DRIVEN TO DRINK: MANAGERIAL CONTROL, WORK-RELATED RISK FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE DRINKING BEHAVIOR

Transcription

1 In Press - AMJ DRIVEN TO DRINK: MANAGERIAL CONTROL, WORK-RELATED RISK FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE DRINKING BEHAVIOR Samuel B. Bacharach School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell University Peter Bamberger Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Technion: Israel Institute of Technology Haifa 32000, ISRAEL Peterb@tx.technion.ac.il William J. Sonnenstuhl School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell University February, 2001

2 DRIVEN TO DRINK: MANAGERIAL CONTROL, WORK-RELATED RISK FACTORS AND EMPLOYEE DRINKING BEHAVIOR ABSTRACT Using a sample of blue-collar workers and drawing from managerial control theory, we derive and then test an integrative model of employee drinking behavior focusing on four key sets of work-related risk factors: (1) workplace culture, (2) alienation, (3) stress and (4) policy enforcement. Our results suggest that perceived permissive drinking norms a core workplace culture risk factor -- is the strongest direct predictor of employee problem drinking. Moreover, the data suggest that while such norms both mediate and moderate the effects of variables associated with stress and policy enforcement on employee problem drinking, the mediational effects may offer a higher degree of explanatory potential. Implications with regard to the management of counterproductive employee behaviors are discussed.

3 Control, defined by Edwards (1979: 17) as the ability of managers to obtain the desired behavior from workers, has been a central focus of management theory for decades. Over the past 50 years, researchers have identified several different mainstream strategies of managerial control (Barley & Kunda, 1993; Edwards, 1979). Underlying each of these core strategies is a set of implied assumptions regarding the factors predisposing individuals to adopt counterproductive behaviors or otherwise deviate from the behavioral expectations of management. Specifically, rational-bureaucratic control strategies are grounded on the assumption that counterproductive behaviors are caused by a lack of rational and consistently enforced rules and policies. Employees adopt counterproductive behaviors because of policy-related risk factors; they simply lack a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Strategies stemming from the human relations approach to control (labeled by Perrow [1986:117] as romanticized rationality ) are based on the Mertonian assumption that individuals deviate from acceptable modes of behavior in order to cope with strains and conflicts inherent in the (organizational) system. In work organizations, these strains can stem from inconsistencies between organizational expectations and personal capabilities, resulting in heightened levels of stress; that is, from stress-based risk factors. Alternatively, they can emerge from perceived inconsistencies between individuals work-related needs (e.g., for self-actualization) and the intrinsic returns offered by the job, resulting in heightened levels of alienation; that is, from alienation-based risk factors. Finally, normative control strategies are based on the assumption that counterproductive behavior is a function of the organization s failure to become a collective of shared norms (Barley & Kunda, 1993: 384). As a result, employees may become enmeshed in subcultures supportive of norms that are, at the very l i i i h h h ldb C l i i kf

4 may serve as a key source of such counterproductive behaviors. To date, control theorists have tended to focus primarily on the socio-historical dynamics explaining the emergence and evolution of these alternative approaches to managing employee behavior (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1995). Far less attention has been paid to the core assumptions underlying these alternative approaches to managerial control and the four sets of organizational risk factors underlying employee counterproductive behavior in the first place (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). Consequently, we still lack an understanding of the extent to which these assumptions and their corresponding risk factors might explain, either individually or in concert, employee counterproductive behavior. Given that managerial action is often based on such assumptions, there is obvious value in examining the extent to which such assumptions may in fact be empirically grounded. In the current paper, we focus on one, relatively prevalent and costly form of counterproductive behavior, employee problem drinking, as a lens through which to further examine and begin to test the four control theory assumptions explicated above. The costs of problem drinking to both employees and their employers in the United States are prohibitive. In 1998, alcohol abuse cost the US economy $167 billion, half of which stemmed from lost productivity in the form of work-related accidents, and absenteeism and tardiness (Mangione, Howland & Lee, 1998). While work-related drinking need not be viewed as entirely dysfunctional (i.e., it may, for example, enhance work group cohesion), as has been well established, excessive consumption can lead to the impairment of cognitive and motor functioning (Fillmore &Vogel-Sprott, 2000). For the firm, such impairment can have profound implications in that it may be associated with reduced employee role performance and the development of dangerous behaviors in the kl (R & Bl 1998)

