If you are an EAP with a face-to-face operation, inform employees through your communication channels, EAP orientations, and supervisor training’s, that you can help employees by telephone if they do not want to see the EA professional in person. Don't overlook this promotional strategy. Many EAPs miss a unknown percentage of potential clients because they do not specifically promote this option.
The bottom line – you don’t want to lose employees who need help, and who could improve your utilization rate just because they didn’t want to be persaonally seen. Many employees have never seen a mental health professional, let alone an EA professional. They may have no intention of doing so, and yet they still have personal problems.
You will need to give these folks plenty of permission to call you. Top managers are also skittish about visiting EA professionals. You’re likely to attract more top managers with this approach. Don’t lock yourself out of these referrals by being rigid about this additional method of helping employees. (This is NOT an endorsement for a telephone EAP model.)
Don’t think you will see fewwer employees in-person if you mention occasionally that you can still help them by phone. Just the opposite is true. Once “gun-shy” employees call, the ice is broken. You are made more familiar, and the employee is a step closer to accepting an in-person appointment.
Many of you have experienced a call from an employee, who you asked to come to the EAP office in person to better discuss a personal problem. They then agreed, but that’s because the employee got past the first mental roadblock--feeling comfortable with the person at the other end of the phone. Do not let administrative or secretarial staff manage these calls and attempt to motivate an in-person visit to the EAP by the caller. Have them referred to the EA professional to take the "sale" the rest of the way. It takes counseling skill to avoid losing some of these calls.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Bullying More Harmful that Sexual Harassment says APA
MARCH 8, 2008
BULLYING MORE HARMFUL THAN SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON THE JOB, SAY RESEARCHERS WASHINGTON –
Workplace bullying, such as belittling comments, persistent criticism of work and withholding resources, appears to inflict more harm on employees than sexual harassment, say researchers who presented their findings at a conference today.
“As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who may therefore find it easier to cope,” said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba.
“In contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims to fend for themselves.” This finding was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology.
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression.
Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers’ stress, anger and anxiety levels as well as workers’ mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also compared.
The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression. Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Bullying included persistently criticizing employees’ work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees’ habits, attitudes or private life. Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can create negative work environments and unhealthy consequences for employees, but the researchers found that workplace aggression has more severe consequences. Employees who experienced bullying, incivility or interpersonal conflict were more likely to quit their jobs, have lower well-being, be less satisfied with their jobs and have less satisfying relations with their bosses than employees who were sexually harassed, the researchers found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety. No differences were found between employees experiencing either type of mistreatment on how satisfied they were with their co-workers or with their work.
“Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others,” said Hershcovis. “For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction.”
From a total of 128 samples that were used, 46 included subjects who experienced sexual harassment, 86 experienced workplace aggression and six experienced both. Sample sizes ranged from 1,491 to 53,470 people. Participants ranged from 18 to 65 years old. The work aggression samples included both men and women.
The sexual harassment samples examined primarily women because, Hershcovis said, past research has shown that men interpret and respond differently to the behaviors that women perceive as sexual harassment.
Presentation: Comparing the Outcomes of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis, M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Julian Barling, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada; Saturday, March 8, 8:00 – 9:30 AM, Regency Ballroom – B6 M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD can be reached by email at sandy_hershcovis@umanitoba.ca or by phone at (204) 474-9951
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 148,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students.
Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare. # # # Pamela Willenz Manager APA Public Affairs Office 202-336-5707 pwillenz@apa.org
BULLYING MORE HARMFUL THAN SEXUAL HARASSMENT ON THE JOB, SAY RESEARCHERS WASHINGTON –
Workplace bullying, such as belittling comments, persistent criticism of work and withholding resources, appears to inflict more harm on employees than sexual harassment, say researchers who presented their findings at a conference today.
“As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who may therefore find it easier to cope,” said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba.
“In contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims to fend for themselves.” This finding was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Society for Occupational Health Psychology.
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression.
Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers’ stress, anger and anxiety levels as well as workers’ mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also compared.
