Discarding employees based solely on their addictions makes bad business sense
This month’s ouster of Charles Kennedy as leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party, a response to his drinking problem, reminds us that we have a long way to go before we deal fully with addictions in the workplace.
The day before a newspaper article was to be published highlighting his struggle with alcohol, Kennedy announced he had a drinking problem and said he was receiving treatment and hadn’t had a drink for two months. He announced his intention to stay as leader of his party, whose recent enhanced popularity had been ascribed to Kennedy’s genial, engaging leadership.
But 27 of Kennedy’s 63 Lib Dem parliamentary colleagues signed letters saying they no longer supported him in light of the revelation. Facing the inevitable, Kennedy resigned.
The reactions of many politicians and the media to his crisis revealed yet again the stereotypes people face in their working environments when addiction becomes an issue. In blunt form, the reactions included statements that:
•people with a drinking problem are notoriously liars, and therefore not fit for leadership;
•Kennedy is a liar because, for some time, he tried to deal with his drinking privately rather than publicly;
•people with addiction problems never really overcome their problems and are likely to wreck their lives again, even after they receive treatment;
•Kennedy was brave to acknowledge his problem and deserved support and sympathy, but the public would never understand his problem or trust his judgment, and regrettably he needed to be sacrificed; and
•Kennedy deserved credit for seeking treatment, but he could not undergo treatment and continue to serve as a competent public figure at the same time.
The more scurrilous media commentators bolstered their arguments with selectively chosen statistics “proving” that alcoholics always relapse, and that the worst excesses of many historical political figures arose from their drinking. Based on this argument, Stalin did terrible things not because he was evil, but because he drank too much.
We’ve had our share of political figures in Canada who have battled their bottles and their demons — British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, Alberta’s Ralph Klein, and federal cabinet minister John McCallum. Most of them survived, but often by convincing the public their problem wasn’t serious in the first place. And don’t get me started on John A. Macdonald.
But many people working in less public environments than politics have faced the same prejudices Charles Kennedy faces. So let’s set the record straight.
A large proportion of people who face alcohol and drug problems, and other addictions, successfully overcome their problems through treatment.
Addiction is not a sin or a character flaw. It is a health problem. It can be treated. Treatment works, particularly in the presence of supportive networks of family, friends and workmates.
Many people undergoing treatment can continue to function in their workplaces even while undergoing treatment, only some require time away from the workforce.
To discard employees holus-bolus, however regretfully, because of their addictions makes bad business sense. Employee assistance programs linked to other treatment resources are a far better first-line approach because they preserve an employer’s investment in an employee.
An employee’s admission that he has an addiction problem is not a sign of failure. It is the first step toward treatment success. Yet in light of the social penalty people pay for admitting an addiction, it is not surprising some employees hide the problem. Their denial does not mean they are morally bankrupt liars. It is a regrettable but understandable reaction to society’s failure to accept addiction as a health problem that can be treated.
General Ulysses S. Grant, one of the greatest and most successful military strategists of the American Civil War, had a drinking problem, although some historians have minimized the problem on the grounds that someone with a history of severe drinking couldn’t possibly have achieved what Grant achieved.
But Grant, and those around him, knew how to deal with the problem. Since the presence of Grant’s wife Julia kept him away from the bottle, Grant and his officers made every attempt to arrange for her to be nearby whenever possible. And Grant wisely chose as his chief of staff John Rawlins, described by one historian as “a nanny goat about drinking… It was not only impractical, but impossible for Grant to go on a bender with Rawlins about camp, a ceaseless watchdog for his salvation.”
Few then or now would go as far as Abraham Lincoln, who praised Grant by saying, “Tell me what he’s drinking and I’ll give it to my other generals.” But Grant and those around him knew his problem was beatable and knew the importance of support in helping Grant overcome the problem. Fellow Union General William Tecumseh Sherman (who suffered mental collapse early in the Civil War but recovered), put it bluntly but well when he said, “Grant stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk and now, sir, we stand by each other always.”
But if Grant had been in Charles Kennedy’s shoes he would have been dismissed from the army and a particularly horrible workplace — the battlefield — would have lost one of its greatest generals.
