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

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
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.

This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit: