TRANSFORMING INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE:
ADDRESSING FACULTY AND STAFF
ABSENTEEISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION
TRANSFORMANDO LA CULTURA INSTITUCIONAL:
ABORDANDO EL AUSENTISMO DEL PERSONAL ACADÉMICO
Y ADMINISTRATIVO EN LA EDUCACIÓN SUPERIOR
Víctor Hugo López López
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Ambrocio Juárez Aracen
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Viridiana Cervantes Jarquín
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Rene Valdivieso Trujillo
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Anibal Gallegos Santiago
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Héctor de la Cruz Mendez
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Javier Ramírez Aguilar
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
Cristian Eder Carreño López
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, México
pág. 6769
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.20058
Transforming Institutional Culture:
Addressing Faculty and Staff Absenteeism in Higher Education
Víctor Hugo López López1
victor.lopez@fcaoax.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7496-6061
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Ambrocio Juárez Aracen
jdbocho0701@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5912-8734
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Viridiana Cervantes Jarquín
viricervantesjarquin@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1644-7881
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Rene Valdivieso Trujillo
reneval28@icloud.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9247-4030
Facultad de Odontología.
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Anibal Gallegos Santiago
anibalgs20@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6239-5453
Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Héctor de la Cruz Mendez
hectordelacruzmendez@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9247-4030
Facultad de Odontologia
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Javier Ramírez Aguilar
cdjavo@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9565-3163
Facultad de Odontología
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Cristian Eder Carreño López
lopezcristian82@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3669-943X
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
1 Autor principal.
Correspondencia: lopezcristian82@hotmail.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.20058
Transforming Institutional Culture:
Addressing Faculty and Staff Absenteeism in Higher Education
Víctor Hugo López López1
victor.lopez@fcaoax.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7496-6061
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Ambrocio Juárez Aracen
jdbocho0701@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5912-8734
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Viridiana Cervantes Jarquín
viricervantesjarquin@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1644-7881
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Rene Valdivieso Trujillo
reneval28@icloud.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9247-4030
Facultad de Odontología.
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Anibal Gallegos Santiago
anibalgs20@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6239-5453
Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Héctor de la Cruz Mendez
hectordelacruzmendez@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9247-4030
Facultad de Odontologia
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Javier Ramírez Aguilar
cdjavo@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9565-3163
Facultad de Odontología
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
Cristian Eder Carreño López
lopezcristian82@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3669-943X
Facultad de Contaduría y Administración
Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca
México
1 Autor principal.
Correspondencia: lopezcristian82@hotmail.com
pág. 6770
ABSTRACT
Faculty and staff absenteeism continues to threaten institutional stability, academic continuity, and the
overall quality of higher education institutions (HEIs). This study provides the first comprehensive
empirical examination of absenteeism within Mexican HEIs, focusing on the relationship between
organizational culture, leadership engagement, and workforce commitment at the Universidad
Autónoma “Benito Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO). Employing a mixed-methods design that integrates
quantitative survey data with qualitative interviews, the research identifies the institutional and cultural
determinants that influence patterns of attendance and engagement. The findings reveal that limited
leadership engagement, labor union disputes, inadequate professional incentives, and bureaucratic
inefficiencies contribute to disengagement and absenteeism, while participatory governance,
transparent communication, and structured recognition systems strengthen institutional commitment.
The study reframes absenteeism not as an individual behavioral issue but as an outcome of governance
quality and organizational culture. By situating absenteeism within the broader context of institutional
reform, this research advances understanding of how leadership practices, incentive systems, and
administrative structures can be strategically aligned to enhance accountability, motivation, and
participation in higher education. The results offer actionable insights for policymakers and university
leaders seeking to cultivate cultures of engagement and organizational trust across academic
communities.
Keywords: organizational culture, institutional leadership, absenteeism, higher education performance,
university governance
ABSTRACT
Faculty and staff absenteeism continues to threaten institutional stability, academic continuity, and the
overall quality of higher education institutions (HEIs). This study provides the first comprehensive
empirical examination of absenteeism within Mexican HEIs, focusing on the relationship between
organizational culture, leadership engagement, and workforce commitment at the Universidad
Autónoma “Benito Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO). Employing a mixed-methods design that integrates
quantitative survey data with qualitative interviews, the research identifies the institutional and cultural
determinants that influence patterns of attendance and engagement. The findings reveal that limited
leadership engagement, labor union disputes, inadequate professional incentives, and bureaucratic
inefficiencies contribute to disengagement and absenteeism, while participatory governance,
transparent communication, and structured recognition systems strengthen institutional commitment.
The study reframes absenteeism not as an individual behavioral issue but as an outcome of governance
quality and organizational culture. By situating absenteeism within the broader context of institutional
reform, this research advances understanding of how leadership practices, incentive systems, and
administrative structures can be strategically aligned to enhance accountability, motivation, and
participation in higher education. The results offer actionable insights for policymakers and university
leaders seeking to cultivate cultures of engagement and organizational trust across academic
communities.
Keywords: organizational culture, institutional leadership, absenteeism, higher education performance,
university governance
pág. 6771
Transformando la Cultura Institucional: Abordando el Ausentismo del
Personal Académico y Administrativo en la Educación Superior
RESUMEN
El ausentismo del personal académico y administrativo representa un desafío persistente para la
estabilidad, la gobernanza y la calidad académica de las instituciones de educación superior (IES). Este
estudio ofrece el primer análisis empírico integral del ausentismo en las IES mexicanas, centrado en la
relación entre cultura organizacional, liderazgo y compromiso laboral en la Universidad Autónoma
“Benito Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO). Mediante un enfoque mixto que combina análisis cuantitativo de
encuestas con entrevistas cualitativas, la investigación identifica los factores institucionales y culturales
que influyen en los patrones de asistencia y compromiso del personal. Los resultados muestran que el
bajo involucramiento del liderazgo, las disputas y desacuerdos de los sindicatos, la falta de incentivos
profesionales adecuados y las ineficiencias burocráticas generan desmotivación y ausentismo, mientras
que la gobernanza participativa, la comunicación transparente y los sistemas estructurados de
reconocimiento fortalecen el compromiso institucional. El estudio replantea el ausentismo no como un
problema individual, sino como una consecuencia de la calidad de la gobernanza y de la cultura
organizacional. Al situar el ausentismo dentro del contexto más amplio de la reforma institucional, esta
investigación amplía la comprensión de cómo las prácticas de liderazgo, los sistemas de incentivos y
las estructuras administrativas pueden alinearse estratégicamente para promover la responsabilidad, la
motivación y la participación en la educación superior. Los hallazgos ofrecen orientaciones prácticas
para responsables de políticas y líderes universitarios interesados en fomentar una cultura de
compromiso y confianza organizacional en las comunidades académicas.
Palabras clave: cultura organizativa en la educación superior, liderazgo y transformación institucional,
absentismo académico, política educativa y gobernanza, desarrollo institucional
Artículo recibido 02 setiembre 2025
Aceptado para publicación: 29 setiembre 2025
Transformando la Cultura Institucional: Abordando el Ausentismo del
Personal Académico y Administrativo en la Educación Superior
RESUMEN
El ausentismo del personal académico y administrativo representa un desafío persistente para la
estabilidad, la gobernanza y la calidad académica de las instituciones de educación superior (IES). Este
estudio ofrece el primer análisis empírico integral del ausentismo en las IES mexicanas, centrado en la
relación entre cultura organizacional, liderazgo y compromiso laboral en la Universidad Autónoma
“Benito Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO). Mediante un enfoque mixto que combina análisis cuantitativo de
encuestas con entrevistas cualitativas, la investigación identifica los factores institucionales y culturales
que influyen en los patrones de asistencia y compromiso del personal. Los resultados muestran que el
bajo involucramiento del liderazgo, las disputas y desacuerdos de los sindicatos, la falta de incentivos
profesionales adecuados y las ineficiencias burocráticas generan desmotivación y ausentismo, mientras
que la gobernanza participativa, la comunicación transparente y los sistemas estructurados de
reconocimiento fortalecen el compromiso institucional. El estudio replantea el ausentismo no como un
problema individual, sino como una consecuencia de la calidad de la gobernanza y de la cultura
organizacional. Al situar el ausentismo dentro del contexto más amplio de la reforma institucional, esta
investigación amplía la comprensión de cómo las prácticas de liderazgo, los sistemas de incentivos y
las estructuras administrativas pueden alinearse estratégicamente para promover la responsabilidad, la
motivación y la participación en la educación superior. Los hallazgos ofrecen orientaciones prácticas
para responsables de políticas y líderes universitarios interesados en fomentar una cultura de
compromiso y confianza organizacional en las comunidades académicas.
Palabras clave: cultura organizativa en la educación superior, liderazgo y transformación institucional,
absentismo académico, política educativa y gobernanza, desarrollo institucional
Artículo recibido 02 setiembre 2025
Aceptado para publicación: 29 setiembre 2025
pág. 6772
INTRODUCTION
Absenteeism among faculty and administrative personnel in higher education institutions (HEIs) is a
persistent challenge, affecting academic continuity, administrative efficiency, and institutional
reputation (de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Rasiah et al., 2020). While absenteeism has been widely studied
from a workforce management perspective, its deeper connections to organizational culture, leadership
engagement, and institutional governance remain underexplored, particularly in Latin American HEIs
(Marchington, 2015). Understanding absenteeism in this broader institutional context is crucial for
developing effective, evidence-based interventions that enhance workforce stability and institutional
effectiveness (López López et al., 2025).
In Latin American HEIs, absenteeism is often exacerbated by weak institutional policies, bureaucratic
inefficiencies, and disengaged leadership (Irazabal, 2023). At the Universidad Autónoma “Benito
Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO), anecdotal evidence suggests that persistent faculty and administrative
staff absenteeism has led to frequent class cancellations, disruptions in service delivery, and diminished
institutional performance. However, empirical research addressing the structural and cultural
dimensions of absenteeism in Mexican HEIs remains scarce (Sosu et al., 2021). This research seeks to
fill that gap by examining the relationship between absenteeism and institutional culture, leadership
engagement, and policy effectiveness.
Global Perspectives on Absenteeism in HEIs
International studies have identified multiple factors influencing absenteeism. Research from
the United States and the United Kingdom highlights the correlation between absenteeism and job
dissatisfaction, workplace stress, and insufficient institutional support (Kocakulah et al., 2016; Martin
& Matiaske, 2017). By contrast, Scandinavian HEIs emphasize work-life balance policies,
demonstrating the positive impact of flexible schedules and institutional well-being programs in
reducing absenteeism (Antai et al., 2015).
