.70. The internal validity of the data for this leadership style is therefore questionable and it might be necessary to revalidate the questions on the MLQ form 6S instrument used to measure laissez-faire leadership style. It could be a reason why previous research has not shown conclusive results. The results of this study are similar to the results of the Sosik and Godschalk’s (2000) study on laissez-faire leadership style and job stress.

This study found no statistically significant relationship between laissez-faire leadership style and JSRP. Some researchers (Lyons & Schneider, 2009) mention that laissez-faire leadership style is not actual leadership, which may be true.