10.2190/WR.13.1.f YQG6677UG7L16628 6 Acquired Disability and Returning to Work: Towards a Stakeholder Approach 73 91 20080407 20080407 20080407 20080407 YQG6677UG7L16628.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=YQG6677UG7L16628 1 Anthony R. Yue Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada This article examines the potential application of stakeholder theory to the case of a disabled worker returning to work. A gated notion combining both the instrumental and ethical views of stakeholder theory is explored as a way to understand how to determine who may be classified as a stakeholder. This nuanced application of stakeholding to the process of returning to work lends itself to the consideration of mediation techniques as mechanisms of conflict avoidance rather than exclusively as dispute resolution techniques. Implications in terms of the study of the return to work process, disability, and the further potential for practical application are discussed.

Antoniazzi, M., Celinski, M., & Alcock, J. 2002. Self-responsibility and coping with pain: Disparate attitudes toward psychosocial issues in recovery from work place injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(18): 948-953.

Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506.

Bradley, E. J., Boath, E. H., Chambers, R., Monkman, J., Luck, A., & Bould, E. 2004. The impact of involuntary job loss on those disabled by society: A pilot study to encourage effective participation. Disability and Society, 19(3): 245-258.

Catano, V. M., Cronshaw, S. F., Wiesner, W. H., Hackett, R. D., & Methot, L. L. 2005. Recruitment and selection in Canada. 2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Clauretie, T. M. 2003. Quantification of the effect of worker disability on the probability of participation and employment. Journal of Legal Economics, 13(1): 39-64.

Colella, A. 2001. Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 100-116.

Colvin, A. J. S. 2003. Institutional pressures, human resource strategies, and the rise of nonunion dispute resolution procedures. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(3): 375-392.

Cossette, L., & Duclos, E. 2002. A profile of disability in Canada, 2001. Retrieved 13 February 2008, from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577-XIE/pdf/89-577-XIE01001.pdf'>www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577-XIE/pdf/89-577-XIE01001.pdf</a>

Donaldson, T. 1999. Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 237-241.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-92.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. 1994. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Penguin.

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 233-236.

Gard, G., Rivano, M., & Grahn, B. 2005. Development and reliability of the Motivation for Change Questionnaire. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(17): 967-976.

Garland-Thomas, R. 2000. Feminist disability studies. Signs, 30(2): 1557-1587.

Gioia, D. A. 1999. Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 228-232.

James, P., Cunningham, I., & Dribben, P. 2006. Job retention and return to work of ill and injured workers: Towards an understanding of the organizational dynamics. Employee Relations, 28(3): 290-303.

Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206-221.

Kaler, J. 2003. Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1): 71.

Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Catano, V. M., Cameron, J. E., & Day, A. L. 2004. Psychological Disorders in the CF: Legal and Social Issues. Report Prepared for the Director Human Resources Research and Evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Department of National Defense, Canada.

Kruse, D., & Hale, T. 2003. Disability and employment: Symposium introduction. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 1-10.

Kruse, D., & Schur, L. 2003. Employment of people with disabilities following the ADA. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 31-66.

Lampe, M. 2001. Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2): 165-173.

Lee, B. A. 2003. A decade of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Judicial outcomes and unresolved problems. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 11-30.

Lewin, D. 2001. IR and HR perspectives on workplace conflict: What can each learn from the other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4): 453-485.

Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 377-391.

Page, C. G. 2002. The determination of organization stakeholder salience in public health. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 8(5): 76-84.

Pesqueux, Y., & Damak-Ayadi, S. 2005. Stakeholder theory in perspective. Corporate Governance, 5(2): 5-21.

Picker, B. G. 2006. Navigating the mediation process: Overcoming invisible barriers to resolution. Dispute Resolution Journal, 61(3): 20-25.

Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Pransky, G. S., Shaw, W. S., Franche, R.-L., & Clarke, A. 2004. Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers—current models and opportunities for improvement. Disability and Rehabilitation: An International Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(11): 625-634.

Reynolds, C. A., Wagner, S. L., & Harder, H. G. 2006. Physician-stakeholder collaboration in disability management: A Canadian perspective on guidelines and expectations. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15): 955-963.

Roberts-Yates, C. 2003. The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: The need for new operational frameworks, Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(16): 898-907.

Schur, L. A. 2003. Barriers or opportunities? The causes of contingent and part-time work among people with disabilities. Industrial Relations, 42(4): 589-622.

Schwochau, S., & Blanck, P. 2003. Does the ADA disable the disabled?—More comments. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 67-77.

Siegert, R. J., & Taylor, W. J. 2004. Theoretical aspects of goal-setting and motivation in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(1): 1-8.

Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. 2004. Family consequences of chronic back pain. Social Science and Medicine, 58(7): 1385-1393.

Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 1999. The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists—not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 222-227.

United Nations. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved 31 August 2007, from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html'>http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html</a>

Vowles, K. E., Gross, R. T., & Sorrell, J. T. 2004. Predicting work status following interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain. European Journal of Pain, 8(4): 351-358.

Watson, N., McKie, L., Hughes, B., Hopkins, D., & Gregory, S. 2004. (Inter)dependence, needs and care: The potential for disability and feminist theorists to develop an emancipatory model. Sociology, 38(2): 331-350.

Weiner, D. K., Rudy, T. E., Kim, Y.-S., & Golla, S. 2004. Do medical factors predict disability in older adults with persistent low back pain? Pain, 112(1): 214-220.

Zsolnai, L. (2006). Extended stakeholder theory. Society and Business Review, 1(1): 37-44.