Purpose Evidence shows that employers play a key role in facilitating the return to work of employees with cancer, yet little is known about the employers’ experiences in settings where no policies or regulations are available to guide this process. Against this background, we aimed (1) to understand how employers experience and manage the process of having employees with cancer and (2) to explore their reflections regarding their role in returning to work.

Methods Twenty employers from various types of organisations and sectors were interviewed. Inductive thematic analysis was performed using NVivo 11.

Results Employers experienced having employees with cancer as a process with three distinct phases reflected in three emerging themes: disclosure of the diagnosis and absence from work; returning to work; post-returning to work. A fourth theme emphasizes the employers’ reflections on how they conceive their own role. In the absence of a normative framework for dealing with employees with cancer, employers used commonsensical rules of thumb and immediate solutions based on ad-hoc decisions and were often compelled to innovate. They offered accommodations only if requested by the employee after returning to work. The return to work process was neither planned nor phased.

Conclusion Employers need information and guidelines for effectively assisting employees with cancer. Better channels of communication and collaboration with health professionals are essential for more adequate support for the long-term consequences of cancer. A detailed return to work policy is required to tackle the inconsistencies in the support offered and this policy must also rethink how diagnosis disclosure takes place in Romanian organisations.

The central argument defended in this paper is made up of two interconnected statements: i) that a minimally defined rationality is an anthropological constant, being shared by all conceivable human cultures; and ii) that this “commonality of reason” constitutes the basis on which inter-cultural understanding is possible. In proving the first thesis (the universality of reason), the paper contrasts Western thought, epitomized in scientific reason, with non-Western thinking patterns, expressed by ethno-sciences, magic rituals, and other knowledge practices. The conclusion drawn from this comparison is that both modern scientific reason and non-literate peoples thought patterns are two “cognitive modes” sharing a strong structural similarity. Building on some loci classici of anthropological literature written by Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard, and Lévi-Strauss (among others), the paper argues that although modern Western science and indigenous knowledge(s) share a common rational denominator, the two cognitive modes are nonetheless hierarchical, the former being epistemically superior to the latter thanks to its unique self-correcting methodology. The paper ends by arguing the case for the possibility of understanding the Other(s) by way of reason, a possibility grounded on the commonality of reason between cultures.