Relationships matter: how workplace social capital affects absenteeism of public sector employees

Figures & data

Table 1. Workplace social capital (WSC) and related concepts.

WSC	Definition	Exemplary studies analysing WSC or related concepts*
Overall WSC	Refers to supportive and trusting relationships among peers and between employees and management within an organization. It represents the level of connectedness, mutual trust, and shared mental models and understandings among the actors within an organization. It comprises structural, relational, and cognitive aspects within all relationships within a workplace on the horizontal axis and the vertical axis.	WSC (Boyas and Wind 2010; Framke et al. 2019; Gächter, Davd, and Torgler 2011; Kroll, DeHart-Davis, and Vogel 2019; Ko 2021; Løkke 2016; Török et al. 2018) Concepts measuring strength and/or quality of workplace relationships Climate of inclusion (Brimhall, Lizano, and Barak 2014) High-quality workplace relationships (Caillier 2017) Human Relations Organizational Climate (Ancaraniet al. 2018, 2019)
Bonding WSC	Refers to relationships within a work group or a unit. These relationships are characterized by high frequency and proximity with a high degree of reciprocity. It embraces perceptions of colleague support and information sharing (structural), a sense of trust, respect and recognition (relational), a shared vision and shared mental models of the work task (cognitive) within a team.	Bonding WSC (Kenneth and Andersen 2018; Meng, Clausen, and Borg 2018) Concepts measuring strength and/or quality of relationships within teams Collegiality (Jana and Wallace 2002) Colleague interest (De Clercq et al. 2015) Colleague support/help (De Clercq et al. 2015; Boyas and Wind 2010; Moynihan and Pandey 2008; Nielsen et al. 2006; Miraglia and Johns 2021) Group culture (Moynihan and Pandey 2007) Group cohesion (Miraglia and Johns 2021¶) High-quality relationships to colleagues (Read and Laschinger 2015; Caillier 2017) Team climate inventory (Gross, Thaler, and Winter 2019; Kivimäki et al. 2001) Team-Member-Exchange (Ancarani et al. 2018; Schermuly and Meyer 2016) Trust in colleagues (Ancarani et al. 2018; Caverley, Cunningham, and James 2007)
Bridging WSC	Refers to relationships between different groups at the workplace. These relations are less dense and the relationships are weaker than under bonding WSC. It comprises a functioning communication and information flow(structural), mutual respect and shared obligations (relational), and shared objectives (cognitive) across units or teams.	Bridging WSC (Kenneth and Andersen 2018; Meng, Clausen, and Borg 2018) Concepts measuring strength and/or quality of relationships across teams Relational coordination (Bolton, Logan, and Gittell 2021¶)
Direct-leader-linking WSC	Refers to the relationship between the employee and his direct manager. The tie to the direct manager is the most frequent, proximal, and steady tie of the vertical power relationships in the organization. Direct-leader-linking WSC is characterized by interactions related to the employees’ daily practice. It covers perceived supervisor support and participatory leadership (structural), supervisor concern, mutual respect and recognition (relational), and a shared vision (cognitive).	Linking WSC (Kenneth and Andersen 2018; Meng, Clausen, and Borg 2018) Concepts measuring strength and/or quality of employee-leader relationships Leadership – including ethical, supportive, and inspirational leadership (Shahidul, Wright, and Yukl 2014; Nyberg et al. 2008; Montano et al. 2017) Leader-member-exchange (Brimhall, Lizano, and Barak 2014; Meng and Wu 2015; Nyberg et al. 2008; Montano et al. 2017) supervisor support (Nielsen et al. 2006; De Clercq et al. 2015; Boyas and Wind 2010; Caverley, Cunningham, and James 2007) Trust in leadership (Dirks and Ferrin 2002¶)
Top-level-linking WSC	Refers to the relationship between employee and top-level management and/or the organization per se. Top-level management operates on different interaction terms than the immediate managers and often has fewer direct contact with individual employees in the organization. Yet, the top-level management directs the vision and defines organizational policies and practices on a symbolic level Top-level-linking WSC includes employee involvement (structural), organizational trust (relational), and a sense of cohesion (cognitive) at top management or organizational level.	Top-level-linking WSC (Meng, Clausen, and Borg 2018) Concepts measuring strength and/or quality of employee-management/organization relationships Organizational trust/trust in organizational leadership (Dirks and Ferrin 2002¶) Perceived organizational support (Gross, Thaler, and Winter 2019; Kurtessis et al. 2017) Organizational justice (Duijts et al. 2007; Elovainio et al. 2005) Top management support (Dello Russo et al. 2013)

¶literature review; † meta-analysis.

*Note: We do not refer to studies on societal or community social capital, because these do not relate to within-organization relationships. We do not distinguish whether the studies call it WSC, OSC, or similar. We mainly selected literature reviews, meta-analyses and studies on public sector employees.

