Research findings published by software firm Employment Hero revealed concerning statistics about absenteeism for the HR sector, for which it recorded a Bradford Factor score of 113, higher than any other industry.
Gen Z workers (aged 18 to 24) in HR were most affected, with a score of 185, a score that is typically considered high-risk.
Data analysis of more than 105,000 employees revealed that, by contrast, employees from sectors such as education and training had an absenteeism score of only 25.
Kevin Fitzgerald, Employment Hero's UK MD, said that the high rates of absenteeism are not surprising given the high workloads and stress many professionals face.
He told HR magazine: “HR and accounting are the engine rooms of any business; the cost of lost time and productivity is significant.
Read more: Workplace surveillance unfairly targets black employees, research suggests
“The health and wellbeing of these professionals underpins the health and wellbeing of the workforces they manage and support, so it’s vital that professionals in HR and accounting get the help they need, and these rates are reduced substantially."
Speaking to HR magazine, clinical psychologist Matt Slavin explained that in high-performing workplaces, absence is often seen as a weakness; however, the “real issue is what drives people to stay silent until they burn out”.
He continued: “Guilt, shame, and stigma are deeply embedded in many organisations. People feel guilty for resting, ashamed to admit they’re struggling, and afraid they’ll be seen as less committed if they take time off.
“That’s especially true for those in HR and care-based roles, where the pressure to ‘be there’ for others, runs deep.”
Junior and intermediate staff recorded the highest rates of absenteeism (43 and 48, respectively), while director-level employees showed the lowest, with a score of 23.
Slavin said that to address the problem, HR departments need to look “beyond policies and tackle the culture”.
Read more: More than half of UK workers struggle with addiction
He told HR magazine: “That means leaders modelling healthy boundaries, having open conversations about pressure, and actively challenging the quiet messages that equate performance with self-sacrifice. When teams feel psychologically safe to step back, they’re far more likely to step up sustainably.”
The data also highlighted that absenteeism was more common in larger businesses. Companies with more than 500 employees recorded an average of 73, which is more than double that of a business with fewer than 20 staff (33).
Full-time workers were also more likely to be absent (48) than part-time workers (37) and casual staff (18).
Leadership coach Dave James told HR magazine: “Employees feel disconnected from bigger organisations, where the workplace is less personal.
Read more: Almost half of kinship carers leave their jobs
“Taking time off has less of an impact on the individual than with smaller businesses, and less guilt is felt.”
Fitzgerald added: “Whilst larger companies may have the resources to throw more money at health and wellbeing initiatives in the workplace, they can be less effective in monitoring the impact of these on individuals.”
The Bradford Factor score is used to calculate the impact of employee absence.
A low score ranges from 0 to 50 and is generally considered acceptable, showing infrequent absence.
A moderate score is from 50 to 100, and may raise concerns, prompting closer monitoring of absences, while a high score is anything above 100 and indicates a pattern of frequent absences, potentially leading to further employer action.
Employment Hero’s research is based on first-party data, drawn from the platform’s records of 105,000 employees, from 2020 to 2025.