Comparative analyses between HEIs in Europe and Latin America underscore significant differences
in absenteeism management (Hunter et al., 2023; Teodoro, 2015). European institutions tend to
have structured performance monitoring systems and robust faculty development programs,
contributing to lower absenteeism rates (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education &
INTRODUCTION
Absenteeism among faculty and administrative personnel in higher education institutions (HEIs) is a
persistent challenge, affecting academic continuity, administrative efficiency, and institutional
reputation (de Jong & del Junco, 2024; Rasiah et al., 2020). While absenteeism has been widely studied
from a workforce management perspective, its deeper connections to organizational culture, leadership
engagement, and institutional governance remain underexplored, particularly in Latin American HEIs
(Marchington, 2015). Understanding absenteeism in this broader institutional context is crucial for
developing effective, evidence-based interventions that enhance workforce stability and institutional
effectiveness (López López et al., 2025).
In Latin American HEIs, absenteeism is often exacerbated by weak institutional policies, bureaucratic
inefficiencies, and disengaged leadership (Irazabal, 2023). At the Universidad Autónoma “Benito
Juárez” de Oaxaca (UABJO), anecdotal evidence suggests that persistent faculty and administrative
staff absenteeism has led to frequent class cancellations, disruptions in service delivery, and diminished
institutional performance. However, empirical research addressing the structural and cultural
dimensions of absenteeism in Mexican HEIs remains scarce (Sosu et al., 2021). This research seeks to
fill that gap by examining the relationship between absenteeism and institutional culture, leadership
engagement, and policy effectiveness.
Global Perspectives on Absenteeism in HEIs
International studies have identified multiple factors influencing absenteeism. Research from
the United States and the United Kingdom highlights the correlation between absenteeism and job
dissatisfaction, workplace stress, and insufficient institutional support (Kocakulah et al., 2016; Martin
& Matiaske, 2017). By contrast, Scandinavian HEIs emphasize work-life balance policies,
demonstrating the positive impact of flexible schedules and institutional well-being programs in
reducing absenteeism (Antai et al., 2015).
Comparative analyses between HEIs in Europe and Latin America underscore significant differences
in absenteeism management (Hunter et al., 2023; Teodoro, 2015). European institutions tend to
have structured performance monitoring systems and robust faculty development programs,
contributing to lower absenteeism rates (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education &
pág. 6773
Culture, 2024). In contrast, Latin American HEIs often struggle with governance challenges, financial
constraints, and inconsistent policies, making it difficult to implement sustainable absenteeism
reduction strategies (OECD/IDB, 2022).
Studies from Brazil and South Africa further demonstrate the role of leadership engagement and faculty
motivationin influencing absenteeism rates. A study in a leading Brazilian university found that faculty
absenteeism decreased when leadership provided structured feedback and professional development
opportunities (Pérez Nebra et al., 2021). Similarly, South African institutions with mentorship
programs and clear attendance policies reported lower absenteeism rates (Muresherwa & Bama, 2024).
These insights highlight the potential effectiveness of leadership-driven interventions in improving
attendance and engagement in HEIs. A comprehensive understanding of absenteeism in HEIs requires
an integrated theoretical framework encompassing organizational culture, leadership dynamics, and
institutional policies. Organizational culture, defined as the shared values, beliefs, and norms within an
institution, plays a fundamental role in shaping faculty and administrative behavior (Panda & Gupta,
2001). A strong, cohesive culture fosters collaboration, accountability, and job satisfaction, reducing
absenteeism (Wolor et al., 2022). Conversely, a weak or toxic culture—characterized by unclear
expectations, lack of institutional support, and poor communication—leads to disengagement and
absenteeism (Ismail et al., 2024).
A study of Mexican public universities found that institutions with clearly defined cultural
frameworks had lower absenteeism rates, as faculty and staff reported higher job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Treviño Reyes & Lopez-Perez, 2023). Institutions that actively engaged
faculty in decision-making and professional development initiatives demonstrated greater workforce
stability and reduced absenteeism rates.
Leadership Engagement and Absenteeism
Leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping institutional culture and workforce engagement (Oladimeji
et al., 2023). Transformational leadership, which emphasizes participatory governance, transparent
communication, and employee empowerment, has been associated with higher job satisfaction and
lower absenteeism rates (Ystaas et al., 2023). Leaders who cultivate an inclusive work
environment contribute to employee motivation and organizational commitment (Ly, 2024).
Culture, 2024). In contrast, Latin American HEIs often struggle with governance challenges, financial
constraints, and inconsistent policies, making it difficult to implement sustainable absenteeism
reduction strategies (OECD/IDB, 2022).
Studies from Brazil and South Africa further demonstrate the role of leadership engagement and faculty
motivationin influencing absenteeism rates. A study in a leading Brazilian university found that faculty
absenteeism decreased when leadership provided structured feedback and professional development
opportunities (Pérez Nebra et al., 2021). Similarly, South African institutions with mentorship
programs and clear attendance policies reported lower absenteeism rates (Muresherwa & Bama, 2024).
These insights highlight the potential effectiveness of leadership-driven interventions in improving
attendance and engagement in HEIs. A comprehensive understanding of absenteeism in HEIs requires
an integrated theoretical framework encompassing organizational culture, leadership dynamics, and
institutional policies. Organizational culture, defined as the shared values, beliefs, and norms within an
institution, plays a fundamental role in shaping faculty and administrative behavior (Panda & Gupta,
2001). A strong, cohesive culture fosters collaboration, accountability, and job satisfaction, reducing
absenteeism (Wolor et al., 2022). Conversely, a weak or toxic culture—characterized by unclear
expectations, lack of institutional support, and poor communication—leads to disengagement and
absenteeism (Ismail et al., 2024).
A study of Mexican public universities found that institutions with clearly defined cultural
frameworks had lower absenteeism rates, as faculty and staff reported higher job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Treviño Reyes & Lopez-Perez, 2023). Institutions that actively engaged
faculty in decision-making and professional development initiatives demonstrated greater workforce
stability and reduced absenteeism rates.
Leadership Engagement and Absenteeism
Leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping institutional culture and workforce engagement (Oladimeji
et al., 2023). Transformational leadership, which emphasizes participatory governance, transparent
communication, and employee empowerment, has been associated with higher job satisfaction and
lower absenteeism rates (Ystaas et al., 2023). Leaders who cultivate an inclusive work
environment contribute to employee motivation and organizational commitment (Ly, 2024).
pág. 6774
Conversely, authoritarian or passive leadership structures contribute to disengagement and workforce
instability (Asim et al., 2021). A study of Mexican HEIs found that institutions with hierarchical
leadership models and limited faculty participation in decision-making reported higher absenteeism
rates (Arredondo-Soto et al., 2020). Faculty members in these institutions often felt undervalued and
disconnected from institutional goals, leading to increased voluntary absenteeism (Khan et al., 2020).
Institutional policies, particularly those related to attendance monitoring, employee incentives, and
accountability mechanisms, play a decisive role in either mitigating or exacerbating
absenteeism (Kearney et al., 2023). Policies that emphasize flexible work arrangements, structured
professional development programs, and clear expectations on attendance foster greater employee
commitment (Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020). Conversely, rigid, punitive policies without faculty
input can contribute to workplace dissatisfaction and increased absenteeism (Monteiro & Joseph,
2023). Institutions with well-defined accountability frameworks and performance incentives tend to
experience lower absenteeism rates (Gaudine & Saks, 2001). Recognition systems that reinforce faculty
engagement and institutional loyalty have been shown to significantly reduce absenteeism
rates (Abdullah et al., 2016). By implementing strategic interventions focused on leadership
development, organizational culture enhancement, and policy reform, HEIs can create a supportive and
engaging work environment that minimizes absenteeism and optimizes institutional performance
(Hamad et al., 2024).
Conceptual Foundations and Theoretical Logic
This study is anchored in two interrelated theoretical perspectives—Organizational Culture Theory
(Nneji & Asikhia, 2021) and the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) Framework—which together provide
a comprehensive explanation of how institutional culture, governance structures, and leadership
practices shape absenteeism within HEIs (Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019).
Organizational Culture Theory
Organizational Culture Theory (Nneji & Asikhia, 2021) posits that the shared values, beliefs, and
behavioral norms within an institution constitute the foundation of its identity and influence how
members interpret, engage with, and respond to their work environment. In the context of HEIs,
organizational culture manifests through leadership styles, communication patterns, and administrative
Conversely, authoritarian or passive leadership structures contribute to disengagement and workforce
instability (Asim et al., 2021). A study of Mexican HEIs found that institutions with hierarchical
leadership models and limited faculty participation in decision-making reported higher absenteeism
rates (Arredondo-Soto et al., 2020). Faculty members in these institutions often felt undervalued and
disconnected from institutional goals, leading to increased voluntary absenteeism (Khan et al., 2020).
Institutional policies, particularly those related to attendance monitoring, employee incentives, and
accountability mechanisms, play a decisive role in either mitigating or exacerbating
absenteeism (Kearney et al., 2023). Policies that emphasize flexible work arrangements, structured
professional development programs, and clear expectations on attendance foster greater employee
commitment (Weideman & Hofmeyr, 2020). Conversely, rigid, punitive policies without faculty
input can contribute to workplace dissatisfaction and increased absenteeism (Monteiro & Joseph,
2023). Institutions with well-defined accountability frameworks and performance incentives tend to
experience lower absenteeism rates (Gaudine & Saks, 2001). Recognition systems that reinforce faculty
engagement and institutional loyalty have been shown to significantly reduce absenteeism
rates (Abdullah et al., 2016). By implementing strategic interventions focused on leadership
development, organizational culture enhancement, and policy reform, HEIs can create a supportive and
engaging work environment that minimizes absenteeism and optimizes institutional performance
(Hamad et al., 2024).
Conceptual Foundations and Theoretical Logic
This study is anchored in two interrelated theoretical perspectives—Organizational Culture Theory
(Nneji & Asikhia, 2021) and the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) Framework—which together provide
a comprehensive explanation of how institutional culture, governance structures, and leadership
practices shape absenteeism within HEIs (Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019).
Organizational Culture Theory
Organizational Culture Theory (Nneji & Asikhia, 2021) posits that the shared values, beliefs, and
behavioral norms within an institution constitute the foundation of its identity and influence how
members interpret, engage with, and respond to their work environment. In the context of HEIs,
organizational culture manifests through leadership styles, communication patterns, and administrative
pág. 6775
traditions that define the institutional climate and affect faculty and staff commitment. A culture
characterized by trust, collaboration, and participatory governance fosters belonging, engagement, and
accountability, whereas hierarchical and bureaucratic cultures tend to generate alienation, demotivation,
and absenteeism (Wolor et al., 2022). Thus, organizational culture functions as both a social and
structural mechanism shaping the attitudes and behaviors of academic personnel.
The JD–R Framework
The JD–R framework (Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019) complements the cultural perspective by
explaining the psychological and behavioral mechanisms through which institutional conditions affect
employee engagement and withdrawal. According to this model, job demands—such as administrative
overload, weak leadership engagement, and procedural rigidity—deplete employees’ energy and
psychological resources, increasing the likelihood of strain and disengagement. In contrast, job
resources—including supportive leadership, transparent incentive systems, and opportunities for
professional growth—act as motivational drivers that enhance resilience, satisfaction, and commitment.
Within HEIs, the balance between these demands and resources is particularly critical, as academic
work involves both intellectual autonomy and institutional dependency. When job demands outweigh
available resources, absenteeism becomes a form of adaptive withdrawal, signaling deeper governance
and cultural dysfunctions rather than individual neglect.
Integrative Theoretical Logic
Integrating Organizational Culture Theory with the JD–R framework allows this study to conceptualize
absenteeism as an institutionally mediated behavioral outcome rather than a purely individual act. The
model proposed herein posits that organizational culture and governance quality operate as
institutional-level antecedents of absenteeism, mediated by leadership engagement and moderated by
professional incentives. Weak leadership engagement reduces the availability of social and
psychological resources, while ineffective or opaque incentive systems diminish motivation and
commitment (Modise, 2024). Conversely, participatory governance, transparent communication, and
merit-based recognition act as protective factors that counterbalance institutional demands
(Hadziahmetovic & Salihovic, 2022).
traditions that define the institutional climate and affect faculty and staff commitment. A culture
characterized by trust, collaboration, and participatory governance fosters belonging, engagement, and
accountability, whereas hierarchical and bureaucratic cultures tend to generate alienation, demotivation,
and absenteeism (Wolor et al., 2022). Thus, organizational culture functions as both a social and
structural mechanism shaping the attitudes and behaviors of academic personnel.
The JD–R Framework
The JD–R framework (Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019) complements the cultural perspective by
explaining the psychological and behavioral mechanisms through which institutional conditions affect
employee engagement and withdrawal. According to this model, job demands—such as administrative
overload, weak leadership engagement, and procedural rigidity—deplete employees’ energy and
psychological resources, increasing the likelihood of strain and disengagement. In contrast, job
resources—including supportive leadership, transparent incentive systems, and opportunities for
professional growth—act as motivational drivers that enhance resilience, satisfaction, and commitment.
Within HEIs, the balance between these demands and resources is particularly critical, as academic
work involves both intellectual autonomy and institutional dependency. When job demands outweigh
available resources, absenteeism becomes a form of adaptive withdrawal, signaling deeper governance
and cultural dysfunctions rather than individual neglect.
Integrative Theoretical Logic
Integrating Organizational Culture Theory with the JD–R framework allows this study to conceptualize
absenteeism as an institutionally mediated behavioral outcome rather than a purely individual act. The
model proposed herein posits that organizational culture and governance quality operate as
institutional-level antecedents of absenteeism, mediated by leadership engagement and moderated by
professional incentives. Weak leadership engagement reduces the availability of social and
psychological resources, while ineffective or opaque incentive systems diminish motivation and
commitment (Modise, 2024). Conversely, participatory governance, transparent communication, and
merit-based recognition act as protective factors that counterbalance institutional demands
(Hadziahmetovic & Salihovic, 2022).
pág. 6776
This integrative framework positions absenteeism as a systemic response to organizational imbalance,
emerging from the interaction between governance structures and workplace culture. By linking cultural
values, leadership dynamics, and policy mechanisms, the study advances a multilevel understanding of
absenteeism that captures both its psychological and institutional dimensions.
We hypothesize that leadership engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture
and absenteeism, while professional incentives moderate this pathway. Specifically, a participatory and
transparent culture enhances leadership engagement, which in turn reduces absenteeism. Conversely,
inadequate incentives weaken this mediating effect. Future empirical testing using structural equation
modeling (SEM) will allow estimation of both direct and indirect effects, providing a more nuanced
understanding of the institutional determinants of absenteeism.
Bridging the Gap: The Contribution of This Study
This study extends existing research by integrating organizational culture theory, leadership
frameworks, and institutional policy analysis to provide a holistic examination of absenteeism in higher
education, using the UABJO as a case study. While prior studies in Scandinavian contexts have
emphasized the role of work–life balance and employee well-being (Antai et al., 2015), and research
from Brazil has highlighted the effectiveness of leadership development and professional recognition
programs (Pérez Nebra et al., 2021), few have examined how these mechanisms operate within the
socio-political and administrative realities of Latin American HEIs.
By situating the analysis within the Mexican higher education system, characterized by limited
resources, hierarchical governance, and entrenched bureaucratic procedures, this study
identifies context-specific institutional dynamics that influence faculty and staff engagement. It
examines how variations in leadership effectiveness, incentive structures, and administrative processes
produce distinct absenteeism patterns and explores their implications for academic continuity,
organizational efficiency, and institutional trust.
Furthermore, the research proposes evidence-based interventions grounded in empirical findings—
specifically, leadership development programs, transparent policy design, and administrative process
optimization. These strategies aim to foster participatory governance, enhance recognition, and mitigate
structural inefficiencies that contribute to absenteeism.
This integrative framework positions absenteeism as a systemic response to organizational imbalance,
emerging from the interaction between governance structures and workplace culture. By linking cultural
values, leadership dynamics, and policy mechanisms, the study advances a multilevel understanding of
absenteeism that captures both its psychological and institutional dimensions.
We hypothesize that leadership engagement mediates the relationship between organizational culture
and absenteeism, while professional incentives moderate this pathway. Specifically, a participatory and
transparent culture enhances leadership engagement, which in turn reduces absenteeism. Conversely,
inadequate incentives weaken this mediating effect. Future empirical testing using structural equation
modeling (SEM) will allow estimation of both direct and indirect effects, providing a more nuanced
understanding of the institutional determinants of absenteeism.
Bridging the Gap: The Contribution of This Study
This study extends existing research by integrating organizational culture theory, leadership
frameworks, and institutional policy analysis to provide a holistic examination of absenteeism in higher
education, using the UABJO as a case study. While prior studies in Scandinavian contexts have
emphasized the role of work–life balance and employee well-being (Antai et al., 2015), and research
from Brazil has highlighted the effectiveness of leadership development and professional recognition
programs (Pérez Nebra et al., 2021), few have examined how these mechanisms operate within the
socio-political and administrative realities of Latin American HEIs.
By situating the analysis within the Mexican higher education system, characterized by limited
resources, hierarchical governance, and entrenched bureaucratic procedures, this study
identifies context-specific institutional dynamics that influence faculty and staff engagement. It
examines how variations in leadership effectiveness, incentive structures, and administrative processes
produce distinct absenteeism patterns and explores their implications for academic continuity,
organizational efficiency, and institutional trust.
Furthermore, the research proposes evidence-based interventions grounded in empirical findings—
specifically, leadership development programs, transparent policy design, and administrative process
optimization. These strategies aim to foster participatory governance, enhance recognition, and mitigate
structural inefficiencies that contribute to absenteeism.
pág. 6777
By addressing these objectives, the study contributes to the global discourse on higher education reform
by offering a theoretically grounded and empirically validated model that links organizational culture,
governance quality, and workforce engagement. It provides actionable insights for policymakers and
institutional leaders seeking to transform bureaucratic systems into cultures of commitment,
collaboration, and accountability—essential components of a sustainable and effective higher education
environment.
METHODOLOGY
A rigorous and methodologically sound research design is essential for understanding the intricate
relationship between organizational culture and absenteeism within HEIs. This study employs a mixed-
methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to achieve a
comprehensive and multidimensional analysis of absenteeism at UABJO. Mixed-methods research
allows for the triangulation of data, enhancing the reliability and validity of findings by cross-verifying
quantitative statistical trends with qualitative insights drawn from participants’ experiences (Ahmed et
al., 2024). The quantitative component of this study consists of a structured survey administered to 250
respondents, including 150 faculty members and 100 administrative staff. The survey was designed to
capture key variables related to absenteeism, organizational culture, leadership engagement, and
institutional policies (Zhao, 2024). Questions were structured using Likert-scale measurements,
categorical response options, and open-ended fields to facilitate both statistical analysis and nuanced
interpretations. The sample was selected through stratified random sampling, ensuring proportional
representation of faculty and administrative staff across different departments. This method enhances
generalizability and minimizes selection bias (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
Complementing the quantitative analysis, the qualitative component comprises 25 in-depth
interviews with 15 faculty members and 10 administrators. These semi-structured interviews were
designed to explore participants' perceptions of institutional culture, leadership effectiveness, and
absenteeism-related challenges. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select interviewees
with diverse perspectives and varying levels of experience within the institution (Mashuri et al., 2022).
This qualitative approach allows for a deeper exploration of the underlying reasons behind absenteeism
trends observed in the survey data.
By addressing these objectives, the study contributes to the global discourse on higher education reform
by offering a theoretically grounded and empirically validated model that links organizational culture,
governance quality, and workforce engagement. It provides actionable insights for policymakers and
institutional leaders seeking to transform bureaucratic systems into cultures of commitment,
collaboration, and accountability—essential components of a sustainable and effective higher education
environment.
METHODOLOGY
A rigorous and methodologically sound research design is essential for understanding the intricate
relationship between organizational culture and absenteeism within HEIs. This study employs a mixed-
methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to achieve a
comprehensive and multidimensional analysis of absenteeism at UABJO. Mixed-methods research
allows for the triangulation of data, enhancing the reliability and validity of findings by cross-verifying
quantitative statistical trends with qualitative insights drawn from participants’ experiences (Ahmed et
al., 2024). The quantitative component of this study consists of a structured survey administered to 250
respondents, including 150 faculty members and 100 administrative staff. The survey was designed to
capture key variables related to absenteeism, organizational culture, leadership engagement, and
institutional policies (Zhao, 2024). Questions were structured using Likert-scale measurements,
categorical response options, and open-ended fields to facilitate both statistical analysis and nuanced
interpretations. The sample was selected through stratified random sampling, ensuring proportional
representation of faculty and administrative staff across different departments. This method enhances
generalizability and minimizes selection bias (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
Complementing the quantitative analysis, the qualitative component comprises 25 in-depth
interviews with 15 faculty members and 10 administrators. These semi-structured interviews were
designed to explore participants' perceptions of institutional culture, leadership effectiveness, and
absenteeism-related challenges. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select interviewees
with diverse perspectives and varying levels of experience within the institution (Mashuri et al., 2022).
This qualitative approach allows for a deeper exploration of the underlying reasons behind absenteeism
trends observed in the survey data.
pág. 6778
Data collection was conducted over a four-month period, spanning November 2023 to February 2024.
Surveys were distributed both electronically and in-person to maximize participation and ensure broad
coverage. Interviews were conducted in a confidential setting to encourage candid responses, with
participants' consent obtained for audio recordings and subsequent transcription (Nyimbili Phd &
Nyimbili, 2024). Ethical considerations, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and data
protection, were strictly adhered to in accordance with American Educational Research Association
[AERA] ethics guidelines ("AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational Research Association
Approved by the AERA Council February 2011," 2011). The analysis of quantitative data was
performed using multiple regression modeling, a statistical technique that allows for the identification
of key predictors of absenteeism. Regression analysis facilitates the examination of relationships
between absenteeism rates and independent variables such as leadership engagement, institutional
policies, and organizational culture (Alkhodary, 2023). Descriptive and inferential statistics were
computed using SPSS software, ensuring a rigorous statistical foundation for the findings.
