Brent Trzaskos Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York
Human resource practitioners and I/O psychologists have at their disposal a host of personnel assessment techniques. For example, traditional predictive measures used to screen job applicants have included the use of application blanks, job interviews and psychometric measures of personality and cognitive ability. For the most part these instruments attempt to predict an applicant�s potential for success by estimating her current level of functioning on some psychological construct that is believed to be related to job performance. Recently, however, personnel professionals have added a unique assessment technique to their arsenal. Unlike traditional predictive measures of job performance- mental and motor functioning and personality attributes- drug testing attempts to evaluate candidates by chemically screening their urine for mind-altering substances. By collecting urine samples from job applicants and performing chemical tests on them, employers are able tell whether or not these individuals have illegal substances in their blood streams (Muchinsky, 1997). While a negative result on a drug test certainly does not predict a high level of job performance, those applicants who test positive for drugs are generally viewed as less than desirable. Such tests have been shown to be highly reliably; more reliable in fact than most traditional measures used by psychologists. The validity of such measures, however, has been questioned. The issue of drug test validity will be discussed later in this review. The use of drug screening procedures is not limited to job applicants; and it is not uncommon for organizations to regularly test their current employees for the use of illegal substances. Much of the research conducted on employee drug testing focuses on the impact that such policies have on the attitudes and behaviors of individuals currently employed with the organization. Issues surrounding drug testing and current employees will be covered at length.
The impact of illegal drug use has had a profound impact on all aspects of our society, and the workplace is no exception. Clearly it is in the best interest of employers to keep drugs from becoming a part of organizational life. It has been shown that illicit drug use can have serious negative implications on indictors of organizational perform-ance. For example, Normand, Salyards and Mahoney (1990) found that employees who tested positive for drug use were more likely to be absent from work and were more likely be terminated from their jobs than their non-drug using counterparts. The economic impact of employee drug use can be profound.
In this review I will discuss the impact that drugs and drug testing policies have on organizations and the controversy and legal ramifications for adopting drug-free workplace initiatives. The focus of this review, however, will be on employee attitudes towards organizational drug testing policies and the attempts made by psychologists to develop a valid framework for investigating employee reactions to drug testing. Specifically, the theory of organizational justice will be discussed as a taxonomy for studying workplace drug testing. Results from a 1989 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicate that 32% for those between the ages of 18 and 25 had used illegal drugs within the last year (Staff, 1989). This is a startling statistic considering that it is this demographic that accounts for most new entries into the labor force. Other attempts to determine the effects of employee drug use on organizations have focused on its economic impact. As early as 1985 some estimates indicated that employee drug use resulted in a $25 billion annual in loss in employee productivity (Susser, 1985). Other estimates have placed the figure closer to $60 billion (�You Can Pass�, 1986). For the most part these losses are attributable to employee turnover and absenteeism, increased accident rates and decreased job performance.
In the largest study of its kind, Normand, Salyards and Mahoney (1990) conducted a blind longitudinal investigation into the relationship between employee drug use and traditional indicators of organizational productivity. The authors set out to determine the impact that drug use has on employee absenteeism, involuntary turnover, injuries and accidents. The results confirmed speculation that drug use adversely impacts productivity. Of the 5,465 U.S. Postal Service applicants tested for illicit drug use, approximately 80% (4,396) were eventually hired and subsequently made up the sample for this study. These applicants were hired after meeting or exceeding standards set forth by the Postal Service�s preemployment evaluation process; and results of the drug screening were not a factor in the decision of whether or not to offer an applicant a job. Nine percent of those who gained employment tested positive for illegal drug use. Of this group, 68% tested positive for marijuana and 23% tested positive for cocaine. Nine percent of those hired tested positive for at least one of the other drugs included in the urinalysis. After an average of 1.3 years of employment, those who tested positive and those who tested negative were compared on a number of outcome measures. Across all measures included in this study, those who initially returned positive test results were associated with higher rates of involuntary separation and increased absenteeism. The study failed to conclude that there is a significant relationship between drug test results and the occurrence of employee injury or accident.
Not only are positive drug test results associated with the outcome measures of absenteeism and turnover but they clearly have a substantial impact on overall organizational productivity. Employees testing positive for illicit drug use had an involuntary turnover rate 47% higher than those who tested negative. Measures of absenteeism indicate similar significant findings. Employees who tested positive had a 59% higher rate of absenteeism than those who returned negative results.
While it is impossible to precisely calculate the economic affect that employee drug use has on organizations, it is estimated that the Postal Service could save $4 million in the first year alone with the implementation of a sound drug-testing program. Long-term savings estimates place the figure somewhere in the neighborhood of $52 million from the prevention of drug-related absenteeism and turnover.
