53 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers DOI: 10.2478/orga-2020-0004 Association between Field of Work, Years of Service, and Sickness Absenteeism in Public Administration Jernej BUZETI University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, Gosarjeva ulica 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, jernej.buzeti@ fu.uni-lj.si Background and Purpose: Statistics of sickness absenteeism in public administration in Slovenia is considerably higher (7.1% in 2018) than the percentage that applies for the whole of Slovenia (4.5% in 2018). The data also shows a similar pattern in the public sector in other countries. According to that, the main purpose of our research is to in- vestigate the connection between fields of work, years of service, and sickness absenteeism in public administration in Slovenia. Methodology: Research data was collected with the help of an online questionnaire, which was designed for em- pirical research and consisted of several sets of questions. The collected data was processed using the SPSS statistical program. Results: The research was conducted in 2015 in public administration institutions, and 3,220 employees from public administration were included in our research sample. The results of the research show that there is a statistically significant connection between sickness absenteeism in public administration and years of service and the field of work of employees in public administration. Conclusion: The survey helps us to understand the connection between sickness absenteeism and years of ser- vice and field of work of employees in public administration. With regard to the results, it would be reasonable to adopt measures focused on groups of employees in public administration (older employees with a greater length of service, employed officials and professional-technical public employees) where sickness absence may be reduced. Sickness absenteeism in these groups of employees could be reduced by providing employees better leadership and conditions for satisfaction in the workplace. Keywords: sickness absenteeism, public administration, years of service, field of work 1 Received: October 9, 2019; revised: January 17, 2020; accepted: February 7, 2020 1 Introduction An organisation is a social formation of employees, and in every social situation there are daily relationships between employees and other factors in the working environment. Employees also react differently to social situations in the working environment: some of them adapt to factors of influence (poor relationships with managers, increased workload, stress) and accept them, while others can face difficulties. The consequences of the latter can often also be reflected in sickness absenteeism, in other words the temporary absence of employees from work because of sickness or injury, or because they are caring for family members (Buzeti, Bilban and Stare, 2015). Employees may be absent from work due to annual leave, their own health problems, health problems of fam- ily members, training, etc. The latter indicates that absen- teeism is a complex and multidimensional segment that requires accurate and correct discourse. This article focus- es on the part of employee absenteeism, as demonstrated by sickness absenteeism. In the opinion of Toth (1999, p. 20), we understand the concept of sickness absenteeism as meaning lost working days, or time in which an employ- 54 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers ee is temporarily unable to work because of sickness or injury. The focus on studying the connection between field of work, years of service, and sickness absenteeism in public administration is motivated particularly by the fact that it is possible to find, on the basis of statistical data of the National Institute for Public Health (hereinafter as: NIJZ), that the share of sickness absenteeism in public adminis- tration is considerably higher than the percentage that ap- plies for all sickness absenteeism in Slovenia. Sickness ab- senteeism is rather high in public organisations compared to private organisations (Løkke and Krøtel, 2019; NIJZ, 2019; Løkke, 2014; Coffey, Dugdill and Tattersall, 2009). In Slovenia, the duration of an individual case of sickness absence in the private sector is longer than in the public sector; nevertheless, individual employees in the public sector take sick leave more often in a year, which con- sequently leads to more days of sick leave per employee (NIJZ, 2019). The next reason for studying is connected to the fact that we were interested in whether years of service in the organisation of employment and the field of work (work position), have influence on sickness absenteeism. Based on NIJZ data (2014–2018), we found that the greatest percentage of lost calendar days in public admin- istration due to sickness absenteeism in the period com- pared, was recorded in 2018, i.e. 7.1%, and the lowest percentage in 2014, i.e. 6%. It is interesting, however, that since 2014, the number of lost calendar days has been con- stantly increasing in public administration in Slovenia. There are many different factors that influence sickness absenteeism. With the purpose to discover whether there is association between sickness absenteeism in public ad- ministration, years of service by public employees, and the field of work (work position), we made a decision to study the state, and check the connections, with the help of ob- tained research data and its analysis. The main purpose of the article is to analyse the con- nection between sickness absenteeism in public adminis- tration, years of service, and the field of work (work posi- tion) of employees in public administration, and to present the aspect of sensibility of taking into consideration years of service and work position of employees in the context of sickness absenteeism in public administration. We have decided to analyse the two variables, i.e. the years of ser- vice and field of work, in relation to sickness absence, be- cause we were interested in whether in Slovenia there is any association between the years of service and sickness absenteeism in public administration like it is the case in some other studies (Hum Wee et al., 2019; Løkke Niels- en, 2008). We found no research on how the field of work is associated with sickness absenteeism in public admin- istration; therefore we wanted to explore the association ourselves. 2 Review of theory Absenteeism is one of the oldest and most researched phenomena in the history of human resource management and organisational behaviour (Forte, 2017; Patton and Johns, 2012). Absenteeism is a complex and multifactori- al phenomenon, influenced by various interrelated factors (Nguyen, Groth and Johnson, 2013; Elshout et al., 2013). Definitions of sickness absenteeism vary (Schmid et al., 2017; Nielsen & Daniels, 2016; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Raftar-Ozery, 2016; Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Schouten, 2016; Buzeti et al., 2016, Halbesleben et al., 2014; Løk- ke, Eskildsen and Jensen, 2007;). Sickness absenteeism was defined as temporary paid leave from work due to any (i.e. work-related and non-work-related) injury or illness (Schouten, 2016, p. 302). In our article, sickness absentee- ism is treated as all those cases “where employees are ab- sent from work due to personal illness or injury or to care for family members, their absence is treated as temporary from a temporal point of view” (Buzeti et al., 2016, p. 24). Sickness absenteeism may be attributable to many different factors, including lifestyle factors, demograph- ic and socio-economic characteristics, etc. (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). An individual may have greater influence on some factors, and can prevent or limit them, whereas their influence on some factors is smaller or cannot be defined at all. If we take into account that for the occurrence of sickness absenteeism, a person and work are needed, it is sensible to define the influence of certain demograph- ic characteristics, which are linked to an individual in a working environment, on sickness absenteeism. If we take into consideration characteristics that are connected to an individual, we discover that it is possible to find, in association with sickness absenteeism, that (Hum Wee et al., 2019; Lyszczarz, 2019; Buzeti, 2015; Løkke, 2014; De Paola, Scoppa and Pupo, 2014; Løkke Nielsen, 2008, pp. 1333–1335; Løkke, Eskildsen and Jensen, 2007, pp. 20– 28; Allebeck and Mastakaasa, 2004; Ones, Viswiesvaran and Schmidt, 2003, pp. 20–21; Evans and Palmer, 2000, pp. 20–23; Rhodes and Steers 1990) years of service, age, gender, and education, are important factors affecting sickness absenteeism. Considering the fact that we are focused on the con- nection between years of service, field of work (work po- sition), and sickness absenteeism in our article, we have found that the research shows that years of service, or the influence of a period of employment on sickness absen- teeism, can sometimes be detected, while in other cases it cannot be. Løkke Nielsen (2008, p. 1334) presents a general thesis that if sickness absenteeism is the result of dissatisfaction with the work situation, all those employ- ees with more years of service are less absent from work compared to those with fewer years of service. Contrary to the previous justification, it is also possible to see an- other perspective, i.e. that employees with more years of 55 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers service may face fewer career opportunities and fewer possibilities for employment in another organisation. The latter may lead to dissatisfaction, and a consequence of that can also be absence from work. In the framework of her research, Løkke Nielsen (2008) did not confirm the influence of years of service on sickness absenteeism. In the research about sickness absenteeism in the Ital- ian public sector, it was established that “the probability of being absent increases with tenure” (De Paola, Scoppa and Pupo, 2014). On the contrary, Winkelmann (1996) discovered in his research, and confirmed that there is a connection between high seniority and low absenteeism. In one of her researches, Løkke (2014) confirmed the con- nection between sickness absenteeism and years of ser- vice, but the results were not the same in both models that were compared. In the first model, she discovered that the probability for sickness absenteeism is smaller for up to 10 years of service, and then it increases. In the second model, she discovered that the probability for sickness ab- senteeism decreases with more years of service. Overall, seniority influences sickness absenteeism, both in terms of the quality of the person–environment fit, and also in terms of end-of-career frustration (Løkke, 2014). In the research of Rosenblatt, Shapira-Lishchinsky and Shiron (2010), “although seniority was not directly related to ab- sence, the results showed that in high levels of seniority (5 years and above), the negative relationship between a caring ethical climate and absence frequency was weaker than in lower levels of seniority (3 years and below).” In the framework of understanding the connection between the field of work and sickness absenteeism, it is reasonable to consider that employees with leading posi- tions are absent from work less often than those employ- ees who do not have leading positions (Løkke Nielsen, 2008; Buzeti, 2015). Kristensen and others (Løkke Niel- sen, 2008, p. 1336) explain that it is possible to detect, in case absence from work of the leading personnel has been high, that other employees are also more absent from work. Often, employees in the leading fields of work and related leading work positions, are better valued. It is therefore reasonable to understand the following working position, also in relation to the salary and, as the research shows, “workers are less absent if they enjoy a higher sal- ary, a higher relative salary, and are employed at a higher hierarchical level” (Pfeifer, 2010, p. 69). The research by King et al. (2013) shows that managers were less absent from work than professional workers. Their research re- sults show that the lowest level of sickness absence in the past year is attributable to managerial staff. Shorter sick leave (up to 14 days) was most commonly used by profes- sional workers. Employees who perform routine and re- petitive (the same) jobs with a low level of autonomy and responsibility, and a low possibility to make and create decisions, are more inclined to be absent from work (Ev- ans and Palmer, 2000, p.25). As a result, from the conduct- ed research, we can see that seniority and field of work (work position) are important factors, and correlate in un- derstanding and interpreting the phenomenon of sickness absenteeism. 3 Methods 3.1 Procedure and Participants Prior to collecting data, we tested our questionnaire among employees in public administration, and in accordance with our findings in the process of evaluation of its relia- bility and validity, we adapted it correspondingly. We de- cided on the next step, because we wanted to (1) prepare a quality and useful questionnaire, and (2) check the initially designed questions/statements. When testing the originally designed questionnaire, it was discovered that there was ambiguity in some questions and statements, which was removed from the final version of the questionnaire. Research data was collected with the help of an on- line questionnaire, which was created with the 1ka online tool. We included employees of public administration in our research, which is hereby treated as all those organisa- tions that are part of the process of decision-making about public matters, or participate in the management of public matters. Our research therefore included employees of the Ministries and the authorities in their composition, levels of government, administrative units, (city) municipalities, and holders of public authorisations. Holders of public authorisations are natural and legal persons, and among those that we classify as public administration are public agencies, public funds, and some public institutions (e.g. Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia, Employment Service of Slovenia, Social Work Centres, etc.), and chambers with compulsory membership (Tičar and Rakar, 2011). We carried out research in Slovenian public adminis- tration that took place in February 2015. In our research, we gathered answers/data from 3,220 respondents in pub- lic administration, which represents an 8.1% share of the entire population of employees in public administration. Table 1 shows the distribution of employees by the type of organisation and number of employees in public adminis- tration in Slovenia. The sample in our research included 69.7% of em- ployees in public administration, 11.1% of employees in local self-government, and 19% of employees of holders of public authorisations. The largest share in the structure of the sample from our research is represented by officials (58.9%), professional-technical personnel (26.7%), and a little less than a tenth of respondents (9.1%) are officials in leading positions (heads) of organisational units, with up to 30 direct subordinates. The remaining fields of work in the entire structure of the sample represent shares that are smaller than 2%. A little more than three quarters of those 56 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers sampled were female (76.1%) and nearly a third (23.9%) were male. The majority of respondents or employees who cooperated in this research were 35 to 44 years old (36.9%) or 45 to 54 years old (34.7%). In this article, we treat officials as those public em- ployees who perform public tasks for authorities. Public tasks for authorities are tasks that are directly connected with enforcement of authority, or protection of the pub- lic interest. Public officials who perform supporting tasks are professional-technical public employees. Supporting tasks are tasks in the field of personnel management and material-financial operation, financial and similar tasks, and other tasks that must be performed for the smooth op- eration of public tasks of the authority (ZJU, Article 23). We treat officials in leading positions in this article as all those (ZJU, Article 80) who perform authorisations for leading, coordinating, and organising work. According to the law (ZJU, Article 80), the positions are: general direc- tor, secretary general and heads of organisational units at the ministries, director and heads of organisational units in authorities within the ministry, head of administrative units, heads of organisational units in administrative units, director and heads of organisational units in levels of gov- ernment, director and heads of organisational units in the management of local communities. 