For qualitative data analysis, thematic coding was employed using NVivo software, a widely
recognized tool for qualitative research (Limna, 2023). Thematic analysis involved systematically
identifying patterns and recurring themes within interview transcripts, allowing for an in-depth
exploration of institutional culture and leadership dynamics (Braun & Clarke, 2006). By coding
responses into predefined and emerging themes, the study captured nuanced insights into participants'
experiences and institutional challenges, providing a richer contextual understanding of absenteeism
beyond statistical trends. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data in this study enables
a more robust and holistic interpretation of absenteeism in HEIs. Quantitative analysis identifies
statistical patterns and correlations, while qualitative findings offer explanatory depth, shedding light
on the lived experiences and institutional factors that influence absenteeism rates. The methodological
rigor employed in this research ensures that findings are not only statistically valid but also contextually
meaningful, contributing valuable insights for the development of targeted interventions aimed at
reducing absenteeism and enhancing institutional effectiveness.
Instrument validation was conducted using a pilot test with 30 respondents to ensure clarity and internal
consistency.
Data collection was conducted over a four-month period, spanning November 2023 to February 2024.
Surveys were distributed both electronically and in-person to maximize participation and ensure broad
coverage. Interviews were conducted in a confidential setting to encourage candid responses, with
participants' consent obtained for audio recordings and subsequent transcription (Nyimbili Phd &
Nyimbili, 2024). Ethical considerations, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and data
protection, were strictly adhered to in accordance with American Educational Research Association
[AERA] ethics guidelines ("AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational Research Association
Approved by the AERA Council February 2011," 2011). The analysis of quantitative data was
performed using multiple regression modeling, a statistical technique that allows for the identification
of key predictors of absenteeism. Regression analysis facilitates the examination of relationships
between absenteeism rates and independent variables such as leadership engagement, institutional
policies, and organizational culture (Alkhodary, 2023). Descriptive and inferential statistics were
computed using SPSS software, ensuring a rigorous statistical foundation for the findings.
For qualitative data analysis, thematic coding was employed using NVivo software, a widely
recognized tool for qualitative research (Limna, 2023). Thematic analysis involved systematically
identifying patterns and recurring themes within interview transcripts, allowing for an in-depth
exploration of institutional culture and leadership dynamics (Braun & Clarke, 2006). By coding
responses into predefined and emerging themes, the study captured nuanced insights into participants'
experiences and institutional challenges, providing a richer contextual understanding of absenteeism
beyond statistical trends. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data in this study enables
a more robust and holistic interpretation of absenteeism in HEIs. Quantitative analysis identifies
statistical patterns and correlations, while qualitative findings offer explanatory depth, shedding light
on the lived experiences and institutional factors that influence absenteeism rates. The methodological
rigor employed in this research ensures that findings are not only statistically valid but also contextually
meaningful, contributing valuable insights for the development of targeted interventions aimed at
reducing absenteeism and enhancing institutional effectiveness.
Instrument validation was conducted using a pilot test with 30 respondents to ensure clarity and internal
consistency.
pág. 6779
Reliability analysis yielded Cronbach’s α values above 0.80 for all constructs (leadership engagement
= 0.87, professional incentives = 0.84, organizational culture = 0.82, absenteeism = 0.88), indicating
high internal reliability. Sampling strata were defined by faculty rank and administrative department,
and random selection within each stratum ensured proportional representation. Construct validity was
examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with factor loadings exceeding 0.60 across all
items, confirming unidimensionality of the constructs.
Future work will incorporate a longitudinal component to assess temporal stability of these constructs.
RESULTS
Absenteeism Patterns at UABJO
Survey data indicate that 38% of faculty members and 42% of administrative staff report frequent
absenteeism, defined as missing more than five workdays per semester. This trend highlights a
pervasive issue that affects not only individual job performance but also institutional efficiency and
academic delivery. Comparative analysis with existing research in Latin American HEIs suggests that
absenteeism rates at UABJO are significantly higher than those observed in universities with more
structured institutional policies and leadership engagement (González Fiegehen et al., 2015). The
disparity underscores the necessity for targeted interventions aimed at enhancing faculty commitment,
improving working conditions, and fostering a culture of accountability within the institution.
Institutional Factors Influencing Absenteeism
Regression analysis identified three primary institutional factors contributing to absenteeism: weak
leadership engagement, lack of professional incentives, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. These variables
were found to have statistically significant effects on absenteeism rates, reinforcing the hypothesis that
organizational culture plays a decisive role in workforce attendance and institutional commitment
(Table 1)
The strongest predictor of absenteeism was weak leadership engagement (β = 0.65, p < 0.05), indicating
that employees in departments with limited managerial support, ineffective communication, and low
participatory governance were significantly more likely to be absent. Faculty and staff frequently
cited poor institutional leaderships a key demotivating factor, leading to disengagement and diminished
commitment to professional responsibilities.
Reliability analysis yielded Cronbach’s α values above 0.80 for all constructs (leadership engagement
= 0.87, professional incentives = 0.84, organizational culture = 0.82, absenteeism = 0.88), indicating
high internal reliability. Sampling strata were defined by faculty rank and administrative department,
and random selection within each stratum ensured proportional representation. Construct validity was
examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with factor loadings exceeding 0.60 across all
items, confirming unidimensionality of the constructs.
Future work will incorporate a longitudinal component to assess temporal stability of these constructs.
RESULTS
Absenteeism Patterns at UABJO
Survey data indicate that 38% of faculty members and 42% of administrative staff report frequent
absenteeism, defined as missing more than five workdays per semester. This trend highlights a
pervasive issue that affects not only individual job performance but also institutional efficiency and
academic delivery. Comparative analysis with existing research in Latin American HEIs suggests that
absenteeism rates at UABJO are significantly higher than those observed in universities with more
structured institutional policies and leadership engagement (González Fiegehen et al., 2015). The
disparity underscores the necessity for targeted interventions aimed at enhancing faculty commitment,
improving working conditions, and fostering a culture of accountability within the institution.
Institutional Factors Influencing Absenteeism
Regression analysis identified three primary institutional factors contributing to absenteeism: weak
leadership engagement, lack of professional incentives, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. These variables
were found to have statistically significant effects on absenteeism rates, reinforcing the hypothesis that
organizational culture plays a decisive role in workforce attendance and institutional commitment
(Table 1)
The strongest predictor of absenteeism was weak leadership engagement (β = 0.65, p < 0.05), indicating
that employees in departments with limited managerial support, ineffective communication, and low
participatory governance were significantly more likely to be absent. Faculty and staff frequently
cited poor institutional leaderships a key demotivating factor, leading to disengagement and diminished
commitment to professional responsibilities.
pág. 6780
These findings align with previous studies emphasizing the role of transformational leadership in
reducing absenteeism by fostering workplace motivation and accountability (Khan et al., 2020).
The second key driver of absenteeism was the absence of professional incentives (β = 0.52, p < 0.05).
Both survey and interview data highlighted that faculty and administrative staff frequently cite limited
career advancement opportunities, insufficient recognition initiatives, and stagnant salary
frameworks as primary reasons for disengagement. HEIs that neglect to establish structured reward
systems often face higher absenteeism rates, as employees lack clear motivation to fulfill their
responsibilities consistently (Noor et al., 2020). Conversely, institutions with robust incentive
structures—such as research funding, merit-based advancement opportunities, and performance-linked
bonuses—tend to report lower absenteeism and greater workforce commitment (Condly et al., 2003).
The third significant factor contributing to absenteeism was bureaucratic inefficiencies (β = 0.48, p <
0.05).
Administrative complexity, excessive procedural requirements, and delays in institutional decision-
making were frequently cited as sources of frustration among faculty and staff. Many respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with overly rigid administrative processes that hinder timely responses to
workplace concerns, resulting in decreased morale and increased absenteeism. These inefficiencies
disproportionately affect faculty members engaged in research and teaching, as bureaucratic hurdles
create additional burdens that discourage institutional engagement (Guillaume & Apodaca, 2020).
Addressing these inefficiencies through digital governance solutions, process automation, and
decentralization of administrative tasks may contribute to improved workforce efficiency and
attendance.
Correlation Between Institutional Culture and Absenteeism
Further statistical modeling revealed that absenteeism rates were significantly lower in departments
characterized by collaborative leadership, transparent communication, and structured incentive
systems. Departments with strong leadership and participatory governance structures exhibited a 28%
lower absenteeism rate compared to those operating under authoritarian or disengaged leadership
models. This finding reinforces existing literature that underscores the importance of institutional
culture in shaping workforce behavior and commitment (Ardebilpour et al., 2024).
These findings align with previous studies emphasizing the role of transformational leadership in
reducing absenteeism by fostering workplace motivation and accountability (Khan et al., 2020).
The second key driver of absenteeism was the absence of professional incentives (β = 0.52, p < 0.05).
Both survey and interview data highlighted that faculty and administrative staff frequently cite limited
career advancement opportunities, insufficient recognition initiatives, and stagnant salary
frameworks as primary reasons for disengagement. HEIs that neglect to establish structured reward
systems often face higher absenteeism rates, as employees lack clear motivation to fulfill their
responsibilities consistently (Noor et al., 2020). Conversely, institutions with robust incentive
structures—such as research funding, merit-based advancement opportunities, and performance-linked
bonuses—tend to report lower absenteeism and greater workforce commitment (Condly et al., 2003).
The third significant factor contributing to absenteeism was bureaucratic inefficiencies (β = 0.48, p <
0.05).
Administrative complexity, excessive procedural requirements, and delays in institutional decision-
making were frequently cited as sources of frustration among faculty and staff. Many respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with overly rigid administrative processes that hinder timely responses to
workplace concerns, resulting in decreased morale and increased absenteeism. These inefficiencies
disproportionately affect faculty members engaged in research and teaching, as bureaucratic hurdles
create additional burdens that discourage institutional engagement (Guillaume & Apodaca, 2020).
Addressing these inefficiencies through digital governance solutions, process automation, and
decentralization of administrative tasks may contribute to improved workforce efficiency and
attendance.
Correlation Between Institutional Culture and Absenteeism
Further statistical modeling revealed that absenteeism rates were significantly lower in departments
characterized by collaborative leadership, transparent communication, and structured incentive
systems. Departments with strong leadership and participatory governance structures exhibited a 28%
lower absenteeism rate compared to those operating under authoritarian or disengaged leadership
models. This finding reinforces existing literature that underscores the importance of institutional
culture in shaping workforce behavior and commitment (Ardebilpour et al., 2024).
pág. 6781
Qualitative interviews reinforced the quantitative results. As one faculty member stated, “When
leadership communicates openly and recognizes effort, attendance becomes a matter of pride, not
obligation.” Another administrator explained, “Delays in decision-making make us feel invisible —
that’s why people stop showing up.” These perspectives illustrate the cultural and emotional
mechanisms underpinning absenteeism. Table 2 aligns quantitative predictors with representative
qualitative themes to show their convergence.
