THE ROLE OF LEADER

MOTIVATING LANGUAGE IN
EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM
Jacqueline Mayfield
Milton Mayfield
Texas A&M International University

This study investigates the relationship between strategic leader language (as embodied in Motivating
Language Theory) and employee absenteeism. With a structural equation model, two perspectives
were measured for the impact of leader spoken language: employee attitudes toward absenteeism and
actual attendance. Results suggest that leader language does in fact have a positive, significant rela-
tionship with work attendance through the mediation effect of worker attendance attitude.

Keywords:  motivating language; absenteeism; leader communication; leadership; structural

equation model

The impact of absenteeism in the workplace is enormous in many respects,

including direct costs, global incidence, indirect costs, and service quality.
In terms of straightforward expenses, recent surveys estimated that time-
off costs from annual payroll have risen to about $40 billion annually
(Dalton & Mesch, 1991; Gaudine & Saks, 2001; Unckless, Mathieu, &
Kelley, 1998).
Furthermore, high outlays for absenteeism have also been reported
internationally in such countries as the United Kingdom and Sweden
(Robbins, 2005). Annual absenteeism losses in Canada have been recently
cited as increasing sharply from an existing base cost of billions of dollars
(Gaudine & Saks, 2001; Lu, 1999). Even more important, direct financial
losses that are associated with absenteeism fail to capture considerable

Jacqueline Mayfield is an associate professor of management at Texas A&M International University.

She has published numerous articles on business communication, leadership, and other management
areas. Milton Mayfield is an associate professor of management at Texas A&M International University.
He has published numerous articles on business communication, leadership, and other management
areas. The authors express special thanks to those who have been instrumental in developing this article,
including Jim Cashman and Ron Dulek at the University of Alabama, and at the Journal of Business
Communication, Margaret Baker Graham (editor), and two anonymous reviewers. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Jacqueline Mayfield, Texas A&M International University,
PO Box 1430, Cotulla, TX 78014; e-mail: jackie.mayfield@gmail.com.

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 46, Number 4, October 2009 455-479

DOI: 10.1177/0021943609338665
© 2009 by the Association for Business Communication
456   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

indirect costs that are attributed to excessive absenteeism such as wages

for replacement workers, overtime pay, and lower performance (Cascio,
2000; Robbins, 2005).
Fortunately, even modest reductions in absenteeism rates can gener-
ate impressive cost savings to organizations. A recent Canadian study of
70 hospital employees found that a 0.81 decrease in annual absenteeism
reduced organizational payouts by approximately $42,980 Canadian dollars
(Gaudine & Saks, 2001). Just as striking, Prudential Insurance Company
saved $80,000 in annual absenteeism costs following the introduction of a
back-up day care facility (Cascio, 2000; VanDerWall, 1998).
Despite such promise, much territory remains unexplored in the realm
of strategic leader behaviors that might foster optimal levels of employee
attendance. Management literature strongly supports leader behaviors
(communication, in particular) as significant interventions to increase
employee motivation, a key factor in reduction of discretionary absence
(Levin & Kleiner, 1992; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2002; Mayfield, Mayfield,
& Kopf, 1998; Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997; Robbins, 2005). In fact,
multiple studies have measured the effect of leadership behaviors and
absenteeism, with outcomes that indicate significant relationships (Gaudine
& Saks, 2001; Johns, 1978). These same researchers have recommended an
expanded study of these links. Yet to date, the connection between leader
communication and absenteeism remains largely unknown.
As a result, this article will investigate the impact of leader spoken
communication (as modeled with Motivating Language Theory and its
companion scale) on employee absenteeism. Because employee absentee-
ism is both avoidable (discretionary leave) and unavoidable (serious per-
sonal illness that demands bed rest or family member care, for example),
and because there is comparably scarce knowledge about the inherent
processes, the effects of strategic leader spoken communication will be
evaluated from two perspectives, employee attitudes toward absenteeism
and actual absenteeism (Robbins, 2005). With these objectives as a frame-
work, we have organized this article in the following sections: Absenteeism
Behavior and Leader Communication, Motivating Language Theory,
Methodology, Results, and a conclusive Discussion, which includes study
implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research.

ABSENTEEISM BEHAVIOR AND

LEADER COMMUNICATION

This review of leadership communication and its influence on employee

absenteeism will begin with a working definition. Our study will adopt
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   457

Cascio’s (2000) explanation of absenteeism as “Any failure to report for

or remain at work as scheduled, regardless of the reason” (p. 59). As pre-
viously emphasized, the cost of absenteeism is substantial to organiza-
tions and is therefore a logical target for managerial intervention. For
instance, the approximate annual bill for sick leave was $757 per employee
in the United States according to a 1998 survey. This estimate is expected
to be conservative because it did not include related, indirect absenteeism
costs such as lost productivity, the cost of hiring contingent workers, or
overtime payments necessary to cover missed work hours (Cascio, 2000;
VanDerWall, 1998).

As previously emphasized, the cost of

absenteeism is substantial to organiza-
tions and is therefore a logical target
for managerial intervention.

Yet within this context, all absenteeism is not created equal. Some
employee absences cannot be avoided, such as in the cases of serious per-
sonal or family member illness. These times of missed work can often be
recognized as long in duration (defined as more than 1 or 2 days) on review
of organizational records. However, research also indicates that an esti-
mated 52% of total employee absences are discretionary in nature. These
absences are the result of factors such as stress, personal needs, and entitle-
ment mentality (Cascio, 2000; VanDerWall, 1998). These avoidable cases
often appear as 1- or 2-day occurrences in organizational documents.
Such discretionary absences have been categorized as “utility maximi-
zation and choice” or the body of research that approaches absenteeism
as an outcome of individual decision making and inherently influenced
by motivational states (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). Employee moti-
vation has been closely associated with managerial behaviors, including
explicit and implicit communication practices. Previous investigations
have uncovered links between avoidable absences and negative employee
perceptions of the workplace, including procedural and distributive jus-
tice, and similarly, with low organizational commitment in workers (De
Boer, Bakker, Syroit, & Schaufeli, 2002; Farrell & Stamm, 1988;
Harrison & Martocchio, 1998). All of these undesirable employee atti-
tudes have also been moderated by leader behavior (Cole & Kleiner,
1992; Levin & Kleiner, 1992; Robbins, 2005; Yukl, 2006). However, the
458   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

actual processes entailed in these interactions are comparably unexplored.

Currently, most management researchers agree that key attitudinal mod-
erators may include such factors as specificity, importance, and social
pressure (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
Furthermore, numerous robust and existing research reports substanti-
ate the role of leader communication in transmission of these behaviors.
For example, the amount and quality of information exchange between
leaders and subordinates have been strongly supported as key moderators
in employee attitudes, such as job satisfaction and loyalty, which have
been clearly associated with absenteeism (De Boer et al., 2002; Gellatly,
1995; Mayfield & Mayfield, 1998; Reina & Reina, 1999; Robbins, 2005;
Yukl, 2006).
More overt leader communication tactics have been recently pinpointed
as effective management tools in the reduction of discretionary absentee-
ism. Self-management training and goal setting have both been recog-
nized in studies as feasible interventions. And leader initiated feedback on
absenteeism behaviors to followers showed promise in the same vein
(Frayne & Latham, 1987; Gaudine & Saks, 2001; Unckless et al., 1998).
Notwithstanding this progress, the specific communication elements of
these behaviors remain relatively uncharted. Leadership communication
researchers have called for future studies to remedy this dearth of knowl-
edge (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007; Sharbrough, Simmons, & Cantrill,
2006; Zorn & Ruccio, 1998).

MOTIVATING LANGUAGE THEORY

Motivating Language Theory (MLT; Sullivan, 1988) may offer a bridge

to help close the leader communication knowledge gap in reduction of
discretionary absenteeism. MLT proposes that strategic leader communi-
cation can be directly linked to critical worker outcomes, including per-
formance, turnover, absenteeism, loyalty, and job satisfaction. In brief,
MLT predicts that key employee outcomes can be positively affected by
enhanced motivational states that arise from appropriate leader use of
three basic linguistic groupings, commonly known as speech acts. These
building blocks represent a comprehensive model for “the basic or mini-
mal units of linguistic communication . . . where language takes the form
of ‘rules governed,’ intentional behavior” (Searle, 1969, p. 16).
These three types of speech acts are expressed by leaders in the follow-
ing ways:
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   459

1. Perlocutionary or direction-giving language takes place when management

speech boosts employee performance through reduced ambiguity. Embodied
in practices such as goal setting, management by objectives, and perfor-
mance feedback, direction giving language is used when the boss clarifies
priorities, objectives, and rewards for the subordinate. Thus, direction-
giving language occurs when a leader reminds an employee of organiza-
tional absenteeism policies.
2. Illocutionary or empathetic language occurs when managers share concern
and humanity with employees. To illustrate, a leader uses empathetic lan-
guage to compliment an employee on a job well done or to commiserate
with a subordinate’s personal frustrations. Thus, motivating language is
transmitted when a leader orally validates a direct report’s stress associated
with lax employ attendance.
3. Locutionary or meaning-making language happens when a leader explains
and interprets the symbols that comprise each organization’s unique cul-
ture. This type of communication is often indirect and shared via stories
and/or metaphors. For example, a leader’s description of a company party
as a “command performance” or narration of an organizational success
story to a subordinate falls into this classification. Although this latter
speech genre is not always as literal as the two preceding classifications,
meaning-making language holds the potential to become a primary channel
during times of organizational orientation and change. Thus, meaning-
making language is shared when a leader reminds a new call center
employee that faithful attendance reinforces the company culture of excel-
lent customer service.

According to MLT, these forms of language will improve employee

motivation when based on the following three basic assumptions. First,
and as stated in speech act theory, MLT encompasses most cases of leader
to employee discourse. Second, leader actions must be perceived as con-
gruent with words. Expressly, managers must walk the talk, and subordi-
nates must understand the intended messages. Third, motivating language
will have the greatest probability of attaining desirable outcomes when all
three categories are used strategically (Sullivan, 1988; Mayfield & Mayfield,
1995; Mayfield et al., 1998).
At present, this theory has shown substantial promise as a motiva-
tional tool. MLT has been operationalized into a valid and reliable scale
(Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1995). Furthermore, the theory was tested
for its influence on performance and job satisfaction with a structural equa-
tion model (Mayfield et al., 1998). Equally important, Sharbrough et al.
(2006) substantially extended motivating language theory by exploring
460   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