The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression. Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Bullying included persistently criticizing employees’ work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes; spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees’ habits, attitudes or private life. Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can create negative work environments and unhealthy consequences for employees, but the researchers found that workplace aggression has more severe consequences. Employees who experienced bullying, incivility or interpersonal conflict were more likely to quit their jobs, have lower well-being, be less satisfied with their jobs and have less satisfying relations with their bosses than employees who were sexually harassed, the researchers found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety. No differences were found between employees experiencing either type of mistreatment on how satisfied they were with their co-workers or with their work.
“Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others,” said Hershcovis. “For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction.”
From a total of 128 samples that were used, 46 included subjects who experienced sexual harassment, 86 experienced workplace aggression and six experienced both. Sample sizes ranged from 1,491 to 53,470 people. Participants ranged from 18 to 65 years old. The work aggression samples included both men and women.
The sexual harassment samples examined primarily women because, Hershcovis said, past research has shown that men interpret and respond differently to the behaviors that women perceive as sexual harassment.
Presentation: Comparing the Outcomes of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis, M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Julian Barling, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada; Saturday, March 8, 8:00 – 9:30 AM, Regency Ballroom – B6 M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD can be reached by email at sandy_hershcovis@umanitoba.ca or by phone at (204) 474-9951
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 148,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students.
Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare. # # # Pamela Willenz Manager APA Public Affairs Office 202-336-5707 pwillenz@apa.org
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Significant Study on Bullying in the Workplace Coming
My inside sources have asked me not to report information until Saturday March 8th, but a landmark study is due out on workplace bullying that will capture the national news. You'll get the information here first. Stay tuned.....
Saturday, March 1, 2008
More on Mandatory Referrals
Did you know that Mandatory Referrals to EAPs are illegal in Australia according to a representative from the largest EAP in Australia? I am waiting to hear back more from this person soon so I can pass along the information. It could very useful in this discussion.
Is it true that there may really be no such thing as a "mandatory referral"? They are called that, but it is often a misnomer in many cases. There is a difference between "a referral to the EAP is mandatory" and "it is mandatory to go to the EAP", correct? The former is what the these types of referrals are usually all about.
Actually, many of us believe that mandatory referrals are an unethical and problematic practice in EAP programming. Where they exist, they are often not part of EAP policy per se. Instead, they are part of the sponsoring/customer's policy on dealing with specific matters of performance and behavior. They are requirements for management and how employees will be treated in the face of egregious violations of specific work rules.
For example, a mandatory referral mean that the supervisor must prepare to terminate an employee for cause, but at the same time, offer the employee a one-time opportunity to be accommodated for the existence of a personal problem if the employee wishes to accept it. That opportunity comes in the form of a traditional, formal, supervisor referral to the EAP the acceptance of which will be the only thing that can prevent termination.
This is a win-win. The employee keeps their job for now, gets the red carpet treatment, is guaranteed that their promotional and job security will not be jeopardized simply because they go for help, and that the employee will be supported, and accommodated later as appropriate. If they don't accept this support and accomodation, the alternative is the opposite--the employee picks up their last pay check and is fired for the infraction. This is tough love. Most employees choose an EAP referral and cooperation with its recommendations. This is a compassionate move to help any employee with a serious personal problem confounded by denial.
Unfortunately these referrals are frequently not communicated much tact . They are made to sound harsh and punitive. More employees would enter treatment and be salvaged if they were. What a mandatory referrals really is--although it gets lost in the translation--is a supervisor referral in the face of termination for cause with the employee being given the opportunity to avoid termination, if he or she decides it would be a good thing to find out if a personal problem contributes performance issues. This is also called performance-based intervention.
Many EAPs reject mandatory terminology entirely. That is why I said they remain controversial in the flash <--click to see again. The flash, which is part of the EAP Refresher Training for Supervisors series #1 (there are three refresher courses) only received a two comments so far.
Personally, I think using the term mandatory referrals in promotional literature and employee orientations is very damaging to to EAPs. They are square pegs being shoved in the round holes of the core technology and EAPs should help organizations "re-word them" so DOT regulations requiring referral to the EAP for a positive drug test are upheld, but at the same time different language is employed in the process that does not undermine EAP's value and destroy the program's ability to attract employees, especially self-referrals.