Table 2. WSC dimensions and indicators.

WSC dimension	Items
Bonding WSC	In our group, we help colleagues who have too much to do In our group, we agree on what is most important in our work tasks I trust the group’s ability to do the work well There is a sense of unity and cohesion in my group
Bridging WSC	Our group and other groups/departments recognize each other’s contribution to solving the tasks at work We agree on the main goals of our work across the departments of the organization Other groups provide us with the information we need for our work to be done well Other groups have a great understanding of the work we do in our group
Direct-leader-linking WSC	Our immediate manager considers our needs and point of view when making decisions The immediate manager helps solve specific problems we face during the workday Our immediate manager has great understanding of the work we are doing The relationship between our group and our immediate manager is characterized by mutual respect and recognition
Top-level-linking WSC	Employees are involved in decisions about changes of the workplace There is a common understanding between management and employees about how to perform the work tasks In our group we feel a strong connection to our workplace

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for main variables (2014 and 2017).

Variable	Year	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
WSC
Overall WSC	2014	6,999	3.7	0.6	1	5
	2017	6,420	3.7	0.6	1	5
Bonding WSC	2014	6,961	3.9	0.7	1	5
	2017	6,395	4.0	0.7	1	5
Bridging WSC	2014	6,915	3.5	0.7	1	5
	2017	6,338	3.6	0.7	1	5
Direct-leader-linking WSC	2014	6,971	3.8	0.9	1	5
	2017	6,344	3.9	0.8	1	5
Top-level-linking WSC	2014	6,967	3.4	0.9	1	5
	2017	6,388	3.5	0.8	1	5
Control variables
Staff responsibility	2014	7,012	0.1	0.2	0	1
	2017	7,066	0.1	0.2	0	1
Female	2014	7,012	0.8	0.4	0	1
	2017	6,434	0.8	0.4	0	1
Age	2014	7,012	47.1	10.1	20	73
	2017	6,434	47.8	10.4	17	74
Seniority	2014	6,994	11.2	8.7	0	47
	2017	6,434	11.7	8.8	0	48
	Year	N	Mean	SD	Quartile 1	Quartile 2	Quartile 3	0 days absent
Sickness absence	2014	6,543	10.6	23.5	1	4	10	25%
	2017	6,217	10,0	21.7	1	4	9	22%
	2014–2017	4,286	1.033	27,67	−3	0	3	17%

Note: For sickness absence: Due to the count data nature of sickness absence, we report the quartiles instead of the minimum and maximum statistics. The last row reports changes in sickness absence from 2017 to 2017. The last column reports the share of individuals with no absence days. For the change 2014–2017 sickness absence (last cell), the number indicates the share of individuals with no change in sickness absence days 2014–2017.

Table 4. Results of mixed negative binomial regressions for sickness absence.

Variables	Null model	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Overall WSC (H1)		0.738	0.755
		(<0.001)	(<0.001)
Bonding WSC (H1a)				0.960	0.945
				(0.173)	(0.062)
Bridging WSC (H1b)				0.902	0.917
				(0.001)	(0.007)
Direct-leader-linking WSC (H1c)				0.936	0.939
				(0.010)	(0.013)
Top-level-linking WSC (H1d)				0.913	0.928
				(0.001)	(0.005)
Control variables
Woman			1.358		1.349
			(<0.001)		(<0.001)
Age			1.006		1.006
			(0.007)		(0.006)
Seniority			0.984		0.984
			(<0.001)		(<0.001)
Staff responsibility			0.350		0.351
			(<0.001)		(<0.001)
2017		1.077	1.094	1.069	1.086
		(0.005)	(0.001)	(0.012)	(0.002)
Constant	1.621	15.197	10.549	14.949	10.575
	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)
/lnalpha	0.095	1.095	1.087	1.095	1.087
	(<0.001)	(0.001)	(0.002)	(0.001)	(0.002)
Random-effects parameters
Org.unit var(_cons)	0.182	1.160	1.144	1.159	1.143
	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)
Individual (var_cons)	1.300	3.043	2.893	3.017	2.864
	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)	(<0.001)
Observations	11,299	11,283	11,276	11,040	11,033
Number of groups	557	557	557	556	556
Number of individuals	7,080	7,074	7,073	6,986	6,985

Note. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) are reported; p-values in parentheses.

Table 5. Relative Importance of WSC Dimensions in Explaining Employees Sickness Absence.

Overall Fit Statistic: 0.0483 WSC Fit statistics: 0.0163 All Subsets’ Fit Stat. (CVs) 0.0320
WSC Dimensions	General Dominance Statistics	Standardized General Dominance Statistics	Conditionally dominates …	Completely dominates …
Top-level-linking WSC	0.0049	10.2%	Linking, Bridging, Bonding	Linking, Bridging, Bonding
Direct-leader-linking WSC	0.0045	9.4%	Bridging, Bonding	Bridging, Bonding
Bridging WSC	0.0036	7.4%	-	-
Bonding WSC	0.0033	6.8%	-	-

Note. Model controls for sex, age, seniority, and supervisory status and include year fixed effects.