Faculty vs. Administrative Staff Absenteeism Trends
A comparative analysis of faculty and administrative staff absenteeism revealed notable differences in
absenteeism drivers. While faculty absenteeism was more frequently linked to low research incentives,
excessive bureaucratic responsibilities, and lack of professional development opportunities,
administrative staff absenteeism was primarily influenced by workplace dissatisfaction, inefficient
workflow management, and inadequate managerial support. These findings suggest that intervention
strategies should be customized for each workforce segment, addressing distinct challenges faced by
faculty and administrative personnel (Table 3).
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study reinforce the notion that absenteeism in HEIs is deeply intertwined with
organizational culture, leadership practices, and administrative efficiency. A comprehensive approach
to addressing absenteeism must focus on enhancing leadership engagement, refining institutional
policies, and improving administrative processes to foster a culture of commitment, accountability, and
professional responsibility (Solomon & Sandhya, 2024).
Leadership development is the most pressing intervention, as weak leadership engagement was found
to be the strongest predictor of absenteeism. Institutions must invest in structured leadership training
programs that emphasize participatory governance, transparent communication, and faculty
empowerment (Mazzetti & Schaufeli, 2022). Mentorship initiatives can bridge generational gaps in
faculty engagement, while feedback mechanisms and performance-based evaluations will ensure
accountability and responsiveness in leadership roles. Institutions that successfully cultivate
transformational leadership models tend to experience lower absenteeism rates and higher workforce
Qualitative interviews reinforced the quantitative results. As one faculty member stated, “When
leadership communicates openly and recognizes effort, attendance becomes a matter of pride, not
obligation.” Another administrator explained, “Delays in decision-making make us feel invisible —
that’s why people stop showing up.” These perspectives illustrate the cultural and emotional
mechanisms underpinning absenteeism. Table 2 aligns quantitative predictors with representative
qualitative themes to show their convergence.
Faculty vs. Administrative Staff Absenteeism Trends
A comparative analysis of faculty and administrative staff absenteeism revealed notable differences in
absenteeism drivers. While faculty absenteeism was more frequently linked to low research incentives,
excessive bureaucratic responsibilities, and lack of professional development opportunities,
administrative staff absenteeism was primarily influenced by workplace dissatisfaction, inefficient
workflow management, and inadequate managerial support. These findings suggest that intervention
strategies should be customized for each workforce segment, addressing distinct challenges faced by
faculty and administrative personnel (Table 3).
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this study reinforce the notion that absenteeism in HEIs is deeply intertwined with
organizational culture, leadership practices, and administrative efficiency. A comprehensive approach
to addressing absenteeism must focus on enhancing leadership engagement, refining institutional
policies, and improving administrative processes to foster a culture of commitment, accountability, and
professional responsibility (Solomon & Sandhya, 2024).
Leadership development is the most pressing intervention, as weak leadership engagement was found
to be the strongest predictor of absenteeism. Institutions must invest in structured leadership training
programs that emphasize participatory governance, transparent communication, and faculty
empowerment (Mazzetti & Schaufeli, 2022). Mentorship initiatives can bridge generational gaps in
faculty engagement, while feedback mechanisms and performance-based evaluations will ensure
accountability and responsiveness in leadership roles. Institutions that successfully cultivate
transformational leadership models tend to experience lower absenteeism rates and higher workforce
pág. 6782
satisfaction, as faculty and administrative personnel feel more valued and supported in their roles
(Jankelova & Joniakova, 2021).
Equally critical is the implementation of clear and structured attendance policies, supported by robust
monitoring mechanisms (Hudson et al., 2019). Policies should outline transparent attendance
expectations, consequences for noncompliance, and avenues for justified absences. However,
enforcement must be complemented by incentive programs that reward professional dedication. The
lack of professional incentives was identified as a significant contributor to absenteeism, underscoring
the necessity for merit-based promotions, research funding opportunities, and salary increments linked
to performance evaluations (Gerhart, 2017). By reinforcing attendance with tangible rewards,
institutions can motivate faculty and administrative staff to maintain consistent engagement with their
professional responsibilities.
Administrative inefficiencies also emerged as a key absenteeism driver, revealing the need
for streamlined operational procedures (Legare et al., 2018). Excessive bureaucracy and slow
institutional decision-making processes contribute to frustration, particularly among faculty engaged in
research and teaching. Digital governance solutions, including automated workflows, paperless
administrative systems, and AI-assisted scheduling tools, should be adopted to minimize bureaucratic
obstacles and improve institutional efficiency(Gelashvili, 2020). Institutions that prioritize process
optimization and decentralization of administrative tasks will likely see an increase in workforce
engagement and a decline in absenteeism.
Furthermore, the study highlights the necessity for department-specific strategies, as absenteeism
patterns varied between faculty and administrative staff. While faculty absenteeism was primarily
linked to inadequate research incentives and excessive bureaucratic responsibilities, administrative staff
absenteeism stemmed from inefficient workflow management and lack of managerial support (Grigore,
2020). HEIs should tailor interventions to address these workforce-specific concerns, ensuring that
strategies are relevant and effective for each employment sector within the institution.
By integrating these interventions—leadership development, policy refinement, incentive-based
workforce management, and administrative efficiency improvements—HEIs can cultivate a more
engaged and committed workforce.
satisfaction, as faculty and administrative personnel feel more valued and supported in their roles
(Jankelova & Joniakova, 2021).
Equally critical is the implementation of clear and structured attendance policies, supported by robust
monitoring mechanisms (Hudson et al., 2019). Policies should outline transparent attendance
expectations, consequences for noncompliance, and avenues for justified absences. However,
enforcement must be complemented by incentive programs that reward professional dedication. The
lack of professional incentives was identified as a significant contributor to absenteeism, underscoring
the necessity for merit-based promotions, research funding opportunities, and salary increments linked
to performance evaluations (Gerhart, 2017). By reinforcing attendance with tangible rewards,
institutions can motivate faculty and administrative staff to maintain consistent engagement with their
professional responsibilities.
Administrative inefficiencies also emerged as a key absenteeism driver, revealing the need
for streamlined operational procedures (Legare et al., 2018). Excessive bureaucracy and slow
institutional decision-making processes contribute to frustration, particularly among faculty engaged in
research and teaching. Digital governance solutions, including automated workflows, paperless
administrative systems, and AI-assisted scheduling tools, should be adopted to minimize bureaucratic
obstacles and improve institutional efficiency(Gelashvili, 2020). Institutions that prioritize process
optimization and decentralization of administrative tasks will likely see an increase in workforce
engagement and a decline in absenteeism.
Furthermore, the study highlights the necessity for department-specific strategies, as absenteeism
patterns varied between faculty and administrative staff. While faculty absenteeism was primarily
linked to inadequate research incentives and excessive bureaucratic responsibilities, administrative staff
absenteeism stemmed from inefficient workflow management and lack of managerial support (Grigore,
2020). HEIs should tailor interventions to address these workforce-specific concerns, ensuring that
strategies are relevant and effective for each employment sector within the institution.
By integrating these interventions—leadership development, policy refinement, incentive-based
workforce management, and administrative efficiency improvements—HEIs can cultivate a more
engaged and committed workforce.
pág. 6783
Institutions that successfully implement these strategies will not only reduce absenteeism but also
enhance overall institutional performance, ensuring academic continuity, administrative efficiency, and
a positive organizational climate. Future research should explore the long-term impact of these
interventions, assessing their effectiveness across diverse HEI contexts to further refine absenteeism
mitigation strategies. Comparative studies between institutions that implement these interventions and
those that do not would provide additional insights into best practices for fostering a stable and
committed higher education workforce.
Building upon these findings, three pilot interventions are proposed for future implementation at
UABJO: (1) a leadership development workshop to strengthen participatory governance and
communication skills; (2) a merit-based incentive program that links recognition and promotion to
consistent attendance and productivity; and (3) an administrative digitization initiative to streamline
workflows and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Each intervention will be evaluated through pre- and
post-measurements of absenteeism rates and employee engagement scores, enabling the institution to
assess causal impacts and scalability across departments.
CONCLUSION
This study underscores the pivotal role of organizational culture in shaping absenteeism patterns within
HEIs, revealing how weak leadership engagement, lack of professional incentives, and bureaucratic
inefficiencies contribute to high absenteeism rates. Addressing these structural issues is essential for
fostering a committed, motivated, and accountable workforce. By implementing targeted strategies that
enhance leadership effectiveness, refine institutional policies, and streamline administrative processes,
HEIs can significantly reduce absenteeism and improve overall workforce engagement. This research
contributes to the broader discourse on absenteeism in HEIs by providing empirical evidence supporting
the need for institutional reforms that address workforce engagement holistically. Future studies should
examine the long-term effects of these strategies, particularly in different institutional and cultural
settings, to identify best practices that can be broadly implemented across HEIs. By addressing
absenteeism through leadership enhancement, structured policy frameworks, and administrative
reforms, HEIs can create a sustainable environment that supports faculty and staff engagement,
ultimately strengthening institutional performance and student outcomes.
Institutions that successfully implement these strategies will not only reduce absenteeism but also
enhance overall institutional performance, ensuring academic continuity, administrative efficiency, and
a positive organizational climate. Future research should explore the long-term impact of these
interventions, assessing their effectiveness across diverse HEI contexts to further refine absenteeism
mitigation strategies. Comparative studies between institutions that implement these interventions and
those that do not would provide additional insights into best practices for fostering a stable and
committed higher education workforce.
Building upon these findings, three pilot interventions are proposed for future implementation at
UABJO: (1) a leadership development workshop to strengthen participatory governance and
communication skills; (2) a merit-based incentive program that links recognition and promotion to
consistent attendance and productivity; and (3) an administrative digitization initiative to streamline
workflows and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Each intervention will be evaluated through pre- and
post-measurements of absenteeism rates and employee engagement scores, enabling the institution to
assess causal impacts and scalability across departments.
CONCLUSION
This study underscores the pivotal role of organizational culture in shaping absenteeism patterns within
HEIs, revealing how weak leadership engagement, lack of professional incentives, and bureaucratic
inefficiencies contribute to high absenteeism rates. Addressing these structural issues is essential for
fostering a committed, motivated, and accountable workforce. By implementing targeted strategies that
enhance leadership effectiveness, refine institutional policies, and streamline administrative processes,
HEIs can significantly reduce absenteeism and improve overall workforce engagement. This research
contributes to the broader discourse on absenteeism in HEIs by providing empirical evidence supporting
the need for institutional reforms that address workforce engagement holistically. Future studies should
examine the long-term effects of these strategies, particularly in different institutional and cultural
settings, to identify best practices that can be broadly implemented across HEIs. By addressing
absenteeism through leadership enhancement, structured policy frameworks, and administrative
reforms, HEIs can create a sustainable environment that supports faculty and staff engagement,
ultimately strengthening institutional performance and student outcomes.
pág. 6784
To ensure practical implementation, these interventions should align with national higher education
policies promoted by the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) and follow OECD guidelines on
institutional governance. Establishing a cross-functional “Engagement and Attendance Committee” can
institutionalize participatory policy review and ensure that reforms are data-driven and iterative.
