Reintegrating Employees After Absence

Returning to work after an employee has experienced a psychological or physical injury or illness is a delicate process that requires careful planning and open communication. This transition can be emotionally charged and challenging not only for the employee but also for their managers and colleagues, especially if the pre-existing relationship between the employee and their direct manager was strained.

The Employee’s Perspective

Research shows that employees returning after an extended absence often experience heightened stress and anxiety, potentially leading to performance issues and lower job satisfaction if the return is not well-supported (Lysaght et al., 2012). They may worry about meeting previous standards, facing skepticism regarding their health, or reintegrating with their team. For those with physical limitations or needing psychological accommodations, such as in cases of PTSD or depression, these concerns can be particularly intense (Bakker, 2019).

If there was a previously strained relationship with their manager, the return can bring additional anxiety, as negative dynamics may create feelings of isolation or suspicion, leading to disengagement and, in severe cases, extended absenteeism. Trust, communication, and support are essential factors in successful workplace reintegration (MacEachen et al., 2010).

The Employer’s Perspective

Managers often face their own set of concerns when reintegrating an employee after an illness or injury, particularly if accommodation is necessary. They may worry about impacts on team productivity or feel uncertain about handling new dynamics in the workplace (Andersen et al., 2012). Research underscores the importance of training and support for managers to respond effectively to complex return-to-work situations, especially in cases where a previously strained relationship exists (Nielsen et al., 2017). A lack of proper handling can exacerbate stress for both managers and employees, resulting in poor outcomes for the team and organization.

Bridging the Gap: Recommendations for a Smoother Transition

To foster a successful return, both parties need to take deliberate steps to address potential issues and establish a supportive environment:

1. Proactive Communication: Before the return, schedule an open, collaborative discussion. Both parties should express concerns, expectations, and any accommodations needed, allowing for a transparent dialogue. Such conversations have been shown to reduce employee anxiety and improve reentry outcomes (Schultz & Gatchel, 2017).
2. Implement a Gradual Return-to-Work Plan: Research supports gradual reentry for easing stress, allowing employees to acclimate while reducing pressure on managers and teams (Jensen et al., 2012). This phased approach can also minimize setbacks, allowing adjustments as needed.
3. Leverage Third-Party Support: In cases where a strained relationship might interfere with the return-to-work process, involving an external disability management (DM) professional can create a neutral, supportive environment. Unlike internal resources, such as HR, an independent DM professional offers an unbiased perspective, which can be critical when trust has been strained. External DM professionals bring specialized expertise in workplace reintegration, enabling them to navigate the nuanced needs of both the employee and the employer while maintaining neutrality. This impartial support can help prevent potential conflicts from escalating, reduce miscommunication, and foster a smoother, more collaborative transition back to work (MacEachen et al., 2010).

4. Focus on Empathy and Patience: Managers should lead with empathy, recognizing the challenges an employee might face. By fostering an atmosphere of patience and flexibility, managers can help alleviate fears of judgment or resentment. Studies have found that empathetic approaches promote trust, aiding in a more effective return-to-work process (Nielsen et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Returning to work after illness or injury is complex, especially when the working relationship has been challenging. Research consistently shows that prioritizing communication, structured support, and empathy significantly improves outcomes, allowing for smoother transitions that benefit both employees and employers. For more information visit us at diversifiedrehab.ca 

References

• Andersen, M. F., Nielsen, K. M., & Brinkmann, S. (2012). Enhancing a sustainable return to work: Development of a new model for return-to-work coordination. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(4), 467-477.
• Bakker, A. B. (2019). How work engagement influences performance and absenteeism: The role of job resources and personal resources. Human Resource Management Review, 29(1), 102-115.
• Jensen, C., Labriola, M., Lund, T., & Andersen, J. H. (2012). The impact of a graded return-to-work program on subsequent sickness absence. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 54(2), 142-147.
• Lysaght, R. M., Fabrigar, L. R., Loughlin, C., & Ledwaba, D. (2012). Facilitators and barriers to return to work following a work-related injury: A critical review of the literature. Work, 43(2), 253-266.
• MacEachen, E., Clarke, J., Franche, R. L., & Irvin, E. (2010). Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(5), 327-335.
• Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2017). The relationship between transformational leadership and return to work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(4), 483-495.
• Schultz, I. Z., & Gatchel, R. J. (2017). Handbook of return to work: From research to practice. Springer.