RTW: Maybe We are Asking the Wrong Question? 

Better RTW

I have spent years listening to organizations talk about return to work. The conversations almost always sound the same. How quickly can we get someone back? What restrictions do they have? Is there modified duty available? What is the claim costing us? All of these are all important questions, but I often find myself wondering if we have skipped over the question that matters most. 

What if the success of a return-to-work program has very little to do with the day an injured employee walks back through the door? What if that outcome is determined weeks, months, or even years before the injury ever occurs? If we take a look inward at our own scope of control within an organization, this line of questioning shifts the conversation from managing claims to building systems. Shifting inward moves our focus away from reacting and toward preparing in a way we can design for what we would like to happen versus the reactive approach. Organizations that consistently produce better outcomes usually have a framework to make better decisions before an injury occurrs, not after.  

The idea to shift inward, our internal locus of control, has always fascinated me because it mirrors so much of what we know about human behavior. Whether we are talking about leadership, communication, culture, or workers' compensation, our responses under pressure tend to reveal our habits rather than create them. Stress rarely makes us better. Sometimes, yes, but majority of the time, stress exposes the systems we already have. An injury shines a spotlight on processes that were either strong enough to support recovery or weak enough to create unnecessary obstacles. We can control the preparation; we cannot control the reaction.  

Think about your own organization for a moment. If two supervisors handled the exact same injury today, would the experience be identical for the injured worker? Probably not. Would they receive the same phone call? Probably not. The same explanation of benefits? Probably not. The same level of empathy? We can hope so. The same urgency in identifying meaningful work within medical restrictions? Probably not. Or would the outcome depend entirely on which supervisor answered the phone that morning? More than likely, we know this to be the most accurate across the board. The specific outcome based on supervisor question has very little to do with workers' compensation and everything to do with consistency. 

Consistency is one of the least glamorous topics in business, and yet, it may be one of the most valuable. People tend to assume consistency means rigidity, but I see it differently. Consistency creates predictability. Predictability reduces uncertainty which we celebrate in the insurance space. When uncertainty decreases, our brains spend less energy trying to determine whether we are safe and more energy solving problems. The same holds true for injured workers, for supervisors, for claims professionals, and for physicians. Human beings perform better when expectations are clear. 

Now imagine the opposite because we love to see the coin from both sides. Step out to a 20,000-foot view with me.  

An employee reports an injury and receives a different response depending on who happens to be working that day. One supervisor calls immediately. Another waits until tomorrow. One explains the return-to-work process. Another says very little. One actively looks for meaningful accommodations. Another assumes there is nothing available. None of those decisions may seem significant in isolation, yet together they begin shaping the employee's experience and their perception of the organization. 

Return-to-work is far bigger than transitional duty and should be viewed as Back to Work, Back to LIFE, with a heavy focus on life. Returning to work is a direct reflection of organizational culture because it signals to employees whether people matter only when they are productive or whether they matter because they are people. Employees notice those moments as do their coworkers. Every injury becomes a story that others quietly observe, and those stories influence whether people report future injuries, trust leadership, or believe the organization genuinely cares about their well-being. 

I encourage organizations to spend less time asking, "When can they come back?" and more time asking questions that uncover the strength of their system. Are we communicating consistently? Have we identified meaningful work before we need it? Do our supervisors know what is expected of them? Are we documenting objective facts instead of assumptions? Are we investing our investigative resources where they will actually improve outcomes? Have we explored every reasonable accommodation before deciding there are no options? If we look at answering these questions, we can help preserve dignity throughout the workers’ compensation process. DIGNITY. A word that gets forgotten in the workers’ compensation space, and never in the work environment. Thus, the power of workers’ compensation’s influence on organizational culture. 

The questions above require effort beyond completing paperwork, and they produce better results. Digging into questions that transform return-to-work from an administrative process into a leadership strategy reminds us that every claim is different, yet every employee deserves the same thoughtful process. Balance between consistency and individualization is where exceptional organizations separate themselves from average ones. 

While visiting organizations across the country, I rarely, if ever, walk away thinking they need more forms. What many organizations need are stronger conversations, clearer expectations, and systems that support people before difficult moments arrive. Returning to work helps another human being regain confidence, routine, purpose, and connection while continuing to recover safely. It restores an individual’s faith in themselves when their body has failed. The outcome is good for employees, good for employers, and good for business because the best workers' compensation programs have never been just about claims; they have always been about people. 

Share This Article: