- EAN staff is available when our office is closed to help you manage personal crisis or traumatic events in the workplace. Call our office at 828-252-5725 and press ‘0’ to reach our crisis management team member by phone.
This is an ongoing content series on the current EAN website. We have set it up again here so you can continue to use it (if you like.)
Q. Urine drug testing is part of our comprehensive drug-free workplace program. I know that a test will tell us whether indeed someone is positive and what drug they are using, but will it also prove they were impaired? My employee insists he was not impaired.
A. Your company may conduct a urine drug test in accordance with its policy, and a positive test alone is grounds for taking administrative action. However, a urine test does not prove impairment. But that is not the focus of the policy, so your employee’s argument that he or she was not impaired is irrelevant. An employee can be completely sober but still test positive for a substance, because metabolites can be present in the urine for days or even weeks. Many people confuse the objectives of business organizations that test for drugs of abuse with those of law enforcement officials, who must be able to prove impairment if a person is arrested for drunk driving. A field sobriety test or a certain blood alcohol level establishes the legal existence of this impairment.
Q. My employee apologizes constantly for her inadequate performance. I know she is sincere, but I feel a bit guilty putting pressure on her and taking some action that could cause her to lose her job. She won’t go to the EAP. I feel torn. I am more frustrated with myself than with her!
A. Your employee may indeed be sincere, but she is not a satisfactory performer. When she apologizes without correcting her performance, she effectively avoids disciplinary action you are unwilling to take. Until now, you have been manipulated to avoid taking stronger measures to correct her performance. But remember, discipline is not punishment; It is a tool for correcting performance. Your own performance is suffering because you are not managing this situation properly. What’s more, if her problems are chronic, eventually the current performance issue will get worse. This could lead to a crisis you want to avoid. Consider this: By not acting more decisively, you have enabled her problems to grow worse. Not all employees are defensive when confronted. Some simply agree with you, do not feel motivated enough to change. Consult with the EAP about your indecisiveness. The EAP won’t tell you to take disciplinary action or suggest what that action should be, but it will help you with personal issues that keep you avoidant and indecisive.
Q. My employee participated in a court-mandated driver education course related to alcohol and drug use after a recent DUI arrest. The court did not refer him to treatment and I disagree with that decision. I think he’s an alcoholic, because frankly, I am recovering myself. Can I involve the EAP?
A. If your employee’s job performance is satisfactory and the employer has not determined that the arrest and court referral constitute a business concern (i.e., “conduct unbecoming of our employees”), then you don’t have a basis for a formal supervisor referral. You do know about the DUI, however, and that an assessment of alcoholism was not made by the court. How did you come by this information? Did the employee volunteer it? If so, suggesting a self-referral to the EAP as a source of help and assessment is appropriate. Regarding your status as a recovering alcoholic, be cautious. There is nothing wrong with sharing personal information, but don’t diagnose your employee or engage in a diagnostic discussion. Realize that the crisis has passed, and the pursuit of treatment for alcoholism is usually motivated by a sense of urgency based on circumstances. You’re not likely to inspire a revelation. Still, such conversations can play a role in a future decision to enter treatment.
Q. The EAP has been a wonderful service for our organization. Many employees have been helped, and it is a great resource for our supervisors. I’ve noticed not all supervisors use the EAP equally. Other than simply lack of training, why might some be resistant?
A. Although EAPs help both employees and supervisors, and protect the organization by reducing behavioral risk, some supervisors may feel that the EAP takes away something that has given their job meaning: counseling or at least advising employees about personal problems, in addition to using persuasion to inspire changes. Some supervisors possess a style that includes being a confidant, a friend, and a wise advice giver. Some supervisors are more empathetic than others and are more interested in the human experience. This is positive, but their identity may be too closely connected to how others look up to them beyond pure performance and leadership matters. The desire to play a larger role in employees’ lives can conflict with the role of supervisor and the critical link needed in facilitating referral to the EAP for troubled workers with severe problems that the supervisor is unable to resolve or possibly even identify.
Q. What is the “Lone Ranger Syndrome” that is sometimes used to describe supervisors and how they conduct themselves in their role?
A. The Lone Ranger Syndrome is a construct originated 50 years ago by Arthur Purvis, an EAP author and federal employee personnel specialist. It describes supervisors who take on so much responsibility for managing workers’ performance as well as their personal problems that they begin to burn out. They may feel anger, confusion, frustration, and helplessness, and their state of overwork may lead them to ineffective management practices. When EAPs first originated in the mid-1970s, it was important to recognize this construct in order to motivate supervisors to come forward and take advantage of what the EAP could offer them in the way of relief. It’s considered a classic in EAP education and training.