5 A number of researchers argue that employees problem drinking drinking behaviors that are socially or personally deleterious may be initiated and exacerbated by the four risk factors associated with the management control strategies described above (Bennett & Lehman, 1999; Ames, 1992). Specifically, these researchers claim that precisely those same four factors identified above, namely the lack of policy clarity and enforcement, heightened levels of employee alienation and stress, and the influence of deviant subcultures, may all serve as predictors of employee drinking behaviors (Ames, 1992; Trice & Sonnenstuhl, 1988). Unfortunately, however, studies examining these factors have tended to be perspective- specific (i.e., focusing on one factor at a time). Moreover, they have tended to generate contradictory findings (Martin, 1990). Finally, from a managerial control theory perspective, their findings tend to diverge widely. Some studies suggest that the best way to manage employees with drinking problems is to strictly enforce organizational alcohol policies, and others suggest that the best way to deal with drinking problems is to re-engineer the subcultural norms, which legitimize employees excessive consumption. In the current study, we seek to reconcile some of these contradictory findings by testing a comprehensive model of workplace risk factors integrating elements from all four perspectives and accounting for the possibility that certain factors may mediate or moderate the effects of others on problem drinking. Workplace Culture Perspective In the workplace, culture refers to an organized set of understandings that participants within a work setting share regarding behavioral comportment (Ames & Janes, 1992: 112). In this context, workers develop normative assumptions about what behaviors constitute appropriate drinking. Such normative assumptions are often socially l d i li i i i f f i (V M &

6 Barley, 1984). Indeed, Boye and Jones (1997: 175) note: many studies have shown that the norms of the work group can influence the level of counterproductive behavior engaged in by employees. Therefore, a core assumption of this perspective is that individuals interpret expectations regarding drinking as supportive of heavy or light drinking and adjust their drinking behavior accordingly. A variety of studies support the workplace culture perspective (c.f., Sonnenstuhl, 1996). Ethnographic studies, for example, have examined workplace drinking cultures, the naturally occurring groups that share a set of understandings about alcohol use in the workplace including values and expectations regarding drinking behavior (Ames & Janes, 1992). These studies suggest that individuals drinking behavior may be influenced by their interpretation of the drinking norms, behaviors and rationalizations expressed by members of their occupation or by proximate co-workers regardless of the latter s occupation (Sonnenstuhl, 1996). For example, railroad engineers, longshoremen, and tunnel workers have relatively heavy drinking norms permeating the entire occupational culture (Sonnenstuhl, 1996). In contrast, the drinking subcultures of autoworkers (Ames & Janes, 1987) tend to vary by work group. Likewise, analysis of survey data supports the workplace culture perspective. For instance, in their classic longitudinal study, Seeman et al., (1988: 197) found that problem drinking was predicted by a companionate style of drinking, particularly where the respondent matches or exceeds the drinking level norms of his friendship group. Most recently, Ames, Grube & Moore (2000) found a strong positive relationship between the degree to which coworkers are perceived by a subject to adopt a permissive attitude towards drinking and the severity of the subject s own drinking problems. While it may be d h h i d b h d f d i ki b h i h

7 opposite, consistent with the findings of an earlier study (Ames & James, 1987), Ames et al s (2000) data strongly suggest that drinking behaviors are much more influenced by perceived coworker drinking norms than vice-versa. Specifically, in an analysis of workers in two auto plants, one with a heavy drinking culture and the other, a Japanese-US transplant facility with far more restrictive perceived coworker drinking norms, drinking problems at the former were significantly more prevalent and severe. What is interesting is that the transplant facility had essentially imported its workforce from a plant previously shut down by their American partner, a plant with one of the highest rates of alcoholism and drinking in the industry (p. 215). These and other ethnographic findings led these researchers to conclude that it was, the work culture of the transplant facility that served to prevent the development of problematic drinking practices and promote an almost alcohol-free work setting (p.216). In light of these findings, we posit: (Hypothesis 1) The level of drinking problems will be positively influenced by perceived coworker drinking permissiveness. Alienation Perspective According to the alienation perspective, employees drink in order to cope with work defined as unengaging and which leaves employees feeling powerless (Blauner, 1964). Decades of research indicate that alienation from work has important effects on individuals lives outside of work (e.g., Kornhauser, 1965). According to O Toole (1974), alienation produces a consequent decline in physical and mental health and family stability, community participation and cohesiveness while there is an increase in drug and alcohol addiction. The relationship between alienation and drinking has been examined in a number f di I i h f d h i i l f li i

8 powerlessness and meaninglessness. As Blauner (1964: 16-17) writes, A powerless person is controlled and manipulated by others he cannot assert himself as an agent for change or modify the conditions of his domination. Drinking may offer the powerless a means by which to make themselves feel stronger (McClelland, 1975) or may be viewed as a way for the powerless to tranquilize themselves in the face of an upsetting lack of control (Greenberg & Gruenberg, 1995). Seeman and Anderson (1983) examined the relationship between powerlessness and drinking and found a consistent association between a general sense of powerlessness and drinking problems. More recently, Greenberg and Gruenberg (1995) examined the powerlessness-drinking relationship and found that powerlessness was not associated with problem drinking. However, none of these studies examined powerlessness at work. Instead they focused on more general selfperceptions of personalized power (Levy et al., 1979) and individuals locus of control. Consequently, we are unable to determine whether the heightened levels of drinking are a function of a trait characteristic, such as low self-efficacy, or a function of alienating work characteristics, such as lack of power at work, that may contribute to a general sense of powerlessness. The second aspect of alienation widely examined in empirical research is meaninglessness at work. Meaninglessness, according to Hall (1975: 55), is experienced when an individual senses a lack of purpose in their work; that is, when they feel no connection between the parts (of their own work) and the whole (the complete product or service). Researchers (Greenberg & Grunberg, 1995) have used a variety of variables to tap meaninglessness, including self-estrangement and a lack of autonomy. Nevertheless, as with powerlessness, the current evidence on the relationship between such i l l d i bl d d i ki bh i i i d(g b M &

