Workplace Violence and Problematic Relationships with Supervisors

I wanted to talk with you about workplace violence and supervisor relationships.

EAPs routinely help resolve problematic relationships that employees have with their supervisors. If you haven't worked with this type of issue yet, you will.

I believe this intervention activity that HR managers, EAPs, and even OD people sometimes tackle has the most potential to improve productivity, reduce risk of violence, and help insulate the company from lawsuits -- big ones. The role EAPs play in helping resolve employee-supervisor conflict should get more attention in the literature.

I have always believed that effective EAP models reduce the number of potentially violent acts that, as a result, never happen. The question is, do companies appreciate this enormous benefit that can't be easily proven?

Many of these cases begin with employees who have problems with supervisors. These problems don't just create conflict and distraction. They can lead to death by a violent act. The subject of violence and improving relationships with supervisors is so critical to safety that I always include articles about it during the year when writing WorkExcel.com\'s newsletters. I so badly want to produce 7-9 minute Flash movie on "Best Tips for Reducing Supervisory Conflict with Subordinates" I think this would prevent violent acts more than the usual "know the nearest exit to your office if your employee explodes."

Employees love tips for improving their relationships with supervisors. There are huge payoffs for providing them, and top management will love you for doing so. That's because management can't rally employees to improve their relationships with their supervisors. The dynamics of paycheck-driven relationships simply makes it impossible. Your newsletter is a perfect medium for doing it.

Here are a few topics to consider for your next newsletter and those down the road. Chase after your newsletter company to write about these topics. If you are in a pinch, have them send me an e-mail and I will reply with my thoughts. They shouldn't have any problem if the writers possess an EAP background, of course.

Topic ideas

* Improving channels of communication and increasing frequency of
communicationSpeaking with your boss freely about concerns early on, before
problems arise
* Asking for advice about problems that you are experiencing on the job
* Writing down your concerns and sharing them; helping plan your evaluation goals
* Asking for feedback -- going to the boss and not waiting for it
* Considering your boss's perspective -- not just your own; how to do it and why
* Using tact when discussing differences
* Figuring out what your boss really wants from you, without asking
* Understanding that your supervisor is probably not "out to get you"

Don't just make a newsletter entertaining for employees. Make it a loss-prevention tool for the company. These tips will reduce conflict, improve program utilization, and increase top management's awareness for your true value.

Employee Newsletters for EAPs and Workforce Productivity

Helping Employees with a Wage Garnishment "Fishing Net"

Garnishments are court orders for the employer to cut a check, mail it to the creditor or entitled party, and along with it process a bunch of paper work every pay period, sometimes for a long period of time. Employers must follow court orders to garnish wages or face paying the entire amount to the creditor themselves. They are a nuance for any hard-working payroll department and they cost the company money. EAP utilization can be boosted dramatically if you make arrangements with your organization to have management make supervisor referrals for employees whose wages must be garnished. The performance basis of the referral is the financial burden on the organization resulting from issues within the employee’s personal life adversely affecting the workplace. Like any management or supervisor referral, the garnishment referral is not a punitive act.

Wage garnishment judgments may or may not be deserved sometimes, but they are almost always symptoms of larger problems in the employee’s life in addition to the debt and credit problems the employee is experiencing. That’s because psychosocial problems frequently produce financial problems. Garnishments could be symptoms of drug problems, marital crisis, depression and mental illness, and of course, compulsive shopping or gambling. It isn’t easy to arrive at the point where one’s wages are finally garnished. Many threatening letters, phone calls from creditors, and the like arrive first. A year or two could pass before a court case becomes a garnishment judgement.

Most organizations have considered referring employees with garnishments to the EAP, although historically such referrals were commonplace among core technology EAPs of the past. Breathe new life into your utilization rate. Set a meeting date with human resources and discuss the practice of employees being referred to the EAP as a result of wage garnishments. There are many ways to do it—from a simply mention in a letter, to a more formal management referral. Like any supervisor or management referral, be supportive when making employee wage garnishment referrals to the EAP.

