The Literature Review
The literature review will first explain how organizations justify the need to conduct drug and alcohol screening on their employees. The analysis of this justification will be summarized, noting that this practice indeed affects an organization’s performance. The impact can either be positive or negative. Next, the implications will be discussed further. The paper will then recommend whether this practice should be continued, modified, or obliterated.
Before a summary of the literature is conducted, it is imperative to highlight that drug and alcohol screening can be performed at different levels during an employee’s time spent with the company. It can either be pre or post-employment. Pre-employment drug screening is a prerequisite to employment for many organizations. Buirse (2020) explains that companies utilize this practice to determine whether a potential hire is a drug addict or an abuser of prescription medicines. The screening is intended to guarantee that the right fit, not only in terms of academic and experience qualification is chosen, but a sober hire as well. On the other hand, as the name suggests, post-employment drug testing is conducted by companies on their employees sporadically.
Despite the persistent contradictory opinions on whether it is acceptable for organizations to conduct drug testing and screening on their employees or not, a common ground agreed by all stakeholders involved is that substance abuse has the potential to affect an organization’s performance damagingly. Drug and alcohol abuse has been and continues to be directly associated with negative occurrences in the workplace, such as fights and misunderstandings among employees. Also, drug and alcohol abuse reduces an employee’s performance capacity in terms of quality of service delivered. They are unable to concentrate during working hours as they are perhaps nursing a hangover. Consequently, this will inevitably affect the company’s performance as well as reduce their revenue generation aptitude.
Continued drug and alcohol abuse by employees, will, in the long run, result in massive losses for the organization. Hernandez (2009) expounds that employees’ substance abuse is projected to cost the company $100 billion annually in the United States. This projection incorporates losses incurred due to late submission or completion of assignments and missed work shifts. Furthermore, workers’ substance abuse results in psychosocial fatalities for the organization in terms of discomfort and anguish regarding their reputation. This situation forms the basis of the arguments presented by organizations why it is necessary for the HRM department to undertake drug and alcohol testing and screening of their employees. Notably, such tests have been documented to impact an organization’s performance. The literature review of the impacts of drug testing will give a brief history of this practice in the United States and the ethical and legal issues surrounding the screening. The issues raised are by employees and others who are against the practice.
2.1 The history of drug and alcohol screening in the US
Drug testing and screening of the American workforce became common in the 1960s (Brewis, Sanderson & Wray-Bliss, 2006). Among other reasons, drug screening among employees became a necessity in the US, owing to the rising number of fatalities in workplaces. Olbina, Hinze, & Arduengo (2011) explain that safety concerns among managers prompted the implementation of drug tests and screening. Workers coming to work under the influence were at a higher risk of injuring themselves and their workmates while destroying the organization’s property. The workers would then move to court seeking compensation. This situation results in losses for the companies, and as Hernandez (2009) found, these losses amount to $100 billion annually. Other reasons alluding to drug and alcohol screening include reducing risks associated and consequences of a “drunk” workforce and maintaining high performance and productivity among the workers. Since its inception and implementation in the 1960s, drug and alcohol screening gained popularity in many organizations as a fundamental, if not a mandatory exercise.
Nonetheless, there have been dissenting voices that interrogate the constitutionality of this practice citing it is an infringement of the workers’ privacy, which is enshrined in the constitution. The then incumbent, President Ronald Reagan, was in support of the drug-free workplace ideology. To support the efforts directed towards attaining this goal, he signed an executive order (Woods, Johanson & Sciarini, 2012). The executive order was a policy that prohibited illegal drug use in the workplace and promoted drug users’ identification. It also allowed organizations to initiate programs to assist employees who were affected by drug use. President Reagan’s executive order stated that all safety-sensitive, executive-level, and civil service federal employees needed to undergo drug testing and screening (Woods, Johanson & Sciarini, 2012). Consequently, this executive order caused a spike in the number of drug tests conducted across different companies in the United States. The tests were aimed at ensuring that the workers were not abusing any drugs or prescription medicines.
In 1988, the drug-free workplace Act was enacted (Brewis, Sanderson & Wray-Bliss, 2006). According to this Act, drug and alcohol testing screening are not mandatory among employees. Still, employers are charged with the mandate of ensuring that some policies and regulations forbid the use of illegal drugs in the workplace and promote a healthy conducive working environment for all workers (Woods, Johanson & Sciarini, 2012). From 1988, the successors of President Ronald Reagan have continued to fuel his efforts to promote a drug-free workforce in the United States. These efforts are complemented by managers who instill strict measures that discourage drug abuse among their workforce. Such measures include demotions, warnings, and in extreme cases, complete termination of services.