As an attempt to alleviate the negative impact that drugs have been shown to have in the workplace, organizations are increasingly turning to the use of urinalysis as a deterrent for drug use. In fact, a 1989 survey revealed that 50% of all medium and large corporations now have in place some form of drug testing policy. And it appears that the larger the organization, the more likely it is to have adopted a drug-testing program (Normand, Salyards and Mahoney, 1989). It should come as no surprise that accompanying the increased use of workplace drug testing is heightened criticism on the part of those who view these practices as illegal invasions of employee privacy. Many argue that organizational drug testing constitutes a violation of employee rights. The efforts of those in opposition to these policies have been successful in prompting many states to draft and adopt legislation that restricts the use employee drug testing. Nonetheless, it is still legally permissible for companies to screen their employees for the use of controlled substances. In reaction to the heightened concern over employee drug use and increased use of organizational measures to lessen its impact, many researchers have begun to investigate the psychological effects that drug-testing policies have on the firms that enact them. To date, however, little empirically research has been conducted to investigate employee attitudes and reactions toward workplace drug testing. Furthermore, the scarce literature that does presently exist in this area has largely been the result of investigations conducted without a conceptual framework or theory. This has lead to �unsystematic examinations� of employee reactions to organizational drug screening measures (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991). Recently, however, steps have been taken to remedy investigative roadblock.
The theory of organizational justice has been one widely recommended framework for examining the effects of employee drug testing policies. According to Muchinsky (1997), organizational justice is a more limited application of social justice. Of specific concern to those who study organizational justice is the fair and equal treatment of people in organizations. Justice is an important concern when organizations make decisions or engage in actions that have potentially different costs and benefits to different people or groups. Issues of justice tend to surface when individual�s expectations of fairness are violated. All issues of justice are in some way related to the activities of organizations. These activities can be broken into three categories.
The first activity is the creation of policies that impact organizational life. The creation of rules and policies requires some consideration for the unique interests of several different groups. Certainly different policies will impact some groups in different ways. This will inevitably lead to different perceptions of fairness.
Once a company establishes a policy, it must be enacted. Therefor, the second activity that involves organizational justice is the application of those policies. By establishing and applying a policy or rule, an organization is increasing the likelihood of helping or harming different groups. The third activity that frequently raises concern over organizational justice surrounds the interpretation of rules and policies. After a policy is established and implemented, disagreements may surface about the original meaning or intentions of that policy. The resolution of these disputes will lead to different perceptions of organizational justice (Sheppard, Lewicki and Minton, 1992).
It is clear to see how drug testing initiatives fit nicely into this very broad framework of organizational justice but it necessary to further define the theory in order to make its application more useful to the issue of employee drug testing. Organizational justice is viewed from two major perspectives, distributive justice, which is concerned with outcomes, and procedural justice, which focuses on the fairness of the means taken to achieve those outcomes (Muchinsky, 1997). Research on organizational drug testing policy has examined both sides of justice theory. As noted, distributive justice refers to the fairness of results. In order to form some opinion on justice, an individual must have a pre-established standard for what he perceives as fair and just. These standards are referred to as values. Injustice can occur anytime that a person believes his values have been violated. These violations involve the issues of equity, equality and need. An equity violation occurs when there is inconsistency between rewards and contributions. Equality violations surface when individuals differ in their opportunity for receiving the desired outcome. And need violations occur anytime that rewards are distributed without consideration for individual needs.
The second perspective on organizational justice is procedural justice. According to Greenberg (1990), procedural justice involves two components, the structure of the decision and an interpersonal component. The first element sees justice as a function of the degree to which procedural rules have been followed or violated. Perceptions of justice will be affected to a greater or lesser extent as these rules are satisfied or violated. The interpersonal component or procedural justice refers to the opportunity that those affected by the decision have the voice their opinions and influence the outcome. Perceptions of justice will be more likely as the individual�s role in the decision-making process is increased. Conversely, injustice will be perceived as an individual�s opportunity to affect the outcome is decreased.
As organizations increasingly establish drug-testing policies, researchers have begun to conduct investigations into the impact that these policies have on the psychology of those who work inside the organization. While much of this research has been conducted without a guiding framework, it is clear that the theory of organizational justice can facilitate understanding of the impact of drug-fee work place policies.
Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) were among the first researchers to investigate workplace drug-testing within an organizational justice framework. They examined the relationships between procedural justice and outcome fairness perceptions and employee reactions to organizational drug-testing policies. The results of their investigation supported the theory that perceptions of procedural justice within the drug-testing context impact employee loyalty and long-term expectations. Specifically, employees who view their company�s drug-testing policies as procedural just tend to report a stronger emotional commitment to the organization for which they work. Furthermore, perceptions of procedural justice were linked to increased job satisfaction and job performance and to decreased turnover intentions. These last two results are of particular importance because they add much needed empirical evidence of the link between justice and employee behavior. Support for the justice-behavior link fuels the argument that organizations should enact drug-testing policies in accordance with employee perceptions of procedural justice or risk negative implications to productivity.
Another investigation into the relationship between workplace drug-testing and employee reactions was conducted to assess employee attitudes toward the drug-testing policy itself, not the organization responsible for establishing it. Stone and Kotch (1989) examined the implications of giving advanced notice of drug tests to employees. They found employee attitudes to be more negative towards the policy when drug-testing was conducted without giving advanced notice of the urinalysis. Regression analysis revealed that employees viewed a policy more favorably when advanced notice had been provided.