3. Get your organization to refer such employees and you'll get the business and your utilization rate up. Draft a model letter for the employer(s) you serve, justify the rationale, and start getting these referrals.

Improving EAP Orientations

Every effective EAP conducts new employee orientations. It can be your one clean shot at having new employees understand the services you offer because there is no guarantee that you will ever have them as a captured audience again.
You want it to count.

Here are a few tips to improve the referral-pulling power of your employee orientations and make the right impression so your EAP utilization stays high.

Provide a More Detailed List of Problems, Issues, and Concerns
Many EAPs only provide only a brief list of the types problems and concerns their program will address. Typically these are broad categories of problems such as substance abuse, mental health issues and stress, health care concerns, financial or legal concerns, family/personal relationship issues, work relationship issues, concerns about aging parents. They aren’t specific enough. Such broad categories require the employee to consider whether their unique problem fits. Make them think less by offering rich details about what falls into these categories.

There is an important adage in marketing that goes, “Don’t Make Me Think”. It means that if the customer has to figure out what you are trying to say, you’ve lost them.

What’s missing is a more detailed list of problems that would increase the likelihood of an employee spotting the specific issue that troubles them. create 6-7 specific examples for each of these areas of concern, and you will promote your program more effectively. This is pure marketing, and the term is called “message to market match”.

Here’s an example of such a list:

Life management issues----marital and couples conflicts, sexual and intimacy issues, parenting skills, social and relationship issues, financial issues (credit problems, debt collections, loss of income, budgeting, and conflict over money.); legal problems; fear and anxiety over medical conditions; eldercare issues and caregiver stress; loss of a loved one and bereavement/grief issues. Landlord, tenant issues, homelessness or threatened homelessness; relationship conflicts, domestic/partner abuse, and victimization.

Emotional problems and mental health issues----depression, anxiety, medication management issues for psychiatric conditions, eating disorders and compulsive eating, social issues and relationship problems, adult child-parent relationship issues, and parenting concerns over teenagers.

Alcohol and drug-related problems----alcohol-related problems, drug-use problems and drug addiction, family members affected by the drug or alcohol use of another family member, relapse issues or maintaining or re-establishing an abstinence program and/or program of recovery from addiction and codependency; teenage substance abuse.

Job-related problems----getting to work on time, coworker conflicts, issues in working with your supervisor, performance concerns, career counseling, difficulties making decisions, stress, exhaustion, work pressures, being affected by downsizing, pre-retirement planning and related concerns, difficulties of a new position.

Part IV of V: Leverage

Leverage is “part B” of any intervention process. (Influence is part A.) Leverage, however, we discover is frequently not necessary in interventions because the front-end of the intervention where use of influence is dominant, along with the synergist impact of the group presentation, works to motivate the addict to accept help.

Participants breathe a sigh of relief, but nevertheless they were prepared and empowered by their decision to use leverage. (Leverage is something given or taken away from the addict that he or she greatly fears.) Therein lies the power of leverage. Participants know what they will do if the addict does not agree to admission or other treatment option. They act to make treatment non-negotiable in their relationship with the addict. This attitude and willingness to act is crucial to success, and intervention participants must commit to the concept of “non-negotiability” of treatment.

Leverage is used when influence does not work. The participant with the most leverage goes first. Frequently, this is the participant with the closest relationship with the addict, and hence, is historically the greatest enabler.

Often leverage constitutes separation, divorce, removal of children from the relationship, willingness to call the police when the addict drives under the influence, separation from financial means, and other severe measures that the addict greatly fears or finds distasteful.

Leverage has another benefit: It gives the family member relief from the enabling, which causes stress, worry, and continued fear. One family member once said she would call an Army general (the alcoholic’s commanding officer) and notify the general of this drunk behavior when it interfered with work rather than enable him any longer. This was all it took for the admission.