9 Greenberg, 1998), with some researchers (e.g., Martin, Blum, & Roman,1992) suggesting that, as with powerlessness, these inconsistent findings may be a function of the way meaninglessness has been operationalized. However, others argue that these mixed effects of alienating job characteristics such as powerlessness, self-estrangement and limited autonomy on problem drinking are a consequence of model misspecification (e.g., Harris & Fennel, 1988; Greenberg & Gruenberg, 1995). They suggest that when posited to have a direct effect, such variables tend to explain little of the variance in problem drinking. However, when posited to have an indirect effect, for example, by influencing the degree to which employee drinking norms are perceived to be more or less permissive, these alienation-related variables may offer substantially greater explanatory potential (Grube & Moore, 1999). This is because, in response to such aversive conditions, workers may be more likely to accept the idea that alcohol offers workers an appropriate and perhaps needed means by which to cope with or "escape" from their job (Ames & Janes, 1987). In addition to this possible mediational effect of workplace drinking culture, it may be that perceived permissive drinking norms moderate the link between alienation and problem drinking (Seeman et al., 1988). Specifically, as Grunberg et al. (1998: 488) suggest, the distress caused by highly alienative work environments may spillover into the non-work setting and be manifest in alcohol abuse only in those situations in which drinking is culturally acceptable. Where coworker norms are such that drinking is not deemed to be an acceptable means by which to cope with aversive job conditions, the direct link between alienation and problem drinking may be greatly diminished. In summary, the research on the alienation perspective suggests that factors such as f l d i l h di i k

10 drinking problems. However, other studies suggest that the effect of alienation on problem drinking may be mediated by the extent to which drinking norms are perceived to be more or less permissive. Finally, it may be that rather than or in addition to mediating the relationship between alienation and problem drinking, the level of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness moderates the alienation-drinking relationship. Thus, we propose: (Hypothesis 2a) The severity of drinking problems will be positively influenced by the level of employee alienation such that as the level of alienation increases, so too will the level of individual drinking problems; (Hypothesis 2b) The relationship between alienation and problem drinking will be mediated by perceived coworker drinking permissiveness in that as the level of alienation increases, so too will the level of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness; and (Hypothesis 2c) The link between alienation and problem drinking will be moderated by perceived coworker drinking permissiveness in that alienation will be more strongly associated with problem drinking under conditions of higher levels of perceived drinking permissiveness. Stress Perspective According to the stress perspective, workers drink in order to cope with stressful working conditions (Cooper, Russell & Frone, 1990). Such conditions include conflicting role demands and inconsistent job expectations (Grunberg et al., 1998). Like the alienation perspective, this perspective conceives of workers coming to rely on alcohol as a means of changing their psychological condition, covertly coping with the negative aspects of the job via alcohol use (Martin, 1990: 51). However, as with alienation, the empirical evidence for a direct link between these work-related variables and drinking is mixed. Specifically, even i h di fi di i i li k b d i ki bl d k b d

11 or strain, the relationships have been relatively weak (Harris & Fennell, 1988). Moreover, numerous studies (e.g., Cooper, Russell & Frone, 1990), have found stress-related job characteristics to lack any meaningful relationship with drinking behavior. Methodological limitations such as the indirect measurement of stressors by assigning mean levels of job complexity and demands to broad occupational categories may account for some of the inconsistency in the findings regarding a direct link between stress and drinking behavior (Grunberg et al., 1998). However, as in the case of alienation, it may be that the relationship between workrelated stress and problem drinking is at least partially mediated or moderated by cultural factors such as perceived coworker drinking permissiveness. A mediational effect is possible if, as a number of studies suggest, job stress creates cultural norms legitimizing counterproductive behavior (Boye & Jones, 1997: 180). Several researchers argue that work-related stress may result in heightened levels of problem drinking because distressed workers use stress on the job as a mechanism by which to justify more permissive drinking norms (Greenberg & Grunberg, 1995). For instance, Martin, Blum, and Roman (1992: 592), analyzing data from the National Employee Survey, found that job pressure was significantly associated with norms rationalizing heavy drinking on the basis of adverse job conditions. In addition to such a mediational effect, permissive drinking norms may also moderate the link between occupational stressors and problem drinking. In general, it appears that the link between job stress and counterproductive behavior is stronger when employees hold more tolerant attitudes towards such behavior in the first place (Boye & Jones, 1997). Specifically, when employees perceive highly permissive drinking norms, h i i l li i i h i fl f bl d i ki b