Boyas, Javier, and Leslie H. Wind. 2010. “Employment-Based Social Capital, Job Stress, and Employee Burnout: A Public Child Welfare Employee Structural Model.” Children and Youth Services Review 32 (3): 380–388. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Framke, Elisabeth, Ole H. Sørensen, Jacob Pedersen, Thomas Clausen, Vilhelm Borg, and Reiner Rugulies. 2019. “The Association of Vertical and Horizontal Workplace Social Capital with Employees’ Job Satisfaction, Exhaustion and Sleep Disturbances: A Prospective Study.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 92 (6): 883–890. doi:10.1007/s00420-019-01432-5.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gächter, Martin, A. Savage Davd, and Benno Torgler. 2011. “The Relationship Between Stress, Strain and Social Capital.” Policing: An International Journal 34 (3): 515–540.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kroll, Alexander, Leisha DeHart-Davis, and Dominik Vogel. 2019. “Mechanisms of Social Capital in Organizations: How Team Cognition Influences Employee Commitment and Engagement.” The American Review of Public Administration 49 (7): 777–791. doi:10.1177/0275074019851894.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ko, Myeong C. 2021. “An Examination of the Links Between Organizational Social Capital and Employee Well-Being: Focusing on the Mediating Role of Quality of Work Life.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 41 (1): 163–193. doi:10.1177/0734371X19865996.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Løkke, Ann-Kristina. 2016. “Social Capital and Health and Job Related Outcomes: The Case of a Large Municipality.” International Journal of Workplace Health Management 9 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1108/IJWHM-12-2014-0055.

 Google Scholar

Török, Eszter, Alice J. Clark, Johan H. Jensen, Theis Lange, Jens P. Bonde, Jakob B. Bjorner, Reiner Rugulies, et al. 2018. ”Work-Unit Social Capital and Long-Term Sickness Absence: A Prospective Cohort Study of 32 053 Hospital Employees.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 75 (9): 623–629. doi:10.1136/oemed-2017-104954.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brimhall, Kim C., Erica L. Lizano, and Michàlle E. M. Barak. 2014. “The Mediating Role of Inclusion: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Diversity Climate on Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave Among Child Welfare Workers.” Children and Youth Services Review 40: 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Caillier, James G. 2017. “The Impact of High-Quality Workplace Relationships in Public Organizations.” Public Administration 95 (3): 638–653. doi:10.1111/padm.12328.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ancarani, Alessandro, Carmela Di Mauro, Maria D. Giammanco, and Giuseppe Giammanco. 2018. “Work Engagement in Public Hospitals: A Social Exchange Approach.” International Review of Public Administration 23 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1080/12294659.2017.1412046.

 Google Scholar

Ancarani, Alessandro, Carmela Di Mauro, and Maria D. Giammanco. 2019. “Linking Organizational Climate to Work Engagement: A Study in the Healthcare Sector.” International Journal of Public Administration 42 (7): 547–557. doi:10.1080/01900692.2018.1491595.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenneth, Jay, and Lars L. Andersen. 2018. “Can High Social Capital at the Workplace Buffer Against Stress and Musculoskeletal Pain? Cross-Sectional Study.” Medicine 97: 12. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000010124.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meng, Annette, Thomas Clausen, and Vilhelm Borg. 2018. “The Association Between Team-Level Social Capital and Individual-Level Work Engagement: Differences Between Subtypes of Social Capital and the Impact of Intra-Team Agreement.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 59 (2): 198–205. doi:10.1111/sjop.12435.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jana, Lait, and Jean E. Wallace. 2002. “Stress at Work: A Study of Organizational-Professional Conflict and Unmet Expectations.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 57 (3): 463–490. doi:10.7202/006886ar.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Clercq, Bart, Els Clays, Heidi Janssens, Dirk de Bacquer, Annalisa Casini, France Kittel, and Lutgart Braeckman. 2015. “Health Behaviours as a Mechanism in the Prospective Relation Between Workplace Reciprocity and Absenteeism: A Bridge Too Far?” PloS One 10: 11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141608.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. “The Ties That Bind: Social Networks, Person-Organization Value Fit, and Turnover Intention.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (2): 205–227. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nielsen, Martin L., Reiner Rugulies, Karl B. Christensen, Lars Smith-Hansen, and Tage S. Kristensen. 2006. “Psychosocial Work Environment Predictors of Short and Long Spells of Registered Sickness Absence During a 2-Year Follow Up.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48 (6): 591–598. doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000201567.70084.3a.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miraglia, Mariella, and Gary Johns. 2021. “The Social and Relational Dynamics of Absenteeism from Work: A Multilevel Review and Integration.” The Academy of Management Annals 15 (1): 37–67. doi:10.5465/annals.2019.0036.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. “Finding Workable Levers Over Work Motivation: Comparing Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment.” Administration & Society 39: 7. doi:10.1177/0095399707305546.