Some spouses obviously "go for it" and are willing to live with exposing the addict for all to see. Once all participants are done presenting their leverage, another discussion takes place to "argue" for the admission. The impact of the leverage is discussed with the addict. (Reality check time.)

Most addicts by this time will go along with admission. There may be some bargaining so the addict feels in control of his or her decision, but if the details are minor like a.m. or p.m, decide if it is worth arguing over. I once made a deal with a 15 year old to enter treatment two days later after an Ozzy Osbourne concert he had planned to attend for six months. Don't ask me why, but after shaking hands and agreeing on it, I believed he would come back two days later. He did.

No person should present leverage that they are not prepared to use. Doing so will harm the intervention severely and it will appear. This is called "buying the addict’s next drunk," because dysfunction increases with no perceived consequences to the continued drinking. And denial is reinforced. This happens with family members torn by guilt or those who have alcohol or drug problems themselves. These persons must be screened out of interventions or re-educated so their beliefs change about addiction and addictive disease treatment. When the addict agrees to the treatment option - action takes place without delay to make it happen.

The Presentation (Part III of V)

Each person in the group presents his or her personal experience with alcoholic or addict explaining two experiences directly related to the use of alcohol/drugs and its effects on their life without blaming the addict (it's the disease and drug affected behavior damaging the person and the relationship.) Natural emotional emotional pain will be experienced and demonstrated. That’s appropriate. I statements must be used. Describing experiences their associated emotional pain in the relationship is key. If any participant is so angry that he or she can’t describe their pain and get vulnerable in front of the alcoholic, more work with that person should be considered, or their participation in the intervention should be questioned. Before describing the negative events above, each person affirms how important and valued their relationship is with the addict or how they want to return to what that value relationship once was.

When describing negative events, the key to success is not focusing on the addict's need for treatment. That comes later. Instead, have family/friends focus their experience and feelings associated with hurt and pain caused by the alcohol-affected behavior or its outcomes.

Participants describe in detail two events and their impact. A key element in interventions in having family members acquire the ability to consider within their stories the difference between what the relationship is like now as a result of the use of alcohol or drugs and what a vividly imagined and described picture of what it can and should be if only person's behavior was not affected by alcohol.

This is powerful. No presenter should discuss another participant's experience or attempt to point out what he or she thinks the alcoholic can’t see or doesn't understand. This triggers the use of defense mechanisms and sets the intervention back. The group’s goal with the serial presentations is to create a phenomenon called synergistic remorse.

Each person's presentation causes the alcoholic to re-experience feelings of remorse or guilt--originally felt at the time an incident originally occurred. These feelings of remorse are often short-lived, but they are a open window into which the group will insert a treatment solution later. The goal is to have the addict begin to feel a sense of urgency and determination to deal with the drinking problem/drug problem in some way he or she thinks might be effective. (Willpower is usually what's being silently considered.)

At the end of the last story, the group moves quickly to request admission to an addiction treatment program knowing that at the end of a series of effective presentations the synergistic remorse effect is in play and peaked. An attempt to bargain by the addict is the usual response, and then an gentle persuasion experience on the part of the group begins.

The group asks and presses the addict to enter a treatment program immediately. Each participant presses for this decision.

The goal is to successfully urge the addict's acceptance of the treatment recommendation and reject effectively ideas offered by the addict that will certainly be minimal and half-measured attempts to abstain. Participants MUST be effective with their language at providing non-agitating and non-provocative responses to the addict's "better idea". The following is a resource (sorry it is not well proofed, but I can't edit these blogs and information very effectively so bare with me folks.)

Try this document I wrote to help my own intervention clients: “Effective Responses to Defensive Statements Made By Addicts in Interventions". I think it does a pretty good job at educating participants with “what to say” and “how to say it” in response to twenty classic objections addicts use interventions. Language is disease model based and I think you will get the point of why it is effective to marshal support and confidence in family members prior to an intervention.

Family Empowerment Model Intervention: Part II of V

Part II of IV (See first installment of this article a couple days back)

Family Empowerment: Instruction in the Leverage and Use of Influence.

