According to Lufkin (2021), there is an urgent need to reduce the impact on physical and digital presenteeism in the era of pandemic and social transformations. This article focuses on the importance of recognizing true motives for presenteeism and defines the impact of subconscious biases on employee relationships. At the same time, the mere exposure and halo effects are associated with unfair or ineffective promotions that determine the quality of work. The idea that many biases unreasonably support presenteeism and negatively contribute to performance is correct, and differentiating employees’ achievements using favors seems questionable.
Presenteeism is problematic because most people continue addressing their subconscious beliefs about professional growth. Lufkin (2021) notices that not all employees can come to work early and leave late to demonstrate their devotion to the organization. Some people set priorities instead of achieving work-life balance and succeeding as an employee and a parent. They believe that their presence at the workplace helps get promotions or rewards, but the pandemic restrictions have already proved that remote work may be effective. Such attitudes towards presenteeism discourage and impose obligations that hardly improve performance.
However, the attention to the halo and mere exposure effects provokes some questions and concerns. The author admits that leaders and managers think about people who bring coffee or communicate as hard workers (Lufkin, 2021). In today’s business world, management principles have been improved, and employees get access to new practices at different levels. Good leaders will never promote a worker because of an improved ability to make coffee. If changes at the workplace are based on insignificant aspects, such organizations’ progress is questionable. For example, there are two sick individuals: one is present but does nothing because of a runny nose and a headache, and another is at home but works online to meet the deadline. An efficient manager analyzes the situation and understands the current contributions of both employees. If presenteeism fallaciously affects the attitude towards such employees, the team’s professionalism is low.
It is wrong to believe that showing faces at the office is a criterion for career growth. Lufkin’s article reveals concerns about presenteeism and its impact on people’s judgments. Sometimes, a person needs a break or a day off to work effectively, and absence is not a sign of unprofessionalism and weakness. Being present gives no guarantees about the quality of work, and this assessment makes companies competitive and strong.