3.2 Measures SA questionnaire was designed for the empirical research, and consisted of several sets of questions (see appendix). To collect data about the connection between field of work, years of service, and sickness absenteeism in public ad- ministration, two sets of questions were designed for the questionnaire, i.e.: • the first set of questions (“General demographic data”); comprises six short questions of open and closed type, which refer to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as organisa- tion of employment, their field of work, gender, year of birth (age), level of education, years of service in the organisation of current employment. • the second set of questions (“Sickness absence”); addresses sickness absenteeism. There are six short questions of open and closed type, which check the existence of sickness absences from work in the past 12 months, reasons for them, and frequency of sickness absences from work in the past 12 months, expressed as the number of days and the number of sets of absences (“how many times”). The first four short open questions verified the frequency of ab- sence from work in the last 12 months, expressed in the number of days and the number of absences, as well as the reasons for those absences. We used the methodology used by Ybema et al. (2010). The ap- proach has also been used in other recent studies to determine the correlation of health absenteeism with other factors. Questions five and six in the second set of questions are the closed type of questions (“Yes” or “No”). “Yes”, in relation to question five, means “Yes, I have been absent, despite was being able to carry out work tasks«. “No” means “No, I have not been absent, despite was being able to carry out work tasks”. “Yes”, in relation to question six, means “Yes, I have performed my work tasks despite being ill or injured”. “No” means “No, I have not performed my work tasks due to being ill or injured “. As mentioned above, the survey was carried out in February 2015, but the percentage of lost calendar days in public administration in Slovenia due to sickness absentee- ism has been increasing every year since 2014. Although our survey was conducted in 2015, we can conclude from the NIJZ (2019) statistical data, that the percentage of sickness absenteeism in public administration is increas- ing year by year; therefore, we consider that the results of the research are relevant and important, even today, for the understanding of the sickness absenteeism of employees in the Slovenian public administration. Type of public administration organisation Participants (sample) Number of employees in public administration in Slovenia f % f % State administration 2,230 69.7% 29,295 73.7% Local administration 354 11.1% 4,825 12.1% Holders of public authorities 609 19.2% 5,603 14.1% Total public administration 3,200 39,723 Table 1: Distribution of employees by the type of organisation and number of employees in public administration in Slovenia. 57 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers 4 Results 4.1 Connection between Field of Work, Years of Service, and Sickness Absenteeism in Public Administration In the context of establishing whether seniority of employ- ees in public administration in the current employment organisation affects sickness absenteeism in public admin- istration, we created four classes of the years of service, variable for the purpose of analysis, i.e.: • first class: up to 10 years of service in the organ- isation; • second class: 10 to 19 years of service in the or- ganisation; • third class: 20 to 29 years of service in the organ- isation; • fourth class: 30 years and more of service in the organisation; Based on the analysis of the research results, it was dis- covered that the respondents characteristically differ in the overall length of duration of sickness absenteeism in the past 12 months, according to the years of service (Table 2) (χ² = 39.04; p < 0.01). Respondents with up to 10 years of service were absent from work for the least number of days (8.05 days), while respondents with over 30 years of ser- vice were absent from work for the largest number of days (10.27 days). Respondents with 10 to 19 years of service were slightly less absent from work than the respondents with over 30 years of service (9.71 days), and respondents with 20 to 29 years of service were absent from work even less (9.35 days). Based on the results from Table 2, we can see that the existence of statistically significant differences by years of service is also shown in the length of sickness absenteeism due to caring for or illness of a dependant family member (χ²=141.94; p<0.01), with a rule that length of sickness ab- senteeism decreases while seniority increases. The length of sickness absenteeism due to their own illness or injury increases with years of service; however, differences be- tween groups are not statistically significant (χ² = 3.58; p > 0.05). YEARS OF SERVICE N AM SD Kruskal-Wallis test χ² df P care for or illness of dependent family member up to 10 years 530 4.19 7.95 141.94 3 0.000 10–19 years 562 3.51 7.19 20–29 years 320 1.42 3.88 30 years and more 145 0.10 0.67 own illness or injury (at or outside work) up to 10 years 707 6.15 14.27 3.58 3 0.311 10–19 years 763 8.77 21.39 20–29 years 545 8.87 21.26 30 years and more 258 10.55 26.16 mental pressure and stress in the working envi- ronment (also due to the behaviour of leaders) up to 10 years 303 1.77 8.64 5.08 3 0.166 10–19 years 348 1.13 7.25 20–29 years 269 2.06 13.97 30 years and more 148 0.34 1.87 other reason for absence, which is not related to illness, injuries or pressure up to 10 years 297 0.79 4.79 5.93 3 0.115 10–19 years 338 0.86 5.61 20–29 years 259 0.36 2.33 30 years and more 147 0.74 4.39 TOTAL up to 10 years 913 8.05 16.09 13.97 3 0.003 10–19 years 963 9.71 20.91 20–29 years 635 9.35 22.87 30 years and more 282 10.27 25.37 Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the number of days of absence, and the results of Kruskal-Wallis test by years of service and by an individual reason for temporary absence. N – number of answers; AM – arithmetic mean; SD – standard deviation; df – degrees of freedom; p – level of statistical significance 58 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers A series of post-hoc tests (Table 3) shows that respond- ents differ from each other by their seniority statistically significantly, in relation to days of sickness absence in the last 12 months due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member, where the only exceptions are groups of respondents with up to 10 years of service and between 10 and 19 years of service, where statistically significant differences could not be confirmed. By the total length of sickness absence in the past 12 months (Table 3), there are statistically significant differences between respondents with the fewest years of service (up to 10 years and be- tween 10 and 19 years), and those with the most years of service (30 years and more), while at the same time, there is a statistical difference between groups of respondents with 10 to 19 years of service and 20 to 29 years of service. Respondents statistically significantly differ also in the number of total sets of sickness absence (Table 4) in the last 12 months (χ² = 61.81; p < 0.01), according to their years of service in the current organisation of employment. Respondents with up to 10 years of service were most no- tably absent from work (1.8 times), but by increasing the years of service, the number of sets of sickness absence decreases; respondents with over 30 years of service were absent from work more than half as many times (0.8 times) than those with the fewest years of service. Differences between the number of sets of sickness absence due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member (χ² = 146.11; p < 0.01) and their own illness or in- jury (χ² = 20.43; p < 0.01), are also statistically significant (Table 4), where the number of sets of absences decreases by the increasing years of service. The existence of sta- tistically significant differences between groups by years of service also shows in other reasons for absence, which are not connected to illness, injuries, or pressure (χ² = 9.4; p < 0.05), due to which respondents with 10 to 19 years of service are absent the most times (0.2 times), whereas respondents with 20 to 29 years are absent the fewest times (0.05 times). Next, we noted that (Table 5) the respondents statis- tically significantly differ from each other by their years of service in the total number of sets of sickness absence in the past 12 months, and at the same time in absence due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member, except for the groups of respondents with up to 10 years of service and between 10 and 19 years of service, where statistically significant differences could not be confirmed. By the number of sets of sickness absence in the past 12 months due to their own illness or injury, there are statisti- cally significant differences between respondents with the most years of service (30 years or more) and the remaining groups of respondents, while at the same time, there is a statistical difference between groups of respondents with the fewest years of service (up to 10 years) and from 20 to 29 years of service. For the number of sets of sickness absence due to other reasons for absence, there are statistically significant dif- ferences (Table 5) only between respondents who have up to 10 years of service and respondents who have between 20 to 29 years of service, while at the same time, there are statistically significant differences between the first group, and respondents with the most years of service (30 years or more). Based on the results of the research about the connec- tion between years of service with sickness absenteeism, we noticed a trend of less frequent (number of sets) sick- ness absence by increasing years of service, which mostly shows in sickness absence due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member, and due to their own illness or injury. On the other hand, the total number of days of sickness absence increases with increasing years of ser- vice, which is mostly true of absences from work due to their own illness or injury, although the number of days of sickness absence due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member decreases with increasing years of service. Table 3: A series of post-hoc tests (Mann-Whitney U test) between pairs of classes of years of service, in relation to the number of days of temporary absence up to 10 years – 10–19 years up to 10 years – 20–29 years up to 10 years – 30 years and more 10–19 years – 20–29 years 10–19 years – 30 years and more 20–29 years – 30 years and more U p U p U p U p U p U P care for or illness of dependent family member 139968 0.061 61278 0.000 20432 0.000 70143 0.000 23796 0.000 18507 0.000 TOTAL 433468 0.590 276196 0.101 113569 0.002 288065 0.042 119049 0.001 83308 0.074 U – value of Mann-Whitney test; p – statistical significance 59 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the number of sets of sickness absence and the results of Kruskal-Wallis test by years of service and by individual reason for sickness absence YEARS OF SERVICE N AM SD Kruskal-Wallis test χ² df P care for or illness of dependent family member up to 10 years 526 1.51 2.67 146.11 3 0.000 10–19 years 561 1.26 2.04 20–29 years 316 0.52 1.35 30 years and more 145 0.09 0.66 own illness or injury (at or outside work) up to 10 years 700 1.04 1.23 20.43 3 0.000 10–19 years 756 1.01 1.51 20–29 years 539 0.97 1.32 30 years and more 253 0.74 1.13 mental pressure and stress in the working envi- ronment (also due to the behaviour of leaders) up to 10 years 303 0.20 1.00 4.85 3 0.183 10–19 years 348 0.16 0.61 20–29 years 268 0.15 0.62 30 years and more 148 0.09 0.46 other reason for absence, which is not related to illness, injuries, or pressure up to 10 years 298 0.17 0.66 9.40 3 0.024 10–19 years 338 0.21 1.07 20–29 years 257 0.05 0.28 30 years and more 146 0.10 0.59 TOTAL up to 10 years 912 1.79 2.68 61.81 3 0.000 10–19 years 961 1.66 2.46 20–29 years 631 1.17 1.79 30 years and more 278 0.82 1.46 N – number of answers; AM – arithmetic mean; SD – standard deviation; df – degrees of freedom; p – level of statistical significance Table 5: A series of post-hoc tests (Mann-Whitney U test) between pairs of classes of years of service, in relation to the number of sets of absence up to 34 years – 35–44 years up to 34 years – 45–54 years up to 34 years – 55 years and more 35–44 years – 45–54 years 35–44 years – 55 years and more 45–54 years – 55 years and more U p U p U p U p U p U p care for or illness of dependent family member 139145 0.076 58839 0.000 20639 0.000 67607 0.000 23980 0.000 18559 0.000 own illness or injury (at or outside work) 253185 0.130 176569 0.040 72951 0.000 199072 0.452 82593 0.000 60744 0.007 other reason for absence, which is not related to illness, injuries, or pressure 49146 0.264 36161 0.010 20478 0.027 42118 0.110 23843 0.146 18686 0.839 TOTAL 425953 0.275 248231 0.000 94692 0.000 270018 0.000 102967 0.000 76518 0.001 U – value of Mann-Whitney test; p – statistical significance 60 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers 4.2 Connection between field of work and sickness absenteeism in public administration In the research analysis, we checked whether there are statistically significant differences between respondents in relation to their field of work in the number of days and sets of sickness absenteeism in the past 12 months. Based on the data shown in Table 6, we found that officials (9.6 days on average) and professional-technical officials (9.5 days) were absent from work for the longest period of time, whereas officials in leading positions were absent for the shortest period of time (6.2 days). There are statis- tically significant differences between respondents about the number of days of sickness absenteeism in relation to the field of work, in the total number of days of sickness absence (χ² = 30.52; p < 0.01), where officials and pro- fessional-technical personnel are statistically significantly more absent from work for a longer period of time than officials in leading positions, i.e. for more than three work- ing days on average. Statistically significant differences in the length of sickness absence have also appeared (Table 6) in sickness absence due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member (χ² = 30.55; p < 0.01), which is why officials and professional-technical public employees were on average absent from work at least 2.7 times as long as officials in leading positions. Officials and professional-technical personnel are statistically significantly absent from work longer than officials in leading positions due to their own illness or injury (χ² = 26.58; p < 0.01) and due to mental pressure and stress in the working environment (χ² = 7.92; p < 0.05). Similarly to the analysis of days of sickness absentee- ism by individual work areas, it is also evident from the analysis of the number of sets of sickness absence (Table 7) that officials and professional-technical personnel were statistically significantly several times more often absent from work than officials in the leading positions (χ² = 27.86; p < 0.01), where there were no statistically signifi- cant differences between the first two groups of interview- ees. On average, professional-technical personnel were ab- sent from work 1.63 times, and officials were only slightly less absent (1.58 times), while officials in the leading posi- tions were statistically absent from work fewer times (0.9 times). The latter is true, both in sickness absenteeism due to caring for or illness of a family member (χ² = 25.44; p < 0.01), as well as their own illness or injury (χ² = 27; p < 0.01) and due to mental pressure and stress in the working environment (χ² = 7.53; p < 0.05). As was already pointed out between the groups of re- spondents employed in official and professional-technical positions, there are no statistically significant differences (Table 8), while the latter are shown in the comparison of both groups with a group of officials in leading positions. Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the number of days of absence and the results of Kruskal-Wallis test by field of work and by individual reason for sickness absenteeism. FIELD OF WORK N AM SD Kruskal-Wallis test χ² df p care for or illness of dependent family member PTP 440 3.35 7.33 30.55 2 0.000 OFF 900 3.26 6.91 OMP 214 1.21 3.64 own illness or injury (at or outside work) PTP 627 8.48 20.29 26.58 2 0.000 OFF 1335 8.65 20.63 OMP 305 5.59 17.29 mental pressure and stress in the working environment (also due to the behaviour of leaders) PTP 295 1.28 7.91 7.92 2 0.019 OFF 597 1.70 10.11 OMP 173 0.84 9.18 other reason for absence, which is not related to illness, injuries, or pressure PTP 284 0.72 5.41 1.85 2 0.396 OFF 579 0.77 4.65 OMP 175 0.43 2.24 TOTAL PTP 776 9.51 20.07 30.52 2 0.000 OFF 1657 9.62 21.22 OMP 354 6.17 17.55 N – number of answers; AM – arithmetic mean; SD – standard deviation; df – degrees of freedom; p – level of statistical significance; PTP – professional-technical personnel; OFF – officials; OMP – officials, managerial position 61 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers Table 7: Descriptive statistics of the number of sets of absence and the results of Kruskal-Wallis test by field of work, and by an individual reason for temporary absence. FIELD OF WORK N AM SD Kruskal-Wallis test χ² df p care for or illness of dependent family member PTP 436 1.19 2.58 25.44 2 0.000 OFF 894 1.17 2.07 OMP 215 0.51 1.16 own illness or injury (at or outside work) PTP 620 1.04 1.45 27.00 2 0.000 OFF 1318 1.03 1.37 OMP 304 0.64 0.90 mental pressure and stress in the working envi- ronment (also due to the behaviour of leaders) PTP 295 0.21 1.04 7.53 2 0.023 OFF 596 0.17 0.63 OMP 173 0.05 0.26 other reason for absence, which is not related to illness, injuries, or pressure PTP 284 0.11 0.58 1.71 2 0.425 OFF 577 0.19 0.91 OMP 175 0.06 0.30 TOTAL PTP 772 1.63 2.75 27.86 2 0.000 OFF 1650 1.58 2.29 OMP 354 0.91 1.33 N – number of answers; AM – arithmetic mean; SD – standard deviation; df – Degrees of Freedom; p – level of statistical significance; PTP – professional-technical personnel; OFF – officials; OMP – officials, managerial position Table 8: A series of post-hoc tests (Mann-Whitney U test) between pairs of fields of work, in relation to the number of days and the number of sets of absence. PTP–U PTP–OMP U–OMP U p U p U p care for or illness of dependent family member number of days 196061 0.742 37848 0.000 76290 0.000 number of sets 193754 0.844 38461 0.000 78031 0.000 own illness or injury (at or outside work) number of days 414859 0.745 79768 0.000 166971 0.000 number of sets 399567 0.404 79767 0.000 164463 0.000 mental pressure and stress in the working environment (also due to the behaviour of leaders) number of days 87205 0.651 23973 0.015 48104 0.005 number of sets 87459 0.809 23967 0.015 48134 0.006 TOTAL number of days 639595 0.832 114068 0.000 241382 0.000 number of sets 630522 0.677 115231 0.000 242957 0.000 U – value of Mann-Whitney test; p – statistical significance; PTP – professional-technical personnel; OMP – officials, managerial position 62 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers 5 Discussion In the framework of studying, and the research that has been carried out, it was discovered that there is a statis- tically significant connection on sickness absenteeism in public administration with years of service, as well as the field of work of employees. We discovered that those with fewer years of service, measured in the number of days, have less sickness absence than those with more years of service. The last result of the research is similar to the findings of the research that was carried out in the Italian public sector, and where it was established that sickness absenteeism increases with the seniority of employees (De Paola, Scoppa and Pupo, 2014). The reverse trend related to the number of days of absence of employees from work can be detected when measuring sickness absenteeism in the number of sets (how many times) of sickness absentee- ism. At this point, we discovered that by increasing sen- iority, the number of sets of sickness absence decreases. This means that those with fewer years of service are more often absent from work due to sickness than those with more years of service. In this framework, it is reasonable to explain that Lok- ke Nielsen (2008, p. 1334) notes that if sickness absentee- ism is the result of dissatisfaction with the work situation, employees with higher seniority may face fewer career opportunities and fewer possibilities for employment in another organisation. The latter may lead to dissatisfac- tion, and a consequence of that is also their higher rate of sickness absenteeism. In case we consider the context of this explanation of the results of our research about the connection between sickness absenteeism and years of service, the results in public administration could also be interpreted in a way that with employees with more years of service, there is an occurrence of possible disappointment or limited pos- sibilities for promotion, in relation to the career system in public administration – a consequence of that is also their dissatisfaction, which can be seen in an increased number of sickness absences. Explaining the research results about the connection between seniority and sickness absenteeism can also be interpreted in such manner that it is sensible to understand seniority in close connection with the age of employees. Originating from that, a result of this kind, if it is also ex- plained through age, meets the expectations. Evans and Palmer (2000, p. 21) explain that it is typical of the young that they are absent more often, but for a shorter period of time than older employees, and the older ones are less absent in terms of frequency; however, within individual absences they are absent for more days than the young, in particularly after age 50. At the same time, we can under- stand the result of the connection between years of service and sickness absenteeism through the prism of health and well-being of employees, and the ability of the human or- ganism to become empowered or recover, because when growing older, the human organism needs more time for recovery. There is also an interesting research result in the field of the connection between the field of work of employ- ees in the organisation and sickness absenteeism in public administration. We discovered that there is a statistically significant connection, i.e. officials and the profession- al-technical personnel are statistically for a longer time and more often absent from work than officials in leading positions (leading personnel). This means that heads are absent for fewer days and less often than employees that are being led by them. This can be understood as benefi- cial and encouraging if the results are interpreted from the viewpoint of “an example and culture of work by leading personnel”. The leading personnel (are supposed to) repre- sent an example for cultural behaviour of employees, and even culture (ethics) that is present in the area of sickness absenteeism and is very important, because it was discov- ered that in cases where employees perceive that the lead- ing personnel are missing from work (even unjustifiably), they quickly take such a manner of behaviour or adopt such practices for themselves. The result that the officials in leading positions are absent from work fewer times than officials and professional-technical public employees can be understood through the spectre of greater responsibility and diligence of the leading personnel, in order to regu- late things in the work collective. The easiest way to ar- range the latter is if the leading personnel are present in the working environment, because this will enable them to solve any problems in the working environment quickly. It is interesting that officials and professional-technical public employees are absent from work at least 2.7 times longer than officials in leading positions, due to caring for or illness of a dependent family member. These research results can be understood and interpreted in the direction that officials and professional-technical public employees decide faster and easier for absence from work to care for or