The nation's oldest, quarterly newsletter published for professionals concerned 
with human factors and disability management in the workplace.

Toward Organizational Health
By Jasen Walker, Ed.D., C.R.C., C.C.M., and Fred Heffner, Ed.D.

 

The Basic Analogy:

Work organizations are similar to human organisms in many ways.  Like human beings, for-profit organizations are conceived and born generally as an extension of ego.  Usually the work organization is sired by someone emotionally invested in the notions of perpetuity and legacy, forces comparable to those in the decision or desire to have children.  As with human beings, work organizations are not only born, when healthy, they grow and develop.  Moreover, one would trust that work organizations survive, in part, because they attempt to contribute to the collective good, again, not unlike human organisms.

In addition, like human organisms, work organizations can be dysfunctional and so troubled by neurotic tendencies that they can fail to reach their potentials.  When troubled and yet motivated toward wellness, humans must learn to manage or change their states by controlling their minds and emotions.  Likewise, when faltering, organizations must strive to manage or change internal processes and procedures to become more effective and productive.  In either case, human organism or for-profit organization, fear of creating change can be a roadblock to health and prosperity. 

The Organizational Problem:

One common organizational failure seems to result from unrecognized fear of proactively and comprehensively managing lost time associated with employee illness or injury.  Most work organizations manifest an incomprehensible avoidance of proactively managing absenteeism and disability.  Although many companies have intense and system-wide safety programs, most organizations lack a comprehensive, proactive program to prevent and manage lost time following injury or illness.  Instead, like the neurotic who fails to act definitively, even in his/her best interest, the dysfunctional organization abdicates responsibility for preventing absenteeism or managing disability and, thereby, fails to control human and financial costs, a consequence certainly antithetical to a company’s effort to achieve its potentials.

Proactive disability management is a critical aspect of any organization’s overall well being.  Unlike the neurotic individual who tends to deny, procrastinate, disassemble, and ultimately resign in the face of life’s challenges, the healthy work organization sets out to both prevent and manage problems, including disability. 

Disability management involves the coordination of the organization’s various human capital strategies to assure that all employees are afforded the opportunities to remain productive.  More than a system-wide safety program is needed to achieve an effective Disability Management Program (DMP).  A quality DMP requires:

·        top level management commitment to the process and outcome,
·        the activation and integration of benefit programs,
·        health and wellness initiatives,
·        lost-time management teams,
·        job accommodations,
·        transition-to-work programs,  and if necessary,
·        employer-sponsored vocational rehabilitation programs designed to assist displaced employees with career change and job placement services. 

Proactive disability management realizes the value of human capital in the success of any for-profit organization.  Some organizations, however, tend to deny that their most valuable resource is their employee population with their requirements for health and health maintenance support.  Organizational leaders may procrastinate on taking proactive measures and choose to deal with problems as they arise.  These leaders often deceive themselves and others by delegating the company’s human resource programs to outside contractors.  In fact, many companies have abdicated responsibility for human resources management to vendors!  Ultimately, these companies and others also resign themselves to paying disability costs and writing off those expenses simply as a consequence of doing business.  Too often, the neurotic company does not realize the cost of being dysfunctional.  Frequently, it requires outside auditors or financial consultants to bring the real cost of disability to their attention, and the cost of workplace disability and associated absenteeism can be daunting.

Consider the following:

·        The Mercer Human Resource Consulting Group reports that absenteeism costs were 14.3 percent of payroll in 2000.  Those costs have been rising steadily and will continue to climb. 

·        The U.S. Department of Labor reveals that companies lose 2.8 million workdays each year because of employee injuries and illnesses.  

Research has shown that if organizations do not actively assist workers in early return or transitional employment, the consequences can be disastrous.  Disability management consultants cite studies that indicate of the 500,000 newly disabled workers each year who remain out on disability five months or more, only 1 in 2 will ever return to work.  Most organizational leaders do not recognize what their individual organizations are paying in both financial and human capital as a result of not proactively preventing and managing disability.

However, analogous to good cognitive therapy and effective re-education for the neurotic, skilled interventions in the workplace are available to the less than fully functional organization.  Such an organization can be defined as one that has failed to recognize the problem of occupational disability and integrate its various human resource programs to proactively manage disability and resultant lost time.  Again, similar to the neurotic who fails to recognize a significant problem and assume responsibility for overcoming the dysfunction, an organization may continue to deny, procrastinate, dissemble, justify, and rationalize its status quo.  Consequentially, as does the individual, the organization fails to reach its potentials.

What is Required?

Conscious and purposeful change is not easy.  The neurotic individual eventually experiences enough personal pain that the brain and body ultimately insist on change.  Organizations can have the same experience, but generally the “head” of the organization must search for the source of pain because it is not always palpable, however disturbing.   Organizational pain can be hidden by layers of bureaucracy and the forces of inertia.  Nevertheless, the competent business leader remains open to change, and when given proper information, recognizes the value of proactive methods for maintaining and enriching the company’s human capital.

