A Case Against Making the Control of Clients a Negotiable Contingency for Interdisciplinary Teams

Abstract

Most discussions of interdisciplinary teams assume that cross-functional teams are desirable. Critical analyses of the fundamental contradictions inherent in bringing together professionals with diverse ideologies, interests, contingencies, and technologies are rare. Even less common are discussions of the negative consequences of these contradictions for clients. Based on observations in an institution for youth-in-trouble, this paper argues that the control of clients is one key process underlying conflicts and dilemmas in interdisciplinary teams; it builds a case against making the control of clients a negotiable contingency for teams. Given the universal nature of control mechanisms, those most directly responsible for control have a superior bargaining position because, in order to be effective, their control routines must be consistent Although these workers may yield to other treatment ideologies regarding particular clients, the overall outcome is the enhancement of their interests. Moreover, the outcome of negotiations may generate confusion for clients because of inconsistencies in the application of control mechanisms. Three strategies to minimize interprofessional negotiations regarding the control of clients are discussed: the formulation of clear boundaries between those responsible for control and those who are not; the establishment of policies to address conflicts between control and competing treatments; and, client determination of differential levels of interprofessional coordination and cooperation.

Keywords

interdisciplinary teams the control of clients institutional care youth-in-trouble professional work processes client-organization relations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ABBOTI. A. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press , 1988.

BOLMAN, L. G. , & DEAL, T. E. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass , 1991.

BUSH, M. , & GORDON, A. C. The case for involving children in child welfare decisions . Social Work, 1982, 27, 309-314 .

CLEGG, S. R. The theory of power and organization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul , 1979.

COHEN, M. D. , MARCH J. C. , & OLSEN, J. R. A garbage can model of organizational choice . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 1-25 .

DRESSLER, D. M. , & NASH, K. B. Project team organization and its application to crisis intervention . Community Mental Health Journal, 1974, 10, 156-162 .

DRINKA, T. , & RAY, R. O. An investigation of power in an interdisciplinary health care team . Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, 1986, 6(3), 43-53 .

EDWARDS, R. C. Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the 20th century. New York: Basic , 1979.

FIORELLI, J. S. Power in work groups: Sibam members' perspectives . Human Relations, 1988, 41, 1-12 .

10.

FOUCAULT. M. Discipline and punish. New York: Random House , 1977.

11.

GALBRAITH, J. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .

12.

GERSICK, C. Introduction. In C. Gersick (Ed.), Group management: Current issues in practice and research. The International Library of Management Series. Hampshire: Dartmouth Publishing Company , 1994, pp. xiii-xix.

13.

GEORGE. V. , & WILDING, R. Ideology and social welfare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1985.

14.

HALL, R. H. Interorganizational or interprofessional relationships: A case of mistaken identity. In W. R. Scott and B. L. Black (Eds.), The organization of mental health services' Societal and community system. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage , 1986, pp. 147-158.

15.

HANDLER, J. E. Dependency and discretion. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage , 1992, pp. 276-297.

16.

HASENFELD, Y. Power in social work practice . Social Service Review, 1987, 61(3), 469-483 .

17.

HAWKINS, R. , & TIEDEMAN, G. The creation of deviance: Interpersonal and organizational determinants. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill , 1975.

18.

HAYES, S. , & PATTERSON, M. Interaction between students in multidisciplinary health teams . Journal of Medical Education, 1975, 50, 473-475 .

19.

JOHNSON, T. Expertise and the state. In M. Gane and T. Johnson (Eds.), Foucault's new domains. London: Routledge , 1993, pp. 139-152.

20.

KANE, R. A. Multidisciplinary teamwork in the United States: Trends, issues, and implications for the social worker. In S. Lonsdale , A. Webb , and T. L. Briggs (Eds.), Teamwork in the personal social services and health care: British and American perspectives. London: Croom Helm , 1980.

21.

MEYER, J. W. , & ROWAN, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony . American Journal of Sociology, 1977, 83, 340-363 .

22.

MILES, R. E. , & SNOW, C. C. Causes of failure in network organizations . California Management Review, 1992, 34(4), 53-72 .

23.

MORGAN, G. Images of organizations (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1997.

24.

PFOHL, S. J. Predicting dangerousness: The social construction of psychiatric reality. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books 1978.

25.

QUEBEC, GOVERNMENT OF . Youth protection act. Statutes of Quebec, 1977, chap. 20.

26.

RAINS, P. & TERAM, E. Normal bad boys: Public policies, institutions for youth and the politics of client recruitment. McGill-Queen's University Press , 1992.

27.

SCHEID, T. L. An explication of treatment ideology among mental health care providers . Sociology of Health and Illness, 1994, 16, 668-693 .

28.

SINCLAIR, A. The tyranny of the team ideology . Organization Studies, 1992, 13(14), 611-626 .

29.

STRAUSS, A. L. Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes and social order: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass , 1978

30.

STRAUSS, A. L. , BUCHER, R. EHRLICH, D. , SABSHIN, M. , & SCHATZMAN, L. Psychiatric ideolgies and institutions. New York Free Press , 1964.

31.

TERAM, E. The Interorganizational Processing of Clients and Information: A Case Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal: McGill University, 1986.

32.

TERAM, E. Interdisciplinary teams and the control of clients: A sociotechnical perspective . Human Relations, 1991, 44, 343-356 .

33.

TERAM, E. The Interprofessional Team as a Form of Organizational Control . A paper presented at the All Together Better Health Conference, London, July 16-19, 1997.

34.

TERAM, E. , & ERICKSON, G. The protection of children's rights as ceremony and myth: A critique of the review of institutional placements in Quebec and Ontario . Children and Youth Services Review, 1988, 10, 1-17 .

35.

WAITZKIN, H. The politics of medical encounters How patients and doctor deal with social problems. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press , 1991.

36.

WALTON, J. Making the theoretical case. In C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1992, pp. 121-137.

37.

WILDING, P. Professional power and social welfare. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul , 1982