Q. The EAP gave a presentation on stress, and a few employees who attended the presentation openly stated that they planned to go visit the EAP. It was a great presentation, but I was surprised at the number of stressed workers. Should I be concerned? Should I ask the EAP how I can help?
A. Interest in participating in the EAP following a stress management presentation is not necessarily because of work strain as it is typically viewed. A multitude of other personal problems that your employees may initially only label as stress in public with their peers who also attended the presentation could be the reason. Saying that one is getting help for stress is less stigmatizing than admitting one is suffering with depression, couples problems, addiction, a teenager with an eating disorder, etc. Stress management training, while helpful to employees in offering insight and techniques in managing stress, has a tremendous benefit in also helping promote the EAP. It demystifies the program and encourages employees to take the next step and feel safe in using the program to resolve personal problems. There are many ways supervisors can help alleviate stress, of course. The EAP can consult with you and offer tips on what might be helpful based on the nature and circumstances of your workgroup.
Q. If a tragedy occurs in the workplace and employees are emotionally affected, what signs and symptoms should I look for later(following any counseling and “psychological first-aid” employees receive) so I can be supportive and encourage self-referral to the EAP?
A. An acute stress response is normal during and immediately following a tragic and frightening event at work. The best intervention after any initial support given to employees is education about the signs and symptoms that could later constitute post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Signs and symptoms of PTSD may not be easily noticed by you. They may include disturbing thoughts, feelings, or dreams related to the event; mental or physical distress in response to trauma-related cues; efforts to avoid trauma-related situations; and an increased fight-or-flight response, especially to events that are similar to or trigger memories of the tragic event. These symptoms could produce secondary effects that you might observe, including job performance issues, attendance problems, or behavioral struggles on the job. If you observe such effects, you can then discuss your observations (not your diagnostic impressions) and suggest the EAP.
Q. People criticize my messy desk. It’s quite a joke with the office. I don’t feel that I am bullied, and I haven’t been lectured by management or experienced any adverse actions, but am I a bad manager because my desk is messy and looks completely disorganized?
A. The effects of a disheveled desk on productivity and the work climate are what would concern your management. Either these issues aren’t a problem or your manager has not been willing to confront you about them yet. Being disorganized is a trait commonly observed in ineffectual managers. At the very least, it does not demonstrate good role modeling. Do you forget details, lose things, show up to meeting with missing documents, or miss meetings altogether? If so, a messy desk may be a symptom of a larger problem. Meet with the EAP to discuss the disorganization, which may lead to insights as to causes and what you can do about it. The teasing and reactions you receive from others may bother you more than you are willing to admit. If so, you may find motivation at the EAP to make changes so you can benefit from a more organized workspace.
Q. I have known my employee for many years and am quite familiar with her personal problems. Does this create an exception in terms of not being given more specific information about the nature of her issues discussed at the EAP?
A. Typically, EAPs share very little information with a signed consent to release confidential information. This protects employees from the possibility of improper and reckless disclosures of confidential information, and in turn helps underscore and ensure the confidential nature of the EAP. Information that the EAP can share with managers, with an employee’s signed release, includes acknowledgment of participation, cooperation with EAP recommendations, and accommodations for a manager to consider in supporting the employee’s functional capacity and limitations. Historically, managers don’t need any additional information to successfully manage their employees’ performance. Your employee is free to share information with you directly about treatment or medical recommendations, but it would be improper for the EAP to communicate with you about these things because there is no clinical or performance-management justification. This may be difficult to accept after having played a significant role in supporting your employee up to this point, but you can still do that by being a manager who stays focused on performance.
Q. Can I phone the EAP to find out if an employee I suggested attend the program showed? More specifically, if the employee was in fact never seen, can the EAP say so?
A. Most EAPs will state that they can neither confirm nor deny participation in the program, and this answer is the best one to help protect employee clients and the program’s perception of confidentiality among the workforce. Whether or not the employee is an EAP attendee does not interfere with, prevent, or amend any administrative actions you need to take or consider in response to the worker’s performance, because the EAP is not a “safe harbor.” This is consistent with EAP policies. Conceivably, employees could tell you they are participating in the EAP when they are not, but you should still make decisions based on what is observable, measurable, and consistent with employees’ performance.
