Communication, recognition of co-workers improves workplace experience when implementing return-to-work program
The role of co-workers is crucial in the return-to-work process, and it’s a role that’s not without challenges, according to two new studies hinting at ways of making return to work a more seamless path.
Co-workers are not a neutral party when it comes to injured workers’ return to work (RTW). They can make all the difference to the success — or failure — of a return, yet can also be negatively affected by the challenges involved, the research says.
Both qualitative studies were joint ventures between past and present scientists from Toronto-based Institute for Work and Health (IWH), and colleagues in Australia.
“A number of studies have found that when injured workers feel they have support from co-workers, they’re more likely to return to work,” says former IWH scientist Agnieszka Kosny, now a research fellow at Australia’s Monash University, who led one of the two studies. “But the goodwill of co-workers toward injured colleagues can be impeded by workplace systems.”
Debra Dunstan of the University of New England in Australia, who co-authored the other study with IWH scientist Ellen MacEachen, agrees. For this reason, she recommends improving communication with, and recognition of, co-workers regarding RTW issues.
“This could go a long way to smoothing the return-to-work path for injured workers and their co-workers,” she says.
Bearing the brunt of RTW
These two new studies shed light on the undeclared stakeholders who both contribute to and feel the often-negative effects of RTW -- the co-workers. In the first study, Dunstan and MacEachen conducted focus groups in Toronto with co-workers from a range of occupations. They found a co-worker's capacity to support returning workers was based on four things:
• The quality of the RTW arrangements, including managerial attention to these arrangements — most co-workers in the study knew little of why and when the worker they had supported was returning, and many reported relatively haphazard arrangements for job reassignment;
• Their relationship with the returning worker — co-workers were more open to helping out if they had a pre-existing and positive relationship with the returning worker;
• The work culture, including whether or not people "pitched in" and acted as a team;
• The duration of the required support, because worker goodwill could wear thin over time.
The researchers also found that, although some co-workers in the study saw RTW in positive terms, most described the process as detrimental. Specific negative impacts on co-workers included extra work or heavier duties, and disruptions of personal work effectiveness, organizational effectiveness and workplace social relationships. In the worst-case scenarios, co-workers suffered ‘ripple effects’ such as emotional distress, physical injury and termination of their own employment.
Privacy requirements also posed challenges.
“Co-workers, who saw themselves as potential resources in RTW planning, sometimes felt shut out of the process due to confidentiality requirements — even when they wanted to show support to the returning worker,” says MacEachen. “As well, co-workers’ lack of information about the nature of the workplace injury sometimes led to damaging rumours and speculation.”
Structure of work
The second RTW study, led by Kosny, looked at the role of co-workers in the RTW process in the electrical construction sector. The researchers conducted focus groups with union representatives and injured workers, then carried out in-depth, one-on-one interviews with co-workers.
The findings echo those of the first study by Dunstan and MacEachen. Kosny’s research concluded that the structure of work (in this case, in the electrical sector) can impede co-worker support and contribute to making injured workers’ experiences difficult. A number of factors and work conditions were found to contribute to the difficulty:
• a competitive and cost-cutting culture that facilitates the view of injured workers as a liability
• job insecurity (i.e. precariousness of work)
• different “camps” in the electrical sector, which were unlikely to help each other (for example, those with steady employment versus those with non-permanent work)
• little modified work
• poor official communication among workplace parties.
“Management can model acceptable and unacceptable behaviours for their workforce,” Kosny says. “It sets an example for how injured workers are regarded and treated.”
Dunstan and MacEachen also propose some ways that management can improve co-workers’ experiences with RTW. These include the following: hiring replacement staff to ease the workload on co-workers; communicating effectively so co-workers understand the injury, are consulted about RTW plans and receive guidance on how to assist; and acknowledging and recognizing the contribution of co-workers, through monetary or in-kind payments such as extra holidays.
For more information on Dunstan’s research, see the presentation at:www.iwh.on.ca/plenaries/2012-nov-20.
Meagan Mueller is a communications associate at Toronto-based Institute for Work and Health.
This story was originally published on Canadian Occupational Safety magazine’s website. For more information, visit www.cos-mag.com.