12 overridden. Permissive drinking norms may thus provide the legitimizing cover necessary for employees to turn to alcohol as a means by which to cope with job stress. Indeed, several ethnographic studies suggest that stress may be more strongly linked to problem drinking in occupations characterized by permissive drinking norms than in those characterized by less permissive drinking norms (c.f., Cosper, 1979). Consequently, as with the alienation perspective, the workplace alcohol literature suggests three complementary hypotheses regarding the link between workplace stress and employee problem drinking:. Thus, we propose: (Hypothesis 3a) The severity of drinking problems will be positively influenced by the level of workplace stress such that as the level of stress increases, so too will the level of individual drinking problems; (Hypothesis 3b) The relationship between workplace stress and problem drinking will be mediated by perceived coworker drinking permissiveness in that as the level of stress increases, so too will the level of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness; and (Hypothesis 3c) The relationship between stress and problem drinking will be moderated by perceived coworker drinking permissiveness in that stress will be more strongly associated with problem drinking under conditions of higher levels of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness. Policy Enforcement Perspective The policy enforcement perspective argues that drinking problems are promoted by the absence of a clear and consistently enforced organizational alcohol policy (Roman & Trice, 1972). Trice and Roman (1972) identified two key policy enforcement factors that are particularly likely to have an impact on workers drinking behavior: Limited supervisory contact and poor quality of supervision. Lacking contact with their subordinates, i b h bl i if h illi d bl

13 intervene, thus making it difficult to consistently enforce any alcohol policy in place. However, effective policy enforcement requires not only a high probability of detection, but also that supervisors have the willingness and capability to intervene when problems are detected (Harris & Heft, 1992). Numerous studies have found empirical support for the hypothesized link between low visibility of job performance and problem drinking (Trice & Sonnenstuhl, 1988). For instance, Trice and Roman (1972) note that there exists a direct, inverse relationship between the level of supervisory contact and the prevalence of employee problem drinking. They argue that mobile jobs reduce opportunities for supervisors to monitor workers performance because of the inherent lack of contact that workers performing such jobs have with their supervisors. Recent studies by Ames and her colleagues are helpful in illuminating the role of supervisory processes, and in particular, the willingness and capability of supervisors to intervene, when organizational drinking regulations are violated (Ames et al., 2000). These studies suggest that when supervisors are either unwilling or unable to intervene in cases of alcohol-related rule violation, there is likely to be both a direct and indirect effect on overall drinking patterns in the particular work unit. A direct effect is posited on the assumption that when supervisors fail to enforce the rules against inappropriate workplace drinking behavior, they effectively reduce any deterrent effect that these rules might have had in the first place. These ethnographic findings have most recently been supported on the basis of a study of last chance agreements which showed that when management failed to enforce drinking rules, the rate at which these rules were broken grew over time (Bamberger & Donahue, 1999). These studies therefore suggest the existence of a direct, li l i hi b l li f d i d l bl

14 drinking. However, the relationship between policy enforcement and problem drinking may also be indirect, operating directly or indirectly via the impact of policy enforcement on permissive drinking norms. A direct mediational effect may be posited in that permissive drinking norms may be less likely to develop or be maintained when strict alcohol policies are specified and enforced (Ames & Grube, 1999). Indeed, Ames et al. (2000) found a significant inverse relationship between alcohol policy enforcement variables and variables associated with a permissive workplace drinking culture. For example, workers who believed discipline was more likely when alcohol policies were broken also perceived lower levels of coworker alcohol consumption, an important indicator of permissive norms according to Ames et al. (2000: 213). A more indirect mediational effect may be posited on the assumption that a lack of consistent alcohol policy enforcement can create an abhorrent work environment for the majority of workers who consistently abide by these policies. When employee role performance is not clearly visible to managers or when supervisors lack the willingness or ability to intervene, alcohol policy may either go unenforced or be enforced in a less than consistent manner. In response to such a lack of consistent policy enforcement, workers may develop a sense of inequity or low procedural justice (O'Reilly & Puffer, 1989: 482). Moreover, in many cases, the failure or inability of a supervisor to intervene in such cases means that subordinates are forced to contend with the situation on their own without the formal authority to do so. Finally, troubled employees often endanger the safety, security and wellbeing of their coworkers, not to mention, free-ride off of them. In all three cases, the lack of consistent policy enforcement can result in heightened levels of kl

