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. Allegedly, an employee directed to the EAP a year ago who was treated for a severe cannabis addiction is now drinking. Alcohol abstinence was part of his post-discharge treatment plan. Job performance remains satisfactory, so I have not taken any action. What is the guidance for this scenario?
A. Your primary concerns should remain attendance, behavior, conduct, and the quality of work, but this does not preclude your contacting the EAP to share your concerns. Your confronting the employee would not be proper and would likely be ineffective. Although you do not need a signed consent for the release of confidential information to speak with the EAP, the reverse is not true. The EAP may or may not be aware of the issues you describe, an older release may have expired, or other issues may exist associated with your employee’s treatment or the EAP’s management of the case. There are obviously a lot of possibilities; however, you can rely on the EAP to make the best decision about how it should proceed. Note that you will likely not have the privilege of learning what the EAP decides. Some supervisors find these unknowns to be frustrating, but the easy answer is to focus on performance, Hence, the advice is to focus on performance, standards, work rules, and guidance from HR as needed.
Q. Will the EAP give me advice on the management of an employee’s performance, specifically the type of discipline that would be appropriate, given the worker’s temperament, psychiatric issues, or other considerations?
A. The EAP is a resource for the organization’s employees and management, but it will not provide guidance on how you should proceed regarding performance management and disciplinary matters specific to an employee. This is beyond the scope of what an employee assistance program does or was designed to do. Turn to your manager or HR advisor regarding this sort of guidance. Supervisors are primarily accountable for the performance and conduct of their employees. Supervisors must exercise leadership and judgment in determining appropriate disciplinary measures based on their knowledge of the situation and organizational policies. Furthermore, HR advisors are professionals who can advise on actions that comply with legal and regulatory requirements, such as labor laws, employment contracts, and union agreements. EAPs cannot comment authoritatively on these matters, and trust in the program would be seriously undermined if any legal issues or considerations were overlooked and the organization faced potential liability as a result.
Q. I suggested my employee visit the EAP for a personal issue. She’s a competent worker but could likely improve. I didn’t request feedback from the EAP because I don’t think the issue is serious. Is this considered a supervisory referral or a self-referral?
A. From the EAP’s perspective, this would be treated as a self-referral, but if the employee-client mentions your role, it may be considered an “informal supervisor referral.” Not all EAPs recognize informal supervisor referrals, but it can be important to an organization to know that supervisors are proactive in referring employees to any degree. This helps establish program value. The assumption is that a supervisor who prompts a referral formally value. The assumption is that a supervisor who prompts a referral formally or informally often is identifying employees who are less likely to self-refer. Some severely troubled employees may not self-refer because of denial that they have a problem, stigma, or fear of what may be entailed with appropriate treatment. These roadblocks can lead to greater risk for the organization. When making an informal referral for an employee, consider contacting the EAP to mention your role. The EAP may decide later that there is a good reason to have the employee sign a release enabling limited information to be provided to you that will be beneficial to the employee’s care.
Q. Employees are often defensive when confronted about their conduct and performance issues. Please offer tips on helping reduce the likelihood of this defensiveness in a constructive confrontation.
A. A “constructive confrontation” or corrective interview is undermined if the employee is not receptive and cooperative. The supervisor has a key role insetting the tone for such meetings so they are not conflict-laden. 1) Make sure you can clearly describe what performance is not acceptable. Plan, because a vague or awkward description of the performance complaint will become a prompt for defensiveness. 2) Have your meeting in a private place. 3) Set enough time to relay your comments and for the employee to respond. 4) Seek confirmation that the employee understands your concerns. 5) Avoid any focus on personality style, which can be difficult if you have experienced much frustration. 6)Maintain a constructive tone. Stay calm. 7) Seek cooperation, not confrontation, by remembering that your goal is to improve the employee’s performance. A good approach is to “team” with the employee to resolve the problem and end on a positive note because both of you have the same goal.
Q. When making a supervisor referral to the EAP, is it helpful to have the employee take a copy of the performance issues upon which the EAP referral is based, even if I have consulted with the EAP by phone and separately with the employee?
A. Yes, nothing beats this sort of clear communication. Be sure the EAP anticipates the written information to arrive with the employee, even if you have spoken to both parties separately and provided each with the same information. Failure to have this information in writing will make it easier for the employee to claim that the supervisor has not justified the performance complaints or that there is a difference in understanding regarding the details of the performance issues. This conflict or confusion would naturally reduce cooperation with the EAP and its recommendations or make them more difficult to determine. If the employee arrives for an assessment and recognizes confusion or inconsistency in communications, the EAP assessment and its effectiveness are typically more difficult.
Q. How do I motivate an employee to give more to the work unit? He has been with us 17 years, and I think he has gotten used to a simple satisfactory level of performance. However, I think it is below his true potential. He’d probably put up a lot of resistance to change.
A. Encouraging an employee to demonstrate more motivation and initiative can b a delicate task, but it is the primary role for any supervisor, so knowing what works and what’s “state of the art” is essential. In other words, don’t reinvent the wheel. Start with a candid conversation. Failing to help employees improve usually starts when you miss this step. Discuss performance and potential and rely on your observations and belief in his capabilities. Dive into this topic. Link these things to his aspirations and goals. He almost assuredly has some, or at least imagines a few despite his non-action; this is true for almost everyone, despite their non-action. Draw these out. State your expectations in a positive way and what you believe success for him looks like, but also point out opportunities for growth and advancement. Get agreement on a few changes and begin. Offer feedback frequently, recognize improvements, and offer training and new learning experiences to complement his development of new skills and knowledge.
Q. After a small truck accident, my employee admitted to smoking pot before I asked. He also shared a bunch of personal problems affecting him, so I made an EAP referral instead of testing him. I felt we were past the need for a test because of his honesty. Was this a mistake?
A. You should act on the requirements of the drug testing policy, which would necessarily include a referral to the EAP or other appropriate administrative action. Many safety and risk issues come with your decision, which include not knowing if other substances are involved, the inability to do follow-up testing, risk of public and associated legal jeopardy, and lack of leverage linked to job security that naturally creates greater urgency to remain inappropriate treatment if recommended by the EAP. The most common reasons supervisors ignore drug testing policies are to avoid straining the relationship with the employee, losing a worker and downtime, related scheduling problems, administrative/HR requirements, a fear that the supervisor will be perceived as hostile, and conflicts with labor representatives.
Q. I’ve been working in the restaurant industry for 35 years. It has a late-night “after-work drinks ”culture, but after one employee’s auto accident on the way home, I have decided not to attend these sessions. Should I encourage others to stop this practice, despite negative effects on morale?
A. It would be appropriate not to attend these after-work drinking sessions. Perhaps ironically, an after-work drinks culture can create social pressure to participate in drinking activities, potentially excluding individuals who choose not to drink or even those in recovery from alcohol addiction. As a result, these drinking occasions can contribute to feel employers and held them liable for alcohol-related incidents or accidents that occur during or after work-related gatherings. Meet with your on employers and held them liable for alcohol-related incidents or accidents that occur during or after work-related gatherings. Meet with your employees to see if there is another venue for after-work socializing with less risk to you and the organization. You’ll find hundreds of ideas with a simple Google search.
Example:https://www.inhersight.com/blog/insight-commentary/after-hours-networking-and-company-events-arent
Q. Is it appropriate for a supervisor to tell an employee “You must go to the EAP because of your job problems, issue, or circumstances”?
A. One of the core tenets of EAPs is that they are voluntary. You risk reducing the attractiveness of an EAP to the work population when this wording is used and then misinterpreted by the employee to mean that it is involuntary. Many employees under duress may describe their experience in unfavorable terms if they feel coerced to participate in the EAP. An EAP functions as a “program of attraction.” To protect this dynamic, reduce risk, and safeguard its value, it is better to say “I [or we] are required to make a formal referral to the EAP because of the circumstances...” Your referral in this context is more likely to be viewed as voluntary or as an accommodation in the event a personal problem is affecting work performance or conduct. Doing so will not preclude any necessary action if the employee decides not to accept an offer of help. In the same regard, always view referral to the EAP as a positive and constructive opportunity, not a punishment, along with an attitude that reflects this fact.
Q. I’ve noticed over the years that employees who are more likeable as people tend to get more positive performance evaluations. I think many supervisors are not aware of their lack of objectivity in evaluating the performance of people they like. Why does this happen?
A. a person in one area (i.e., liked for being charismatic and jovial) leads to an overall positive perception of that person. In the workplace, an employee who fits the above description might get a higher performance evaluation than they deserve because the halo effect influences how the supervisor perceive sand evaluates the employee. The risk of being unaware of this dynamic is that the supervisor will be accused of playing favorites, not giving enough feedback, or overlooking errors. Even worse, this can affect performance and pay raises that appear discriminatory. The solution is to use objective criteria for evaluations and, more importantly, to conduct them regularly because not doing so can lead to biases and potentially to risks of the halo effect.