Adopting international frameworks, such as UNESCO’s 2023 Higher Education Transformation
Agenda, will further align local initiatives with global standards for academic workforce sustainability.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions
VHLL, CECL conceived the data. VHLL, AJA, VCJ, RVT, AGS, HCS, JRA analyzed and
interpreted the data. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, N., Shonubi, O., Hashim, R., & Hamid, N. (2016, 09/01). Recognition and Appreciation and
its Psychological Effect on Job Satisfaction and Performance in a Malaysia IT Company:
Systematic Review. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21, 47-55.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2109064755
AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational Research Association Approved by the AERA Council
February 2011. (2011). Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145-156.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11410403
Ahmed, A., Pereira, L., & Jane, K. (2024, 09/27). Mixed Methods Research: Combining both qualitative
and quantitative approaches.
Alkhodary, D. A. (2023). Exploring the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Well-Being
of Educational Institutions in Jordan. Administrative Sciences, 13(3), 92.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/3/92
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007, 07/01). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40, 64-
65.
To ensure practical implementation, these interventions should align with national higher education
policies promoted by the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) and follow OECD guidelines on
institutional governance. Establishing a cross-functional “Engagement and Attendance Committee” can
institutionalize participatory policy review and ensure that reforms are data-driven and iterative.
Adopting international frameworks, such as UNESCO’s 2023 Higher Education Transformation
Agenda, will further align local initiatives with global standards for academic workforce sustainability.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions
VHLL, CECL conceived the data. VHLL, AJA, VCJ, RVT, AGS, HCS, JRA analyzed and
interpreted the data. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, N., Shonubi, O., Hashim, R., & Hamid, N. (2016, 09/01). Recognition and Appreciation and
its Psychological Effect on Job Satisfaction and Performance in a Malaysia IT Company:
Systematic Review. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21, 47-55.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2109064755
AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational Research Association Approved by the AERA Council
February 2011. (2011). Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145-156.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11410403
Ahmed, A., Pereira, L., & Jane, K. (2024, 09/27). Mixed Methods Research: Combining both qualitative
and quantitative approaches.
Alkhodary, D. A. (2023). Exploring the Relationship between Organizational Culture and Well-Being
of Educational Institutions in Jordan. Administrative Sciences, 13(3), 92.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/3/92
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007, 07/01). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40, 64-
65.
pág. 6785
Antai, D., Oke, A., Braithwaite, P., & Anthony, D. S. (2015, Oct). A 'Balanced' Life: Work-Life Balance
and Sickness Absence in Four Nordic Countries. Int J Occup Environ Med, 6(4), 205-222.
https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2015.667
Ardebilpour, M., Ardebilpour, A., Kerry, P., & Falahat, M. (2024, 08/08). Impact of organizational
culture on employee commitment: Mediating role of employee engagement and perceived
organizational support. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8, 4997.
https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i8.4997
Arredondo-Soto, K. C., Serrano-Manrrique, J. P., Blanco-Fernandez, J., Hernández-Escobedo, G.,
Miranda-Ackerman, M. A., & García-Alcaraz, J. L. (2020). Modeling of the Factors of Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) Influencing the Strategic Linking Decisions with the Industrial
Sector: Whole-Institution Approach. Sustainability, 12(8), 3089. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/12/8/3089
Asim, M., Zhiying, L., Nadeem, M. A., Ghani, U., Arshad, M., & Yi, X. (2021). How Authoritarian
Leadership Affects Employee's Helping Behavior? The Mediating Role of Rumination and
Moderating Role of Psychological Ownership. Front Psychol, 12, 667348.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667348
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006, 01/01). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Condly, S., Clark, R., & Ph.D, H. (2003, 09/01). The Effects of Incentives on Workplace Performance:
A Meta‐analytic Review of Research Studies 1. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16, 46-
63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00287.x
de Jong, S., & del Junco, C. (2024, 2024/06/02). How do professional staff influence academic
knowledge development? A literature review and research agenda. Studies in Higher
Education, 49(6), 1042-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258155
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Y. S., & Culture. (2024). Wellbeing and
mental health at school – Guidelines for school leaders, teachers and educators. Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi/10.2766/760136
Antai, D., Oke, A., Braithwaite, P., & Anthony, D. S. (2015, Oct). A 'Balanced' Life: Work-Life Balance
and Sickness Absence in Four Nordic Countries. Int J Occup Environ Med, 6(4), 205-222.
https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2015.667
Ardebilpour, M., Ardebilpour, A., Kerry, P., & Falahat, M. (2024, 08/08). Impact of organizational
culture on employee commitment: Mediating role of employee engagement and perceived
organizational support. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8, 4997.
https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i8.4997
Arredondo-Soto, K. C., Serrano-Manrrique, J. P., Blanco-Fernandez, J., Hernández-Escobedo, G.,
Miranda-Ackerman, M. A., & García-Alcaraz, J. L. (2020). Modeling of the Factors of Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) Influencing the Strategic Linking Decisions with the Industrial
Sector: Whole-Institution Approach. Sustainability, 12(8), 3089. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/12/8/3089
Asim, M., Zhiying, L., Nadeem, M. A., Ghani, U., Arshad, M., & Yi, X. (2021). How Authoritarian
Leadership Affects Employee's Helping Behavior? The Mediating Role of Rumination and
Moderating Role of Psychological Ownership. Front Psychol, 12, 667348.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667348
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006, 01/01). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Condly, S., Clark, R., & Ph.D, H. (2003, 09/01). The Effects of Incentives on Workplace Performance:
A Meta‐analytic Review of Research Studies 1. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16, 46-
63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00287.x
de Jong, S., & del Junco, C. (2024, 2024/06/02). How do professional staff influence academic
knowledge development? A literature review and research agenda. Studies in Higher
Education, 49(6), 1042-1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2258155
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Y. S., & Culture. (2024). Wellbeing and
mental health at school – Guidelines for school leaders, teachers and educators. Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi/10.2766/760136
pág. 6786
Gaudine, A., & Saks, A. (2001, 02/01). Effects of an absenteeism feedback intervention on employee
absence behavior†. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 15-29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.73
Gelashvili, T. (2020). Going Paperless -- Main Challenges in EDRMS Implementation -- Case of
Georgia. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.07019
Gerhart, B. (2017, 03/22). Incentives and Pay for Performance in the Workplace.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2017.02.001
González Fiegehen, L., Espinoza, O., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2015). Trends in Latin American Higher
Education Systems. In (pp. 45-68). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14684-3_2
Grigore, O. (2020, 12/21). Factors Contributing to Work-Related Absenteeism during the COVID-19
Pandemic. MANAGEMENT DYNAMICS IN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, 8, 401-418.
https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2020-0026
Guillaume, R., & Apodaca, E. (2020, 01/27). Early career faculty of color and promotion and tenure:
the intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 25, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718084
Hadziahmetovic, N., & Salihovic, N. (2022, 06/17). The Role of Transparent Communication and
Leadership in Employee Engagement. International Journal of Academic Research in
Economics and Management Sciences, 11. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v11-i2/14067
Hamad, N., Adewusi, O., Unachukwu, C., Osawaru, B., Omolawal, S., Aliu, A., & David, I. (2024,
02/28). Organizational culture and leadership development: A human resources review of
trends and best practices. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10, 243-255.
https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2024.10.1.0025
Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019, 2019/01/02). Policy failure and the policy-
implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 1-
14. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378
Hunter, F., Ammigan, R., de Wit, H., Gregersen-Hermans, J., Jones, E., & Murphy, A. (2023).
Internationalisation in higher education: Responding to new opportunities and challenges.
Gaudine, A., & Saks, A. (2001, 02/01). Effects of an absenteeism feedback intervention on employee
absence behavior†. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 15-29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.73
Gelashvili, T. (2020). Going Paperless -- Main Challenges in EDRMS Implementation -- Case of
Georgia. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.07019
Gerhart, B. (2017, 03/22). Incentives and Pay for Performance in the Workplace.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2017.02.001
González Fiegehen, L., Espinoza, O., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2015). Trends in Latin American Higher
Education Systems. In (pp. 45-68). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14684-3_2
Grigore, O. (2020, 12/21). Factors Contributing to Work-Related Absenteeism during the COVID-19
Pandemic. MANAGEMENT DYNAMICS IN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, 8, 401-418.
https://doi.org/10.2478/mdke-2020-0026
Guillaume, R., & Apodaca, E. (2020, 01/27). Early career faculty of color and promotion and tenure:
the intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 25, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718084
Hadziahmetovic, N., & Salihovic, N. (2022, 06/17). The Role of Transparent Communication and
Leadership in Employee Engagement. International Journal of Academic Research in
Economics and Management Sciences, 11. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v11-i2/14067
Hamad, N., Adewusi, O., Unachukwu, C., Osawaru, B., Omolawal, S., Aliu, A., & David, I. (2024,
02/28). Organizational culture and leadership development: A human resources review of
trends and best practices. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10, 243-255.
https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2024.10.1.0025
Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019, 2019/01/02). Policy failure and the policy-
implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 1-
14. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378
Hunter, F., Ammigan, R., de Wit, H., Gregersen-Hermans, J., Jones, E., & Murphy, A. (2023).
Internationalisation in higher education: Responding to new opportunities and challenges.
pág. 6787
Irazabal, C. (2023). Governance, Institutional Coordination, and Socio-Spatial Justice: Reflections from
Latin America and the Caribbean. In Carracedo García-Villalba, O (ed.). Resilient Urban
Regeneration in Informal Settlements in the Tropics: Upgrading Strategies in Asia and Latin
America. Singapore: Springer, 2021, 151-173. In (pp. 151-173).
Ismail, F., Abdullahi, M., Arnaut, M., Hadi, N., Yasmeen, B., Hadi, H., & Gwadabe, Z. (2024, 08/14).
The Effect of Organizational Culture on Employee Engagement in Higher Education
Institutions: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Zhongguo Kuangye Daxue
Xuebao/Journal of China University of Mining and Technology, 29, 141-152.
https://doi.org/10.1654/zkdx.2024.29.3-11
Jankelova, N., & Joniakova, Z. (2021, Mar 18). Communication Skills and Transformational
Leadership Style of First-Line Nurse Managers in Relation to Job Satisfaction of Nurses and
Moderators of This Relationship. Healthcare (Basel), 9(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9030346
Kearney, C., Dupont, R., Fensken, M., & Gonzálvez, C. (2023, 08/30). School attendance problems and
absenteeism as early warning signals: review and implications for health-based protocols and
school-based practices. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1253595
Khan, H., Rehmat, M., Butt, T. H., Farooqi, S., & Asim, J. (2020, 2020/12/09). Impact of
transformational leadership on work performance, burnout and social loafing: a mediation
model. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00043-8
Kocakulah, M., Kelley, A., Mitchell, K., & Ruggieri, M. (2016, 05/02). Absenteeism Problems And
Costs: Causes, Effects And Cures. International Business & Economics Research Journal
(IBER), 15, 89. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v15i3.9673
Legare, F., Adekpedjou, R., Stacey, D., Turcotte, S., Kryworuchko, J., Graham, I. D., Lyddiatt, A.,
Politi, M. C., Thomson, R., Elwyn, G., & Donner-Banzhoff, N. (2018, Jul 19). Interventions
for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev, 7(7), CD006732. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4
Irazabal, C. (2023). Governance, Institutional Coordination, and Socio-Spatial Justice: Reflections from
Latin America and the Caribbean. In Carracedo García-Villalba, O (ed.). Resilient Urban
Regeneration in Informal Settlements in the Tropics: Upgrading Strategies in Asia and Latin
America. Singapore: Springer, 2021, 151-173. In (pp. 151-173).
