team-oriented training for workplace substance use awareness: a social constructionist approach
DESCRIPTION
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” - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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, 1999San Francisco, California
The Workplace Project
Home Page
What's New
About IBR
Staff
Projects
Newsletters
Publications
Manuals
Forms
Other Links
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 ResearchTexas Christian UniversityTCU Box 298740Fort Worth, TX 76129http://www.ibr.tcu.edu
SpecialHighlights
IBRNewsletter
NewPublications
Self-RatingForm
CriminalJusticeForms
AIDS RiskAssessment
Form
Contents
Site Map
WEBWEBPAGEPAGEWEBWEBPAGEPAGE
WWW.IBR.TCU.EDUWWW.IBR.TCU.EDU
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)
Understandingprocess before
prevention
Understandingprocess before
prevention
See policy fromemployee
perspective
See policy fromemployee
perspective
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
SOCIAL CLIMATE
drinking together
ignoring problems
tolerating users
stress
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
Assumption:
A particular organization’s
substance use policy
does not evolve or
Have Impact
in a vacuum
PolicyPolicy• Testing
• Education• Discipline
• EAP
Individual &Problematic
Substance Use
leads to
regulates
The Standard View of Policy:
Integrated Research Model
Abstracts [handout]
Integrated Research Model
Abstracts [handout]
The Workplace Project
The Work Environment(the “black box”)
mediates the relationshipbetween organizational
policy and individualsubstance use
Organizational Influence
Psychological influence
Social influence
PolicyPolicy• Testing
• Education• Discipline
• EAP
Individual &Problematic
Substance Use
Group Group ProcessesProcesses
Group Group ProcessesProcesses
Neutralization& Enabling
Teamwork(cohesion)
Perceptions & Perceptions & AttitudesAttitudes
Perceptions & Perceptions & AttitudesAttitudes
PolicyPolicy
Coworker Use
Coworker Use
WorkplaceWorkplaceEnvironmentEnvironmentWorkplaceWorkplace
EnvironmentEnvironment
SocialIntegration
OrganizationWellness
Safety-relatedOccupations
Drinking Climate
leads to
regulates
The Workplace Project
Example of Research
Attitudes TowardsHelp-Seeking & Coworkers: The Role of Group Cohesion
(Municipal Samples)N = 1100 N = 900 N = 350
The Workplace Project
Employees may and Employees may and often do know about often do know about
various problemsvarious problemsbefore their supervisorsbefore their supervisors
Employees may and Employees may and often do know about often do know about
various problemsvarious problemsbefore their supervisorsbefore their supervisors
How does the social climate of How does the social climate of the group influence the group influence
responsiveness to problems in responsiveness to problems in self and others?self and others?
How does the social climate of How does the social climate of the group influence the group influence
responsiveness to problems in responsiveness to problems in self and others?self and others?
4237 40
6064 64
CITY 1 CITY 2 CITY 3
Low Group Cohesion
High Group Cohesion
SUPPORT FROM SUPERVISORIf you had an alcohol/drug problem, would you feel free to talk with your supervisor without fear of being punished or fired?
25 25
1114
I have ignored Fellow workers would ignore
Low Group Cohesion
High Group Cohesion
IGNORING THE PROBLEMIf you have ever experienced a co-worker using…have you ignored? and would fellow workers ignore?
From Research Modelto Prevention Training
The Workplace Project
ResearchResearchModelModel
Group Processes
Group Processes
Perceptions & Attitudes
Perceptions & Attitudes
WorkplaceEnvironmentWorkplace
Environment
SubstanceAbuse
SubstanceAbuse PolicyPolicy
Enabling &Neutralization
(e.g., ignoring)
Enabling &Neutralization
(e.g., ignoring)
Goals, Purpose & Objectives of
Prevention Training
Goals, Purpose & Objectives of
Prevention Training
Group Processes
Group Processes
How did we get from past research to designing a prevention training?
Group Processes
Group Processes
Perceptions & Attitudes
Perceptions & Attitudes
WorkplaceEnvironmentWorkplace
Environment
Individual Presents Problem
SubstanceAbuse
SubstanceAbuse PolicyPolicy
ResearchResearchModelModel
Group ProcessessurroundingProblems
Group ProcessessurroundingProblems
(see Figure 1)
Peers EnablePeers Enable
ProblemContinues
ClimateReinforcement
(e.g., low cohesion)
Problem Presentation
Enabling andNeutralization
ProblemContinuance
ClimateReinforcement
Group ProcessessurroundingProblems
Group ProcessessurroundingProblems
PoorCommunication
InadequateCoping
Tolerance &Resignation
Withdrawal/Antagonism
Employees areDisconnectedfrom Policy
(not meaningful)
Enabling andNeutralizationEnabling andNeutralization
PoorCommunication
InadequateCoping
Tolerance &Resignation
Withdrawal/Antagonism
Disconnectedfrom Policy
(not meaningful)
Enabling andNeutralizationEnabling andNeutralization
PURPOSE Enhance team communication for work groups
to help reduce any risks related to substance use
Purpose & Objectives of Prevention TrainingPurpose & Objectives of Prevention Training
• Objective 1: Relevance
How Can training help you and your group?
• Objective 2: Team Ownership of Policy How Can 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?
TEAM Training Modular Overview RELEVANCE
(SELF ASSESSMENT)
POLICY GAME
TOLERANCE(SELF & GROUP)
STRESS (COMMUNICATION)
NUDGING(COMMUNICATION)
DIALOGUE
FOCUS GROUPSFOCUS GROUPS
SUPERVISOR MODULE
HOMEWORKHOMEWORK
Sample Moduleused 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
Over-reliance
Does not adequately train
Ineffective Design
Confused &Rely on peers
to interpretpolicy
YES: Test even‘minor’ accident
Can callHR for
questions
Stress
NO
HumanResources
11
Managers/supervisors
22Feel
Burden ofResponsibility
33
Implement &Underutilize
Random Testing
55
Implement
Reasonable Suspicion Policy
44
NotTrained
66
SafetySensitive?
77
Increase Own
Tolerance
88
DoubtConfidentiality
99
POLICY(OR PART OF)
RESPONSE TOLERANCE
LEADS TO
PART OF
N O D E S L I N K S“Rate is too slow”
‘Not really random”“Mostly probation”
“HR is not responsive”
“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 upto you how to apply it”
We use call-in radiofor drug-testing
(anyone can hear)
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Able toencourage
help-seeking
Trustconfidentiality
of EAP
Team TrainingTeam Training
InformationalInformational
ControlControl
Much Worse
Much Improved
NoChange
Post-test Comparisons of Improvement Following Post-test Comparisons of Improvement Following
Training Period: Self-reports of SupervisorsTraining Period: Self-reports of Supervisors
1
2
3
4
5
Team Informational Control
Pre-TrainingPre-Training
Post-TrainingPost-Training
Pre-Post Comparisons of Supervisor Likelihood ofPre-Post Comparisons of Supervisor Likelihood of
Communicating to EAP About Troubled EmployeeCommunicating to EAP About Troubled Employee
Very Unlikely
Very Likely
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