After instruction in the disease orientation to addiction, participants in
intervention training should be instructed in understanding the use of
influence in the interventions.

Influence is the value or inherent worth that can be subjectively assigned to the relationship a family member or friend has with the addict. All attendees in the intervention should have some influence.

Negative influence equates to provocative relationships of any kind,
including drinking buddies, etc. Such persons should not participate.

Obviously the amount of influence will vary among participants with some, say
a close friend, having a lot, and others say, a cousin or neighbor having
less.

One member of the group must accept responsibility for being
the leader of the intervention group. This person's responsibility is to start the
intervention meeting when it occurs and guide the structure since there
will be no "professional intervention consultant” present.

All members of the group must adhere to strict communication boundaries between training
and the day of the actual intervention. Addicts (as a result of the
disease) become hyper-vigilant and will easily detect subtle mood
differences or behaviors of participants that can tip off to the plan for an
intervention.

The structure of any Family Empowerment Model
intervention includes: Introduction, Use of Influence, Pushing for
Admission, Use of Leverage, Pushing for Admission (second try),
Conclusion, the Admission, and Next Step for a Refusal Outcome.

Eighty percent of interventions that I have arranged never had to use leverage,
but it is critical for it to be present in case it is needed. Leverage
provides intervention teams with psychological power and confidence, which
can be felt by the addict intuitively.

This is the value of leverage. Leverage is something given or taken away from the addict that he or she greatly fears. Next, the group should discuss where they intend to meet the
addict for the intervention.

The group should approach the intervention when the addict is most likely to be least affected by toxcity. Morning hours are frequently better than evenings, for instance, but there is no
hard and fast rule to this step.

Discussion will produce the best time and place. The group must buy into making treatment nonnegotiable. This concept refers the absolute belief by the participants that treatment is necessary to save a life and that the status quo with the practicing addict will never
return unless they fail in their determination for change. Any other type of relationship enables the addict to get sicker.

Until the addict is in treatment, the only practical relationship with the addict is the one that facilitates admission to a treatment program as soon as possible. This is particularly true if the intervention is not successful at its conclusion.

Such an understanding will maintain a state of inertia necessary to act at the next opportunity or incidental crisis associated with the drinking or drug use. This is a key point, because such a crisis will come. It is only a matter of time. When this happens, the group will act to encourage admission and will probably be successful.

This is how virtually all interventions successfully occur not led by a professional become successful. A quick attempt to directly facilitate admission will succeed eventually.

Starting an intervention is always a bit difficult, but a plan should be in place for precisely how it is done, and it should practiced. The leader starts by saying something to the effect that "we are all here because there is something very important that we have to tell you. We need you to hear it. This is very personal for each of us and each of us has something we need to say.

There are obviously many variations on this wording. A fair guess, however is that 95% of addicts will cooperate with the intervention at this point. Few guess what is happening and get up and leave. But there is plan in place in the event that happens.

Participants should rehearse their presentation at least twice. Until the day of the intervention, it is important that participants “carry on as usual” and not “alter suspiciously” their relationship with the addict. A crisis caused by drinking or drug using behavior, however, pushes the intervention date forward to NOW.

Prior to the intervention, participants must make preparations for the following: admission after the intervention (or outpatient intake, or evaluation, etc. You can help them decide which is
best.); logistical considerations that could cause the addict to back out -- money, job issues, pets, vacations, bills, child-care, etc. All bases must be covered.

The intervention begins by the leader talking first. Every participant will talk using the following rules: (1) Avoid blaming; (2) Speak only about your own experience; (3) Do not refer to other people in the group; (4) Avoid shaming; (5) Avoid using the terms "you should"
"can't you see what you've done" or other language that moves away from the participants "first-person account of their personal experience associated with the addict's behavior.

The group is also instructed in the "sandwich technique". The sandwiching technique is an interviewing manuever designed to confront a person with negative facts associated with their
problem while blunting the impact with positive statements that validate the person's worth.
In interventions, this means validating how important or how loved the addict
is by each person.