Ismail, F., Abdullahi, M., Arnaut, M., Hadi, N., Yasmeen, B., Hadi, H., & Gwadabe, Z. (2024, 08/14).
The Effect of Organizational Culture on Employee Engagement in Higher Education
Institutions: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Zhongguo Kuangye Daxue
Xuebao/Journal of China University of Mining and Technology, 29, 141-152.
https://doi.org/10.1654/zkdx.2024.29.3-11
Jankelova, N., & Joniakova, Z. (2021, Mar 18). Communication Skills and Transformational
Leadership Style of First-Line Nurse Managers in Relation to Job Satisfaction of Nurses and
Moderators of This Relationship. Healthcare (Basel), 9(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9030346
Kearney, C., Dupont, R., Fensken, M., & Gonzálvez, C. (2023, 08/30). School attendance problems and
absenteeism as early warning signals: review and implications for health-based protocols and
school-based practices. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1253595
Khan, H., Rehmat, M., Butt, T. H., Farooqi, S., & Asim, J. (2020, 2020/12/09). Impact of
transformational leadership on work performance, burnout and social loafing: a mediation
model. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00043-8
Kocakulah, M., Kelley, A., Mitchell, K., & Ruggieri, M. (2016, 05/02). Absenteeism Problems And
Costs: Causes, Effects And Cures. International Business & Economics Research Journal
(IBER), 15, 89. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v15i3.9673
Legare, F., Adekpedjou, R., Stacey, D., Turcotte, S., Kryworuchko, J., Graham, I. D., Lyddiatt, A.,
Politi, M. C., Thomson, R., Elwyn, G., & Donner-Banzhoff, N. (2018, Jul 19). Interventions
for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev, 7(7), CD006732. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4
pág. 6788
Limna, P. (2023, 08/01). The Impact of NVivo in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from Graduate
Students. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.17
López López, V. H., Ramos Sosa, M. C., Jiménez Santiago, R., Nolasco Cancino, H., Segura Salvador,
A., Nivón Torres, G. F., Carreño Mendoza, V. M., Cabrera Fuentes, H. A., & Carreño López,
C. E. (2025, 04/07). Innovación y Compromiso: Estrategias Globales y Regionales para Mitigar
el Absentismo en la Educación Superior en México y América Latina. Ciencia Latina Revista
Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(2), 1309-1323. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i2.16974
Lopez-Martin, E., & Topa, G. (2019). Organizational Culture and Job Demands and Resources: Their
Impact on Employees’ Wellbeing in a Multivariate Multilevel Model. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3006. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-
4601/16/17/3006
Ly, B. (2024, 2024/03/01/). Inclusion leadership and employee work engagement: The role of
organizational commitment in Cambodian public organization. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 29(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.06.003
Marchington, M. (2015, 2015/06/01/). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to
see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 176-187.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.007
Martin, A., & Matiaske, W. (2017, 01/01). Absenteeism as a Reaction to Harmful Behavior in the
Workplace from a Stress Theory Point of View. management revu, 28, 227-254.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2017-2-227
Mashuri, S., Sarib, M., Alhabsyi, F., Syam, H., & Ruslin, R. (2022, 02/27). Semi-structured Interview:
A Methodological Reflection on the Development of a Qualitative Research Instrument in
Educational Studies.
Mazzetti, G., & Schaufeli, W. (2022, 06/29). The impact of engaging leadership on employee
engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of
personal- and team resources. PLoS One, 17, e0269433.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
Limna, P. (2023, 08/01). The Impact of NVivo in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from Graduate
Students. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.17
López López, V. H., Ramos Sosa, M. C., Jiménez Santiago, R., Nolasco Cancino, H., Segura Salvador,
A., Nivón Torres, G. F., Carreño Mendoza, V. M., Cabrera Fuentes, H. A., & Carreño López,
C. E. (2025, 04/07). Innovación y Compromiso: Estrategias Globales y Regionales para Mitigar
el Absentismo en la Educación Superior en México y América Latina. Ciencia Latina Revista
Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(2), 1309-1323. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i2.16974
Lopez-Martin, E., & Topa, G. (2019). Organizational Culture and Job Demands and Resources: Their
Impact on Employees’ Wellbeing in a Multivariate Multilevel Model. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3006. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-
4601/16/17/3006
Ly, B. (2024, 2024/03/01/). Inclusion leadership and employee work engagement: The role of
organizational commitment in Cambodian public organization. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 29(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.06.003
Marchington, M. (2015, 2015/06/01/). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to
see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 176-187.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.007
Martin, A., & Matiaske, W. (2017, 01/01). Absenteeism as a Reaction to Harmful Behavior in the
Workplace from a Stress Theory Point of View. management revu, 28, 227-254.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2017-2-227
Mashuri, S., Sarib, M., Alhabsyi, F., Syam, H., & Ruslin, R. (2022, 02/27). Semi-structured Interview:
A Methodological Reflection on the Development of a Qualitative Research Instrument in
Educational Studies.
Mazzetti, G., & Schaufeli, W. (2022, 06/29). The impact of engaging leadership on employee
engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating role of
personal- and team resources. PLoS One, 17, e0269433.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
pág. 6789
Modise, P. (2024, 10/24). Ineffective Leaders are Unable to Carry Out Leadership Actions Successfully
and Exhibit Incompatible Leadership Traits.
Monteiro, E., & Joseph, J. (2023, 06/05). A Review on the Impact of Workplace Culture on Employee
Mental Health and Well-Being. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and
Education, 291-317. https://doi.org/10.47992/IJCSBE.2581.6942.0274
Muresherwa, G., & Bama, H. K. N. (2024, 05/30). Towards Improving Class Attendance in Higher
Education: A Case Study of a University of Technology in South Africa. International Journal
of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 23, 419-439.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.5.22
Nneji, N., & Asikhia, P. (2021, 11/10). Organizational Culture and Organizational Performance: A
Review of Literature. 3, 361-372. https://doi.org/10.35629/5252-0301361372
Noor, Z., Nayaz, N., Solanki, V., Manoj, A., & Sharma, A. (2020, 08/05). Impact of Rewards System
on Employee Motivation: A Study of a Manufacturing Firm in Oman. International Journal of
Business and Management Future, 4, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.46281/ijbmf.v4i2.692
Nyimbili Phd, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024, 02/16). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their
Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary
and Advanced Studies, 5, 90-99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
OECD/IDB. (2022). Innovative and Entrepreneurial Universities in Latin America. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/ca45d22a-en
Oladimeji, K., Abdulkareem, A., & Ishola, A. (2023, 08/09). Talent Management, Organizational
Culture and Employee Productivity: The Moderating Effect of Employee Involvement. Journal
of Human Resource Management - HR Advances and Developments, 2023, 43-56.
https://doi.org/10.46287/DPKF9953
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. (2001, 10/01). Understanding Organizational Culture: A Perspective on Roles
for Leaders. Vikalpa, 26, 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920010402
Pérez Nebra, A., Sticca, M., Queiroga, F., & Tordera, N. (2021, 10/13). Brazilian Teachers’
Absenteeism: Work Design Predictive Model. International Journal of Educational
Modise, P. (2024, 10/24). Ineffective Leaders are Unable to Carry Out Leadership Actions Successfully
and Exhibit Incompatible Leadership Traits.
Monteiro, E., & Joseph, J. (2023, 06/05). A Review on the Impact of Workplace Culture on Employee
Mental Health and Well-Being. International Journal of Case Studies in Business, IT, and
Education, 291-317. https://doi.org/10.47992/IJCSBE.2581.6942.0274
Muresherwa, G., & Bama, H. K. N. (2024, 05/30). Towards Improving Class Attendance in Higher
Education: A Case Study of a University of Technology in South Africa. International Journal
of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 23, 419-439.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.5.22
Nneji, N., & Asikhia, P. (2021, 11/10). Organizational Culture and Organizational Performance: A
Review of Literature. 3, 361-372. https://doi.org/10.35629/5252-0301361372
Noor, Z., Nayaz, N., Solanki, V., Manoj, A., & Sharma, A. (2020, 08/05). Impact of Rewards System
on Employee Motivation: A Study of a Manufacturing Firm in Oman. International Journal of
Business and Management Future, 4, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.46281/ijbmf.v4i2.692
Nyimbili Phd, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024, 02/16). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their
Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary
and Advanced Studies, 5, 90-99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
OECD/IDB. (2022). Innovative and Entrepreneurial Universities in Latin America. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/ca45d22a-en
Oladimeji, K., Abdulkareem, A., & Ishola, A. (2023, 08/09). Talent Management, Organizational
Culture and Employee Productivity: The Moderating Effect of Employee Involvement. Journal
of Human Resource Management - HR Advances and Developments, 2023, 43-56.
https://doi.org/10.46287/DPKF9953
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. (2001, 10/01). Understanding Organizational Culture: A Perspective on Roles
for Leaders. Vikalpa, 26, 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920010402
Pérez Nebra, A., Sticca, M., Queiroga, F., & Tordera, N. (2021, 10/13). Brazilian Teachers’
Absenteeism: Work Design Predictive Model. International Journal of Educational
pág. 6790
Organization and Leadership, 28, 117-130. https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-
1656/CGP/v28i02/117-130
Rasiah, R., Kaur, H., & Guptan, V. (2020). Business Continuity Plan in the Higher Education Industry:
University Students’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Academic Continuity Plans during
Covid-19 Pandemic. Applied System Innovation, 3(4), 51. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-
5577/3/4/51
Solomon, K., & Sandhya, S. (2024, 12/27). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5, 89-89.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Sosu, E. M., Dare, S., Goodfellow, C., & Klein, M. (2021). Socioeconomic status and school
absenteeism: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Review of Education, 9(3), e3291.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3291
Teodoro, A. (2015, 01/01). European and Latin American higher education between mirrors. Designing
possible futures. Revista Lusofona de Educacao, 31, 11-32.
Treviño Reyes, R., & Lopez-Perez, J.-F. (2023, 2023-07-27). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and burnout in teachers in Mexico [Structural empowerment, psychological
empowerment, burnout, teachers, public institutions]. 2023, 13(3), 19.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1435
Weideman, M., & Hofmeyr, K. (2020, 04/27). The influence of flexible work arrangements on
employee engagement: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,
18. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1209
Wolor, C. W., Ardiansyah, A., Rofaida, R., Nurkhin, A., & Rababah, M. A. (2022). Impact of Toxic
Leadership on Employee Performance. Health Psychol Res, 10(4), 57551.
https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.57551
Ystaas, L. M. K., Nikitara, M., Ghobrial, S., Latzourakis, E., Polychronis, G., & Constantinou, C. S.