John Butler is a health and organizational consultant who is also vice-president of Addictions Ontario. He can be reached at (905) 294-9762 or [email protected].
The day before a newspaper article was to be published highlighting his struggle with alcohol, Kennedy announced he had a drinking problem and said he was receiving treatment and hadn’t had a drink for two months. He announced his intention to stay as leader of his party, whose recent enhanced popularity had been ascribed to Kennedy’s genial, engaging leadership.
But 27 of Kennedy’s 63 Lib Dem parliamentary colleagues signed letters saying they no longer supported him in light of the revelation. Facing the inevitable, Kennedy resigned.
The reactions of many politicians and the media to his crisis revealed yet again the stereotypes people face in their working environments when addiction becomes an issue. In blunt form, the reactions included statements that:
•people with a drinking problem are notoriously liars, and therefore not fit for leadership;
•Kennedy is a liar because, for some time, he tried to deal with his drinking privately rather than publicly;
•people with addiction problems never really overcome their problems and are likely to wreck their lives again, even after they receive treatment;
•Kennedy was brave to acknowledge his problem and deserved support and sympathy, but the public would never understand his problem or trust his judgment, and regrettably he needed to be sacrificed; and
•Kennedy deserved credit for seeking treatment, but he could not undergo treatment and continue to serve as a competent public figure at the same time.
The more scurrilous media commentators bolstered their arguments with selectively chosen statistics “proving” that alcoholics always relapse, and that the worst excesses of many historical political figures arose from their drinking. Based on this argument, Stalin did terrible things not because he was evil, but because he drank too much.
We’ve had our share of political figures in Canada who have battled their bottles and their demons — British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, Alberta’s Ralph Klein, and federal cabinet minister John McCallum. Most of them survived, but often by convincing the public their problem wasn’t serious in the first place. And don’t get me started on John A. Macdonald.
But many people working in less public environments than politics have faced the same prejudices Charles Kennedy faces. So let’s set the record straight.
A large proportion of people who face alcohol and drug problems, and other addictions, successfully overcome their problems through treatment.
Addiction is not a sin or a character flaw. It is a health problem. It can be treated. Treatment works, particularly in the presence of supportive networks of family, friends and workmates.
Many people undergoing treatment can continue to function in their workplaces even while undergoing treatment, only some require time away from the workforce.
To discard employees holus-bolus, however regretfully, because of their addictions makes bad business sense. Employee assistance programs linked to other treatment resources are a far better first-line approach because they preserve an employer’s investment in an employee.
An employee’s admission that he has an addiction problem is not a sign of failure. It is the first step toward treatment success. Yet in light of the social penalty people pay for admitting an addiction, it is not surprising some employees hide the problem. Their denial does not mean they are morally bankrupt liars. It is a regrettable but understandable reaction to society’s failure to accept addiction as a health problem that can be treated.
General Ulysses S. Grant, one of the greatest and most successful military strategists of the American Civil War, had a drinking problem, although some historians have minimized the problem on the grounds that someone with a history of severe drinking couldn’t possibly have achieved what Grant achieved.
But Grant, and those around him, knew how to deal with the problem. Since the presence of Grant’s wife Julia kept him away from the bottle, Grant and his officers made every attempt to arrange for her to be nearby whenever possible. And Grant wisely chose as his chief of staff John Rawlins, described by one historian as “a nanny goat about drinking… It was not only impractical, but impossible for Grant to go on a bender with Rawlins about camp, a ceaseless watchdog for his salvation.”
Few then or now would go as far as Abraham Lincoln, who praised Grant by saying, “Tell me what he’s drinking and I’ll give it to my other generals.” But Grant and those around him knew his problem was beatable and knew the importance of support in helping Grant overcome the problem. Fellow Union General William Tecumseh Sherman (who suffered mental collapse early in the Civil War but recovered), put it bluntly but well when he said, “Grant stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk and now, sir, we stand by each other always.”
But if Grant had been in Charles Kennedy’s shoes he would have been dismissed from the army and a particularly horrible workplace — the battlefield — would have lost one of its greatest generals.
John Butler is a health and organizational consultant who is also vice-president of Addictions Ontario. He can be reached at (905) 294-9762 or [email protected].