In order for leaders of organizations to better appreciate the need for comprehensive disability management, they are encouraged to ask themselves questions.  One of the most useful and universal concepts in exemplary disability management is “co-malingering.”  This term refers to the role of all the individuals including, but not limited to, employers and co-workers, in causing and perpetuating disability.

Questions to Guide Disability Management Programming Evaluation: 

In assessing the company’s present policy in respect to employee absenteeism, company management will need to consider (and document) the reason for having a DMP.  Reasons why having a DMP is crucial include: 

1. The competition in a global economy requires proficiency.

2. The aging population.  (By 2020, 1 out of 3 Americans will be over 50.)

3. Life generally and work specifically are becoming more stressful.

4. The escalating costs of adversarial claims and litigation.

5. The cost of disability when employers continue to pay injured/ill employees who are not coming to work.

The following questions are offered to assist employers to evaluate their DMPs:

·     In Search of an Organization Strategy:

1. Do we have a developed, documented, and operational policy in respect to disability management?
2. If yes, what is that policy?
3. Is the existing policy still viable?
4. Do we truly own the operational policy to manage disability or has it been delegated to a vendor?

·     Direct Costs:

1. Do we have the capability of determining the direct financial costs of the lost time of our employees? 
2. Who in the organization should be responsible for this report?  
3. If we do not have the in-house capability, where can we find quality, cost-effective assistance? 
4. Do we collect data to document absences, causes, and costs? 
5. If not, who in the organization can develop and implement a collection system?
6. If yes, are the data used to plan and change?

·     Indirect Costs:

1. Indirect costs are also critically significant to bottom-line costs.  What are the indirect cost factors? 
2. Have indirect costs been identified and factored into the lost-time equation? 

·     Disability Management:

1. Do we have a DMP? 
2. If yes, can we request an in-house presentation on the program for the purpose of evaluating it? 
3. If we determine that what we do is not comprehensive and effective, how can we upgrade it? 
4. Are there experienced professional resources available to assist in program improvement, and how do we identify these resources?
5. Are there exemplary DMPs in well-managed companies, and if so, who are the companies and how can we find out what these exemplary programs look like?

·     Staff Responsibilities:

1. Do we have staff members identified as being responsible for organizing and conducting disability management? 
2. Do the individuals identified as having responsibilities in the DMP have job descriptions that detail the organizing, implementing, and operating tasks required for a DMP?
3. Do we have a projected schedule for the evaluation/creation/implementation of  disability management tasks?

·     Disability Management Components:

1. If exemplary DMPs exist, what are the specific components of these programs? 
2. Given the size of our organization, can the components be prioritized in terms of need for implementation? 
3. Which of components do we have in place and apply? 
4. Which specific components should we add to our existing program?

·     Basic Concepts:

1. Is our DMP based on a needs assessment?
2. Is a new, more timely, needs assessment required?
3. Do we have a coordinating committee in place to plan and monitor our DMP? 
4. Is the committee inclusive?
5. Have we identified community resources to assist in delivering appropriate services in our DMP?
6. Do we have written policies and procedures for the DMP?
7. Do we perform case management when an employee is injured/ill?
8. Do we have specific and flexible employee options in respect to returning to work as soon as possible?

·      Staff Training:

1. Do we sponsor a safety/wellness prevention program for employees (including work-external prevention)?
2. Do we perform regular training on our DMP for supervisors?
3. Do we complete regular awareness and orientation on our DMP for all employees?
   

Addendum:

Every company, regardless of size, will benefit from demonstrating proactive assistance to employees.  Mid-sized and large companies will have special personnel to focus exclusively on disability management issues.  Employers with fewer total employees will not be in a position to have staff dedicated solely to disability management.  Nonetheless, small companies are not excused from providing services relating to absentee management.  The process and the services remain the same; the only difference is in the scale.  Small businesses are as responsible for the issues outlined above as are large employers.  As the “neurotic” individual is clearly responsible for personal change, the employer is ultimately responsible for organizational change.  Requiring help in facilitating change is nothing to be ashamed of, and help can be found.

Disability Management Programs are Growing in Acceptance

An article by Chairman Norman Hursh, Sc.D., CRC, CVE, of the Certification of Disability Management Specialists Commission (CDMSC) flatly states that: “Disability management is increasingly becoming recognized by employers as a key to workplace productivity.”

Chairman Hursh developed the following progression of disability management programs (DMPs), to:

·        reduce the economic costs and impact of injury in workers’ compensation cases,

·        integrate disability management with early return-to-work commitments, modified duties, and temporary assignments,

·        include employees who were injured or became ill in non-occupational as well as work-related cases,

·        align disability management with other benefit programs from group health to EAPs, and

·        address comprehensively safety, health, welfare, and all absenteeism as part of the same fiscal interest.

The issues given above are derived from a Role and Function Study undertaken by the CDMSC.  The study findings are a recognition that disability management is the most productive way to enhance workplace productivity.  Hursh states that employers must go “beyond anecdotal results to concrete outcomes.”  They must, he continues, “be able to make a business case for their disability management program” and focus on “the return on investment (ROI).”

Reference:
1. Hursh, Norman Sc.D., CRC, CVE. October 2005.  “Disability Managers Collaborating With Employers,” Contemporary Rehab, Volume 61, No. 6.  

   

The “Regarded as” Clause of the ADA

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has a clause that has received relatively little notice in the past.  Now a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has established a position in respect to the clause.  (D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. 16 AD Cases 1825, 11^th Cir., No. 04-10629, 8/30/05).

The court wrote:

Because a review of the plain language of the ADA yields no statutory basis for distinguishing among individuals who are disabled in the actual-impairment sense and those who are disabled only in the regarded-as sense … [we hold] that regarded-as disabled individuals also are entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA.  [Bolding added.]

 

Employers and the 
“100% Healed” Argument

Employers who may want to terminate an employee who seeks to return to work after treatment for an illness (or accident) on the basis that the employee must be “100% healed” before returning have apparently lost that argument in court.  In a case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC v. THC-Chicago, Inc., No. 04-C-0454, E.D. Wis., consent decree filed 7/15/05), the EEOC reached an agreement with the employer to return the employee to work and pay the employee $90,000 in lost wages and compensatory damages.

The Science of Happiness

 

 

The cover article of the January 1, 2005, issue of Time Magazine was “The Science of Happiness.”  The ideas of “Positive Psychology” form the core of this “new science,” and the basis of Positive Psychology is what has become known as “Values in Action.”

At the heart of Values in Action is the desire to form/nurture “character,” especially in children and young adults, based on 24 specific “strengths and virtues.”  The components of character as used by Values in Action are those characteristics “that define what’s best about people and the path to what positive psychology calls the ‘good life.’”  (There is presently a curriculum-building experiment in Values in Action occurring in a suburban Philadelphia school district under the auspices of Martin Seligman and the University of Pennsylvania.)

For more information on Values in Action, visit the web site, www.valuesinaction.org.  The site offers an online opportunity to inventory your “signature strengths” and to get a hands-on introduction to this critical model.

Through our newsletter and emails, CEC Associates, Inc., has tried over the past year or so to apprise our clients of the significance of Positive Psychology in the practice of vocational rehabilitation.  To learn more about what Time Magazine called “the science of happiness” (after you have taken the inventory) and how Positive Psychology relates to the best practices of contemporary vocational rehabilitation, contact Dina at dina@cecassoc.com.

 

New Work Habits

With any work revolution, change is inevitable, and meeting customer needs that are increasingly demanding requires organizational change. Here we focus on change in employee work habits. “New” work habits and ways of thinking will enable success in the changing world of work.

To increase thinking and “productivity,” implement the following work habits:

1.      Increase your sense of personal responsibility.  “Entitlement thinking” is giving way to individual responsibility and accountability. Rewards will be based more on an individual’s own performance as yesterday’s “rights” (including expectations of regular across-the-board pay raises, promotions and perks) no longer fit today’s realities. There are shifts from rights to responsibilities and from blame and excuses to personal accountability.

2.      Accept ambiguity and uncertainty.  Prepare for a work environment that is fluid, fuzzy, and fast. Expect to live and work in a constant state of transition characterized by uncertainty and instability. Learn to improvise, to “wing it.” Understand that the “normal procedure” may need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

3.      Become a lifelong learner.  Knowledge is the new source of power. Thus, lifelong learning is the only way to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing job market. Develop transferable skills and stay abreast of what’s happening in your field. Invest in your own growth, development, and self-renewal. While your employer may help out, the ultimate responsibility is yours.

4.      Be a fixer, not a finger-pointer.  Problems are the natural offspring of change. Blaming, criticizing, and complaining wastes precious time. Employees who take the initiative to solve problems and implement innovative solutions will be valued.

5.      Manage your own morale.  Somehow, over the years, we’ve been led to believe that administration is accountable for employee morale! Some employees presume that employers have an obligation to keep them happy and provide high job satisfaction. Although the employer may assist, employees should be emotionally self-sufficient, personally responsible for their own morale. Realize that when you put someone else in charge of your happiness or job satisfaction, you actually disempower yourself!

6.      Behave like you’re in business for yourself.  Organizations are reshaping themselves to become more entrepreneurial, to move faster and more flexibly to meet changing customer needs. Employees can no longer focus narrowly within the boundaries of their old (frequently outdated) job descriptions. They must be willing to go beyond assigned duties and work parameters. Operate as if you’re self-employed and assume personal responsibility for the success of the entire enterprise.

7.      Complete the circle of communication.  Follow up any communication with an assurance that the message was received and  understood by the intended party.  This is most often done by simply asking the employee to repeat what you said.

Reference:

1.      “New Work Habits for a Radically Changing World,” www.witc.edu/edfuture/nwhabits.htm.

 

 

return to top