Substance Abuse in Organizations – Impact of Management Practices
Part I
Jim Schreier
Organizations face different types of problems in dealing with workplace substance abuse based on the industry, the product or service involved, and the size of the organization. Based on 40+ years of research on the challenges of substance abuse in organizations, a key observation is the variety of responses and the changes in the dynamics of the problem based on organizational size. It reflects the growing complexity of the work environment and the continued need for better information on the relationships between some of these complex variables.
In the original 1971 research, a response to an open question on “problems encountered in formulating policy” sparked an issue that was subsequently tracked over the next forty plus years.
Getting management interested in formulating drug abuse programs
“Detection of use” has consistently been identified as the most serious problem facing organizations. But as the following table indicates, “Getting Management Interested” has locked in its position on the list in every survey. One thing that deserves speculation is the possible interaction of these factors. Management support is likely a critical factor in determining correct policy and how organizations go about detecting use. There was also an issue related to organization size. Larger organizations, in both the 1992 and 1998 surveys, reported the “Getting Management Interested” problem as slightly more serious than smaller organizations.
Consistency
As early as 1976, this research identified a problem that many organizations failed to recognize. Years later, the problem still exists and, in fact, becomes a very difficult paradox for many organizations. The following paragraphs contain an examination of this issue – first published in 1976.
Most organizations formulate policy putting together the basic elements of concern, treatment, and responsibility for both the employee and the organization. The policy promotes and provides for referral to an employee assistance program for an employee struggling with a substance abuse problem. By itself, it is a policy which all organizations could adopt. However, there is something that organizations have often overlooked when they have formulated substance abuse policies. There has been a significant failure to properly coordinate substance abuse policies with other policies and rules within an organization. Some of the organizations with a policy based on these points have work rules. They state that an employee found in possession of, or under the influence of any drug is subject to immediate dismissal. These offenses are grouped with others as the most serious in an organization.
There is nothing wrong with establishing organization rules which allow for immediate dismissal for certain incidents. A progressive disciplinary approach provides for classification of offenses, so all cases are handled fairly. This differentiation makes substance abuse when admitted voluntarily a disease covered by medical and health insurance. But it is an offense punishable by immediate dismissal when discovered by the firm. This is effective for neither the organization nor the individual. It may, in fact, destroy both the intent and the success of the policy itself. A major stumbling block in the treatment of alcoholism and other substance abuse is getting the employee to admit to the problem. With these inconsistencies between policy and work rules, it is little wonder that organizations report little progress. Employees are being fired for first incidents of alcoholism and other substance abuse.
But organizations can easily remove this stumbling block to success. Change drug possession or influence from a disciplinary action which calls for immediate dismissal to a less serious action for a first offense. This would then provide the opportunity for the employee to enter the treatment system of the organization. And it still provides the organization with the right to dismiss the employee if he is unwilling to accept the treatment offered. The policy would then be consistent with the rules of the organization. And a more coordinated effort would be possible in facing the problems of substance abuse.
Retrospective Commentary
The issue is no longer as clear – or simple as it was in 1976. At that time, organizations did not have policies anywhere near as quick and tough as the policies they have today. And there was a general trend to implement EAP’s, change the philosophy of treatment for the drug user, and in principle at least, provide the employee with an opportunity to hold on to his or her job.
This research has clearly documented that reactions to workplace incidents of substance abuse have gotten tougher and faster. Terminations for first offenses have risen dramatically since 1976 – terminations for second offenses have almost become automatic. Organizations are dealing with substance abuse in the workplace with a testing-based, tough-minded management style. Zero tolerance policies have become common if not consistent.
Work rules, efforts promoting a drug-free workplace, the dramatic rise of pre-employment drug testing have all contributed to a very different workplace environment. EAP’s have struggled to maintain their role in many organizations – even if you consider the changes in insurance and funding for many EAP efforts.
In 1976, I often recommended the changes above to make work rules consistent with an EAP policy. From the standpoint of employee support, it makes a strong argument. But in today’s competitive environment, the argument supporting a tough, drug-free workplace is a powerful argument. The employee right to work in a drug-free, safe workplace exceeds the rights of an individual using drugs.
The paradox created by these positions is only complicated by the need for supervisors and managers to be able to focus on performance – not drugs.