Each person rotates through the confrontation presentation and speaks about their personal experience with the addict. (Next, blog note, I will discuss the outline of this presentation.)

How Complicated Can You Make a Supervisor Referral...Let Me Count the Ways

I have absolute faith in the future of the EAP profession because a great idea will always carry it's weight and move forward, so don't take the following the wrong way. I thought I would just have some fun with creative writing this morning. =======================================

Hey, why is the EAP field and its processes so confusing after over 30 years of being an established and legitimate occupational pursuit?

Answer: A lack of detailed and enforced standards and sanctions for misapplied EAP core technology priniciples that hurt employees, cause loss of jobs, and dismantle the EAP profession. I am convinced, anyone can call anything they want an EAP and recognized associations, even if you are a member of them, won't give a hootily. Just pay your dues on time.

When I get the inkling to discuss this topic, I only have to Google a specific term and up pops a great example of what I am talking about.

Here's today's wonderful (not) illustration. Here is how one HR benefits firm with an "EAP product" discusses their procedure for making what they call a "SUPERVISOR REFERRAL TO THE EAP":

STEP 1: HR (not the supervisor!) calls _________EAP to discuss the purpose for the referral and requests a blank Supervisory Referral Form if needed.

STEP 2: HR and employee discuss Job Performance Problem and determine deadline by which employee must contact ____________EAP and have an initial EAP assessment. Supervisory Referral Form is then signed by both the employee and HR/Supervisory Representative

STEP 3: Supervisory Referral Form is faxed to ______EAP attn: Clinical Manager

STEP 4: Employee calls ________EAP intake operator and requests a referral to a provider

STEP 5: Employee calls provider and schedules an appointment as per agreement

STEP 6: ________EAP Clinical Manager contacts provider and HR/Supervisor to begin the process of mediation between the provider and HR regarding the employee’s treatment plan and progress.

I don't know if you were counting, but there are a total of 8 humans involved in this referral not counting the employee. If you missed the person who is assigned to email or fax the supervisor form, you're simply not on your toes.

How many supervisor referrals to you think this provider receives as a percentage of total referrals to the EAP during the year?

True confession: I worked for a company for 11 months in 1995 (I won't mention the name here, but you can visit my resume to find out.) and they had an almost identical process. That organization's supervisor referrals were close to ZERO!

A supervisor referral is a simple thing. And, it's powerful. But add in bureaucratic hoops and fire rings to create a circus and your utilization rate will flop. Worse still, behavioral risk with the folks that might go "postal" or have other problems that cause financial loss will increase.

Here is what a supervisor referral is (I am going to be a little cynical and expansive in this paragraph to emphasize my point.)

STEP 1: A supervisor referral simply uses the application of authority or leverage of job security to motivate a troubled employee to accept the exciting opportunity to be accommodated and assisted by the EAP to get help for a possible personal problem in lieu of the possibility or immediately pending disciplinary action for documented job performance or conduct problems.

STEP 2: The EAP is notified, preferably, but it won't and can't interfere with the supervisor referral and the employee's responsibility to act. Documentation is given to the employee and the EAP, and a release is requested to be signed by the employee to verify participation and cooperation with whatever is going on at the EAP.

A release is essential to good EAP work, but what if you can't get it? Remember, EAPs are voluntary. Well, answer: It isn't needed or necessary if the employee doesn't want to verify attendance and cooperation (which can easily be explained by the EAP or the supervisor as not a smart choice.) Verifying attendance and cooperation is to the employee's benefit. No organization is handicapped without a release.

That's the sum and substance of a supervisor referral. One human involved, plus the employee being referred will make it work beautifully with an EA professional at the other end.

The key is making the employee responsible for change and accountable for change. Supervisor follow-up is key. A breakdown in communication and bureaucratic snarling in supervisor referral process translates to an erosion of the employee's perception of accountability for change.