2.2 The current situation of drug and alcohol screening
Drug and alcohol testing and screening have not been explicitly explained in the constitution; hence, different states across America have differing opinions regarding these issues. However, it is essential to note that courts support this practice citing that employers can ensure their property is not being mismanaged or misused by workers (Cholakis & Bruce 2007). Also, by extension, organizations, and employers have the right to demand quality performance and productivity from their workers as they are well compensated for their labor. Cholakis & Bruce (2007) continue to explain that even though courts acknowledge the organizations’ rights, it states that the organizations should conduct the screening and tests ethically and adequately. The courts further instruct that the results should not be used in a discriminatory manner against the workers.
2.3 Methods of drug and alcohol testing
Different methods can be utilized to tests and screen for drug and alcohol abuse. Urine analysis is the most preferred and used screening method in the US (Cholakis & Bruce (2007). Urine analysis requires the employee to provide a sample of their urine, which is then subjected to screening for drugs like alcohol, marijuana, etc. Hair analysis is the second most commonly used testing approach. Olbina, Hinze, & Arduengo (2011) argue that this method is preferred as it is less embarrassing for the employee and provides accurate results because the sample cannot be corrupted. Other methods used include saliva analysis and blood and sweat specimen testing.
2.4 The impact of drug screening on the organization’s performance
Drug and alcohol screening has been positively embraced in some organizations as employees view this approach as a technique that boosts accountability and promotes ethical behavior. Nonetheless, drug screening has caused an uproar from some workers and human rights activists questioning its legality and moral prowess. The better part of the workforce in the United States have a negative attitude and perception towards drug and alcohol screening because as Beaudry (2020) explains, the latter is perceived as an intrusion into their private life, which is acknowledged and protected as a fundamental right in the United States Constitution. Therefore, in light of this information, the HRM’s drug and alcohol screening can affect an organization’s performance destructively or progressively.
2.5 How drug and alcohol screening impacts an organization’s performance damagingly
Today, there is no shortage of literature that proves the disdain many employees have towards drug and alcohol screening. While organizations view this practice as a preventive and corrective measure, workers believe that this technique is intended to spy on their privacy. Brewis, Sanderson & Wray-Bliss (2006) elucidate that workers view this practice as biological surveillance with little to do with performance and much more with intimidating employees into following the organization blindly. Any attempt to ask questions, complain or raise suggestions is daunted by threats of being fired or demoted using their drug tests as grounds for their termination.
Consequently, this situation creates bad blood between the workers and the management. The morale of employees is significantly affected, resulting in reduced performance. The benefits of a motivated workforce cannot be further stressed. A research study conducted by Ali, Bin, Piang & Ali (2016) sought to explore the influence of motivation on employee performance and job satisfaction in Pakistan analyzed data collected using questionnaires. The study incorporated respondents who worked in the IT sector in Pakistan. The study found that motivation was an essential component to the success or failure of an organization. This statement is justified because motivation determines the workers’ energy, willingness to work, and directs their actions and performance (Ali et al. 2016). Therefore, the lack of motivation among employees due to the differing opinions concerning drug screening will lead to poor performance. In the long run, this translates into losses for the company and general poor performance.
Furthermore, Kitterlin & Erdem (2009) conducted a study that sought to explore workers’ attitudes towards drug and alcohol testing in the food industry found that the workers felt this practice was irrelevant and outdated. These sentiments were backed by the fact that some employees are good at their jobs despite occasionally using drugs like alcohol. The authors continue to state that the workers noted: “personalities and that character, company loyalty, and work ethic cannot be determined through the use of a pre-employment drug test”; thus, its irrelevancy (Kitterlin & Erdem, 2009). Employees’ strong sentiments show that they do not support this practice, and it has created a problem between them and the management.
As stated earlier, this bad blood between the workers and the management affects the organization’s performance. The organization requires support and corporation from the workers to be able to attain their set goals. If the employees and the management are not on the same page on all factors that could affect performance and productivity, failure is inevitable. Drug testing makes employees lose their sense of loyalty and commitment to the company and instead view it as an enemy of their freedom and individual rights.
2.6 How drug and alcohol screening impacts an organization performance progressively
In light of the information from section 2.5, it is evident that drug and alcohol testing and screening is not sitting well with the employees. However, looking from a management’s point of view, this practice is crucial for the company’s success. Woods, Johanson & Sciarini (2012) explain that this practice is vital for assuring customers that they do not hire drug users. This assurance promotes brand/product loyalty and attracts new customers. To put this assertion’s importance into more perspective, let us consider a hypothetical case of a private kindergarten school. Assuming the kindergarten hires a teacher who has a reputation of drinking during on and off duties hours. The teacher is good at their job, and they deliver quality services. They follow the rules and have love and passion for what they do. However, the parents get wind of the fact that the teacher is fond of drinking. With certainty, the parents are bound to stop bringing their children to the school as they will begin to question the teacher and school’s ability at large to guarantee the safety of their children.
The parents will judge the school harshly for hiring a drunk to watch over their children overlooking the fact that they are excellent and experienced. If this information is shared in the community, the kindergarten will suffer severe losses resulting from reduced revenue as other parents will stop bringing their children to the school. Therefore, conducting regular screening on their employees is essential to guarantee the customers that the business takes safety and quality seriously and that they do not tolerate drug use among their workforce. In this instance, the drug and alcohol screening will positively impact the organization as it will help them win the trust of their clients.
Additionally, drug and alcohol testing and screening help the organization mitigate the consequences of absenteeism and low-quality products and services by promptly taking the corrective measures where need be. Cenciros (2012) explains that there are no specific stipulated guidelines, standards, or justifications provided regarding how, when, and what to test. This state offers organizations the right window of deciding when and what to use for testing; hence, they can acquire accurate and reliable results informing their human resource decisions. The implication of this is that they are free to select less costly methods that are not time-consuming, thus reducing the costs incurred. Drug and alcohol screening, in this case, affects the organization’s performance positively as they can save on costs while mitigating some risks. The funds redeemed can be directed to other areas like training, acquisition of materials, and so forth thus, boosting their performance.
2.7 Summary of the literature
Organizations are taking to this practice because it is a platform that enables them to make the right hires and take corrective measures if need be. Organizations have the right to protect their investments and property by ensuring that workers diligently perform their duties according to the set standards. This right has been acknowledged and supported by courts, states, and the federal government in the United States. Drug screening is essential for winning and maintaining their customers’ trust by showing them that neither do they hire drug users not tolerate such behavior.
On the other hand, it is imperative to note that this practice, to some extent, infringes on the rights of the workers to privacy. The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from intrusion by the government and other agencies without probable cause (Constitution Annotated, n.d). Often, the tests and screening are not conducted appropriately, and the results are sometimes used to discriminate against the individuals. Therefore, it is relevant to strike a balance between preserving the employees’ rights while allowing an organization the chance to demand excellent performance from their workers. This balance is essential to eradicate the tension between the employees and the management in terms of drug screening because the apprehension from both parties negatively affects the company’s performance.
The current testing and screening system needs to be modified. The modification will guarantee that the needs and concerns of each side are considered and addressed.
- 8 Recommendations
The following recommendations are soundly suggested for consideration to strike a balance between upholding employees’ right to privacy while allowing organizations to retain their excellent performance. The recommendations are:
- The courts and other legislative agencies involved should formulate precise guidelines that state where the rights of each party start and where they end. This accurate analysis will eliminate persistent misunderstandings and conflicts.
- Employees should be furnished with all information regarding how the tests will be conducted, which method will be used, and how frequently it will be done before being employed. This information will allow them to decide whether they are comfortable with the arrangement or not before signing the employment contract.
iii. Lastly, the creation of awareness is necessary for both parties. This knowledge will inform the decisions made by all stakeholders involved. Thus, both the employees and the organization will know what is acceptable and what is not.
2.9 Conclusion
To conclude, the review results indicate that drug and alcohol testing and screening have both positive and negative impacts on the performance of an organization. There is a need for further studies to establish which effect is more significant and what should be done forging forward to offset the undesirable effects experienced. Testing and screening have and continue to drive a wedge between management and the workers. This situation should be resolved if the company is to experience any success and growth. Furthermore, the organization should conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine its impact on their performance and productivity. If the practice is determined to be beneficial, the company must then determine which among the varied testing methods (hair, saliva, urine, or blood, and sweat testing) should be utilized to derive maximum benefits out of this practice.