Transcript No Slide Title - Pegasus @ UCF

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
The Workplace Project
WWW.IBR.TCU.EDU
Special
Highlights
 Home Page
What's New
About IBR
IBR
Newsletter
Staff
Projects
Newsletters
Publications
Manuals
Forms
Other Links
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
WEB
PAGE
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
AIDS Risk
Assessment
Form
Overview
10 Years of Previous Survey Research
(NIDA)
 Focus on Job Behavior, Work Climate,Understanding
CLIMATE
Attitudes: Towards Policy & EAP (N >SOCIAL
3,000)
process before
 Integrated Research Model (handoutdrinking
1) prevention
together
‘Social Constructionist’ Approachignoring problems
 Policy is ‘constructed’ (not implemented)
Sample
of Previous Data
tolerating users
See policy from
stress
employee
teamwork)
perspective
From Research to Prevention (handout
 Focus on Group Cohesion (trust,
2)
A Sample Activity
 Supervisor’s Cognitive Map of Policy
 Initial Results (Supervisors only)
General Rationale
Increased surveillance requirements (drugtesting) 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
Assumption:
A particular organization’s
substance use policy
does not evolve or
Have Impact
in a vacuum
The Standard View of Policy:
Individual &
Problematic
Substance Use
leads to
regulates
Policy
• Testing
• Education
• Discipline
• EAP
Integrated Research
Model
Abstracts [handout]
The Workplace Project
Individual &
Problematic
Substance Use
Organizational
Influence
Social
influence
Psychological
influence
Safety-related
Occupations
Policy
leads to
• Testing
• Education
• Discipline
• EAP
regulates
Workplace
Environment
Social
Integration
DrinkingWork Environment
Organization
The
Climate
Wellness
(the “black box”)
Neutralization
Teamwork
Group
mediates
the
relationship
Processes
& Enabling
(cohesion)
between organizational
policy and individual
Policy
Perceptions &
Attitudes
substance
useCoworker
Use
The Workplace Project
Example of Research
Attitudes Towards
Help-Seeking & Coworkers:
The Role of Group Cohesion
(Municipal Samples)
N = 1100
N = 900
The Workplace Project
N = 350
Employees may and often do
know about various problems
before their supervisors
How does the social climate of the
group influence responsiveness to
problems in self and others?
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?
Low Group Cohesion
High Group Cohesion
64
60
42
37
CITY 1
CITY 2
64
40
CITY 3
IGNORING THE PROBLEM
If you have ever experienced a co-worker
using…have you ignored? and
would fellow workers ignore?
Low Group Cohesion
High Group Cohesion
25
25
11
I have ignored
14
Fellow workers would ignore
From Research Model
to Prevention Training
Substance
Abuse
Policy
How did we get from past research to
designing a prevention training?
Workplace
Environment
Research
Model
Group
Processes
Group
Processes
Perceptions &
Attitudes
The Workplace Project
Enabling &
Neutralization
(e.g., ignoring)
Goals, Purpose
& Objectives of
Prevention
Training
Research
Model
Substance
Abuse
Policy
Workplace
Environment
Group
Processes
Perceptions &
Attitudes
(see Figure 1)
Group Processes
surrounding
Problems
Individual Presents
Problem
Peers Enable
Problem
Continues
Climate
Reinforcement
(e.g., low cohesion)
Group Processes
surrounding
Problems
Problem
Presentation
Enabling and
Neutralization
Enabling and
Neutralization
Employees are
Disconnected
from Policy
(not meaningful)
Poor
Communication
Inadequate
Coping
Problem
Continuance
Climate
Reinforcement
Tolerance &
Resignation
Withdrawal/
Antagonism
Enabling and
Neutralization
Disconnected
from Policy
(not meaningful)
Purpose & Objectives of Prevention Training
PURPOSE
Enhance team communication for work groups
to help reduce any risks related to substance use
• Objective 1: Relevance
How Can training help you and your group?
Poor
Communication
• Objective 2: Team Ownership of Policy
How Can policy protect your group?
Inadequate
Coping
• Objective 3: Understanding Stress
What role does stress have?
Tolerance &
Resignation
• Objective 4: Understanding Tolerance
Are you personally tolerating a problem?
Withdrawal/
Antagonism
• Objective 5: Support, Encourage Help
How can you encourage others?
TEAM Training
Modular Overview
RELEVANCE
(SELF ASSESSMENT)
POLICY GAME
TOLERANCE
(SELF & GROUP)
FOCUS GROUPS
SUPERVISOR MODULE
STRESS
(COMMUNICATION)
NUDGING
(COMMUNICATION)
HOMEWORK
DIALOGUE
Sample Module
used in training
Cognitive mapping
The Workplace Project
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
Map 2 - City 1
3
2
Managers/
supervisors
6
Implement
Does not
adequately train
Feel
Burden of
Responsibility
4
Not
Trained
Stress
Reasonable
Suspicion Policy
Over-reliance
Human
Resources
“HR says; We have a policy
in place… it’s your fault you
did not recognize problem”
9
Doubt
Confidentiality
“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)
7
1
Implement &
Underutilize
Can call
HR for
questions
“Rate is too slow”
‘Not really random”
“Mostly probation”
“HR is not responsive”
Safety
Sensitive?
YES: Test even
‘minor’ accident
8
NO
Confused &
Rely on peers
to interpret
policy
5
Random Testing
NODES
Ineffective
Design
Increase
Own
Tolerance
LINKS
LEADS TO
POLICY
(OR PART OF)
RESPONSE TOLERANCE
PART OF
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
Post-test Comparisons of Improvement Following
Training Period: Self-reports of Supervisors
Team Training
Trust
confidentiality
of EAP
Informational
Control
Able to
encourage
help-seeking
1
Much
Worse
2
3
4
No
Change
5
6
7
Much
Improved
Pre-Post Comparisons of Supervisor Likelihood of
Communicating to EAP About Troubled Employee
Very 5
Likely
Pre-Training
Post-Training
4
3
2
Very
Unlikely 1
Team
Informational
Control
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