Unfortunately, many EAPs unfamiliar with EAP history, and EAP theory (as I like to call it), or client self-determination principles in the helping professions, incorporate 'mandatory referrals' in their policies and procedures only because management has said "make this happen" and EAPs comply to please the customer, rather than say, "Hey, wait a minute, let's not have you shoot the EAP (and your investment in this loss prevention program) in the foot with this language." Let's re-word this to help you, the EAP, and the employee. Let's not align the EAP with language that makes this process appear punitive.
Tough love must communicated more with the love than the "tough" part. That's what makes it work. Indeed, this is why EAPs have been so successful where they have been thoughtfully established to help troubled employees.
Is it true that there may really be no such thing as a "mandatory referral"? They are called that, but it is often a misnomer in many cases. There is a difference between "a referral to the EAP is mandatory" and "it is mandatory to go to the EAP", correct? The former is what the these types of referrals are usually all about.
Actually, many of us believe that mandatory referrals are an unethical and problematic practice in EAP programming. Where they exist, they are often not part of EAP policy per se. Instead, they are part of the sponsoring/customer's policy on dealing with specific matters of performance and behavior. They are requirements for management and how employees will be treated in the face of egregious violations of specific work rules.
For example, a mandatory referral mean that the supervisor must prepare to terminate an employee for cause, but at the same time, offer the employee a one-time opportunity to be accommodated for the existence of a personal problem if the employee wishes to accept it. That opportunity comes in the form of a traditional, formal, supervisor referral to the EAP the acceptance of which will be the only thing that can prevent termination.
This is a win-win. The employee keeps their job for now, gets the red carpet treatment, is guaranteed that their promotional and job security will not be jeopardized simply because they go for help, and that the employee will be supported, and accommodated later as appropriate. If they don't accept this support and accomodation, the alternative is the opposite--the employee picks up their last pay check and is fired for the infraction. This is tough love. Most employees choose an EAP referral and cooperation with its recommendations. This is a compassionate move to help any employee with a serious personal problem confounded by denial.
Unfortunately these referrals are frequently not communicated much tact . They are made to sound harsh and punitive. More employees would enter treatment and be salvaged if they were. What a mandatory referrals really is--although it gets lost in the translation--is a supervisor referral in the face of termination for cause with the employee being given the opportunity to avoid termination, if he or she decides it would be a good thing to find out if a personal problem contributes performance issues. This is also called performance-based intervention.
Many EAPs reject mandatory terminology entirely. That is why I said they remain controversial in the flash <--click to see again. The flash, which is part of the EAP Refresher Training for Supervisors series #1 (there are three refresher courses) only received a two comments so far.
Personally, I think using the term mandatory referrals in promotional literature and employee orientations is very damaging to to EAPs. They are square pegs being shoved in the round holes of the core technology and EAPs should help organizations "re-word them" so DOT regulations requiring referral to the EAP for a positive drug test are upheld, but at the same time different language is employed in the process that does not undermine EAP's value and destroy the program's ability to attract employees, especially self-referrals.
Unfortunately, many EAPs unfamiliar with EAP history, and EAP theory (as I like to call it), or client self-determination principles in the helping professions, incorporate 'mandatory referrals' in their policies and procedures only because management has said "make this happen" and EAPs comply to please the customer, rather than say, "Hey, wait a minute, let's not have you shoot the EAP (and your investment in this loss prevention program) in the foot with this language." Let's re-word this to help you, the EAP, and the employee. Let's not align the EAP with language that makes this process appear punitive.
Tough love must communicated more with the love than the "tough" part. That's what makes it work. Indeed, this is why EAPs have been so successful where they have been thoughtfully established to help troubled employees.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Muddiness of Mandatory Referrals
Remember the 1970's--there was no such thing as a "mandatory referral" back then. There was only "Self" and "Supervisory" referrals. Mandatory referrals kneaded their way into the EAP field later, and they remain controversial.No doubt you've wondered whether "mandatory referrals" can damage the perception of EAPs as safe and non-disciplinary programs of attraction. Well, it depends.Mandatory referrals (often required after a positive drug test or other infraction) can work wonderfully and help your EAP, or they can reduce your EAP's utilization by damaging its perception among employees by making you appear aligned with management. There are safeguards that need to be put in place if your EAP is going to interface with mandatory supervisor referrals. They involve training managers.
