The legitimacy of absenteeism from work: a nine nation exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a model in which work centrality, locus of control, polychronicity, preference for gender‐role differentiation, and perceived social support were expected to vary between nations and to be associated with general perceptions of absence legitimacy and self‐reported absenteeism. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 1,535 employees working in ten large multinationals organizations, mostly in the consumer products and technology sectors located in nine countries. Findings The explanatory variables differed significantly across countries, as did perceived legitimacy, responses to absence scenarios, and self‐reported absence. The variables of interest, as a package, partially mediated the association between country and one dimension of legitimacy and country and the scenario responses. Research limitations/implications Although absenteeism from work is a universal phenomenon, there is very little cross‐cultural research on the subject. This study has implications for filling this critical research gap. Limitations of this research are the use of convenience sampling and self‐reported absence data. Practical implications From a practical standpoint, this study demonstrates that organizations which attempt to develop corporate‐wide attendance policies that span national borders should take indigenous norms and expectations concerning absenteeism into consideration. Additionally, in an increasingly mobile global workforce, how does an individual who has been socialized in a nation where absence is generally viewed as a more legitimate behavior behave in a nation where it is viewed as less so? Originality/value This study illustrates the value of the legitimacy construct for studying absenteeism, both within and between nations. It also illustrates the value of building models incorporating variables that accommodate both cross‐national variation and individual differences within nations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".