For some, it may come down to an inner conflict of values. For instance, individual choice might be an important value for some employees, but just because they have this value does not mean they do not value protecting the patients who entrust their health and safety to them. It may be possible to invoke the latter value in such a way that the employees are inspired to accept what they perceive as a compromise of their value of personal choice (we all willingly relinquish the personal choice to drink and drive, for example, when we accept laws that make it illegal). Since no two employees’ values will be exactly the same, positive communication that seeks to inspire instead of pressure must be hands-on and individualized, not generic and one-size-fits-all. And always, the tone should be kept empathetic and free of shaming, since the reason attempts to appeal to vaccine resistant people in the past is that the tone others have used with them was intended to evoke shame or guilt, which rarely works.

Of course, there may be employees who continue to resist, and who simply cannot be assuaged, no matter how effectively healthcare leaders are able to communicate. Unfortunately, for this reason, we are likely to continue seeing some terminations and resignations. But even here the messaging can be framed in an affirming way. Leaders can communicate that they respect the right of employees to choose not to work at the hospital, just as employees must surely understand the hospital’s responsibility to protect its patients and its lawful right to set rules and regulations that are designed to do just that.


About the author: Craig Laser is the clinical associate professor at Arizona State University within the master of global management in healthcare services program.

Back to HCB News

Business Affairs Homepage