hypothesized relationships between motivating language and a subordi-

nate’s communication satisfaction, and perceptions of leader effectiveness
and communication competence.
Results from all of these investigations strongly corroborate the basic
tenets of MLT. In addition, Sharbrough et al. (2006) expanded theoretical
generalizability by investigating predominantly male technology employ-
ees, and introduced new research horizons for future motivating language
study that focus on subordinate loyalty effects and electronic communica-
tions. Finally, a recent article has supported the positive link between moti-
vating language and worker innovation (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004).
On the other hand, valid criticisms have been raised about MLT that
merit recognition, consideration, discussion, and response. Zorn and Ruccio
(1998) argued that motivating language theory did not embody integration
of the three core speech acts. Simply stated, the authors perceived that MLT
does not account for multiple goals when used. Moreover, Zorn and Ruccio
(1998) observed that motivating language is restricted in its assessment of
simple outcome goal variables such employee performance and affective
measures, while not accounting for the “dynamic interplay among the com-
municators, the messages, and the context” (p.474). In addition, the same
authors suggest that qualitative measures will improve understanding of
leader communication influences.
These challenges deserve review and address, especially because moti-
vating language is still developing, and such valid criticism is instrumen-
tal to theoretical refinement and extension. In response to the perceived
restrictions on multiple motivating language speech act use, interpretation
has been clarified in subsequent research. Sullivan (1988) originally con-
ceptualized MLT competency as strategic use of all three types of speech.
This assumption has been consistently included with MLT specifications,
and covariance among factors was allowed in a test that strongly sup-
ported this tenet (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2007). For example, a leader may
use multiplex forms of motivating language at the same time; that is, a
boss gives a subordinate task requirements (direction-giving language)
that include cultural norms of delivery such as a required presentation on
an organization’s intranet (meaning-making language) along with verbal
reassurances of task encouragement (empathetic language).
Regarding the limitations on communication processes that are cap-
tured in the motivating language model, such boundaries initially created
a parsimonious theory that facilitated evaluation of motivating language’s
original purpose: to improve valuable organizational performance indica-
tors through leader language to employees. To date, these specifications
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   461

have resulted in building a mostly consistent and robust model. Yet as

motivating language research is extended, greater understanding of the
motivational component, including affective states is needed to support
progress. Similarly, qualitative measures have been restricted in develop-
mental stages to focus on establishment of valid and reliable scales.
Indeed, such techniques will be valuable contributions as theoretical
grounding and examination of relationships with major outcome variables
become more firmly rooted.
For these reasons, much headway needs to be made toward theory
building through unleashing the full potential benefits of MLT. To priori-
tize, greater insights about the motivational and affective states that are
companions to motivating language should be gained in order to realize
MLT’s efficacy as a training and development tool. Among this requisite
understanding, more research should address the relationship between
motivating language, attitudes, and leading individual outcome indicators
such as absenteeism. In response, this study’s methodology will opera-
tionalize an important step in this process.

METHODOLOGY

Based on the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses are pro-

posed for testing:

Hypothesis 1: Leader motivating language use is significantly and posi-

tively related to employee attitude toward attendance.
Hypothesis 2: Employee attendance attitude is significantly and negatively
related to worker absenteeism.
Hypothesis 3: Leader motivating language use is significantly and nega-
tively related to actual employee absenteeism.

The motivating language construct is theorized to be applicable over

most worker types and organizational settings (Sullivan, 1988), and this
proposition has been supported through evaluation across varying settings
that that have yielded consistent model testing results (Mayfield &
Mayfield, 2004; Sharbrough et al., 2006; Zorn & Ruccio, 1998). As such,
there are advantages to drawing samples from heterogeneous work envi-
ronments. These samples can (when hypotheses are supported) indicate
relationship generalizability, and reduce systematic bias due to single set-
ting data analysis. Therefore, this study collected data from a cross-section
of work environments.
462   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

To obtain such a sample, information was gathered from workers

enrolled in graduate and undergraduate courses (specifically, principles of
management and organizational behavior classes) as part of a larger,
ongoing management study. All potential respondents were screened for
work experience and to ensure that a respondent was only included once
in the analysis (in the case of a subject being enrolled in more than one
class). All surveys were confidential and voluntary. As a completion
incentive, all participants were provided feedback on research findings.
Respondents were asked to answer questions on their immediate supe-
rior’s motivating language use (Mayfield et al., 1995), their own atten-
dance attitude, and the number of days that they had been absent from
work in the past month. (All three scales are reproduced in the appendix.)
The inclusion of the attitudinal scale and the short-term self-reporting
window were drawn from previous research that indicates absenteeism
has significant relationships with workers’ ability and motivation to attend
work over a relatively immediate time frame (Harrison & Martocchio,
1998; Harrison & Shaffer, 1994; Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Furthermore,
the presence of an attitudinal scale responds to recommendations for bet-
ter understanding of motivating language processes (Mayfield & Mayfield,
2004) and methodological diversity that have been offered by leading
absenteeism scholars (Johns, 2003; Martocchio & Harrison, 1993). In
fact, Johns (2003) observed that “the absolute level of methodological
diversity is less critical than its mere existence” (Johns, 2003, p. 158).
Since the attendance attitudinal measure was newly developed for this
study, its validity and reliability should be examined. Traditionally, reli-
ability for this type of measure is assessed through using Cronbach’s
alpha, with a minimum score of 0.70 being required for sound measure-
ment properties (Churchill, 1979; Price, 1997). Also, the measure’s
dimensionality needs to be determined—typically examined through
­factor analysis. It is expected that if multiple items all measure the same
underlying construct, then item intercorrelations will be relatively high,
and a factor analysis of these items will demonstrate strong structural
properties (DeVellis, 2003).