I have assembled a short flash movie-link in this article that I believe explains mandatory referrals in a way that will help EAPs educate supervisors. It was produced for EAPtools.com's Supervisor Refresher Training series. I think you will like it.
To keep mandatory referrals from damaging the EAP's reputation, help managers not stumble over the process of making these types of referrals. Include within your supervisor training an explanation of what a mandatory referral is, what it means, and how to do it correctly—not just that they exist.
Mandatory referrals are more than a “type of referral.” And here’s the part that may seem weird to understand: They have more to do with supervisors than employees. Mandatory referrals are policy directives. They do not change the voluntary nature of EAPs.
EAPs aren’t EAPs if they aren’t voluntary, right? (Say yes.) Voluntary is part of the EAP standards. So how does this little gremlin called a mandatory referral fit into the EAP picture? By the way, voluntary help is based on a bedrock principle, present in any helping profession, called “client self-determination.”
After speaking with many EA professionals and hearing their thoughts about this subject, I put together a Flash presentation included it within the Refresher Training series from EAPtools.com.
I hope you find this interesting and that you will give feedback on what you think about it. There's always room for refining it.
TURN YOUR SPEAKERS UP...Click link below to view the Flash movie:
UNDERSTANDING MANDATORY REFERRALS
Go here to learn more about the Supervisor Refresher Training series
I have assembled a short flash movie-link in this article that I believe explains mandatory referrals in a way that will help EAPs educate supervisors. It was produced for EAPtools.com's Supervisor Refresher Training series. I think you will like it.
To keep mandatory referrals from damaging the EAP's reputation, help managers not stumble over the process of making these types of referrals. Include within your supervisor training an explanation of what a mandatory referral is, what it means, and how to do it correctly—not just that they exist.
Mandatory referrals are more than a “type of referral.” And here’s the part that may seem weird to understand: They have more to do with supervisors than employees. Mandatory referrals are policy directives. They do not change the voluntary nature of EAPs.
EAPs aren’t EAPs if they aren’t voluntary, right? (Say yes.) Voluntary is part of the EAP standards. So how does this little gremlin called a mandatory referral fit into the EAP picture? By the way, voluntary help is based on a bedrock principle, present in any helping profession, called “client self-determination.”
After speaking with many EA professionals and hearing their thoughts about this subject, I put together a Flash presentation included it within the Refresher Training series from EAPtools.com.
I hope you find this interesting and that you will give feedback on what you think about it. There's always room for refining it.
TURN YOUR SPEAKERS UP...Click link below to view the Flash movie:
UNDERSTANDING MANDATORY REFERRALS
Go here to learn more about the Supervisor Refresher Training series
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Maybe We Should Be Talking about "EAP Theory"
The EAP Core Technology describes the elements of what constitutes an effective Employee Assistance Program. EAPs have been around long enough that they have established specific ways of operating that are almost universally accepted. That's because they work. Many of these "understandings" and "ways of doing things" are not recognized absolutes, but they are almost universally practiced by EAP core technologists (EA professionals practicing within the spirit and intent of the EAP core technology.) This is an important discussion because these ways of doing things consistently make the EAP core technology practicable. Many are passed from one EA professional to the next, without any other rationale except for "this is how it's done."
This discussion of why EAPs work and how they work in concert with the core technology is really a discusson of EAP theory. For example, the idea that a trouble employee with job performance problems can't be helped by the supervisor, and cannot help him or herself (because of illness and its consequent affect on insight and the ability of the employee to self-diagnose) dictates that a supervisor referral to the EAP will work in almost every circumstance where is properly employed. But it has to be done a specific way, or it will fail in almost every instance. This specific way is not relugated to a "Theory and Operations Manual".
