High levels of absenteeism: Are there more sick people or more busy people?

Is Germany a country of the sick or of the blue-washers? There has been a heated debate between these two poles for some time. But what does it actually look like? This is the subject of a new study by the Institute for Employment and Employability (IBE) at Ludwigshafen University. For the study “Dealing with and developing absenteeism in companies” by Prof. Dr. Jutta Rump and Anna-Maria Ogermann asked around a thousand managers, HR managers and members of company management about their assessments. One thing is clear, the study authors conclude: the way we deal with health problems has changed, and the norms surrounding absence have shifted.

The actual sickness rate in Germany has been at an elevated level for years – with the dramatic increase in 2022 being largely due to the introduction of the electronic certificate of incapacity for work. According to the AOK Absence Report 2025, the average days of incapacity for work for each insured person in 2024 was 23.6 days. Current evaluations by DAK and the Institute for Health Research IGES for 2025 also confirm that this level has hardly changed. It hasn’t gone up, but it hasn’t really gone down either.

The numbers from the health insurance companies correspond to the observations in companies: According to the IBE study, 68 percent report that absenteeism has increased in the past two to three years – only nine percent have observed a decline. The increase can be seen across industries and regardless of company size.

Absenteeism: A problem with many causes

What is the reason for the perceived increase? A first finding of the study concerns the changing way society deals with illness. 63 percent of the companies surveyed agree that the threshold for reporting sickness has fallen. 60 percent perceive that illness is less taboo today than it used to be. 55 percent also report growing uncertainty about when employees will be considered fit to work again. At the same time, 53 percent see that presenteeism – i.e. showing up despite illness – has declined since the corona pandemic. The scientists do not interpret this as a deterioration in the health of the population, but rather as a cultural change: the way health problems are dealt with has changed, and the norms surrounding absence have shifted.

Simplified sick leave procedures also make a technical and institutional contribution to the increase. 69 percent of those surveyed see telephone or digital sick notes as a factor that lowers the inhibition threshold for reporting illness. However, there are analyzes by various health insurance companies that show that so few people take sick leave over the phone that this cannot under any circumstances lead to an increase in sick days.

62 percent of the companies surveyed also assume that mild symptoms now lead to a sick report more often than before. At the same time, the study finds that in 58 percent of companies, trust still prevails when dealing with sickness reports.

In addition, a recently published smaller survey by the HR software provider HRlab among 121 HR managers from German medium-sized companies shows a similar picture: 63 percent report an increase in sickness in their company. They cite psychological strain and stress as the most common cause (54 percent), followed by physical illnesses (47 percent). Motivational problems or “showing off” only comes in third place (40 percent) – an indication that intentional absence plays a subordinate role, at least in the perception of HR.

The generation-specific way of dealing with illnesses

Whether younger employees are absent more often than older employees is one of the most discussed questions in connection with absenteeism. The IBE study provides clear information on this: 71 percent of the companies surveyed agree that younger employees report sick more quickly if they have mild symptoms. 69 percent perceive different generation-specific ideas about what “working healthily” means. On the other hand, 62 percent observe that older employees are more prone to presenteeism – that is, they are more likely to come to work despite complaints. This does not necessarily mean that one generation is healthier or more productive than the other, write the IBE scientists. Rather, it describes different attitudes towards absence and health. The health insurance company DAK has already come to a similar assessment.

62 percent of companies see demographic change as a whole as a noticeable contribution to the development of absenteeism – the following applies: absenteeism among older employees occurs less frequently, but lasts longer. Younger employees are absent more often, but are sick for less time.

Strategic sickness notifications: what’s behind them?

A very sensitive finding of the IBE study concerns the so-called “strategic absence behavior” – i.e. the deliberate absence from work without compelling medical necessity. This shows that the phenomenon does not play a marginal role in company perception: 37 percent of the companies surveyed perceive strategic absence behavior to a medium extent, 19 percent even to a high extent. Overall, more than half of companies register this behavior to at least a significant extent.

The phenomenon of informal absence planning is even more widespread: intra-team, non-formalized arrangements through which absences are coordinated outside of official regulations. 35 percent report a medium level of such agreements and 19 percent report a high level of such agreements. Only 15 percent do not observe any such agreements.

Bad mood in the company increases absenteeism

The interaction between the two phenomena is striking: the more informal agreements are widespread within the team, the more often individual strategic absences occur. The study authors interpret this to mean that informal practices in the team further lower the inhibition threshold for conscious absence. The most common motives that companies identify for informal absence planning are: perceived injustice (40 percent), lack of leadership (33 percent), dysfunctional team cohesion (30 percent) and balancing perceived overload (30 percent).

Working conditions and leadership influence absenteeism

The second set of findings from the IBE study concerns factors that companies themselves can influence. Working conditions come first: 66 percent of those surveyed see increasing work intensity as a driver of permanent exhaustion. 62 percent perceive that the large number of simultaneous changes overwhelms many employees. 59 percent report that recovery phases are systematically neglected in everyday work.

The survey on the role of managers provides particularly clear findings. 69 percent of companies consider managers to be an important role model when it comes to dealing with illness. 67 percent say that managers often recognize signals of overload too late. 65 percent see recognition and appreciation from managers as factors that reduce absenteeism. At the same time, 59 percent report that absences in companies are treated too much administratively and not enough through dialogue. 54 percent of those surveyed stated that managers sometimes feel insecure when dealing with absences.

Team dynamic factors are also classified as relevant in the IBE study: 68 percent of those surveyed see a lack of a sense of belonging as a cause of absenteeism. Just as many observe a connection between unresolved team conflicts and increased withdrawal behavior. 65 percent cite perceived injustice as a possible driver.

This way you can have a conversation about absences with your employees

The findings of the IBE study match what Manuel Fink, author of the book “Actively Managing Absenteeism” and expert at the Adecco Group, described in an earlier interview with Human Resources. Fink distinguishes between five basic types of absence: medically-related, work-related, personally-related, conflict-related and motivationally-related absences. The latter three, according to Fink, can generally be influenced through active leadership and good communication. Managers who simply accepted absences with the remark “Sick is sick” missed the opportunity to analyze the causes – and also harmed their high-performing employees, who felt that they were being treated unfairly when there were no consequences for those who were often absent.

Fink advocates a dialogic approach. The key is the conversation after every day of absence – not as a control instrument, but as a health promotion conversation that signals that the manager notices when someone is absent and asks why. Not only would this make real stress visible, but motivational absences would also be addressed earlier. Framing is crucial: the conversation should not be perceived as a performance review.

Christina Petrick-Löhr is responsible for the Talent & Learning magazine section as well as reporting on training and further education. She is also responsible for the editorial planning of various special human resources publications as well as the German Human Resources Prize.