Since the attendance attitudinal mea-

sure was newly developed for this
study, its validity and reliability should
be examined.
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   463

There are a few simple requirements for a scale to demonstrate a

strong, single factor structure. The first requirement is that one factor
accounts for a substantial percentage of variance present in the entire
scale—at least 50%. A second rule of thumb for determining if a single
factor underlies all items is that the eigenvalue of the first factor is greater
than 1, and all remaining factors are less than 1. Finally, a chi-square test
can be performed on the factor, with a nonsignificant result indicating that
a single factor is sufficient to account for the variance in the items.
Once a single factor structure has been established, the individual items
will need to be checked to determine if each is sufficiently related to the
underlying factor to warrant scale inclusion. This check can be performed
by examining each item’s factor loadings. These loadings can be viewed as
the correlation between an item and an underlying factor, with higher load-
ings indicating a greater relationship between the item and the factor.
The absenteeism measure also needs to be validated. It is a single item
question which asks the number of work days that the respondent has
missed in the past 30 days. As a single-item measure, it is not possible to
perform a Cronbach’s reliability test or a factor analysis test for validity.
However, this measure’s validity can be compared with a previous study’s
findings on absenteeism. Fortunately, a large-scale study exists that com-
pared company record–based absenteeism reports with worker self-reports
(Kim, Cyphert, & Price, 1995), and identified a strong congruence
between the two absenteeism assessment methods. Therefore, the results
from the current study and Kim et al.’s previous study can be compared.
If results are similar, there is evidence that the current measure shows
construct validity.
The main analytical method for testing this study’s hypotheses is struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM). SEM can be described as a form of directed
factor analysis. The technique allows for the analysis of the relationship
between observed items and their associated factors (called latent vari-
ables), and the relationships between latent variables. Specifically, SEM
permits a researcher to propose a set of hypothesized links between various
latent variables, and then test the proposed model against real-world data.
Therefore, SEM has two very useful analytic properties for this study.
First, it allows testing of complex models, and is capable of including
latent variables. Models can be considered complex when there is not a
strict separation between independent and dependent variables, or when
models propose mediating relationships. For the hypothesized model, both
conditions hold true. Attendance attitude serves as both a dependent vari-
able (in relation to leader motivating language use), and as an independent
variable (in relation to worker absenteeism). Second, the hypotheses set
464   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

forth a partially mediated model with motivating language that is expected

to have direct and indirect effects on worker absenteeism. Testing out such
a model would be less efficient and parsimonious using regression or other
statistical techniques rather than SEM.
Also advantageous over alternative analytical methods, SEM permits
analysis of latent and manifest variables. Latent variables are hypothe-
sized constructs that cannot be directly measured. Rather they can be
inferred through indirect observation such as questionnaires. (Examples
of latent variables include constructs such as intelligence, job satisfaction,
and work motivation.) Manifest variable are those that can be directly
observed, such as days absent.
In addition, previous motivating language research has shown that
SEM analysis fruitfully captures the complex nature of the motivating
language construct (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2004; Mayfield et al., 1998).
The proposed model’s combination of latent variables, mediated design,
an observable outcome measure, and congruence with previous research
makes SEM application an especially appropriate statistical method.
Despite these benefits, effective structural equation analysis must be
based on a well-grounded initial model. MLT and the hypothesized employee
outcomes have reached such a development stage. The proposed model is
presented in Figure 1. This model can be viewed as an alternative, graphical
hypotheses presentation.
While SEM graphic hypotheses figures are based on common model
presentations, there are conventions specific to SEM that require further
explanation. Latent variables are shown as circles. These variables repre-
sent the constructs driven by the research questions in most investigations.
For this study, these constructs are leader motivating language discourse
with a worker, the worker’s attitude toward attendance, and the worker’s
actual absenteeism. These latent variables are in turn measured through
manifest (observable) variables. Manifest variables are depicted by rect-
angles in the model.
The arrows between the different variables signify expected causal
linkages. The tail of the arrow comes from a variable that is predicted to
create a change in another variable at the arrow’s head. Therefore, moti-
vating language is expected to cause a change in worker attendance atti-
tude. A plus sign on a path indicates an expected positive relationship, and
a minus sign shows an expected negative relationship. When no sign is
given for a path, the hypothesis indicates an expected link, but no infor-
mation on whether this link is positive or negative.
An explanation should be shared about arrow directions between the
latent and manifest variables. These arrows run from the latent variables
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   465

Figure 1. A Model of the Effects of Leader Motivating

Language on Worker Attendance Attitudes
and Absenteeism

to the manifest variables because the assumption is that the latent variable
causes changes in the manifest variables. Intuitively, it might seem that
the arrows would run from the manifest variables to the latent variables
due to calculation source. However, the causal diagram represents
expected relationships between the variables—not mathematical opera-
tions. Therefore, since the manifest variable scores are theorized to origi-
nate from the latent variable state, it is appropriate to place the arrows
running from the latent variables to the manifest variables.
Testing a SEM is a two-stage procedure. The model’s overall quality is
evaluated during the first stage. In this stage, the proposed model is com-
pared to the actual data, and the model’s quality is assessed through a set
of measures. Model acceptability occurs if most of these evaluations are
at or above accepted guidelines.
The most longstanding measure is a chi-square test. This test probes for
significant differences between the proposed model and the data. However,
the chi-square test can be misleading because it is sensitive to large sam-
ple sizes, and risks showing a misleading significant difference even when
only trivial discrepancies exist. To remedy this problem, a rule-of-thumb
applies that a model can be considered acceptable if the chi-square to
degrees-of-freedom ratio is equal to or less than 2.5.
Multiple fit indices are also available for model testing. These fit indices
all range from 0 to 1, with results closer to 1 pointing to better models. The
466   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is the most commonly applied fit index. A GFI
of .90 is required to indicate a good fit between model and data, and a fit
of .95 or better is considered to be a very good fit. The other fit indices
impose more stringent calculation methods, and so a somewhat lower fit is
allowable for these measures. A score of .85 is required as a minimum for
model acceptability, and a score of .90 is considered to be good. Preferably,
multiple indices are scrutinized for any major discrepancies between the
measures because each fit index is calculated somewhat differently.
Two other model fit measures examine the variance not accounted for
by the model. These measures are the root mean square average error and
the standardized root mean residual. Lower scores on the measures imply
a better fit between the model and the data, with a score of 0 indicating a
perfect fit. Scores are generally considered to be acceptable when they are
below 0.10 and good when they are below 0.05.
The Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is a final assessment mea-
sure. Lower measure values are associated with better accuracy of a
model’s fit with the data. While the measure is most useful for comparing
different models, it can also be used to determine model adequacy. A
positive score suggests a poor fitting model, and negative scores imply a
better fitting model.
After determining a model’s overall quality, path significance and
strength must be examined. This analysis is performed using a t test. If a
path tests as significant, the relationship strength can be examined through
standardized path estimates. These path estimates are similar to standard-
ized beta weights in regression analysis.

RESULTS

Data collection resulted in 305 usable surveys. Although sample

respondents were technically students, all retained subjects had appropri-
ate work experience. The average respondent had 5.1 years of full-time
work experience, and 2.5 years of part-time work experience. Also, the
average respondent had spent 2.7 years at his or her current place of
employment. In this sample, 20% were employed in nonskilled positions
(defined as a job requiring little or no training), 51% in a skilled position
(defined as a job requiring training or experience), and 29% in a profes-
sional position (defined as a job requiring a college degree or extensive
work experience). Respondents worked in the following institutional set-
tings: academic (19%), government (17%), small private (29%), large
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   467

private (23%). The remaining respondents (12%) classified their organi-

zational type as other. The average sample respondent’s age was 25 years,
and 49% of the sample was female.
One potential sample generalizability limitation was the subject’s aver-
age work experience. While the respondents may have enough work expe-
rience to provide them with sufficient workplace acclimatization, the
average time employed appears to be low compared with more general
norms. Therefore, low work experience levels could differentially affect
study results. To investigate this possibility, several analyses were con-
ducted. One such test applied multivariate regression, with a subject’s
work experience as the independent variable and all model variables as the
dependent variables. Test results showed no significant difference in the
variables due to worker experience. Based on this evaluation, we can
assume that there is no substantial difference in leader motivating language
use, attitude toward attendance, or absenteeism due to work experience.
To further probe for potential sample group limitations on generalizabil-
ity, a second test was used to search for differences in variable item inter-
relationships between subjects with higher and lower work experience. To
accomplish this task, the sample was split in half based on work experience,
and a correlation matrix was computed for each group. Next, the difference
was computed between these two matrices, and the average difference was
determined. This average difference was 0.02—a small discrepancy that
indicates similarity between high and low experience workers.
Based on both these analyses, work experience does not appear to be a
major factor in either the relationships between variables or in the model
variables’ means. Therefore, it seems that this sample can be considered
generalizable across work experience.

Based on both these analyses, work

experience does not appear to be a
major factor in either the relationships
between variables or in the model vari-
ables’ means.

To further assess the sample’s generalizability, multivariate analysis of

covariances was used to test for differences between any sample demo-
graphic characteristic and model variables. As with worker experience,
468   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

none of these tests were significant at the .05 level—indicating that worker
demographic characteristics do not influence variable scores.
While sample results appear to be generalizable across a range of work-
ers, an important note needs to be made about the cross-sectional nature
of the study. Because this information was collected at one point in time,
the study’s analysis methods do not guarantee that the relationships per-
form causally. The SEM analysis method employed can only indicate
significant relationships, not fully determine the direction of these rela-
tionships. The expected direction of the relationship is based on theory,
and awaits later testing through different means (such as a time-series
study, an experimental design, or other more sophisticated analytical pro-
cedures) to fully establish causality.
As for reliabilities, all measures fall within acceptable levels. For the
motivating language scale, item reliabilities were all above .92. The
absenteeism measure’s reliability was .81. A reliability for the measure of
days missed could not be calculated because it was a single-item mea-
sure. However, the sample results were compared with a prior work (Kim
et al., 1995), and this study’s absenteeism results were very similar to
prior findings. The absenteeism results also lend evidence of the mea-
sure’s validity since the study by Kim et al. found a strong similarity
between their sample’s self-reported absenteeism and company absentee-
ism records (Price, 1997). Item interrelationships and means are pre-
sented in Table 1. Reliabilities are presented in Table 2. A comparison
between this study’s absenteeism results and those in Kim et al.’s study
is presented in Table 3.
Because the attitude toward attendance scale is new, it is appropriate to
more carefully scrutinize the scale. Thus, the new measure was tested
using factor analysis, item-to-total (scale score) correlations, and indi-
vidual item reliabilities. It was predicted that the items should all load on
one factor, have high item-to-total correlations, and high individual reli-
abilities. All of these expectations were met. The factor analysis strongly
indicated a single underlying latent factor, with all items appreciably load-
ing there. In addition, all item-to-total correlations were high (.53 or
greater), as were individual item reliabilities (all above .71). Further infor-
mation on analysis results is presented in Table 4.
The SEM analysis results indicated a good fit between the proposed
model and the data. While the chi-square test was significant at the .05
level, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio was 1.7 (31/18)—well
below the recommended rule-of-thumb of 2.5. Additionally, all fit indices
were at or above .95, with several approaching the 1.00 maximum score.
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   469

Table 1.  Variable Interrelationships

Attitude Attitude Attitude Attitude

Toward Toward Toward Toward
Direction Meaning Days Attendance: Attendance: Attendance: Attendance:
Giving Empathetic Making Absent Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4

Direction 1.02 0.80 0.71 −0.33 0.32 0.27 0.45 0.36

  Giving
Empathetic 0.69 1.31 0.64 −0.24 0.29 0.28 0.38 0.39
Meaning 0.59 0.47 1.43 −0.41 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.40
  Making
Days −0.21 −0.13 −0.21 2.52 −0.70 −0.67 −0.52 −0.71
  Absent
Attitude 0.27 0.22 0.18 −0.38 1.37 0.87 0.81 0.73
  Toward
  Attendance:
  Item 1
Attitude 0.25 0.22 0.16 −0.39 0.68 1.17 0.85 0.73
  Toward
  Attendance:
  Item 2
Attitude 0.34 0.26 0.17 −0.25 0.54 0.61 1.67 0.72
  Toward
  Attendance:
  Item 3
Attitude 0.26 0.25 0.25 −0.33 0.46 0.50 0.41 1.83
  Toward
  Attendance:
  Item 4
Mean 3.15 3.30 2.59 0.95 2.97 3.47 3.29 3.21

Note: Numbers in bold are covariances. Numbers in italics are correlation coefficients. Item means are presented
in the last row of the table.

