team oriented training for workplace substance use awareness a social constructionist approach
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
TEAM-ORIENTED TRAINING FOR WORKPLACE SUBSTANCE USE AWARENESS: A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

TEAM-ORIENTED TRAINING FOR - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 389 Views
  • Uploaded on

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”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'TEAM-ORIENTED TRAINING FOR ' - Rita


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
team oriented training for workplace substance use awareness a social constructionist approach

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

slide2

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

overview

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
slide4

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
slide5

Assumption:

A particular organization’s

substance use policy

does not evolve or

Have Impact

in a vacuum

slide6

leads to

regulates

The Standard View of Policy:

Individual &

Problematic

Substance Use

  • Policy
  • Testing
  • Education
  • Discipline
  • EAP
slide7

The Workplace Project

Integrated Research

Model

Abstracts [handout]

slide8

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

slide9

The Workplace Project

Example of Research

Attitudes Towards

Help-Seeking & Coworkers:

The Role of Group Cohesion

(Municipal Samples)

N = 1100 N = 900 N = 350

slide10

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?

slide11

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?

slide12

IGNORING THE PROBLEM

If you have ever experienced a co-worker

using…have you ignored? and

would fellow workers ignore?

slide13

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

slide14

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)

slide15

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

slide16

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

slide17

TEAM Training Modular Overview

RELEVANCE

(SELF ASSESSMENT)

POLICY GAME

TOLERANCE

(SELF & GROUP)

STRESS

(COMMUNICATION)

FOCUS GROUPS

SUPERVISOR MODULE

NUDGING

(COMMUNICATION)

HOMEWORK

DIALOGUE

slide18

The Workplace Project

Sample Module

used in training

Cognitive mapping

supervisor mapping activity
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
slide20

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”

slide21

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
slide22

Team Training

Informational

Control

Post-test Comparisons of Improvement Following

Training Period: Self-reports of Supervisors

Much

Worse

No

Change

Much

Improved

slide23

Pre-Training

Post-Training

Pre-Post Comparisons of Supervisor Likelihood of

Communicating to EAP About Troubled Employee

Very

Likely

Very

Unlikely

slide24

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
ad