Credit: Olga Yastremska and Leonid Yastremskiy/africa-studio.com/Adobe Stock
Most organizations I talk to right now have the same mandate: do more, produce more, hit bigger goals, with fewer resources and less margin for error.
Most of those same organizations are absorbing a significant, recurring performance drag: It's caregiving, and it's hiding in plain sight.
A high performer whose output has been inconsistent for eight months.
A senior employee who quietly took themselves out of the running for a promotion.
A leave pattern nobody has connected to an aging parent or a custody arrangement.
An exit survey that says "personal reasons."
These aren't separate problems: They're the same one.
The misdiagnosis
U.S. businesses lose an estimated $50 billion a year to caregiving-related absenteeism, lost productivity, and turnover.
But the more consequential number is the one we don't track at all.
Research on presenteeism, the productivity loss that happens when an employee is physically present but mentally somewhere else, suggests the hidden cost far exceeds what absenteeism data captures.
A caregiver managing a parent's medical appointments or a child's school crisis doesn't always call out sick.
The caregiver shows up, sits at a desk, and delivers less for months without anyone noticing.
The problem is especially acute for salaried employees.
Hourly workers create a visible absence when they can't show up.
Salaried caregivers don't clock out early.
They quietly reduce their scope, stop raising their hand for stretch assignments, and begin the slow exit that takes 18 months before anyone names it as attrition, at a replacement cost of roughly 1.5 times their annual salary.
A problem that lasts.
Caregiving doesn't arrive at one discrete moment in an employee's journey.
It enters and re-enters across the entire arc.
At recruiting, candidates make disclosure decisions before signing an offer letter.
At onboarding, a new hire realizes a role doesn't accommodate the school pickup time or a parent's dialysis schedule.
At development, a high-potential employee stops volunteering for the opportunities that could have otherwise moved the employee toward another, more ambitious trajectory.
At the performance review, a sustained dip gets labeled as a motivation problem.
At exit, attrition is coded as voluntary when, in every practical sense, it was forced.
Most organizations treat each of those moments as a separate HR event.
The employee living through the events knows it's been the same story the whole time.
If you're looking for hidden performance capacity in a year when everyone is being asked to find it, this is a reasonable place to start.
The performance misread
Performance management systems are picking up caregiving interference right now.
They're just labeling it as something else.
Possibilities could include a sustained dip in output, missed deadlines after a previously clean track record or withdrawal from visible participation.
These patterns get coded as engagement issues or capability gaps.
Managers respond with performance improvement plans that address exactly the wrong thing.
When you look at this through a caregiving lens, the patterns aren't random.
They cluster around predictable events, such as the arrival of a new baby, learning about a parent's diagnosis, or a divorce.
The dip in output is a signal.
Misreading the signal likely means the loss of a high performer, at a replacement cost of roughly 1.5 times their salary.
For benefits professionals, reports on EAP use, benefits enrollment patterns and disability claims each tell part of the story.
The question is whether an employer can connect the dots well enough to see what's going on and do something.
Elle Lebourg is co-founder and managing partner at ELIXR Solutions, a caregiving analytics firm.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.