Does the Experience of Organizational Justice Mitigate the Invasion of Privacy Engendered by Random Drug Testing? An Empirical Investigation

Abstract

This research used theories of organizational justice to develop predictions regarding employees' judgments of the invasiveness of random-drug-testing programs. An investigation with two firms suggested that employees view random drug testing to be less invasive when they (a) hold management positions, (b) have been tested for drug use fewer times, (c) perceive the consequences of testing positive for drug use to be less punitive, and (d) perceive the drug-testing procedures to be more accurate. Unexpectedly, however, the perceived danger of impaired performance on the job was unrelated to the criterion. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.