Table 2.  Measure Reliability Results

Confidence Interval

Measure Cronbach’s α Lower Limit Upper Limit

Direction giving .93 0.91 0.94

Empathetic .92 0.91 0.93
Meaning making .93 0.92 0.94
Attitude toward attendance .81 0.78 0.84

The error tests showed similarly good scores, with the root mean square
error of approximation at 0.05, and the standardized root mean residual
equal to 0.04. In all, these statistics strongly support the hypothesized
model as well suited to represent the actual variable relationships. Model
adequacy measures are presented in Table 5.
470   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Table 3.  Absenteeism Comparison Information

Current Kim et al. (1995); Kim et al. (1995);

Days Absent Study Sample Self Report Based Records Based

0 65% 66% 77%

1 18% 23% 19%
2 13% 9% 3%
3 4% 2% 1%

Note: Kim et al.’s (1995) study focused on short term absenteeism. Therefore, the authors
only reported on absenteeism of 3 days or less. The current study included all absenteeism
lengths in data collection and structural equation modeling analysis. For validation pur-
poses, the comparison between the studies was limited to 3 days to match construct con-
ceptualizations. The percentages of days absent in the current study sample are based on
respondents with 3 or fewer days absent.

Table 4. Attitude Toward Attendance Factor and Scale

Analysis Results

Item-to-Total Item Reliability

Item Factor Loading Correlation (Without Item) (Without Item)

1 .79 .68 .79

2 .87 .74 .79
3 .69 .61 .79
4 .58 .53 .71

Note: Eigenvalue = 2.19. Percentage of variance accounted for by factor = 55%. Chi-
square test: χ2 = 0.13, df = 2, p = .94.

The variable path relationships were examined next. As hypothesized,

motivating language significantly affects worker attitude toward attendance.
Based on the standardized model results, we can expect that a 10% increase
in motivating language use will be accompanied by an approximate 4%
increase in worker attitude toward attendance. Also as hypothesized, atti-
tude toward attendance is significantly related to worker absenteeism. A
10% increase in attitude toward attendance will have an expected 6%
decrease in actual absenteeism. Surprisingly, and contrary to hypothesis
expectations, motivating language has no direct significant link with worker
absenteeism. Model path relationships are depicted graphically in Figure 2,
and the standardized paths are presented numerically in Table 6.
By using these results, the indirect and total effect of motivating lan-
guage on absenteeism can be transformed into metrics that are meaningful
to organizational scholars and decision makers. Direct effects are calculated
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   471

Table 5.  Overall Model Test Results

Model Overall Quality Measures Model Quality Results

χ2
31 (df = 18, p = .03)
BIC −72
Fit indices
   GFI .98
   Adjusted GFI .95
   Bentler–Bonnett NFI .97
   Tucker–Lewis NNFI .98
   Bentler CFI .99
Error tests
   Root mean square error average .05
   RMSEA confidence interval .01 to .08
   Standardized root mean residual .04

Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index;
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; BIC =
Bayesian information criterion.

Figure 2. Leader Motivating Language Use and Worker

Attendance Attitudes and Absenteeism Results
Note: Paths presented in standard font are significant at the .05 level. Paths presented in
italics are not significant at the .05 level.

by examining the path coefficients for all direct variable links. Indirect
effects are calculated by multiplying paths between connecting variables. In
the case of this model, the paths to be multiplied are from motivating
472   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Table 6.  Test of Model Paths

Path Standardized Estimates

Motivating language to direction giving language .93**

Motivating language to empathetic language .75**
Motivating language to meaning-making language .63**
Attitude toward attendance to Item 1 .79**
Attitude toward attendance to Item 2 .86**
Attitude toward attendance to Item 3 .70**
Attitude toward attendance to Item 4 .60**
Motivating language to absenteeism −.08
Motivating language to attitude toward attendance .38**
Attitude toward attendance to absenteeism −.56*

*p < .05. **p < .01.

language to attitude toward absenteeism and attitude toward absenteeism to

actual absenteeism. Total effects sum all relevant direct and indirect
effects.
The derived metrics can be translated as follows: when considering the
indirect effects of motivating language on actual absenteeism, there is an
expected 2% decrease in absenteeism for every 10% increase in motivat-
ing language use. Total effects show an approximate 3% decrease in
absenteeism for every 10% increase in motivating language. Direct, indi-
rect, and total effects are presented in Table 7.

Total effects show an approximate 3%

decrease in absenteeism for every
10% increase in motivating language.

