PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
In times of crisis, presenteeism is often more harmful than absenteeism, because having people who are physically present but disconnected, unmotivated, or not adding value consumes resources and hinders the ability to adapt. Absenteeism, on the other hand, at least makes the absence visible and allows alternatives to be managed, while presenteeism masks the problem and silently erodes organizational resilience. Saving Changes...
Hello, I agree with Fabian. Presenteeism can lead also to quiet quitting which is also very harmful to an organization. It comes from lack of recognition, workload, work perspectives. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Good question, but the answer requires nuance.
In times of crisis, presenteeism tends to be more harmful than absenteeism.
Absenteeism is visible, measurable, and forces clear decisions. Work is redistributed, priorities are adjusted, resources are reinforced. The impact is explicit and often temporary.
Presenteeism is silent. People are physically present but cognitively absent, exhausted, disengaged, or operating under fear. In a crisis, this leads to poor decisions, delays disguised as activity, operational risk, and erosion of trust. The system appears to be functioning, but it is slowly degrading from within.
More critically, presenteeism creates an illusion of capacity. Leaders believe the organization can cope, when in reality it is consuming human capital without recovery or regeneration.
That said, both are symptoms, not root causes. In prolonged crises, they point to deeper failures in leadership, priority clarity, psychological safety, and energy management.
If I have to choose the more dangerous one, I choose the one that does not show up in reports, yet shapes the organization’s future. Presenteeism. Saving Changes...
Absenteeism creates a short term impact but unless it is widespread and chronic, it can be dealt with using standard people management practices. Presenteeism is much harder to identify and address and it can create much longer term impacts.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Ahmed AwedMD / MBA/ MPPA/ PMI-PMP / PMI-ACP / PMI-RMP / ASQ-SSGB| Health care OrganizationsCairo, Egypt
Presenteeism can be more harmful than absenteeism, as employees may be physically present but mentally and emotionally disengaged, which directly affects performance and quality of work. Paying attention to affective organizational commitment is essential to addressing this issue, as emotional attachment and a sense of belonging play a key role in sustaining genuine engagement and resilience, especially during crises. Saving Changes...
Ahmed AwedMD / MBA/ MPPA/ PMI-PMP / PMI-ACP / PMI-RMP / ASQ-SSGB| Health care OrganizationsCairo, Egypt
As shown in the results of this study, presenteeism can be more harmful than absenteeism, and strengthening affective organizational commitment is essential to overcoming this phenomenon and sustaining effective performance.
Awed, A. M., Abdul Moniem, A. M., & Gad, S. H. (2025). The impact of COVID-19 related job stress on presenteeism among Egyptian police health care workers: the moderating role of affective organizational commitment. Critical Public Health, 35(1).
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I agree with the view that presenteeism is more damaging during a crisis. Absenteeism is visible and forces decisions, re-planning, or support actions. Presenteeism hides the problem. When people show up but are exhausted, disengaged, or operating on autopilot, the organization looks functional while decision quality, delivery, and trust quietly erode. In a crisis, that illusion of capacity is risky. Both signal deeper issues, but the harder one to detect and correct is usually the more harmful one. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