support family members than the leading person- nel. These findings of our research we can understand in a way as Kozjek and Ferjan (2015, p. 13) explain in their re- search. The results in their research show that participants on managerial workplaces evaluated more highly: • the possibilities of an individual to access infra- structure for the basic health needs of safety at workplace, • the level of protection of an individual from large changes in working conditions by the current em- ployer, • the possibilities of an individual to have safe working conditions, which also enable well-being in the workplace, the possibilities of an individual to have work-life balance, understanding enabling an individual to satisfy family needs, • the possibilities of an individual to have resources for a decent life (such as income, the regulation of 63 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers minimum wage), • the possibilities of an individual to have opportu- nities for wages coordination and indexation. In the context of understanding the results of the performed research, we have established that, based on self-assessment of the respondents of the research, there is a prevailing state in public administration that, in relation to seniority, officials in the leading positions are absent from work fewer days and fewer times than other public employees. 6 Conclusion In the working environment, employees and employers face different challenges. Challenges are usually even harder if there are factors in the working environment that can directly or indirectly interrupt or undermine work ac- tivities. One of those phenomena is sickness absenteeism. Even sickness absenteeism is often understood as a neg- ative occurrence, and it is reasonable to understand and to detect important messages for employees, employers, and the state in this phenomenon. With the occurrence of sickness absenteeism, employers can receive import- ant messages about whether they should engage more in certain areas or sort things out. The latter means that, in such cases, it is reasonable for the employer to make a so-called “self-reflection” of the state in the working envi- ronment, and adopt measures to improve the future state. It is interesting that in some cases, employees also de- cide for a sickness absence because they cannot stand the working environment anymore, and need to retreat into a healthier and safer environment to revitalise and empower themselves, before returning to the working process. The reasons for sickness absenteeism vary and should be ex- plained as such, taking into consideration that the factors for absence from work are very much intertwined. Sickness absenteeism in public administration in Slo- venia is, according to statistical indicators, recorded in a higher percentage (7.1% in 2018) than the percentage that applies for the whole of Slovenia (4.5% in 2018), and that was one of the reasons why we conducted this research in Slovenian public administration. The purpose of this research was to find out whether there is the con- nection between number of years of service, the field of work (work position), and sickness absenteeism in public administration. The results of the research confirmed the preliminary assumptions that it will be possible to confirm these influences. It was indeed established that there is a statistically significant influence between sickness absen- teeism, years of service, and field of work (work position) of employees in public administration. Those with fewer years of service are absent from work for less time than those with more years of service. Employees in leading official positions are absent from work less often and for a fewer number of days than the group of officials and professional-technical public employees. The research represents one of the first presentations of its kind about the connection between some demographic factors of employees in public administration and sickness absenteeism, by individual reasons in public administra- tion in Slovenia. Such findings of our research, which are presented in the article, represent an important contribu- tion to understanding certain correlations and characteris- tics that are related to sickness absenteeism in public ad- ministration. At this point, it should not be overlooked that such findings are important, also because we identified some (socio)demographic characteristics of employees, and gained an insight into certain (personal and business) characteristics of employees in public administration that are most often absent from work. The latter represents a contribution to the identification of the groups of em- ployees, on which attention should be placed to reduce the proportion of sickness absence. This mainly involves employees who do not occupy managerial posts, and em- ployees with a greater length of service (older employees). Given that in recent years, increased attention has been devoted to the management of older employees, the re- sults of our research also need to be understood in this re- spect; moreover, in order to reduce sickness absenteeism in public administration, solutions should be sought, with ongoing measures in the field of care for older employees (e.g. measures to improve the health and vitality of older employees, fair treatment and fair appreciation of older employees, relationships between generations in the work environment, etc.). Ybema et al. (2016, p. 645) explain that it is important for organizations that older employees remain healthy. If organizations treat their employees in a just way this signals that all employees are valued, which may improve the health of employees and the function- ing of the organization. The study by Ybema et al. (2016) suggests that organizations may reduce sickness absence among their older employees by investments. They also suggest that a fair treatment and a fair appreciation of older employees are such an important solutions. A fair treatment of employees can prevent productivity loss and sickness absence, whereas lack of appreciation and unfair procedures may lead to productivity loss and sickness ab- sence. Relationships at work may erode as a result of (long term) sickness absence. This could lead to a vicious cir- cle in which lower organizational justice further increases sickness absence of older employees (Ybema, Meer, & Leijten, 2016, p. 653). These should also be considered by the state and HR departments by drawing up measures to reduce sickness absenteeism of older employees in public administration. Sickness absenteeism in connection with officials and professional-technical public employees in public admin- istration could be reduced by assigning them greater re- sponsibility related to work and activities in the work en- vironment and provide them better leaders and conditions 64 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers for satisfaction in the workplace. The study of Van Di- erendonc (2002) suggests that giving employees respon- sibilities reduces sickness absenteeism. The leaders of employees have an important role also in connection with sickness absence. Boudreau et al. (1993) showed in their study that employees who are less satisfied with their su- pervisor tend to be absent more. Elshout et al. (2013) sug- gest that organizations and employees may have benefits from the leaders who have the transformational leadership style. This may result in better employee satisfaction and lower sickness absenteeism. The transformational leader- ship style is also highly recommended by Van Dierendonc (2002). According to Zhu et al. (2005) specific human re- source management practices can have a positive effect on employee performance, motivation, skills, abilities, and knowledge, thus reducing sickness absenteeism. One of the key factors in creating this effect is leader with his owen leadership style. Elshout et al. (2013) explain that employees who are more satisfied with their job and their supervisor will be more committed to the organization and call in sick less often. Munch-Hansen et al. (2009) found a decrease in average sickness absence with increasing sat- isfaction with psychosocial work conditions. Kozjek and Ferjan (2015, p. 19) explain that employees on managerial workplaces are enabled functional