Answer Happy

The North American Transportation Company (NATC) is a very large
organization that provides continent-wide facilities for the
shipping of goods, from tonnes of wheat and iron ore to individual
parcels. Headquartered in Canada, the company uses all forms of
heavy equipment to load, transport, and deliver goods and materials
for its clients.
In recent years, a number of accidents and near-accidents have
occurred. In some cases the accidents caused injuries to people
(mainly employees, though some injuries were sustained by
bystanders). In three cases in the last five years, people were
killed. They also caused substantial material damage to property
and/or the environment.
Investigation of these accidents indicated that drug and/or
alcohol abuse by company personnel was relatively common and that
these may have been contributing factors to the accidents. This
analysis also uncovered that absenteeism and job performance
problems were also the result of drug/alcohol use by employees.
The CEO of the company asked the HR department to solve the
problem. In response, the department formulated a zero-tolerance
policy toward workplace alcohol and drug abuse. The policy outlawed
alcohol/drug use on the job and made the implementation and
enforcement of the policy the direct responsibility of all
supervisory personnel in the company. They further developed and
implemented a training program to instruct all supervisors on the
policy, the means to implement it, and the specific behaviours
expected of them. This training program became known as the
Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Program (ADAPP).
The day-long training program explained that it was the
responsibility of supervisors to be vigilant with respect to
drug/alcohol use on the job and to act immediately when there was a
problem.
The training program focused on three main aspects of the ADAPP
policy that supervisors were to learn and to transfer to the job:
(1) explain the policy to their employees as a group; (2) watch for
employees who show signs of being under the influence; and (3)
choose the specific supervisory action required correctly.
Supervisors were instructed to (a) assess the situation with the
employee; (b) immediately relieve the employee from his/her post
should the impairment prevent safe and effective job performance;
and (c) direct the person to the Employee Aid Program for further
investigation and treatment. Supervisors who failed to implement
the procedure would face disciplinary actions including, in some
cases, immediate dismissal.
The training program consisted of lectures and video
presentations, followed by various role-playing exercises and
discussions designed to help supervisors learn the policy, motivate
them to implement it, and enhance their confidence in their ability
to do so.
Identification of the case issues Proactive response Hypothesis Further considerations Identification of legislative issues HR impact Risk identification Issue resolution Action Using the above thought cycle as a guide, we are able to consistently analyze the case study: Stage Analysis Identification of The North American Transportation Company implemented a zero the case issues: tolerance policy toward workplace alcohol and drug abuse due to critical accidents as a result of suspected drug/alcohol abuse by employee. The training program was implemented to train supervisors on policy, implementation, and setting of performance expectations. Trained supervisors were expected to transfer learning based on the policy to employees and to deal with suspected incidents of drug/alcohol abuse on the part of employees. If a supervisor did not implement proper procedures, the supervisor would be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Hypothesis: The seriousness of the training program merits an equally serious response for purposes of evaluation of learning effectiveness. Identification of This case raises a number of legislative concerns, which include legislative issues: compliance with and/or potential violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; Human Rights Code (accommodation requirements and disability management); Employment Standards Act; Criminal Code of Canada (illegal drug activity); and privacy legislation (related to personal health information) Risk identification: If the training is not monitored for effectiveness, more critical incidents may occur. Helightened vigilance on the part of supervisors may result in unnecessary disciplinary action based on heightened suspicion of drug/alcohol abuse that may not be proven in fact. Action: Implement descriptive training evaluation models that collect pre-and- post training data; evaluate for persistence of post-training results. Implement ongoing evaluation of data for long-term effectiveness and ensure there is data that evaluates changes in employee and supervisor behaviours that measure compliance with policies and procedures. Issue resolution: Data analysis should provide feedback on the effectiveness of the training programs. HR impact: HR must ensure that all data collection, measurement, and tools are used in compliance with legislative parameters. Further, HR may need to intervene or provide support in situations where the possible addiction issues may require workplace accommodation and/or disability management Further How to promote the concepts that a safe workplace is everyone's considerations: responsibility? Proactive Design and provide additional training about the benefits of a proactive response: and safe workplace culture, which includes employee involvement, responsibility, and reporting obligations.
What data collection design or designs would you consider most appropriate for the evaluation? Question 16: (1 Point) Pre-post or time series design. Summative design Interactive model design User experience design Post-evaluation design ОО What variables could be measued for evaulation of this training program? Question 17: (1 Point) Learning, motivation or self-efficacy. Self-regulation, intent, ease of use. Rejection, apathy or derision. Learning, behaviour, user experience. None of the above. Question 18: How would you go about measuring participant reactions? (1 Point) ООООО Questionnaires, focus groups and interviews. Formative and summative exams. Standardized questionnaires and organizational records. Self-reports, supervisory reports, direct observations. Indirect observations and informal interviews. Question 19: What approaches could you take to measure participant learning? (1 Point) ООООО Questionnaires, focus groups and interviews. Declarative and procedural testing Self-reports and questionnaires. Organizational records Indirect observations. Question 20: What data collection design or designs would you consider most appropriate for the evaluation? Explain your reasoning. (6 Points)