15 Similarly, the lack of consistent policy enforcement can also result in heightened levels of employee alienation. This may be particularly likely if coworkers feel powerless in their ability to get the organization to intervene, or if the lack of policy enforcement makes it difficult for workers to psychologically maximize their work experience, thus potentially heightening workers sense of self-estrangement. Finally, in addition to potentially influencing perceived workplace drinking norms, the magnitude and nature of the impact of policy enforcement on employee drinking may be moderated by such norms. Specifically, a number of ethnographic studies suggest that while in less permissive drinking cultures social regulation by management may reduce problem drinking by employees, in highly permissive drinking cultures it may result in labormanagement conflict and in fact do the opposite. For example, Mannello and Seaman (1979) found that while enhanced alcohol policy enforcement may be effective in reducing problem drinking in the context of less permissive drinking cultures, in the railroad industry, characterized by a highly permissive drinking culture, enhanced policy enforcement over the years has only further entrenched problem drinking by employees. Similarly, Sonnenstuhl s (1996) study of problem drinking among tunnel workers suggests that in work settings in which heavy drinking is a deeply entrenched element of the occupational subculture, managerial efforts to restrict such behavior through strict social regulation is likely to backfire, resulting only in more deeply entrenched and problematic drinking behaviors. Cosper (1979: 886) provides a potential explanation for such an effect. He argues that, in certain occupational subcultures, drinking, rather than being viewed as pathological, may be seen as communicative behavior symbolizing social solidarity. Managerial efforts to restrict or limit drinking behavior may thus be viewed by workers as a direct attempt by b k hi lid i d i di l i h k l

16 According to the literature on workplace resistance (Hodson, 1995), all such attempts by management to exert increased control be they directly coercive or subtly hegemonic -- are liable to trigger some form of employee resistance, ranging from spontaneous and tacit to more organized and explicit. The ethnographic literature suggests that, at least in the context of heavy drinking work cultures, when managers choose alcohol policy as the venue for exercising greater control, rather than resorting to organized protests, employees tend to use alcohol-related behaviors as a mechanism of resistance. Based on the discussion above, we therefore propose the following hypotheses regarding the relationship between alcohol policy enforcement and problem drinking: (Hypothesis 4a) The severity of drinking problems will be inversely related to the level of alcohol policy enforcement such that as the level of alcohol policy enforcement increases, the level of individual drinking problems will decline; (Hypothesis 4b) The relationship between alcohol policy enforcement and problem drinking will be mediated by drinking permissiveness, stress and alienation in that as the level of policy enforcement increases, the level of all three of these mediating factors (each posited to have a positive association with problem drinking) will decline; and (Hypothesis 4c) The relationship between alcohol policy enforcement and problem drinking will be moderated by drinking permissiveness such that while higher levels of policy enforcement will be associated with lower levels of problem drinking under conditions of lower and moderate levels of drinking permissiveness, the opposite will be true under conditions of high levels of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness. Mediation Versus Moderation A d b l h ( f B &J 1997) i h k l

17 norms may both mediate and moderate the impact of workplace characteristics on employee counterproductive behavior. To the best of our knowledge, researchers have yet to test which of these two effects is likely to offer a higher degree of explanatory potential. Nevertheless, recent qualitative research by Ames (c.f., Ames et al., 2000) suggests that coworker norms may play a more substantial mediating than moderating role. Similarly, studies by Mars (1987) and Sonnenstuhl (1996) suggest that, while perceived coworker drinking norms may both moderate and mediate the impact of work-related risk factors on employee drinking behavior, there may be a good reason why, overall, the mediation effects are likely to be overpowering. Both found that the stresses associated with dangerous working conditions and economic instability play an important role in shaping the highly permissive drinking norms among longshoremen and tunnel workers and that these norms, in turn, explain the higher than expected prevalence of problem drinking in these occupations. Both also found that these norms often play a mixed role in moderating the effects of managerial control, alienation, and stress on drinking behavior. For example, Sonnenstuhl (1996) observed that tunnel workers who perceive more permissive drinking norms are more likely to drink as a means by which to cope with negative work conditions. However, he (1996: 74) also observed that these workers are also likely to avoid drinking "in an unrestrained manner so as not to endanger the work gang." Similarly, Mars (1987: 96) observed that, on the docks, longshoremen constrain their drinking because men who are drunk are likely to prove a danger in dockwork. These findings suggest that an element of peer responsibility may accompany the permissive drinking norms present in these occupations. If this is the case, some sort of accompanying normative threshold may attenuate the moderating effect of permissive drinking norms. Consequently, we posit h

18 specified to only moderate the links between work-related characteristics and employee problem drinking, a model in which such norms are specified to mediate the links between work-related characteristics and employee problem drinking will offer a higher degree of explanatory potential. METHOD Sample Because of the inherent difficulty in collecting data on employee drinking when workers believe that highly personal data may be divulged to management, we opted to gain access via the employees unions. Moreover, prior to collecting the survey-based data, we spent 18 months collecting ethnographic data. By the time the survey process began, most workers were aware of the nature of the study, and its importance to them as union members. Thus, while our focus on unionized workers may somewhat limit the generalizability of our results, the collection of data via employees unions allowed us to minimize the risk of a selfselection sample bias. Using self-report questionnaires, data were collected from a random sample of the membership of eight, large, blue collar unions. Across these eight unions, 7677 surveys were distributed, and 3821 were returned (overall response rate of 49.8%). The effective sample size was reduced to 3392 by the exclusion of 268 incomplete and 161 inappropriate or suspect questionnaires. In each of the unions, we checked for a possible non-response bias, finding that, across a wide range of criteria, our samples were representative of the membership of their respective unions. Two unions represent workers in the construction industry (n=741). Three unions represent workers in the service sector (i.e., retail, utilities, dh lh 1417) d h i i h i k i h