flexibility, more often than those on non-managerial workplaces, which is often associated with better opportunities in regarding econom- ic security (better payment), workplace security, job skills security and combination security. Therefore, organiza- tions need to be aware that their employees have good op- portunities with regard to economic, income, workplace, work and combination se¬curity. The results of our survey show just a few aspects of how field of work and years of service have an effect on sickness absenteeism in public administration. Neverthe- less, numerous other factors (e.g. gender, age, relationship between employees and managerial staff, working condi- tions, health of employees, etc.), which affect the sound understanding of sickness absenteeism, need to be con- sidered in understanding sickness absenteeism. In draw- ing up and implementing the survey in public adminis- tration, we encountered some limitations and difficulties. The latter relate mainly to the sensitivity of the area we have studied, and the large number of surveys conducted in public administration in Slovenia in recent years. How- ever, we are extremely pleased with the response of the participants. The limitations also relate to the fact that the survey was only conducted in public administration, and not in the whole public sector or in the private sector. To this end, it would be reasonable to extend the survey to the whole public and private sector, and also abroad, over the coming years. By expanding the survey to include em- ployees in the whole public and private sector, we would gain an in-depth insight into the understanding of sickness absence. Moreover, we could broaden the survey by pos- ing questions to employees with more than 20 years of service, relating to the way the employers care for them in the work environment, and the measures implemented in connection with employee health care. As regards the employees with less than 20 years of service, it would be worth examining how they were introduced to the work environment, and what is the quality of their relationship with managerial staff and other employees. Literature Allebeck, P., & Mastekaasa, A. (2004). Causes of sickness absence: research approaches and explanatory models. Scandinavian Journal Public Health, 32 (63), 36-43. http://doi.org/10.1080/14034950410021835 Bal P.M, de Lange AH, & Ybema, J,F, (2011). Age and trust as moderators in the relation between procedural justice and turnover: A large-scale longitudinal study. Applied Psychology: International Review, 60, 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00427.x Buzeti, J., Stare, J., Klun, M., & Kotnik, Ž. (2016). The Impact of Leader’s Temperament on Work Absence. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Spe- cial Issue 2016, 23-37. Buzeti, J., Bilban, M., & Stare, J. (2015). Correlation be- tween sickness absenteeism and temperament of em- ployees in the public administration«. Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, 13(3-4), 27-66. http://doi.org/10.17573/ipar.2016.2-3.07 Buzeti, J. (2015). Povezanost vedenja vodij z začasno odsotnostjo zaposlenih z dela v javni upravi. [The con- nection between leader behavior and temporary em- ployee absence from work in public administration]. Doctoral dissertation: Faculty of Administration of University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Boudreau, C.A., Christian, W.P., & Thibadeau, S.F. (1993). Reducing Absenteeism in a Human Service Setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 13(2), 37–50. http://doi.org/10.1300/J075v13n02_04 Coffey, M., Dugdill, L., & Tattersall, A. (2009). Working in the Public Sector – A Case Study of Social Services. Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 420-442. http://doi.org/10.1177/1468017309342177 De Paola, M., Scoppa, V. & Pupo, V. (2014). Absenteeism in the Italian Public Sector: The Effects of Changes in Sick Leave Policy. Journal of Labor Economics. 32(2), 337-360. http://doi.org/10.1086/674986 Elshout, R., Sherp, E., & Van Der Feltz-Cornelis, C. (2013). Understanding the link between leadrship style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: a mixed methods design study in a mental health care institu- tion. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13(9), 823-837. http://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S43755 Evans, A., &Palmer, S. (2000). From absence to atten- dance. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development – CIPD House. Fitzgerald, S., Kirby, A., Murphy, A., & Fiona Geaney (2016). Obesity, diet quality and absenteeism in a work- 65 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers ing population. Public Health Nutrition, 19(18), 3287– 3295. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980016001269 Forte, A., & Nicola, S. (2017). Strategies for Reducing Employee Absenteeism for a Sustainable Future: A Bermuda Perspective. Doctoral dissertations, Walden University. Halbesleben, J., Whitman, M. V., & Crawford, W. S. (2014). A dialectical theory of the decision to go to work: Bringing together absenteeism and presentee- ism. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 177– 192. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.09.001 Hum Wee, L., Lay Ling Yeap, L., Mei Hsien Chan, C., Eiin Wong, J., Aini Jamil, N., Swarna Nantha, Y., & Sin Siau, C. (2019). Anteceding factors predicting ab- senteeism and presenteeism in urban area in Malaysia. BMC Public Health, 19(4). http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6860-8 Kozjek, T., Ferjan, M. (2015). Organizational Flexibility, Employee Security, and Organizational Efficiency – a Case Study of Slovenian Public and Private Sector Or- ganizations. Organizacija. 48, 3-21. http://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2015-0001 Kralj, A., Sedmak, M. Kotnik, V., Medica, K., Sekloča, P., Medarič, Z., Simčič, B. (2013). Analiza stanja psiho- socialnih tveganj na delovnih mestih v mikro, malih in srednje velikih podjetjih [Analysis of psychosocial risks in workplaces in micro, small and medium-sized enterprises]. Retrieved December 28, 2019, from http://www.ir-rs.si/f/docs/Razvojni_projekti/Studi- ja_MSP.pdf Løkke, A.K. (2014) Past absence as a predictor of present absence: the case of a large Danish municipality. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 25(9), 1267-1280. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.831112 Løkke Nielsen, A.K. (2008). Determinants of absenteeism in public organizations: a unit-level analysis of work ab- sence in a large Danish municipality. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1330– 1348. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802110158 Løkke, A.K, Eskildsen, J.K., & Jensen, T.W. (2007). Ab- senteeism in the Nordic countries. Employee Rela- tions, 29(1), 16-29. http://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710714450 Løkke, A.K., & Krøtel, S.M.L. (2019). Performance eval- uations of leadership quality and public sector leaders’ absenteeism. Public Management Review, 1-22. http://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1638441 Łyszczarz, B. (2019). Indirect costs and incidence of care- givers’short-term absenteeism in Poland, 2006–2016. BMC Public Health, 19(1). http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6952 Munch-Hansen, T., Wieclaw, J., Agerbo, E., Wester- gaard-Nielsen, N., Rosenkilde, M., & Bonde, J.P. (2009). Sickness absence and workplace levels of sat- isfaction with psychosocial work conditions at public service workplaces. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 52, 153–161. http://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20657 NIJZ (Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje). (2013–2018). Sickness absence indicators. Retrieved July 28, 2019, from https://podatki.nijz.si/Table.aspx?lay- out=tableViewLayout2&px_tableid=BS_TB4.px- &px_path=NIJZ%20podatkovni%20portal__1%20 Zdravstveno%20stanje%20prebivalstva__07%20Bol- ni%c5%a1ki%20stale%c5%be&px_language=sl&px_ db=NIJZ%20podatkovni%20portal&rxid=06dff5f2- bea1-4a86-8393-1f09e93f72f6 NIJZ (Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje) (2019). Sick- ness absence indicators. Retrieved December 21, 2019, from https://podatki.nijz.si/Table.aspx?lay- out=tableViewLayout2&px_tableid=BS_TB4.px- &px_path=NIJZ%20podatkovni%20portal__1%20 Zdravstveno%20stanje%20prebivalstva__07%20Bol- ni%c5%a1ki%20stale%c5%be&px_language=sl&px_ db=NIJZ%20podatkovni%20portal&rxid=e1c5a200- d974-476b-8691-3a1169b46a3b Nguyen, H., Groth, M., & Johnson, A. (2013). When the going gets tough, the tough keep working: Impact of emotional labor on absenteeism. Journal of Manage- ment, 42, 615-643. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313490026 Nielsen, K. & Daniels, K. (2016). The relationship be- tween transformational leadership and follower sick- ness absence: the role of presenteeism. Work & Stress - An International Journal of Work, Health & Organi- sations, 30 (2), 193-208. http://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1170736 Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F.L. (2003). Per- sonality and absenteeism – A meta-analysis of integrity tests. European Journal of Personality, 17(2), 19-39. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.487 Patton, E., & Johns, G. (2012). Context and the social representation of absenteeism: Absence in the popular press and in academic research. Human Relations, 65, 217-240. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711428819 Pfeifer, C. (2010). Impact of wages and job levels on worker absenteeism. International Journal of Manpower, 31(1), 59-72. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031694 Rhodes, S.R., & Steers, R.M. (1990). Managing employ- ee absenteeism. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Rosenblatt, Z., Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. & Shirom, Arie (2010). Absenteeism in Israeli schoolteachers: An organizational ethics perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 247–259. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.006 Schouten, L.S., Bültmann, U., Heymans, M.W., Joling, C.I., Twisk, J., & Roelen, C. (2016). Shortened version of the work ability index to identify workers at risk of long-term sickness absence. European Journal of Pub- lic Health, 26(2), 301-305. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv198 Schmid, J.A., Jarczok, M.N., Sonntag, D., Herr, R.M., Fischer, J.E. & Schmidt, B. (2017). Associations be- tween Supportive Leadership Behavior and the Costs 66 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers of Absenteeism and Presenteeism: An Epidemiological and Economic Approach. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 59 (2), 141-147. http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000919 Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Raftar-Ozery, T. (2016). Lead- ership, absenteeism acceptance, and ethical climate as predictors of teachers’ absence and citizenship be- haviors. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216665841 Tičar, B., & Rakar, I. (2011). Pravo javnega sektorja [Pub- lic sector law]. Inštitut za lokalno samoupravo in javna naročila, Maribor. Toth, M. (1999). Kako se Evropa spopada z zdravstvenim absentizmom [How Europe copes with health absen- teeism]. Evrobilten, 6, 20–21. Public Employees Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 95/09, 110/02, 02/04, 23/05, 35/05 - upb1, 62/05, 75/05, 113/05, 32/06 - upb2, 33/07, 63/07-upb3, 65/08, 40/12) Van Dierendonck, D., LeBlanc, P.M., van Breukelen, W. (2002). Supervisory behavior, reciprocity and subordi- nate absenteeism. Leadership and Organization Devel- opment Journal, 23(2), 84–92. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210419215 Ybema, J.F., Meer, L., & Leijten, F.R.M. (2016). Longi- tudinal Relationships between Organizational Justice, Productivity Loss, and Sickness Absence among Older Employees. International Journal of Behavioral Med- icine, 23, 645–654. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9546-y Zhu, W., Chew, I.K.H., Spangler, W.D. (2005). CEO trans- formational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing hu- man resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39–52. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.06.001 Jernej Buzeti, is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Public Administration, University of Ljubljana, where he successfully defended a doctoral dissertation titled “The connection between leader behaviour and temporary employee absence from work in public administration”. He is also a Vice Dean for knowledge transfer at the faculty. His field of research relates to leadership and human resource management or the organisation of the public sector. He is also involved in preparing and conducting practical classes and seminars. Povezanost delovnega področja in delovne dobe z zdravstvenim absentizmom v javni upravi Ozadnje in namen: Statistični podatki kažejo, da je zdravstveni absentizem v javni upravi v Sloveniji bistveno višji (7,1% v letu 2018) od odstotka, ki velja za celotno Slovenijo (4,5% v letu 2018). Podatki prav tako kažejo podoben vzorec tudi v javnem sektorju v drugih državah. Glede na tovrstne statistične podatke je glavni namen naše raziska- ve povezan s proučevanjem povezanosti delovnega področja in delovne dobe zaposlenih z zdravstvenim absentiz- mom v javni upravi. Metodologija: Podatki raziskave so bili zbrani s pomočjo spletnega anketnega vprašalnika, ki je bil zasnovan z namenom izvedbe empirične raziskave in je bil sestavljen iz več sklopov vprašanj. Zbrani podatki so bili obdelani v statističnem programu SPSS. Rezultati: Raziskava je bila izvedena leta 2015 v organizacijah javne uprave in v naš vzorec raziskave je bilo vklju- čenih 3.220 zaposlenih v javni upravi. Rezultati raziskave kažejo, da obstaja statistično pomembna povezanost med zdravstvenim absentizmom v javni upravi in delovnim področjem ter delovno dobo zaposlenih v javni upravi. Zaključek: Raziskava nam pomaga razumeti povezavo zdravstvenega absentizma z delovnim področjem in de- lovno dobo zaposlenih v javni upravi. Glede na rezultate raziskave bi bilo smiselno sprejeti ukrepe, ki so bolj osre- dotočeni na skupine zaposlenih v javni upravi (starejši zaposleni z daljšo delovno dobo in zaposlene uradnike ter strokovno-tehnične javne uslužbence) pri katerih se lahko zmanjša zdravstveni absentizem. Zdravstveni absenti- zem v teh skupinah zaposlenih bi lahko zmanjšali z zagotavljanjem boljših vodij in zagotavljanjem dobrih pogojev za zadovoljstvo na delovnem mestu. Ključne besede: zdravstveni absentizem, javna uprava, delovna doba, delovno področje 67 Organizacija, Volume 53 Issue 1, February 2020Research Papers Appendix: Questionnaire General (demographic) data Gender: • male • female Education: • Secondary education • University education • Tertiary education • Residency • Tertiary education (former) • Master (former) • Bachelor • Master • University education (former) • Doctorate Year of birth: ________________ Organisation of employment: • State administration • Local administration • Holders of public authorities Duration of employment in the organisation of current employment: ______ years, _______months Work area: _______________________________________________________ Sickness absence: 1. How many DAYS and HOW MANY TIMES have you been absent in the past 12 months due to taking care of a de- pendent family member? a. Number of DAYS: _________ b. Number of OCCASIONS: ________ 2. How many DAYS and HOW MANY TIMES have you been absent in the past 12 months due to illness or injury (work or non-work related)? a. Number of DAYS: _________ b. Number of OCCASIONS: ________ 3. How many DAYS and HOW MANY TIMES have you been absent in the past 12 months due to pressure or stress in the working environment (also due to leader behaviour) a. Number of DAYS: _________ b. Number of OCCASIONS: ________ 4. How many DAYS and HOW MANY TIMES have you been absent in the past 12 months due to reasons not related to sickness, injury, pressure, stress, etc.? a. Number of DAYS: _________ b. Number of OCCASIONS: ________ 5. In the past 12 months, have you been temporarily absent from work (due to sickness, injury, family member care) despite being able to carry out work tasks? a. YES b. NO 6. In the past 12 months, have you performed your work tasks despite being ill or injured (and thus being eligible for taking sick leave) because you felt and knew that you must carry out these tasks? a. YES b. NO