Research short: Understanding who wants what
“Getting all the players on side” is a necessary step in achieving successful return to work outcomes. However, research has highlighted that the different players involved in return to work frequently have different aims and objectives. This can lead to significant misunderstandings.
Insurers complain about doctors, doctors complain about employers, claimants complain about claims managers, supervisors complain about claimants—and you’re stuck somewhere in the middle.
But before you throw up your hands in despair, let’s think about what each of these RTW players actually wants.
Medical practitioners have care of their patient as a prime objective. They may or may not consider helping the person return to work is a necessary part of overall care. Busy medical practitioners might also be focused on getting through the day with minimal fuss, an objective that does not align with the forms and extra paperwork RTW often requires.
In contrast, a claims officer may have closing a claim as their key objective. They may also have a target of reducing the amount of treatment people receive. These look like sensible objectives from a business point of view, but that doesn’t mean that they will help achieve success in return to work.
Being open about goals allows a better understanding of the intent of each person in the system, and may allow better co-ordination of outcomes. When players in the system are open with each other and trust each other, they are more likely to cooperate and are less likely to have extra administrative work.
For example, if a doctor doesn’t trust the claims manager, they are more likely to require responses in writing. Similarly if the employer doesn’t trust the claims manager, they are more likely to require responses in writing. If the employee doesn’t trust the employer, there is more likely to be a dispute, they are less likely to cooperate in the workplace, and the return to work is likely to progress slower.
It’s no magic bullet, but recognising, clarifying and understanding each other’s objectives may go some way towards reducing miscommunication, thus helping you rally the troops!
Authors
Stahl C. Svensson T. Petersson G. Ekberg K.
Authors Full Name
Stahl, Christian. Svensson, Tommy. Petersson, Gunilla. Ekberg, Kerstin. .
Institution
National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83, Linkoping, Sweden. christian.stahl@liu.se
Title
A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work.
Source
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 20(3):299-310, 2010 Sep.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stakeholder cooperation in return-to-work has been increasingly emphasized over the last years. However, there is a lack of empirical studies on the subject. This study explores different public stakeholders' experiences of participating in Coordination Associations (CAs), a Swedish form of structured cooperation in return-to-work. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of stakeholder interests on the prerequisites for cooperation.
METHODS: Thirty-five representatives from two CAs in eastern Sweden were interviewed regarding the aim, structure and strategies for their common work.
RESULTS: Stakeholders' actions are to a high degree determined by their institutional preferences and self-interest. In the CAs, the motives for cooperation differ, and although these differences supposedly could be overcome, they are in fact not. One of the stakeholders, the Public Employment Service, limit its interest to coordinating resources, while the other three wishes to engage in elaborated cooperative work forms, implying the crossing of organizational borders. This discrepancy can largely be attributed to the difficulties for representatives from state authorities in changing their priorities in order to make cooperation work.
CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders' interests have a high impact on the prerequisites for cooperation in return-to-work. By referring to organizational goals, stakeholders engage in non-cooperative behaviour, which threatens to spoil cooperative initiatives and to develop distrust in cooperative work forms. The results of this study expose the complexity of and threats to cooperation, and its conclusions may be used by return-to-work stakeholders in different jurisdictions to improve the possibilities for the development of cooperative structures.
PubMed Link: