TEAM-ORIENTED TRAINING FOR WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE USE AWARENESS: A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH

1. The Workplace Project TEAM-ORIENTED TRAINING FOR WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE USE AWARENESS:A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH Joel B. Bennett Wayne E. K. Lehman Institute of Behavioral Research - The Workplace Project Texas Christian University “Towards a Healthier Workplace” ~ Knowledge Exchange Seminar and Training ~ A CSAP ~ Workplace Managed Care Project ~ December 13, 1999 San Francisco, California

2. WWW.IBR.TCU.EDU Special Highlights IBR Newsletter The Institute of Behavioral Research (IBR) at Texas Christian University conducts evaluations of drug abuse, addiction services, and workplace prevention training. Special attention is given to assessing and analyzing individual functioning, treatment delivery and engagement process, and their relationships to outcomes. Treatment improvement protocols developed and tested emphasize cognitive and behavioral strategies for programs in community-based as well as criminal justice settings. Our people, projects, publications, and training programs are described. Institute of Behavioral Research Texas Christian University TCU Box 298740 Fort Worth, TX 76129 http://www.ibr.tcu.edu New Publications Self-Rating Form Criminal Justice Forms WEB PAGE AIDS Risk Assessment Form

3. Understanding process before prevention See policy from employee perspective Overview • 10 Years of Previous Survey Research (NIDA) • Focus on Job Behavior, Work Climate, Attitudes: Towards Policy & EAP (N > 3,000) • Integrated Research Model (handout 1) • ‘Social Constructionist’ Approach • Policy is ‘constructed’ (not implemented) SOCIAL CLIMATE drinking together ignoring problems tolerating users stress • Sample of Previous Data • Focus on Group Cohesion (trust, teamwork) • From Research to Prevention(handout 2) A Sample Activity • Supervisor’s Cognitive Map of Policy • Initial Results (Supervisors only) • Compared Team Training with Informational and Control

4. General Rationale • Increased surveillance requirements (drug-testing) impacts work climate (policy, privacy, hiring practices) • Employee substance abuse (SA) still a problem despite drug testing efforts [www.samshsa.gov - 9/8/99] • The nature of work is also changing (downsizing, team-based & job re-engineering programs, stress) • SA may occur in a work culture that enables it • Research suggests a “healthy workplace” (teamwork, supportive coworkers, less alienation) buffers against substance abuse problems • Peer encouragement has promise

5. Assumption: A particular organization’s substance use policy does not evolve or Have Impact in a vacuum

6. leads to regulates The Standard View of Policy: Individual & Problematic Substance Use • Policy • Testing • Education • Discipline • EAP

7. The Workplace Project Integrated Research Model Abstracts [handout]

8. Safety-related Occupations Social Integration The Work Environment (the “black box”) mediates the relationship between organizational policy and individual substance use Drinking Climate Organization Wellness Organizational Influence Neutralization & Enabling Teamwork (cohesion) Social influence Policy Psychological influence Coworker Use The Workplace Project Individual & Problematic Substance Use • Policy • Testing • Education • Discipline • EAP leads to regulates Workplace Environment Group Processes Perceptions & Attitudes

9. The Workplace Project Example of Research Attitudes Towards Help-Seeking & Coworkers: The Role of Group Cohesion (Municipal Samples) N = 1100 N = 900 N = 350

10. Employees may and often do know about various problems before their supervisors GROUP COHESION How does the social climate of the group influence responsiveness to problems in self and others?

11. SUPPORT FROM SUPERVISOR If you had an alcohol/drug problem, would you feel free to talk with your supervisor without fear of being punished or fired?

12. IGNORING THE PROBLEM If you have ever experienced a co-worker using…have you ignored? and would fellow workers ignore?

13. From Research Model to Prevention Training Goals, Purpose & Objectives of Prevention Training Enabling & Neutralization (e.g., ignoring) Group Processes The Workplace Project How did we get from past research to designing a prevention training? Substance Abuse Policy Workplace Environment Research Model Group Processes Perceptions & Attitudes

14. Peers Enable Problem Continues Climate Reinforcement (e.g., low cohesion) Group Processes surrounding Problems Research Model Substance Abuse Policy Individual Presents Problem Workplace Environment Group Processes Perceptions & Attitudes (see Figure 1)

15. Enabling and Neutralization Group Processes surrounding Problems Employees are Disconnected from Policy (not meaningful) Problem Presentation Poor Communication Enabling and Neutralization Inadequate Coping Problem Continuance Tolerance & Resignation Withdrawal/ Antagonism Climate Reinforcement

16. Objective 1: Relevance • HowCan training help you and your group? • Objective 2: Team Ownership of Policy • HowCan policy protect your group? • Objective 3: Understanding Stress • What role does stress have? • Objective 4: Understanding Tolerance • Are you personally tolerating a problem? • Objective 5: Support, Encourage Help • How can you encourage others? Purpose & Objectives of Prevention Training Enabling and Neutralization PURPOSE Enhance team communication for work groups to help reduce any risks related to substance use Disconnected from Policy (not meaningful) Poor Communication Inadequate Coping Tolerance & Resignation Withdrawal/ Antagonism

17. TEAM Training Modular Overview RELEVANCE (SELF ASSESSMENT) POLICY GAME TOLERANCE (SELF & GROUP) STRESS (COMMUNICATION) FOCUS GROUPS SUPERVISOR MODULE NUDGING (COMMUNICATION) HOMEWORK DIALOGUE

18. The Workplace Project Sample Module used in training Cognitive mapping

19. Supervisor Mapping Activity • Node-link Mapping (Nowak & Gowin; Dansereau) • Visually represent complex ideas • Help reveal biases, assumptions, concerns • Shown effective in group counseling/education • Two-Stage Conversational Mapping • Session 1: Confidential conversation about “your view” of policy (“what factors lead you to ignore..”) • Flip-charted notes analyzed • Session 2: Discussed a second time • Final Map integration from sessions 1 and 2

20. 3 Feel Burden of Responsibility 2 Managers/ supervisors 6 Implement Not Trained Does not adequately train Stress 4 Reasonable Suspicion Policy 9 Doubt Confidentiality Over-reliance 7 Safety Sensitive? 1 Human Resources YES: Test even ‘minor’ accident NO 8 Increase Own Tolerance Implement & Underutilize 5 Random Testing Can call HR for questions Ineffective Design N O D E S L I N K S LEADS TO PART OF POLICY (OR PART OF) RESPONSE TOLERANCE Map 2 - City 1 “HR says; We have a policy in place… it’s your fault you did not recognize problem” “City says ‘We are covered’ - now it’s up to you how to apply it” We use call-in radio for drug-testing (anyone can hear) Confused & Rely on peers to interpret policy “Rate is too slow” ‘Not really random” “Mostly probation” “HR is not responsive”

21. Study Parameters(e.g., Does mapping have any effect?) • Random Assignment • Supervisors from over 40 work groups (N = 69) • Assigned to 3 Groups • Team Training (n = 26) • Informational (n = 22) • Control (n = 21) • Design (Pre-Post - survey - training - survey) • Eight weeks from pre to post survey • Measures & Analyses • Self-reported ratings of improvement (post-training) • Pre-post comparisons

22. Team Training Informational Control Post-test Comparisons of Improvement Following Training Period: Self-reports of Supervisors Much Worse No Change Much Improved

23. Pre-Training Post-Training Pre-Post Comparisons of Supervisor Likelihood of Communicating to EAP About Troubled Employee Very Likely Very Unlikely

24. Initial Conclusions • Some support for engaging supervisors in dialogue about policy meaning • Appears to be more openness to EAP • More trust in confidentiality • This supported by other findings where employees in team training showed improved climate of confidentiality