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

This study’s model analysis leads to some predicted and unex-

pected results. True to theory, motivating language significantly reduced
employee absenteeism. However, the motivational process for this
reduction was not as originally hypothesized. Instead of both direct and
indirect effects on worker absenteeism, the motivational impact of this
leader speech appears to be completely mediated through worker atten-
dance attitude. The remainder of this article will examine the implications
of the study findings in greater detail.
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   473

Table 7. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects Between Latent

Variables

Latent Variable Direct Indirect Total

Relationships Effects Effects Effects

Motivating language to absenteeism −.08 −.21 −.29

Motivating language to .38 Not applicable .38
  attitude toward attendance
Attitude toward attendance to absenteeism −.56 Not applicable −.56

To restate the analytical results, the overall hypothesized model appears

to be quite congruent with the sample data. All model quality statistics
showed acceptable levels of compatibility, and most of these measures
indicated that the proposed model did a very good job of reflecting the
actual variable relationships. Such a model fit is indispensable for theory
validity because these confirmatory statistics reduce doubts that unex-
pected findings may be due to conceptual weaknesses in the model or to
poor measures of the study variables.
This strong framework is insightful due to surprising analysis results on
the proposed variable interrelationships. Although there is a robust asso-
ciation between motivating language and worker absenteeism, this link is
not a direct one—a finding contrary to the study hypotheses. Instead, this
relationship is mediated by worker attitude. While the general effect was
predicted, the unexpected process flow improves our understanding of
how motivating language actually occurs with workers and is subse-
quently expressed in organizational outcomes. In sum, this study suggests
that motivating language—at least in terms of worker absenteeism—
operates by altering worker attitudes. Furthermore, this process does seem
consistent with Sullivan’s (1988) original conceptualization of motivating
language, though it differs from the implied model as elaborated by
Mayfield and Mayfield (2004; Mayfield et al., 1995, 1998).
In broad practical terms, motivating language has a significant and
moderate link to worker absenteeism. Path results show that for every
10% increase in motivating language, we can expect to see a 2% decrease
in worker absenteeism. Accordingly, we can predict that even small
improvements in motivating language use will have a positive and appre-
ciable impact on attendance and related cost savings.
These insights improve our theoretical understanding of potential orga-
nizational value associated with the motivating language construct. Most
importantly, this study enriches the investigation and understanding of the
474   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

motivating language process. Prior work has been mainly directed at mea-
suring the motivating language use–outcome link, and with a few excep-
tions, ignored the causal process by which these links were forged. While
such analysis is perhaps necessary in the early stages of theoretical devel-
opment, researchers must travel beyond simple input-output relationships
to a deeper understanding of how these processes operate if the benefits
of motivating language are to be fully realized. Fortunately, Sullivan’s
(1988) original conceptualization provides a rich foundation for such
examinations by assuming an attitudinal path between leader language
and employee behavior. And this study reveals an initial indication that
leader motivating language does in fact operate through the vehicle of
worker attitudinal change.
Similarly, this study extends the range of motivating language–related
outcome variables. In addition to worker performance, retention, innovation,
and job satisfaction, a new association has been shown to exist between
motivating language and worker absenteeism. Simply put, motivating lan-
guage now has more credibility to theoretically address some of the most
pressing outcome variable challenges with which management scholars con-
tend (Price, 1997; Staw, 1984). Equally encouraging to this prospect, study
respondents were drawn from a heterogeneous and wide ranging set of work
settings, thus expanding applicability. Moreover, the data were nearly evenly
balanced between male and female respondents, hence strengthening gener-
alizability inferences about motivating language and worker gender.
From a practice viewpoint and as discussed in this article’s background
section, absenteeism is a costly and pervasive organizational problem.
While not expected to be a panacea to a complex issue, motivating lan-
guage can now be adopted as a significant resource with which to promote
employee attendance. Furthermore, training investment and curriculum
design will benefit from these new insights about the communication-
attitude-behavior relationships.
Despite these contributions, there are study limitations that must be
acknowledged. The two major weaknesses are found with the study’s
cross-sectional nature and the sample’s demographic characteristics. As
discussed earlier, a cross-sectional study does not easily permit causal
statements. Instead, we can only infer based on variable linkages and
existing theory. And while motivating language has considerable theoreti-
cal foundation for making such inferences, non-causal studies are still
constrained in their predictive power.
Additionally, the study sample consisted of a relatively young set of
respondents in the early stages of their careers. While it is not expected that
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   475

this sample group’s characteristics greatly effected research findings—and

several tests were performed seeking an indication of such problems—
there may still be substantive, undiscovered demographic impact that var-
ies from the experiences of workers at other career stages. As a result, the
generalizability of this study is tentative.
This second limitation orients motivating language research toward
some suggested new directions. More credible and extended generaliz-
ability needs to be further explored through future studies. For instance,
the sample was drawn from U.S. respondents. Yet in a globally flat world
where communication interdependence is crucial (Friedman, 2007), a
cross-national motivating language investigation should be conducted at
some future date. Furthermore, longitudinal research may lend more sup-
port to causal predictions. Finally, much of the early motivating language
research has been oriented toward theory building. These goals benefited
initial conceptualization through simple research questions and models
with limited scope. In the future, motivating language’s full power may be
best disclosed by exploring new avenues such as qualitative measures and
translation into written, especially electronic communication.
In conclusion, a small amount of progress can make considerable
headway toward cost-effective reduction in employee absenteeism,
while promoting other desirable employee behaviors at the same time
(Gaudine & Saks, 2001). Motivating language may well offer such an
opportunity by nurturing employee attendance incentives through leader
communication.

APPENDIX
MEASURES USED

MOTIVATING LANGUAGE

The examples below show different ways that your boss might talk to you.
Please use the following selections to choose the answer that best matches your
perceptions, and then place an X in the bracket beside the appropriate response.

Direction Giving/Uncertainty Reducing Language

  1. Gives me useful explanations of what needs to be done in my work.

  2. Offers me helpful directions on how to do my job.
  3. Provides me with easily understandable instructions about my work.
  4. Offers me helpful advice on how to improve my work.
(continued)
476   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

APPENDIX (continued)

  5. Gives me good definitions of what I must do in order to receive

rewards.
  6. Gives me clear instructions about solving job related problems.
  7. Offers me specific information on how I am evaluated.
  8. Provides me with helpful information about forthcoming changes affect-
ing my work.
  9. Provides me with helpful information about past changes affecting my
work.
10. Shares news with me about organizational achievements and financial
status.

Empathetic Language

11. Gives me praise for my good work.

12. Shows me encouragement for my work efforts.
13. Shows concern about my job satisfaction.
14. Expresses his/her support for my professional development.
15. Asks me about my professional well-being.
16. Shows trust in me.

Meaning-Making Language

17. Tells me stories about key events in the organization’s past.

18. Gives me useful information that I couldn’t get through official chan-
nels.
19. Tells me stories about people who are admired in my organization.
20. Tells me stories about people who have worked hard in this organiza-
tion.
21. Offers me advice about how to behave at the organization’s social gath-
erings.
22. Offers me advice about how to “fit in” with other members of this orga-
nization.
23. Tells me stories about people who have been rewarded by this organiza-
tion.
24. Tells me stories about people who have left this organization.
All items were provided the following response categories:

Very Little A Little Some A Lot A Whole Lot

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

(continued)
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   477

APPENDIX (continued)

ABSENTEEISM

Approximately how often were you absent from your job in the past month?

ATTITUDE TOWARD ATTENDANCE

1. I feel bad if I have to miss work.

2. I don’t care if I have to miss work. (R)
3. I feel like I have let my company down if I miss work.
4. I enjoy days when I am absent from work. (R)

(R) denotes a reverse scored item.

All items were provided the following response categories:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

The motivating language, absenteeism, and attitude toward attendance scales

have been released under a Creative Commons Share-Alike by Attribution
license. The attribution authors are Jacqueline Mayfield and Milton Mayfield for
the motivating language scale and Milton Mayfield and Jacqueline Mayfield for
the remaining two measures. A license summary can be found at the following
Web site: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
The full license and legal terms are available at this Web site: http://creative-
commons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Please note that these licenses apply only to the scales and do not apply to
other text, tables, graphics, or similar items in this document.

REFERENCES

Cascio, W. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behaviors in orga-
nizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-
structs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
Cole, T. C., & Kleiner, B. H. (1992). Absenteeism control. Management Decision, 30,
12-16.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1991). On the extent and reduction of avoidable absenteeism:
An assessment of absence policy provisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 387-393.
De Boer, E. M., Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at work
as a predictor of absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 181-197.
478   JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates of employee absence.
Human Relations, 41, 211-227.
Frayne, C., & Latham, G. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self-
management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 387-393.
Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first century.
New York: Picador.
Gaudine, A. P., & Saks, A. M. (2001). Effects of an absenteeism feedback intervention on
employee absence behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 15-29.
Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of
a causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469-485.
Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of
origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 1-37.
Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. A. (1994). Comparative examination of self-reports and
perceived absenteeism norms: Wading through lake Wobegon. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 240-251.
Johns, G. (1978). A multivariate study of absence form work. In Academy of Management
Meeting Proceedings (pp. 69-73). Nriarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
Johns, G. (2003). How methodological diversity has improved our understanding of
absenteeism from work. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 157-184.
Kim, S. W., Cyphert, S. T., and Price, J. L. (1995). A suggested self-reported measure of
absenteeism (Working Paper). Department of Sociology, University of Iowa.
Levin, J. M., & Kleiner, B. H. (1992). How to reduce organizational turnover and absen-
teeism. Work Study, 41, 6-9.
Lu, V. (1999, August 15). Rising sick days cost billions. The Toronto Star, pp. A1, A10.
Martocchio, J. J., & Harrison, D. A. (1993). To be there or not to be there? Questions,
theories and methods in absenteeism research. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 11, 259-328.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M., (1995). Learning the language of leadership: A proposed
agenda for leader training. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 132-136.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M., (1998). Increasing worker outcomes by improving leader-
follower relations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 72-81.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M., (2002). Leader communication strategies: Critical paths to
improving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20, 89-94.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker’s
intent to stay: An investigation using structural equation modeling. Human Performance,
20, 85-102.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1995). Motivating language: Exploring theory with
scale development. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 329-344.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language on
subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37, 235-248.
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J., (2004). The effects of leader communication on worker
innovation. American Business Review, 22, 46-51.
Pettit, J. D., Jr, Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 81-97.
 Mayfield, Mayfield / MOTIVATING LANGUAGE AND ABSENTEEISM   479

Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of

Manpower, 18(4-6), 305-558.
Reina, D. S., & Reina, M. L. (1999). Trust & betrayal in the workplace. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Syndics of the Cambridge University Press.
Sharbrough, W. C., Simmons, S. A., & Cantrill, D. A. (2006). Motivating language in
industry: Its impact on job satisfaction and perceived supervisor effectiveness. Journal
of Business Communication, 43, 322-344.
Staw, B. M. (1984). Organizational behavior: A review and reformulation of the field’s
outcome variables. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 627-666.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A pro-
cess model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.
Sullivan, J. (1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management
Review, 13, 104-115.
Unckless, A. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kelley, P. (1998, August). The relative effectiveness of
absence interventions: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, San Diego.
VanDerWall, S. (1998, November). Survey finds unscheduled absenteeism hitting seven-
year high. HR News, p. 14.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/
Prentice Hall.
Zorn, T. E., Jr., & Ruccio, S. E. (1998). The use of communication to motivate college
sales teams. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 468-500.