 Google Scholar

Read, Emily A., and Heather K. S. Laschinger. 2015. “The Influence of Authentic Leadership and Empowerment on Nurses’ Relational Social Capital, Mental Health and Job Satisfaction Over the First Year of Practice.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 71 (7): 1611–1623. doi:10.1111/jan.12625.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gross, Hellen P., Julia Thaler, and Vera Winter. 2019. “Integrating Public Service Motivation in the Job-Demands-Resources Model: An Empirical Analysis to Explain Employees’ Performance, Absenteeism, and Presenteeism.” International Public Management Journal 22 (1): 176–206. doi:10.1080/10967494.2018.1541829.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kivimäki, M., R. Sutinen, M. Elovainio, J. Vahtera, K. Räsänen, S. Töyry, J. E. Ferrie, and J. Firth-Cozens. 2001. “Sickness Absence in Hospital Physicians: 2 Year Follow Up Study on Determinants.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58 (6): 361–366. doi:10.1136/oem.58.6.361.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schermuly, Carsten C., and Bertolt Meyer. 2016. “Good Relationships at Work: The Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Team–Member Exchange on Psychological Empowerment, Emotional Exhaustion, and Depression.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 37 (5): 673–691. doi:10.1002/job.2060.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Caverley, Natasha, J. B. Cunningham, and N. MacGregor James. 2007. “Sickness Presenteeism, Sickness Absenteeism, and Health Following Restructuring in a Public Service Organization//Sickness Presenteeism, Sickness Absenteeism, and Health Following Restructuring in a Public Service Organization.” Journal of Management Studies 44 (2): 304–319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00690.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bolton, Rendelle, Caroline Logan, and Jody H. Gittell. 2021. “Revisiting Relational Coordination: A Systematic Review.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 002188632199159. doi:10.1177/0021886321991597.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahidul, Hassan, Bradley E. Wright, and Gary Yukl. 2014. “Does Ethical Leadership Matter in Government? Effects on Organizational Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness to Report Ethical Problems.” Public Administration Review 74 (3): 333–343. doi:10.1111/puar.12216.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nyberg, Anna, Hugo Westerlund, Linda L. M. Hanson, and Töres Theorell. 2008. “Managerial Leadership is Associated with Self-Reported Sickness Absence and Sickness Presenteeism Among Swedish Men and Women.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 36 (8): 803–811.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Montano, Diego, Anna Reeske, Franziska Franke, and Joachim Hüffmeier. 2017. “Leadership, Followers’ Mental Health and Job Performance in Organizations: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis from an Occupational Health Perspective.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 38 (3): 327–350. doi:10.1002/job.2124.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meng, Fanrong, and Jiannan Wu. 2015. “Merit Pay Fairness, Leader-Member Exchange, and Job Engagement.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 35 (1): 47–69. doi:10.1177/0734371X12453057.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dirks, Kurt T., and Donald L. Ferrin. 2002. “Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kurtessis, James N., Robert Eisenberger, Michael T. Ford, Louis C. Buffardi, Kathleen A. Stewart, and Cory S. Adis. 2017. “Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Organizational Support Theory.” Journal of Management 43 (6): 1854–1884. doi:10.1177/0149206315575554.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Duijts, Saskia F. A., Ijmert Kant, Gerard M. H. Swaen, Piet A. van den Brandt, and Maurice P. A. Zeegers. 2007. “A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies Identifies Predictors of Sickness Absence.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (11): 1105–1115. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.008.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elovainio, Marko, Kees van den Bos, Anne Linna, Mika Kivimäki, Leena Ala-Mursula, Jaana Pentti, and Jussi Vahtera. 2005. “Combined Effects of Uncertainty and Organizational Justice on Employee Health: Testing the Uncertainty Management Model of Fairness Judgments Among Finnish Public Sector Employees.” Social Science & Medicine 61 (12): 2501–2512. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.046.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Russo, Silvia Dello, Mariella Miraglia, Laura Borgogni, and Gary Johns. 2013. “How Time and Perceptions of Social Context Shape Employee Absenteeism Trajectories.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 (2): 209–217. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Since this study contains highly sensible personal information, it is protected by the GDPR rules and follows demands on total confidentiality from the municipality. Thus, to comply with GDPR and due to the agreement with Esbjerg Municipality, data access is restricted to researchers affiliated with SDU, who have signed the cooperation agreement and code of conduct statement. Hence, public access to this dataset is not possible. The data are stored, processed and analysed according to newest safety and security standards.