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

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 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


Example of Research

Attitudes TowardsHelp-Seeking & Coworkers: The Role of Group Cohesion

(Municipal Samples)N = 1100 N = 900 N = 350


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


ResearchResearchModelModel

Group Processes

Group Processes

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



WorkplaceEnvironmentWorkplace

Environment

Individual Presents Problem

SubstanceAbuse

SubstanceAbuse PolicyPolicy

ResearchResearchModelModel

Group ProcessessurroundingProblems


(see Figure 1)

Peers EnablePeers Enable

ProblemContinues

ClimateReinforcement

(e.g., low cohesion)

Problem Presentation

Enabling andNeutralization

ProblemContinuance

ClimateReinforcement



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


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

Documents

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