Decision Making in the Workplace: Organizational Drug Testing Policy

Article Review: Macdonald and others. (2010). Testing for Cannabis in the Workplace. Introduction In their 2010 article, Testing for Cannabis in the Workplace, published in the

journal Addiction, Macdonald and others attempt to provide organizational leaders with information that will aid them in making informed decisions about work-place drug testing (WPDT) policy. The article presents a comprehensive literature review on 20 years of published literature concerning the effectiveness and objectives of workplace drug testing programs. The review focuses specically on cannabis, as it is the most widely used and detected illegal drug and, in comparison with other narcotics, has been studied most extensively in academic literature (Macdonald and others, 2010). Background Drug Testing became standard practice for many companies and organizations

after 1988s Drug-Free Workplace Act, which required all organizations - government, non-prot, or private - to conduct mandatory drug screenings as a stipulation for receiving any type of government funding (Holding, 2006). The explicit purpose of

these drug tests is aimed at creating drug-free workplaces, accomplished by deterring employee drug use through the identication and punishment of drug positive employees or job applicants (Macdonald and others, 2010). The percentage of

workplaces implementing drug testing among current and potential employees grew to a peak of 81% in 1996 and has curtailed since, with a reported 62% rate in 2004 (Holding, 2006). While organizations receiving government funds are still required to maintain a

drug testing policy, the majority of organizations are free to choose whether to do so or not. Drug tests can be administered in a variety of circumstances: randomly

throughout the workforce, before (and as a condition of) employment, and/or after a workplace accident. Positive tests usually result in disciplinary action such as job

dismissal for current employees and disqualication from job consideration for prospective employees. The purpose for conducting these tests varies among

countries, but in the US testing is primarily concerned with deterrence of drug use, with no evidence of a link between drug use and job performance required for testing to take place (Macdonald and others, 2010). In comparison, in Canada and other countries, drug testing is only legally justiable if a direct link can be made between an employees drug testing results and the job safety of their specic work task (Macdonald and others, 2010). Methodology The methodology used in conducting this study focused on nding and

categorizing papers in terms of the relevance to the following research questions: Do the acute effects of cannabis impair performance? Does cannabis withdrawal impair performance? Are long-term cannabis users at increased risk of job accidents? Are those who test positive for cannabis or who self-report use at increased risk for injuries or accidents? Does WPDT deter drug use among employees? Does drug testing in the work-place reduce injuries or accidents?

Papers were further categorized according to their perceived methodological adequacy, which was assessed using criteria judging the extent of potential biases leading to erroneous research conclusions, including minimized selection bias, response bias, allocation bias, confounding, blinding, measurement bias and attrition and maximized statistical power and integrity of the intervention (Macdonald and others, 2010). Review of Findings Upon conducting their literature review, Macdonald and others (2010) were

unable to conclude that (workplace drug testing) programs reduce job injuries or accidents because of the poor quality of the research methods used in the studies they considered. Specically, the most common faults have been a failure to account for potentially confounding safety initiatives, the use of non-equivalent control groups or the lack of control groups, and ecological designs, all of which raise the possibility of alternative explanations of the effects found (Macdonald and others, 2010). For example, the effect of confounding inuences such as the presence of

concurrently-enacted safety initiatives was often not taken into account in analysis of work-place-based studies (Macdonald and others, 2010). In discounting the potential effects of these inuences, research ndings may erroneously conclude, for example, that the presence of drug testing alone correlated well with a decrease in workplace accidents, when in fact it could have been a separate factor such as implementation of a new on-site worker safety training program that lead to the decrease. Because such methodological and statistical weaknesses can lead to problematic test results, no decisive conclusions can be reached concerning cannabiss effect on workplace performance (Macdonald and others, 2010).

Discussion While government organizations and organizations receiving government funding

are required to adopt drug testing policies, most organizations are free to come to their own decisions concerning cannabis-testing policies. In the United States, the number of organizations who choose to pursue this policy is high: one study found that 64% of workplaces conducted drug tests in 2004, while another estimated that 80% of Fortune 1000 companies conducted workplace drug testing (Holding, 2006; Macdonald and others, 2010). In analyzing the methodologies used and conclusions obtained through 20 years of academic research about the effects of cannabis testing policies in the workplace, Macdonald and others (2010) have condensed, analyzed, and summarized the critical research ndings these organizational leaders must consider in order to make an informed decision about drug testing policies within their respective workplaces. From their analysis of this literature, the authors reach several conclusion that

are of high value in this decision making process: 1. There is a consensus in the academic literature that the acute, or active,

effects of being high on cannabis have a negative effect on performance, Research also shows, however, that any such effects are unlikely to exist the morning after. 2. The best way to detect active impairment is through blood testing and not urine testing, which merely indicates whether the subject has imbibed drugs at some point. Because of the expensive and its perceived invasiveness, blood

testing is not routinely done in the workplace testing procedures (Macdonald and others, 2010). 3. The available research literature has reached no rm conclusion that longterm cannabis users are at a greater risk for poor workplace performance. 4. No rm conclusion has been reached that cannabis withdrawal symptoms

affect performance. In total, Macdonald and others (2010) review gives the impression that

workplace drug testing has not been empirically proven to be successful in its objective of increasing workplace performance and decreasing workplace injuries and accidents. Given this, it may be difcult for organizational leaders to justify adopting workplace drug testing programs, given the expense and opportunity cost, such as lost work hours, of adopting such programs. Organizational leaders must also weigh the impact of such tests in comparison with the potential effects of other, perhaps more prevalent, workplace performance impactors, such as alcohol, caffeine, sleep deprivation, health, and diet. The presence of this uncertainty regarding the effects of workplace drug testing

exists because of the limitations of the studies conducted so far. Macdonald and others (2010) recommend potential xes for some of the methodological errors and limitations they have perceived in currently-existing research but also wonder if the current absence of such studies reects the the technical challenges (of) conducting them and the (broader,) conicting demands of work-place practice and research. Perhaps a

denitive study overcoming all possible methodological limitations and biases Is not possible.

References Macdonald, S., Hall, W., Roman, P., Stockwell, T., Coghlan, M. and Nesvaag, S. (2010). Testing for cannabis in the work-place: a review of the evidence. Addiction, 105. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02808.x/full Holding, R. (2006). Whatever Happened to Drug Testing? Time. Retrieved from: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211429,00.html