The authors of this study also investigated the relationship between employee attitudes and the consequences of detected drug use. When illegal drug use is discovered in an employee, an organization is faced few options. Generally speaking, the firm can choose to terminate the employee or require him to participate in a rehabilitation program. It was hypothesized that the organization�s policy for discovered drug use would have implications on attitudes toward the drug-testing initiative. Specifically, it was found that a policy of rehabilitation, as opposed to termination, as the consequence of discovered drug use was associated with more favorable attitudes.
Motivated in part by this finding, Tepper (1994) examined the interaction between the perceived danger associated with impaired job performance and employee perceptions of procedural and distributive justice regarding the consequences of positive drug test results. Tepper (1994) found that perceptions of fairness toward punitive consequences of drug detection are greater when danger is associated with impaired job performance resulting from drug use. The second part of this investigation looked at jobs in which less danger is typically associated with impaired job perform-ance. Examples of these jobs include accountant, computer programmer, reporter and retail salesperson. Results indicate that perceptions of fairness are the product of the interaction between the danger associated with impaired performance and the punitive nature of drug detection consequences. Perceptions of fairness varied as a function of the occupation, with low danger jobs being associated with injustice when the consequences of drug use was punitive (i.e.- results in termination). Perceptions of distributive justice increased as consequences moved from the termination condition to the rehabilitation condition across all low danger occupations.
Additional support for the finding that job characteristics can partially account for ratings of acceptability of drug testing programs was provided by Murphy, Thornton and Prue (1991) who showed perceptions of danger to be the single best indicator of the acceptability of drug testing programs. While must found it permissible to screen airline pilots for illegal drugs, the testing of janitors was rated as the least acceptable.
The establishment of a drug testing program not only has an affect of the attitudes toward the organization of current employees but also can impact perceptions of those considering applying for employment. Crant and Bateman (1990) studied the affect that the presence of a drug-testing program can have on potential job applicants and found that attitudes and subsequently, intentions to apply for employment, are the function of subjective norms. Subjective norms spring forth for the theory of reasoned action, first proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Subjective norms state that within a social context, a person�s affective responses and behaviors are influenced by his perceptions of what he believes others think he should do. Relating this to employee drug-testing, the authors proposed that there would be an interaction between the presence or absence of a drug-testing policy and one�s subjective norms. This interaction was found to be significant. Specifically, when subjective norms are negative towards companies who have established drug-testing procedures, intentions to apply to those companies are weaker. The reverse was also found. Subjective norms that indicate favor for companies who screen applicants for drugs resulted in more positive intentions and attitudes. This lead to the conclusion that, �Statements by influential persons about a specific organization, as well as about drug-testing policies in general, may significantly affect the potential applicant�s perceptions of, attitudes toward, and intentions to apply to an organization (p. 130).�
More general findings from this study indicate that individuals tend to have greater approval for organizations that do not have employee drug testing policies. This finding may be interpreted by drawing a link between drug testing and employee anxiety, feelings of mistrust, invasion of privacy issues and concern over the potential effect that invalid test results may have. Organizations that have not adopted a drug-free workplace initiative are immune to these responses and therefor tend to receive more positive approval ratings.
While the psychological impact of employee drug-testing policies can be profound; and it seems fair to conclude that organizations benefit from sound drug testing programs, another concern still must be addressed. The legality of workplace drug testing has been questioned by many its opponents. Critics of these programs argue that testing employees for the use of illegal drugs is in violation of Constitutional rights to privacy. They contend that requiring an employee to submit to a drug test violates the self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure statutes set forth in the Constitution. However, it appears that for now these arguments have fallen on deaf ears as employee drug testing not only remains legal, but also is increasingly becoming an accepted part of organizational life. Although a comprehensive review of the legal aspects of employee drug testing is outside the scope of this paper, it should be made clear that states have enacted legislation to govern employer use of drug testing. These laws, however, do not severely limit the use of drug-testing and consequently many firms have chosen to adopt drug testing policies.
In conclusion, the establishment of a sound drug testing policy has a positive impact on organizational productivity. However, attention must be paid to employees� psychological reactions to the procedural fairness of these policies if organizations are to avoid the negative psychological implications associated with some drug testing initiatives.
References
Crant, J.M. & Bateman, T.S. (1990). An Experimental Test of the Impact of Drug-Testing Programs on Potential Job Applicants� Attitudes and Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 127-131.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Konovsky, M.A. & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 689-707.
Murphy, K.R., Thornton III, G.C., Prue, K. (1991). Influence of Job Characteristics on the Acceptability of Employee Drug Testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 447-453.
Muchinsky, P.M. (1997). Psychology Applied to Work (5th ed.) Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
Normand, J., Salyards, S.D. & Mahoney, J.J. (1990). An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 629-639.
Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. & Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
Stone, D.L & Kotch, D.A. (1989). Individuals� Attitudes Toward Organizational Drug Testing Policies and Practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 518-521.
Susser, P.A. (1985). Legal Issues Raised by Drugs in the Workplace. Labor Law Journal, 36, 42-54.
Tepper, B.J. (1994). Investigation of General and Program specific Attitudes Toward Corporate Drug Testing Policies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 392-401.