19 manufacturing/ industrial processing sector (i.e., automobile industry; mail and parcel sorting n=1234). Females comprise 32 percent of the full sample (and 26 percent of the drinkers), nearly all of whom work in the service and industrial sectors. Only 2 percent of respondents in construction were female, accurately reflecting the demographic composition of the two construction unions studied. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 65, with a mean age of 43 (s.d. = 8.1 years), and over 59 percent were married or living with a partner. Whites comprise 47 percent of respondents. Respondents were relatively well educated with 94 percent having completed high school, and 12 percent having completed four or more years of college. The final sample includes 1813 drinkers and 1579 abstainers. Given our primary interest in the drinking behavior of those who indeed drink, we initially opted to test our hypotheses on the 1813 drinkers only. Indeed, in etiological research in general, one studies only those who have the necessary preconditions to develop the "illness" or problem to begin with. In our case, a necessary precondition for becoming a problem drinker is to drink in the first place. Furthermore, Cooper et al. (1990: 264) argue that the inclusion of abstainers in risk factor analyses is likely to result in the attenuation of the predicted effects. However, since the decision to abstain is not random, the exclusion of abstainers from the sample has the potential to introduce bias into coefficient estimates. Consequently, in order to determine whether the potential bias is important enough to treat formally, we tested the model specified above first on the full sample and then on the nonabstaining sub-sample. Measures In addition to a measure of problem drinking, the present study includes 10 d h f f ikf d ib d b ll

20 control variables. These measures and their corresponding reliability statistics (i.e., Cronbach alpha based on an analysis of our full sample) are presented below (see Appendix for non-standard/non- copyrighted scales). Except as otherwise noted, all scales were formed on the basis of the arithmetic mean of their respective items. Like Ames (e.g., Ames et al., 2000: 207), we used three variables to tap perceived permissiveness of drinking norms: (1) perceived co-worker lunchtime drinking norms, (2) perceived co-worker after-work drinking norms, and (3) perceived co-worker drinking. Lunchtime drinking norms (alpha=.84) assesses the respondent s perception of the number of drinks each of three co-workers (identified by the respondent as those with whom he feels the closest) feels are acceptable to drink at lunch. After-work drinking norms (alpha=.82) assesses the respondent s perception of the number of drinks each of the same three co-workers feels are acceptable to drink after work. In both cases, we took the arithmetic mean of the three reported values. Perceived co-worker drinking serves as an indirect measure of permissive drinking norms in that employees are likely to infer the appropriateness of certain drinking behaviors on the basis of their perception of peers drinking. Respondents reported the average amount of beer, wine or liquor consumed daily by each of the three co-workers with whom they feel the closest. We took the mean number of drinks consumed by each of these three as our measure of co-worker drinking, with higher values suggestive of greater perceived drinking permissiveness. For all three, the data were skewed toward lower permissiveness. We also included three variables tapping the alienation perspective: (1) autonomy, (2) employee power and (3) self-estrangement. Higher values of both autonomy and power are indicative of lower levels of alienation. Autonomy (alpha =.71) was measured on the basis of Hackman and Oldham s (1980) three-item scale assessing the degree to which workers f l h h h b d f d d i d d i f i h i j b l d

21 tasks. Using the measure suggested by Bacharach & Lawler (1981), employee power was assessed as a function of the employer s dependence on the employee, or, in other words, the employee s perceived value to the employer (3 items, alpha =.88) relative to the degree to which the employer is perceived as being able to find a suitable alternative (3 items, alpha =.88). Self- estrangement was measured using a 7 point, 5 item scale drawn from Vallas (1988) (alpha =.78). Role conflict a five-item scale developed by Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970), capturing the degree to which respondents felt that they received inconsistent work demands from supervisors and/or co-workers (alpha =.80) was used to assess work stress. Drawing from the policy enforcement perspective, alcohol policy enforcement was examined in the context of the three main indicators suggested in the literature (Ames et al., 2000;): (1) contact with supervision, (2) supervisory willingness to confront a troubled worker, and (3) supervisor ability to confront a troubled worker. Contact with supervision was measured on the basis of a single item regarding the frequency with which the individual comes into contact with their supervisor, ranging from 1 (hardly) to 5 (very often). The supervisory willingness and ability measures, drawn from the work of Ames and her colleagues (e.g., Ames et al., 2000: 207) generated alphas (.68 and.69, respectively) below the conventional.70 cutoff. Nevertheless, as newly developed measures capturing constructs that have yet to be the subject of managerial inquiry, they are well within the range of acceptability suggested by Nunnally (1978) for such measures. Each are three item, seven point scales tapping the degree to which supervisors are believed to be positioned to intervene when confronted with a worker with a substance abuse problem. As expected, both ih ii d i bili i i l l d ( 05)

22 with the size of the work unit. Measures designed to tap six control variables were also included in the current study. Specifically, we used a measure of gender (1=male, 2=female), age (a ten-point categorical variable ranging from under 20 [1] to 60 or older [10]), education (an eight-point categorical variable ranging from grades 1-8 [1] to completed college with advanced or professional degree [8]), marital status (a dichotomous variable coded as 1 if the individual is currently married or living with a partner), tenure (seniority measured in years), household income (a seven-point categorical variable ranging from $20K-$30K [1] to over $80K [7] ) and social desirability as covariates. Social desirability was included as a control variable because, as Harris and Heft (1992: 244) note, it may in some cases create spurious relationships, while in others, suppress relationships that might otherwise be significant. Using the self-deceptive enhancement component of Paulhus (1991) BIDR instrument, social desirability was measured on the basis of a seven point response format (1=not at all true, 7=very true) with a higher value indicating greater self-deceptive enhancement and consequently, an increased risk of a social desirability bias. As Paulhus (1991 recommends), we summed the responses after recoding items receiving a value of less than six as zero, and items receiving a value of 6 or 7 as one. Although many drinking-related studies have used quantity and frequency measures as indicators of the presence of alcohol problems (Martin et al., 1992), a number of studies (c.f., Cooper, Russell & George, 1988) indicate that aggregate or averaged levels of consumption are poorly correlated with the adverse effects of drinking. Consequently, the trend in more recent alcohol research has been to assess alcohol problems on the basis of problem drinking. In the current study, problem drinking was assessed on the basis of h f i lf CAGE i i hi h d l d b hi i

23 researchers for practical application (Ewing, 1984). In a number of studies, self-report measures of problem drinking behaviors have been found to be more accurate than collateral reports (c.f., Stasciewicz, Bradizza & Connors, 1997). The CAGE measure has been widely validated (Mayfield, McLeod, & Hall, 1974), correlating significantly with a diagnosis of alcoholism (Ewing, 1984), and showing a strong association with other screening instruments for alcohol dependence such as the DSM-IV (Martin & Roman, 1996). Using the CAGE, respondents are asked about the presence or absence of four potential problematic consequences of their drinking in the last month. Consistent with previous applications (Ewing, 1984), we summed the responses to the four dichotomous items, yielding an ordinal scale ranging from 0 to 4, with a score of 4 indicative of a severe drinking problem. Of those who drink, 77.7% (1379) received a score of 0, and 10.6 % (193) received a score of 2 or higher, viewed in the psychiatric literature as warranting professional intervention (Mayfield et al., 1974). Analytic Procedures The hypotheses generated above were tested in the context of three structural equation models. First, in order to assess the construct validity of the variables included in this study, we tested a measurement model of the items associated with each of the measures underlying the four latent variables discussed above. Second, we tested the overall plausibility of the direct and mediated effects model and the hypotheses underlying it for both the full sample and the non-abstaining sub-sample. Third, in order to assess the moderating role of perceived permissive drinking norms, we tested a similar model (different only in that it excluded drinking norms as the moderating term), for three different levels of perceived coworker drinking permissiveness. Fi ll i d b i l h i l i l f

24 mediated as opposed to a moderated model, we attempted to analyze a single integrative model including both mediated and moderated paths. Given that there is no adequate procedure available to estimate interactive effects of latent variables without splitting the sample into moderator-based subgroups, (Kenny & Judd; 1984: 201) we used the factor score coefficients generated by the measurement model to define values of pseudo-latent variables which we subsequently considered to be observed. Using these variables, we then specified moderation effects on the basis of product-interaction terms, and used two Chi 2 difference tests to assess the relative significance of the mediated versus moderated components of this model (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). However, because the model tested includes only pseudo-latent variables based on the assumption of perfect measurement, and also incorporates variable moderation on the basis of product-interaction terms, this approach not only fails to take measurement error into account but may also violate normality assumptions (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). Consequently our test of Hypothesis 5 is expected to provide only a very rough estimation of the relative explanatory potential of mediation versus moderation models. The results presented below are based on the maximum likelihood estimation of covariance matrices, themselves generated on the basis of pair-wise deletion. While conventional maximum likelihood-based SEM assumes multivariate normality, given the skewed nature of the permissive drinking variables and the ordinal and skewed nature of the problem drinking variable, it is likely that the data examined here are non-normal. Under such conditions, Kline (1998) suggests either using an estimation method (e.g., ADF) that does not assume normality, or corrected (e.g., logarithmically transformed) statistics. Because ADF estimation requires both a large sample (i.e., > 5000) and a relatively simple dli d bl d li bl l (Kli ) d f h

25 latter. However, given the ordinal nature of the problem drinking variable, even with the use of transformations, an inflated bias towards Type 1 error is likely to remain (Kline, 1998; Bollen, 1989). Nevertheless, models were assessed on the basis of conventional indicators of absolute fit (Chi2, GFI, AGFI, RMR, RMSEA), comparative fit (IFI, CFI) and parsimonious fit (PNFI). RESULTS Preliminary Analyses Zero-order correlations for the full sample are presented in Table 1. On the basis of this table it appears that while there are no severe problems of multicollinearity, several of the measures underlying common latent risk factor variables (e.g., the permissive drinking measures) are, as one would expect, highly correlated. The high degree of collinearity among the observed variables associated with a common latent variable poses little problem since it is taken into account as part of the measurement model element of SEM analysis Table 1 About Here However, prior to testing the two SEM models specified above, we sought to show evidence of the construct validity of our exogenous and endogenous variables (including problem drinking). Specifically, using confirmatory factor analysis, we tested a measurement model, displayed in Figure 1, grounded on the notion that each of the measurement items specified above would load significantly onto the scales to which they

26 best, only a minimally acceptable level of fit (χ 2 =2901 [df=349, p<.001], GFI =.91, AGFI =.88, RMR =.04, RMSEA =.06, IFI=.87, CFI=.87, and PNFI =.74) (Kenny, 2000). However, these model-level results need to be taken with some degree of caution given the heightened risk of a Type 1 error associated with the use non-normal data, and given that the model included four scales tapping constructs previously unexplored in the literature (two of which had relatively low alphas). Bollen (1989: 274) suggests that fit indices as low as.85 may be considered reasonable for models opening new directions in a substantive field. Indeed, with the removal of the four new scales, the measurement model achieved a conventionally acceptable level of fit across all of the fit indices (e.g., AGFI=.91, IFI=.90, and CFI=.90, PNFI=.74). Moreover, the fact that PNFI remained constant despite the elimination of model paths suggests that the originally specified model achieved an adequate level of model parsimony (Kelloway, 1998) Figure 1 About Here Test of Direct and Mediated Effects We tested each of the direct and mediated effects hypotheses specified above in the context of the structural equation model depicted in Figure 2. As noted above, our primary interest concerned the influence of work-related risk factors on problem drinking among those who drink. However, since the decision to abstain is not random, we needed to first check that the exclusion of abstainers would not result in biased coefficient estimates. We did this by testing the specified model twice; once using the covariance matrices of the observed variables for the full sample and once using the covariance matrices of the

27 presented in the figure). Given that no meaningful differences between these samples were found with respect to either model fit or parameter estimates, for the sake of parsimony, in our remaining discussion and analyses, we focus on the results for the nonabstaining sub-sample only Figure 2 About Here Focusing on the results for the non-abstaining sub-sample only and using the conventions suggested by Kelloway (1998), an adequate degree of absolute fit was achieved for the specified model (GFI=.96, AGFI=.93, RMR=.05, RMSEA=.05). Although the model achieved a slightly lower degree of comparative model fit (CFI=.87, IFI=.88), these results must be interpreted cautiously given the increased risk for a Type I error (due to the departure from multivariate normality), the incorporation of several new and less than optimal measures (Kline, 1998; Bollen, 1989), and the tendency of the CFI and IFI to penalize for model complexity. Finally, PNFI=.55. The fact that reasonable, yet more parsimonious alternative specifications (e.g., elimination of the paths from alienation and policy enforcement to permissiveness) failed to generate higher PNFI values suggests, according to the framework laid out by Kelloway (1998), that the tested model achieved an adequate degree of parsimony. At the parameter level, and as predicted by Hypothesis 1a, we found a strong positive relationship between more permissive perceived drinking norms and higher levels of problem drinking. However, might it be that perceived drinking permissiveness and problem drinking are correlated because -- as a function of their drinking -- problem di k l bli h h di ki i bl ll? F l h l li k

28 could run in the direction opposite to that posited, with problem drinking leading to higher levels of perceived permissive drinking norms. Although the ethnographic evidence discussed earlier suggests a causal direction running from perceived permissive norms to problem drinking, unfortunately, with cross-sectional data there is a high level of indeterminacy with regard to making claims for causal direction. Thus, it is entirely possible that the association is non- recursive, with permissive drinking norms contributing to problem drinking, and problem drinkers perceiving more permissive norms as a means by which to legitimize their drinking. However, more limited support was found for the stress perspective. While, as hypothesized (Hypothesis 3b), a significant indirect association (mediated by permissive drinking norms) was found between stress and problem drinking, the hypothesized direct path (Hypothesis 3a) was found to be only weakly significant. Similarly, limited support was found for Hypothesis 4b which, consistent with the policy enforcement perspective, suggested that increased policy enforcement, via its effects on stress, alienation and permissive drinking norms, would be associated with lower levels of problem drinking. Specifically, because a higher degree of policy enforcement was associated with a significant decline in stress, and because of the indirect effects of stress on problem drinking discussed above, stronger policy enforcement is indirectly associated with lower levels of problem drinking. In contrast to these significant results, our findings lend no support to Hypothesis 4a, which posited that stronger policy enforcement would be directly associated with lower levels of problem drinking, or to the alienation perspective (Hypotheses 2a and 2b). Regarding the latter, none of the coefficients associated with either the direct or indirect (via i i d i ki ) ff f li i bl d iki i ifi