(2023, Sep 11). The Impact of Transformational Leadership in the Nursing Work Environment
and Patients' Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Nurs Rep, 13(3), 1271-1290.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13030108
Organization and Leadership, 28, 117-130. https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-
1656/CGP/v28i02/117-130
Rasiah, R., Kaur, H., & Guptan, V. (2020). Business Continuity Plan in the Higher Education Industry:
University Students’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Academic Continuity Plans during
Covid-19 Pandemic. Applied System Innovation, 3(4), 51. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-
5577/3/4/51
Solomon, K., & Sandhya, S. (2024, 12/27). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5, 89-89.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Sosu, E. M., Dare, S., Goodfellow, C., & Klein, M. (2021). Socioeconomic status and school
absenteeism: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Review of Education, 9(3), e3291.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3291
Teodoro, A. (2015, 01/01). European and Latin American higher education between mirrors. Designing
possible futures. Revista Lusofona de Educacao, 31, 11-32.
Treviño Reyes, R., & Lopez-Perez, J.-F. (2023, 2023-07-27). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and burnout in teachers in Mexico [Structural empowerment, psychological
empowerment, burnout, teachers, public institutions]. 2023, 13(3), 19.
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1435
Weideman, M., & Hofmeyr, K. (2020, 04/27). The influence of flexible work arrangements on
employee engagement: An exploratory study. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,
18. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1209
Wolor, C. W., Ardiansyah, A., Rofaida, R., Nurkhin, A., & Rababah, M. A. (2022). Impact of Toxic
Leadership on Employee Performance. Health Psychol Res, 10(4), 57551.
https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.57551
Ystaas, L. M. K., Nikitara, M., Ghobrial, S., Latzourakis, E., Polychronis, G., & Constantinou, C. S.
(2023, Sep 11). The Impact of Transformational Leadership in the Nursing Work Environment
and Patients' Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Nurs Rep, 13(3), 1271-1290.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep13030108
pág. 6791
Zhao, M. (2024, 2024/03/01/). Measuring online community culture: Scale development and validation.
Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 13, 100375.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100375
Zhao, M. (2024, 2024/03/01/). Measuring online community culture: Scale development and validation.
Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 13, 100375.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100375
pág. 6792
ANEXOS
Table 1. Institutional predictors of absenteeism among faculty and administrative staff at UABJO
Institutional
Factor
Standardized
Coefficient (β)
Significance
(p-value)
Direction of
Effect
Relative
Impact on
Absenteeism
Interpretation / Qualitative
Insight
Weak
Leadership
Engagement
0.65 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
High Departments with limited
managerial support, ineffective
communication, and weak
participatory governance report
the highest absenteeism. Faculty
and staff describe poor
leadership as a primary cause of
disengagement and low morale.
Lack of
Professional
Incentives
0.52 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
Medium–High Insufficient recognition, limited
promotion pathways, and
stagnant salary structures
reduce motivation and
commitment, particularly
among faculty seeking research
support or advancement.
Bureaucratic
Inefficiencies
0.48 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
Medium Administrative rigidity,
excessive paperwork, and
delays in decision-making
generate frustration and
discourage institutional
engagement. Respondents
describe bureaucracy as
“demotivating” and
“unresponsive.”
Collaborative
Leadership
and
Participatory
Governance
— — Negative (↓
absenteeism)
High
(protective
factor)
Departments characterized by
participatory decision-making,
transparent communication, and
structured incentive programs
reported approximately 28%
lower absenteeism. These
environments foster
accountability and trust.
Note. Regression model includes leadership engagement, professional incentives, and bureaucratic inefficiencies as
independent variables predicting self-reported absenteeism rates among faculty and administrative staff (N = 250). All
predictors are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Qualitative interpretations are based on thematic coding of 25 semi-structured
interviews.
Table 2. Integration of quantitative predictors of absenteeism with qualitative themes and representative
participant quotations.
Predictor Qualitative Theme Representative Quote
Weak Leadership Disconnection from institutional
mission
“Leadership decisions are made without consulting
us.”
Lack of
Incentives Perceived inequity “Effort and absenteeism are treated the same.”
ANEXOS
Table 1. Institutional predictors of absenteeism among faculty and administrative staff at UABJO
Institutional
Factor
Standardized
Coefficient (β)
Significance
(p-value)
Direction of
Effect
Relative
Impact on
Absenteeism
Interpretation / Qualitative
Insight
Weak
Leadership
Engagement
0.65 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
High Departments with limited
managerial support, ineffective
communication, and weak
participatory governance report
the highest absenteeism. Faculty
and staff describe poor
leadership as a primary cause of
disengagement and low morale.
Lack of
Professional
Incentives
0.52 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
Medium–High Insufficient recognition, limited
promotion pathways, and
stagnant salary structures
reduce motivation and
commitment, particularly
among faculty seeking research
support or advancement.
Bureaucratic
Inefficiencies
0.48 p < 0.05 Positive (↑
absenteeism)
Medium Administrative rigidity,
excessive paperwork, and
delays in decision-making
generate frustration and
discourage institutional
engagement. Respondents
describe bureaucracy as
“demotivating” and
“unresponsive.”
Collaborative
Leadership
and
Participatory
Governance
— — Negative (↓
absenteeism)
High
(protective
factor)
Departments characterized by
participatory decision-making,
transparent communication, and
structured incentive programs
reported approximately 28%
lower absenteeism. These
environments foster
accountability and trust.
Note. Regression model includes leadership engagement, professional incentives, and bureaucratic inefficiencies as
independent variables predicting self-reported absenteeism rates among faculty and administrative staff (N = 250). All
predictors are statistically significant at p < 0.05. Qualitative interpretations are based on thematic coding of 25 semi-structured
interviews.
Table 2. Integration of quantitative predictors of absenteeism with qualitative themes and representative
participant quotations.
Predictor Qualitative Theme Representative Quote
Weak Leadership Disconnection from institutional
mission
“Leadership decisions are made without consulting
us.”
Lack of
Incentives Perceived inequity “Effort and absenteeism are treated the same.”
pág. 6793
Table 3. Comparative analysis of faculty and administrative staff absenteeism drivers at UABJO
Category Faculty Members Administrative Staff Interpretation and Recommended
Interventions
Primary
Drivers of
Absenteeism
Low research and
publication incentives
Excessive
bureaucratic workload
Lack of professional
development
opportunities
Workplace
dissatisfaction and
monotony - Inefficient
workflow management
Limited managerial
support and recognition
Faculty absenteeism
reflects academic
demotivation and structural
barriers to research and teaching
autonomy. Administrative
absenteeism is linked to low
engagement and insufficient
managerial feedback. Interventions
should be role-specific.
Underlying
Institutional
Factors
Limited access to
research funding and
sabbaticals - Rigid
administrative
procedures affecting
teaching schedules -
Insufficient academic
recognition
mechanisms
Centralized decision-
making - Redundant
reporting systems -
Lack of performance
appraisal feedback
loops
Faculty require academic incentives
and administrative flexibility.
Administrative staff benefit from
process streamlining and inclusive
management practices.
Impact on
Institutional
Performance
Class cancellations
and reduced
instructional
continuity - Lower
student satisfaction -
Decreased research
productivity
Delayed administrative
operations - Inefficient
service delivery -
Decline in institutional
responsiveness
Both forms of absenteeism
undermine institutional trust and
operational reliability, affecting the
university’s academic reputation.
Cultural and
Leadership
Context
Hierarchical
leadership models
reduce faculty
autonomy - Weak
collegial governance
culture
Limited participatory
decision-making - Poor
vertical
communication
channels
A culture of shared governance and
transformational leadership is needed
to improve engagement and reduce
absenteeism across roles.
Recommended
Interventions
Establish research
funding and merit-
based recognition
programs - Introduce
academic mentoring
and leadership
development
initiatives - Simplify
research and teaching-
related administrative
processes
Implement workflow
optimization and
digital management
systems - Create clear
performance-based
incentive schemes -
Strengthen middle-
management training in
communication and
engagement
Tailored interventions should address
the distinct professional motivations
of each group while promoting an
integrated institutional culture of
accountability and participation.
Note. Comparative results are based on survey responses from 150 faculty and 100 administrative staff, triangulated with 25
semi-structured interviews. Faculty absenteeism was primarily associated with academic demotivation and procedural
overload, while administrative absenteeism was linked to job dissatisfaction and lack of managerial engagement.
Table 3. Comparative analysis of faculty and administrative staff absenteeism drivers at UABJO
Category Faculty Members Administrative Staff Interpretation and Recommended
Interventions
Primary
Drivers of
Absenteeism
Low research and
publication incentives
Excessive
bureaucratic workload
Lack of professional
development
opportunities
Workplace
dissatisfaction and
monotony - Inefficient
workflow management
Limited managerial
support and recognition
Faculty absenteeism
reflects academic
demotivation and structural
barriers to research and teaching
autonomy. Administrative
absenteeism is linked to low
engagement and insufficient
managerial feedback. Interventions
should be role-specific.
Underlying
Institutional
Factors
Limited access to
research funding and
sabbaticals - Rigid
administrative
procedures affecting
teaching schedules -
Insufficient academic
recognition
mechanisms
Centralized decision-
making - Redundant
reporting systems -
Lack of performance
appraisal feedback
loops
Faculty require academic incentives
and administrative flexibility.
Administrative staff benefit from
process streamlining and inclusive
management practices.
Impact on
Institutional
Performance
Class cancellations
and reduced
instructional
continuity - Lower
student satisfaction -
Decreased research
productivity
Delayed administrative
operations - Inefficient
service delivery -
Decline in institutional
responsiveness
Both forms of absenteeism
undermine institutional trust and
operational reliability, affecting the
university’s academic reputation.
Cultural and
Leadership
Context
Hierarchical
leadership models
reduce faculty
autonomy - Weak
collegial governance
culture
Limited participatory
decision-making - Poor
vertical
communication
channels
A culture of shared governance and
transformational leadership is needed
to improve engagement and reduce
absenteeism across roles.
Recommended
Interventions
Establish research
funding and merit-
based recognition
programs - Introduce
academic mentoring
and leadership
development
initiatives - Simplify
research and teaching-
related administrative
processes
Implement workflow
optimization and
digital management
systems - Create clear
performance-based
incentive schemes -
Strengthen middle-
management training in
communication and
engagement
Tailored interventions should address
the distinct professional motivations
of each group while promoting an
integrated institutional culture of
accountability and participation.
Note. Comparative results are based on survey responses from 150 faculty and 100 administrative staff, triangulated with 25
semi-structured interviews. Faculty absenteeism was primarily associated with academic demotivation and procedural
overload, while administrative absenteeism was linked to job dissatisfaction and lack of managerial engagement.