In this instance, the choice of accepting a supervisor referral, or accepting appropriate and legitimate disciplinary action, almost always drives the employee--no matter what level of denial--to visit the EAP with the hope of "escaping" the less preferred alternative. It is there that the EA professional will act on behalf of the employee's well-being and that of the organization. This process only works with EAPs. No other occupation within the workplace can be, or ever has been assigned this unique role. It only first emerged in the late sixties, discovered by the late occupational alcoholism pioneer Lewis Presnall. (Who also established this mechanism very successfully within the occupatonal alcoholism program at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency which had at one time one of the highest self-referral rates of occupational alcoholism I have ever observed.)
This application of leverage and use of a helping resource, combined with skills of a helping professional obligated to the employer, that also produces a motivated employee with a severe personal problem only operates within the EAP core technology. This is "EAP Theory" in practice. Consider the definition of theory from Webster's.
"THEORY" -- the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice. A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles."
These rules and principles are found scattered throughout the EAP literature, but there is no "book" on these principles. Old timers know them by heart. If ever such a collection of principles and practices is produced, it may--may--serve the purpose of shining a brighter light on many non-effective EAP paradigms that, in part, keep EAPs from becoming a household word they should be by now.
This discussion of why EAPs work and how they work in concert with the core technology is really a discusson of EAP theory. For example, the idea that a trouble employee with job performance problems can't be helped by the supervisor, and cannot help him or herself (because of illness and its consequent affect on insight and the ability of the employee to self-diagnose) dictates that a supervisor referral to the EAP will work in almost every circumstance where is properly employed. But it has to be done a specific way, or it will fail in almost every instance. This specific way is not relugated to a "Theory and Operations Manual".
In this instance, the choice of accepting a supervisor referral, or accepting appropriate and legitimate disciplinary action, almost always drives the employee--no matter what level of denial--to visit the EAP with the hope of "escaping" the less preferred alternative. It is there that the EA professional will act on behalf of the employee's well-being and that of the organization. This process only works with EAPs. No other occupation within the workplace can be, or ever has been assigned this unique role. It only first emerged in the late sixties, discovered by the late occupational alcoholism pioneer Lewis Presnall. (Who also established this mechanism very successfully within the occupatonal alcoholism program at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency which had at one time one of the highest self-referral rates of occupational alcoholism I have ever observed.)
This application of leverage and use of a helping resource, combined with skills of a helping professional obligated to the employer, that also produces a motivated employee with a severe personal problem only operates within the EAP core technology. This is "EAP Theory" in practice. Consider the definition of theory from Webster's.
"THEORY" -- the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice. A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles."
These rules and principles are found scattered throughout the EAP literature, but there is no "book" on these principles. Old timers know them by heart. If ever such a collection of principles and practices is produced, it may--may--serve the purpose of shining a brighter light on many non-effective EAP paradigms that, in part, keep EAPs from becoming a household word they should be by now.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Drive EAP Utlization Up with the Smallest Things
It sounds simple, but one of the best ways to get word-of-mouth publicity and build credibility fast for your EAP is to return phone calls to potential employee clients and supervisors quickly. Instant gratification is what people want. (Yes, it’s tough, I know.) The 21st century is the era of high-level customer service, and customers have expectations that are no less for EAPs. But how do you respond quickly when you are so busy doing more with less? Here are a few ideas from EAPs in the trenches: 1) Leave appointment times in your return messages for your callers to select. It will reduce telephone tagging. They’ll call back with a chosen time. Place a star in your appointment book to indicate the times you gave out so you don’t fill them with other clients. 2) Unless it is an emergency, develop the habit of returning voicemail messages in the order that you receive them--first in, first out. Don’t mentally categorize messages into several layers of importance. You’ll reduce your stress by having stored 40 voicemails, later having to go back and search like a madman for the one you want. 3) If you promised a client to do research on some issue, like searching for a special topic 12-step group--after a day or two, call the client to update your progress. Don’t keep a client wondering, even if you have no information yet. This is tantamount to a waitress in a restaurant walking past you because they aren't ready to serve you. It's the acknowledgement you want, not the food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)